Post by Renegade on Jul 16, 2004 4:06:07 GMT -5
I'd post this on the FC forum but the recent censorship floating about over there has me queasy.
I'm not active in L3 anymore (I just pop in whenever FFXI servers are down) but I have been following the current tourney from the beginning and just wanted to give you some public support on some of your points CM
.
Most of the threads I have read that were posted by you CM were all valid legitimate questions and presented (for the most part anyway) in a civil manner with suggestions for improvement. It is unfortunate they were not well recieved and responded to in a hostile manner which in turn agitated you to respond in a hostile manner. I do not personally believe FC was placed in a situation to give them an advantage over other teams - seems to be more of an oversight in planning to be honest.
I have to admit though, I did not notice the side 1 or side 2 issue either until you brought that up and I understand you were pointing out something you thought was an issue. Although I don't agree with side one having an advantage over side two argument in a two-bomb format, I do agree with your point to spread home and away games evenly in the spirit of fairness. FC made an oversight with the scheduale (or not as it would seem from where you currently stand) and should accept that there are issues with the current scheduale in this tournament (which I've noticed Jetstorm has already done).
I also strongly disagree with the way the current playoff scheduale is being handled and decided but they are stated in the tournament rules section. I guess one can now only wished this was brought up and discussed before any wars had taken place to avoid the current situation (hurray for drama!).
" The first Tie breaking criteria is number of Rounds won against the team you are tied with. Example: Team A and B are tied at 18 points, for third place. During the regular season, when Team A played Team B, Team B won 3-2. Team B would get 3rd place, and Team A would get 4th.
IF 2 teams are tied for 6th, they will square off in a Best of 3 "Do or Die" Elimination War.
IF more than 2 teams are tied, and the number of teams tied would leave one of the teams out of the Playoff's, a brief Mini-Playoff will take place to determine which Squadron's get to move into Playoff's. The Format will be Best of 3 RAW War, Round Robin format ( All Teams play each other until a winner can be determined ).
All Elimination war's, if there are any, MUST be completed prior to the scheduled start week of the Playoff's. Failure to do so will result in the next team, below those in question, getting the spot in the Playoff's.
In the even of a Round Robin "Mini-Playoff", the Playoff schedule will be adjusted to accommodate the additional war's.
** In the Quarter Finals: - 5th will play 6th - 3rd will play 4th - 1st and 2nd will have a bye
** In the Semi Finals: - 5th/6th winner, will play 2nd Place - 3rd/4th winner, will play 1st Place"
I bolded and italicized the rules that are in question for further discussion (woot!).
I agree that said above rules are rather foreign and 'backwards' to what the majority (if not all of us) are used to in any competitive tournament event, especially in this game. In a tied situation, first and foremost, the team with better winning record should get ranked higher regardless whether or not the other tied team has won the match between the two. In the even both teams have an equivalent winning record, then the deciding factor for rank should be who won the match between the two teams.
Here is an example of what CM was trying to get across.
Two teams are tied with twelve points.
Team A has the following record:
3-0
3-0
0-3 (VS Team B)
0-3
3-0
3-0
Team B has the following record:
3-0
0-3
3-0 (VS team A)
2-3
2-3
2-3
Team B defeats Team A 3-0 during regular season.
With the current point distribution system and ranking system stated in the current FC tournament rules, Team B, with a record of 2 wins - 4 losses, places higher in the rankings then Team A who holds a season record of 4 wins - 2 losses. CM is only pointing out that it would only be fair that the team with the winning record be given higher value then the team with a losing record. Precedence set by past tournaments had always given the team with the better winning record higher value. This is not an issue of PR being better then SE or 25th or whoever but fairness to the team that has done better during the season. I do not think that is too much to ask.
The current situation could easily be avoided by giving the team who won their matches an extra point or two (this was done in past tournaments, I'm not sure why the decision was made to drop this bonus point for the win). If you give an extra point for winning a match, Team A would thus have a 16 point total and team B would consequently have a 14 point total in comparison.
With regards to the current three-way tie between SE, PR and 25th - given the extra point for matches won:
SE's 3-3 record would result in 16 points.
25th's 4-2 record would result in 17 points.
PR's 4-2 record would result in 17 points.
There is a now a tie between 25th and PR. Both of their records are identical so the next deciding factor should be the match played between the two. PR won that match and should thus be awarded a higher ranking in the standings. This method awards the team with the better winning record.
Of course there is always the issue where by in the odd event the numbers somehow manage to complicate things (even with the point bonus), as demonstrated in the following example:
Team A has the following record:
3-1
3-1
0-3 (VS Team B)
1-3
1-3
2-3
Team A record : 2 wins - 4 losses
Team A point total : 12 points
Team B has the following record:
2-3
0-3
3-0 (VS Team A)
2-3
2-3
2-3
Team B record : 1 wins - 5 losses
Team B point total : 12 points
Once again Team B defeats Team A 3-0 during regular season.
In cases such as the one presented above, the deciding factor for rank should first be a comparison of record and then the result of the head to head match between the two teams. Priority should be placed on the team that has the better winning record and that is what CM is trying to stress in his threads regarding the playoff scheduale and ranking (sans the recent accusations of course).
I know the rebuttal will always consist of 'who the f**k gives a damn?' followed by insults of my mother or hamster or other (whatever snide remark some of you fancy) but the fact is people do give a damn. That's not to say they'll lose sleep over it because this is most definately not a tragedy nor an atrocity that is worth shedding a tear over. It is, however, worth discussing and noting in the spirit of fair competitive play. Although everyone plays this game to have fun, everyone also plays to win, because no matter what the competitive event, winning is an enjoyable experience (OMG! I know, what a concept! Who'd of thunk it eh?). Nobody likes to lose. Will people go cry if they lose? No (well, for the most part no). Is the game any less fun if they lose? A little, because winning is ultimately more enjoyable then losing, and once again, thus more 'fun'. You may argue otherwise, but I do not know anyone who would go 'Damn I won! I wanted to lose! Damn it to hell!'. I do, however, frequently here 'Damn, wish I won, good match though.' or something similiar. Will people still have fun losing? Unless there was unfair play present, of course people will still enjoy a match that was lost. However, when given the choice whether one would prefer to win an awesome and entertaining match or lose an awesome and entertaining match, it's clear which choice would be picked.
Tournaments are held for entertainment but also for light-hearted bragging rights in the spirit of fairness and competitive play. People play to win, all the while having fun of course. Why host a tournament with rankings and a 'championship' title otherwise? Given all that has been said thus far, you can understand why CM, on behalf of those he has spoken to, has suggested that teams with better winning records should be held in higher regard. You will be rewarding a team for their extra efforts to pull out those wins. I do not believe that is asking or demanding too much.
All that said, the tournament adminstrator did follow the rules they have posted in the tournament rules section. From what I've observed following this tournament, the rules were abided by throughout the tournament. Those rules are obviously not the best rules and certainly lead to issues and conflicts such and questions brought up by a few were answered accordingly (inline with the rules - although they were answered in a less then friendly manner) as the one currently present. I believe whoever is heading the tournament should put a little more consideration on point distribution and ranking in future tournaments. Of course, that is not to say whoever is heading the tournament did not put any consideration or effort at all into the tournament rules but clearly there were a few issues that were overlooked and that can definately be remedied for future tournament hostings (that is, if you ever wish to pursue hosting future tournaments of course).
PS - Considering the attention span of people now adays and their lack of interest in civil discussions, a cookie and beverage of choice to any of you who sat there and read all the above.
I'm not active in L3 anymore (I just pop in whenever FFXI servers are down) but I have been following the current tourney from the beginning and just wanted to give you some public support on some of your points CM
. Most of the threads I have read that were posted by you CM were all valid legitimate questions and presented (for the most part anyway) in a civil manner with suggestions for improvement. It is unfortunate they were not well recieved and responded to in a hostile manner which in turn agitated you to respond in a hostile manner. I do not personally believe FC was placed in a situation to give them an advantage over other teams - seems to be more of an oversight in planning to be honest.
I have to admit though, I did not notice the side 1 or side 2 issue either until you brought that up and I understand you were pointing out something you thought was an issue. Although I don't agree with side one having an advantage over side two argument in a two-bomb format, I do agree with your point to spread home and away games evenly in the spirit of fairness. FC made an oversight with the scheduale (or not as it would seem from where you currently stand) and should accept that there are issues with the current scheduale in this tournament (which I've noticed Jetstorm has already done).
I also strongly disagree with the way the current playoff scheduale is being handled and decided but they are stated in the tournament rules section. I guess one can now only wished this was brought up and discussed before any wars had taken place to avoid the current situation (hurray for drama!).
" The first Tie breaking criteria is number of Rounds won against the team you are tied with. Example: Team A and B are tied at 18 points, for third place. During the regular season, when Team A played Team B, Team B won 3-2. Team B would get 3rd place, and Team A would get 4th.
IF 2 teams are tied for 6th, they will square off in a Best of 3 "Do or Die" Elimination War.
IF more than 2 teams are tied, and the number of teams tied would leave one of the teams out of the Playoff's, a brief Mini-Playoff will take place to determine which Squadron's get to move into Playoff's. The Format will be Best of 3 RAW War, Round Robin format ( All Teams play each other until a winner can be determined ).
All Elimination war's, if there are any, MUST be completed prior to the scheduled start week of the Playoff's. Failure to do so will result in the next team, below those in question, getting the spot in the Playoff's.
In the even of a Round Robin "Mini-Playoff", the Playoff schedule will be adjusted to accommodate the additional war's.
** In the Quarter Finals: - 5th will play 6th - 3rd will play 4th - 1st and 2nd will have a bye
** In the Semi Finals: - 5th/6th winner, will play 2nd Place - 3rd/4th winner, will play 1st Place"
I bolded and italicized the rules that are in question for further discussion (woot!).
I agree that said above rules are rather foreign and 'backwards' to what the majority (if not all of us) are used to in any competitive tournament event, especially in this game. In a tied situation, first and foremost, the team with better winning record should get ranked higher regardless whether or not the other tied team has won the match between the two. In the even both teams have an equivalent winning record, then the deciding factor for rank should be who won the match between the two teams.
Here is an example of what CM was trying to get across.
Two teams are tied with twelve points.
Team A has the following record:
3-0
3-0
0-3 (VS Team B)
0-3
3-0
3-0
Team B has the following record:
3-0
0-3
3-0 (VS team A)
2-3
2-3
2-3
Team B defeats Team A 3-0 during regular season.
With the current point distribution system and ranking system stated in the current FC tournament rules, Team B, with a record of 2 wins - 4 losses, places higher in the rankings then Team A who holds a season record of 4 wins - 2 losses. CM is only pointing out that it would only be fair that the team with the winning record be given higher value then the team with a losing record. Precedence set by past tournaments had always given the team with the better winning record higher value. This is not an issue of PR being better then SE or 25th or whoever but fairness to the team that has done better during the season. I do not think that is too much to ask.
The current situation could easily be avoided by giving the team who won their matches an extra point or two (this was done in past tournaments, I'm not sure why the decision was made to drop this bonus point for the win). If you give an extra point for winning a match, Team A would thus have a 16 point total and team B would consequently have a 14 point total in comparison.
With regards to the current three-way tie between SE, PR and 25th - given the extra point for matches won:
SE's 3-3 record would result in 16 points.
25th's 4-2 record would result in 17 points.
PR's 4-2 record would result in 17 points.
There is a now a tie between 25th and PR. Both of their records are identical so the next deciding factor should be the match played between the two. PR won that match and should thus be awarded a higher ranking in the standings. This method awards the team with the better winning record.
Of course there is always the issue where by in the odd event the numbers somehow manage to complicate things (even with the point bonus), as demonstrated in the following example:
Team A has the following record:
3-1
3-1
0-3 (VS Team B)
1-3
1-3
2-3
Team A record : 2 wins - 4 losses
Team A point total : 12 points
Team B has the following record:
2-3
0-3
3-0 (VS Team A)
2-3
2-3
2-3
Team B record : 1 wins - 5 losses
Team B point total : 12 points
Once again Team B defeats Team A 3-0 during regular season.
In cases such as the one presented above, the deciding factor for rank should first be a comparison of record and then the result of the head to head match between the two teams. Priority should be placed on the team that has the better winning record and that is what CM is trying to stress in his threads regarding the playoff scheduale and ranking (sans the recent accusations of course).
I know the rebuttal will always consist of 'who the f**k gives a damn?' followed by insults of my mother or hamster or other (whatever snide remark some of you fancy) but the fact is people do give a damn. That's not to say they'll lose sleep over it because this is most definately not a tragedy nor an atrocity that is worth shedding a tear over. It is, however, worth discussing and noting in the spirit of fair competitive play. Although everyone plays this game to have fun, everyone also plays to win, because no matter what the competitive event, winning is an enjoyable experience (OMG! I know, what a concept! Who'd of thunk it eh?). Nobody likes to lose. Will people go cry if they lose? No (well, for the most part no). Is the game any less fun if they lose? A little, because winning is ultimately more enjoyable then losing, and once again, thus more 'fun'. You may argue otherwise, but I do not know anyone who would go 'Damn I won! I wanted to lose! Damn it to hell!'. I do, however, frequently here 'Damn, wish I won, good match though.' or something similiar. Will people still have fun losing? Unless there was unfair play present, of course people will still enjoy a match that was lost. However, when given the choice whether one would prefer to win an awesome and entertaining match or lose an awesome and entertaining match, it's clear which choice would be picked.
Tournaments are held for entertainment but also for light-hearted bragging rights in the spirit of fairness and competitive play. People play to win, all the while having fun of course. Why host a tournament with rankings and a 'championship' title otherwise? Given all that has been said thus far, you can understand why CM, on behalf of those he has spoken to, has suggested that teams with better winning records should be held in higher regard. You will be rewarding a team for their extra efforts to pull out those wins. I do not believe that is asking or demanding too much.
All that said, the tournament adminstrator did follow the rules they have posted in the tournament rules section. From what I've observed following this tournament, the rules were abided by throughout the tournament. Those rules are obviously not the best rules and certainly lead to issues and conflicts such and questions brought up by a few were answered accordingly (inline with the rules - although they were answered in a less then friendly manner) as the one currently present. I believe whoever is heading the tournament should put a little more consideration on point distribution and ranking in future tournaments. Of course, that is not to say whoever is heading the tournament did not put any consideration or effort at all into the tournament rules but clearly there were a few issues that were overlooked and that can definately be remedied for future tournament hostings (that is, if you ever wish to pursue hosting future tournaments of course).
PS - Considering the attention span of people now adays and their lack of interest in civil discussions, a cookie and beverage of choice to any of you who sat there and read all the above.
