Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

@Marcus Areillius please add my team. OPT aka OPTeam to the bracket.  OPT: @LeGenDz @bubblebut @RolandSC2 @SuperPOSITION (+ @faction02 if our contract negotiations move along) Look forward t

Here are my ratings ValihrAnt(10.25) borg-(eae) PhyZic(goat) Boudica(rush) Rauls(always connected) fpre (fgod) Stockfish(1vs1) chrstgtr(op) Edwarf(nub)

@Boudica or @ anyone —— I’m looking to join a team for the tournament. I bring w/me decent skill, OP jokes, and a positive attitude. 

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, go2die said:

I can take care of Tournament organization As I have great managing skills. Marc are you ok? I would propose even rebalancing and I can be out of game just for reason to be objective [if you vote for it - otherwise I will be happy to play]

First i need collect additional players in pool (let me go thought all entries here) and I will summarize it - I guess first page needs to be update frequently to not lose focus.

 

It does not mean I want to make bad against Marc Aurelius, he made great job! and @PhyZic is only partly correct, we should be happy he organized and moving forward. He just need additional helpers.

 

BTW: @Issh current rating is 7.64 :) and Goats team getting 35.29 points running away from Los Gringos around 2.22 points diff. 

If you want to propose a rebalancing method and you can convince all teams to change players, you are welcome to propose your method. Although i think for now we should be happy about having 6  complete teams willing to participate and just see how it works out, and just get it started instead of discussing changes for the next 5 years. Even if there are favorites in this tournmanet, doesnt mean there cant be any surprises, as this is the first opportunity to apply advanced team tactics and communication, which might or not have significant impact. Also every league has its favorites. After that is done i suggest we discuss how the system can be improved in the future

Link to post
Share on other sites

@GotToDie
imo both team decide secretly which civs to ban, say it to a referee who announce the result.
then teams choose ( secretly again ) the civs for each players, the position for each players, say it to a referee that place players and civs.
it forces to train 5 civs instead of 3


 

59 minutes ago, go2die said:

Like it or not, maybe explain first what do you mean why it starts at 5.5? Maybe this would be for you better to understand? and if yes, would you admit and bow to me that start graph from 5.5 make sense? :D

 

WuUDwNx.png

Well mainly ego i guess x')
But here visually i'am somehow close to you, not half your skills
I've made my own graph about whether i like your graph or not, and why.
Visually it looks like i dislike your graph, but in fact you did a great job !

1424778773_Bestgraph2.png.cfea632757e3d6483646809642c5bf3b.png
Massive paint skill haha
edit ( again) : My point is that not starting bar graphs at 0 is a common way in media to make data say whatever you want. imagine it's a survey for election
 

1 hour ago, PhyZik said:

I call a vote to replace the tournament organizer, since he is incompetent asf. Teams are bad, many players who wanted to play, did not find a team etc. I agree with Bou, we shold first collect all players and build teams later. Alltho my vote is just a formality, we can impeach him or, preferebly, forcefully remove him from this not his abilities matching office, ye?

MarAurele made a huge point : player want to play with their friends.
But i want to get as much teams as possible. i'd better play with a team with my average skill, and play 3-4 group phase matchs an let better team play finals with direct elimination, than have less team playing !
What about register as duos/solo and then make 4 players team ?

edit : 8 teams would be so great ! 2 groups, each team play with each other in their group, then the 2 better team in each groups play direct elimination matches/BO3
it's 3 matches for everyone with 2 semi final matches for 4 players  and 1 final match for 2 players
 

Edited by esu
8 team so great + clarifiaction + typo
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, go2die said:

 there is additional players asked for team: kindly send me private msg about their rating (same rules applies as before) increment 0.25 

 

1-2 total noob
2-4 average
5-6 best average but still weak
7-8 very good
9-10 OPs

 

 

additional players
Wendy
Itrelles
solooyo
chet
aow
Pachamama
jeromescherer
LeGenDz

 

Well regarding teams, it looks some people won't team up together at all coz personal issues. We can only force them by rule to pick another player or add to the team weaker player to make ratings more balanced. So if team has "additional" player the weakest player he to play first or next game based on team choice .... Agree? 

Wendy and aow have teams as far as i know. I offered LeGendz to join my team. The others have not reacted to possible team suggestions, so i am not sure they are still intrested in participating. Also i want to add the existence of many of the current teams depend on the fact that they were allowed to choose their team partners to a large extend. For better balancing it would have for example been helpful to get involved in making tier list from the beginning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boudica said:

Based on the games I saw yesterday, I'd need to increase my rating of @Issh. I considered that initially and only decided not to because he likes to embrace nubness, but I doubt he will do that in the tournament. Just for the record, yesterday he could get double the pop of a player rated almost two points higher.

Now that the point difference among teams is increasing, it might be a good time to ask the lower ranked teams if they are OK to play like that. I think that @go2die has now put quite a lot of time into it. It might have little purpose if we do nothing with the data we got out of it. And since I'm a part of the lower ranked team, I personally vote for a rebalance.

A more balanced tournament would be more fun.

go2die made a great job but I don't think the results are very precise to assess team strengh. The scale is not well define since giving 2 extra points to a player doesn't have a precise meaning. I think the results are valid to rank players relative to one another but not really their absolute level.

There could be two ways to redefined the tournament to improve things, either adjust team compositions after collecting players ((as already suggested), either work with a system of handicap  to have more balanced games with unbalanced teams.

I understood that MarcAurel wanted a tournament where each team could have its anthem, so the second system could help going in this direction. Restricting more civilization choices for teams which are winning or relax it  if they are loosing could be a simple way to improve the current system. At the end, the team which  ends up with the highest level of handicap would be the winning one. A system of this type could help having more balanced games. 

Issh - Preacher of nubness ? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont worry too much about the tournamenent, play and take fun

You will organise better at the next tournament

but i'm not agree with choose your strating position beacause is not feature without mod, noboby play with this (not AOE here)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I would like to see a 'next' version, changing stuff now would be disrespectful to the time everyone invested already in scheduling, practice and teammaking.

The rating idea is good, we could even request for ratings a month or weeks before the next tournament and then balance accordingly (e.g. max 30 points per team or some other number)

Edited by badosu
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The scale is not well define since giving 2 extra points to a player doesn't have a precise meaning.

Yes, 0.5 difference is dramatic currently. Reason being that < 6 rating becomes a bit meaningless. Renormalizing the current ratings so that 0-1 (cosmic), 2-4 (decent), 5-7 (good), 7-9 (very good), 9-10 (op) would make it more readable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, badosu said:

Yes, 0.5 difference is dramatic currently. Reason being that < 6 rating becomes a bit meaningless. Renormalizing the current ratings so that 0-1 (cosmic), 2-4 (decent), 5-7 (good), 7-9 (very good), 9-10 (op) would make it more readable.

I had in mind that adjectives might not mean the same thing for everyone, so there could be large bias in the information collected. I would guess that most people would make sure that relative ratings are coherent but not necessarily that the absolute definition is meet due to its imprecision. If u take two pair of players summing to 15 for example, does the couple formed would balance each other: Esu+Boudica vs Ricsand+METAFONDATIONS ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to take any credit from @MarcusAureliu#s for his work with organizing the event. There was more to do than make teams. It was a bit unfortunate that I only joined the discussion later. Anyway, I believe that it wasn't already too late. The tier system wasn't yet finalized, so I thought that the suggested teams would have to be subject to further discussion (rather than letting someone grab the best teammates based on one person's opinion about player abilities).

I felt that my suggestions were ignored when the first round was announced, but provided it was only intended as a test week, it wouldn't change much. It unfortunately made some so-far suggested teams commit to the suggestion. So in retrospect, starting the test week was probably the only wrong move. The announcement came late and our opponents didn't even show up, but the negative side effects persisted.

My opinion is that we could really benefit more from balancing well, even if it required taking away some freedom of choice. I saw several people compare our situation with professional sport leagues, but I think this doesn't fit our situation at all. There are just too few really good players, which is the opposite you see in football leagues. Also, there is no custom of some kind of clans present in the community. Perhaps because the community is rather small. I don't really think that many players would cancel their participation just because they wanted to be with someone else. Meanwhile we already know that we have multiple players that can't play a good game (or any game) unless we change something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Boudica said:

I don't want to take any credit from @MarcusAureliu#s for his work with organizing the event. There was more to do than make teams. It was a bit unfortunate that I only joined the discussion later. Anyway, I believe that it wasn't already too late. The tier system wasn't yet finalized, so I thought that the suggested teams would have to be subject to further discussion (rather than letting someone grab the best teammates based on one person's opinion about player abilities).

I felt that my suggestions were ignored when the first round was announced, but provided it was only intended as a test week, it wouldn't change much. It unfortunately made some so-far suggested teams commit to the suggestion. So in retrospect, starting the test week was probably the only wrong move. The announcement came late and our opponents didn't even show up, but the negative side effects persisted.

My opinion is that we could really benefit more from balancing well, even if it required taking away some freedom of choice. I saw several people compare our situation with professional sport leagues, but I think this doesn't fit our situation at all. There are just too few really good players, which is the opposite you see in football leagues. Also, there is no custom of some kind of clans present in the community. Perhaps because the community is rather small. I don't really think that many players would cancel their participation just because they wanted to be with someone else. Meanwhile we already know that we have multiple players that can't play a good game (or any game) unless we change something.

At first the main focus was on getting any teams in general to play, and many players had very specific ideas who they want to play with. During the course there have been several ideas added to the discussion, i havent noticed though that there was a consesus of the majority to one of the different ideas, so there was no point in changing it.  Me or @go2die will therefore make a poll to see if a consensus can be reached among the participants. Otherwise further balancing will have to be reached by appealing to the sportsmanship of people to form op teams,  or alternatively on the tier list expansion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we could see that people already started to use tactics while forming the teams instead of focusing on helping fine-tune the rules. Maybe that fine-tuning phase should have been explicitly separated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back then people involved in the discussion argued against more strict balancing rules. As i see it we have three options:

1: keep the rules as they are ( and maybe expand the tier list and people can change voluntarily)

2: Enact a maxmimum points per team system as suggested by @badosu, based on @go2die new rating list

3: Expand the tier system to with additional ranks based on the @go2die rating list

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, go2die said:

Poll is wrong.. you need make 2 questions keep it or modify.. and if selection 2 wins you have to create another poll for solution otherwise you "split" small votes". You can still compare 1 vs 2+3 answers to keep it... but i hope you got my point

it is only wrong if you count it that way. Answers 2+3 can be counted together for ppl that want change. So  if 10 vote 1 8 vote 2 and 7 vote 3 we can still use option 2

Edited by MarcusAureliu#s
Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose go2die's ratings are accurate

ValihrAnt(10)
Borg(9.5)
Phyzic(9.18)
Boudica(8.96)
Rauls(8.89)
fpre (8.86)
Stockfish(8.75)
chrstgtr(8.64)
Edwarf(8.46)
Havran(8.07)
Badosu(8.07)
UnknownPlayer(8.0)
Dakara (8.0)
SaidRdz(7.96)
randomid (7.89)
Vicentesk(7.64)
Ricsand(7.57)
Metafondations(7.43)
Dakeyras (7.39)
MarcAurel (7.29)
Issh(7.14)
go2die(6.82)
Lord_Commander (6.62)
esu(6.04)

The way to make even team is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_problem

The strongest to each team

ValihrAnt(10)
Borg(9.5)
Phyzic(9.18)
Boudica(8.96)
Rauls(8.89)
fpre (8.86)     <- weakest sum

then sort the sum of strengths and assign next strongest to weakest sum

ValihrAnt(10)
Borg(9.5)
Phyzic(9.18)
Boudica(8.96)
Rauls(8.89)     <- weakest sum
fpre (8.86)     Stockfish(8.75)

and so on

ValihrAnt(10)    UnknownPlayer(8.0)
Borg(9.5)         Badosu(8.07)
Phyzic(9.18)    Havran(8.07)
Boudica(8.96)    Edwarf(8.46)
Rauls(8.89)     chrstgtr(8.64)
fpre (8.86)     Stockfish(8.75)

and so on

ValihrAnt(10)    UnknownPlayer(8.0)    18
Borg(9.5)         Badosu(8.07)        17.57
Phyzic(9.18)    Havran(8.07)        17.25    <- weakest sum
Boudica(8.96)    Edwarf(8.46)        17.42
Rauls(8.89)     chrstgtr(8.64)        17.53
fpre (8.86)     Stockfish(8.75)        17.61

ValihrAnt(10)    UnknownPlayer(8.0)    18        Metafondations(7.43)    25.43
Borg(9.5)         Badosu(8.07)        17.57    Vicentesk(7.64)            25.21
Phyzic(9.18)    Havran(8.07)        17.25    Dakara (8.0)            25.25
Boudica(8.96)    Edwarf(8.46)        17.42    SaidRdz(7.96)            25.38
Rauls(8.89)     chrstgtr(8.64)        17.53    randomid (7.89)            25.42
fpre (8.86)     Stockfish(8.75)        17.61    Ricsand(7.57)            25.18   <- weakest sum

ValihrAnt(10)    UnknownPlayer(8.0)    18        Metafondations(7.43)    25.43    esu(6.04)
Borg(9.5)         Badosu(8.07)        17.57    Vicentesk(7.64)            25.21    MarcAurel (7.29)
Phyzic(9.18)    Havran(8.07)        17.25    Dakara (8.0)            25.25    Issh(7.14)
Boudica(8.96)    Edwarf(8.46)        17.42    SaidRdz(7.96)            25.38    go2die(6.82)
Rauls(8.89)     chrstgtr(8.64)        17.53    randomid (7.89)            25.42    Lord_Commander (6.62)
fpre (8.86)     Stockfish(8.75)        17.61    Ricsand(7.57)            25.18    Dakeyras (7.39)

I did sums quickly on my head in case of mistakes

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you make more or less implicit assumptions. I let you think about these assumptions, below are some of them.

  1. A player strength (or skill level or whatever you call it) can be reduced to just a number.
  2. Thus, if player A is stronger than B, and B stronger than C, then A is stronger than C.
  3. This number does not fluctuate (time, computer, internet, game settings such as civs, map, starting resources, positons, etc).
  4. You can always easily predict the outcome of a match just based on these numbers.
  5. The strength of a team is just the sum of the individual strengths. A variation of this assumption is: the strength of a team is just the sum of the four best individual numbers.
  6. Players and observers won't have fun with the current teams.
  7. Any player would accept to team up with any other player.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eae said:

Some of you make more or less implicit assumptions.

You've just made an explicit assumption. ;)

3 hours ago, eae said:
  • A player strength (or skill level or whatever you call it) can be reduced to just a number.
  • Thus, if player A is stronger than B, and B stronger than C, then A is stronger than C.
  • This number does not fluctuate (time, computer, internet, game settings such as civs, map, starting resources, positons, etc).

I think it's been already mentioned that the purpose of the rating is to put players in a relative order by their averaged performance over many games and different conditions. These assumptions are correct if you use this definition.

3 hours ago, eae said:

You can always easily predict the outcome of a match just based on these numbers.

Who made this assumption? Also, I'll bet you $1000 that the weakest team won't win a single game against the top rated teams. I'm not saying that my prediction was easy to make but still.

3 hours ago, eae said:

The strength of a team is just the sum of the individual strengths. A variation of this assumption is: the strength of a team is just the sum of the four best individual numbers.

Thanks, but this has already been addressed too. Have you read the thread, or are you just trying to argue with a straw man here? I mean, it's not bad to list these as a warning, but as @PhyZik said, the 0 A.D. community is a bunch of nerds. We aren't dumb.

3 hours ago, eae said:
  • Players and observers won't have fun with the current teams.
  • Any player would accept to team up with any other player.

Yes, good observation, these really are some questions we've been discussing above. Do you have any arguments to add? Because I've played a few games and I quite know this community. No one watches a pro playing a noob. No one likes to play in an inferior team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...