Clash of the Nations (a game)
milivella
Each player controls one of the following pools of 4 teams (randomly
assigned):
- Brazil 3, Korea Republic 2, Switzerland 1, Serbia 0
- Argentina 3, Japan 2, New Zealand 1, France 0
- Germany 3, England 2, Denmark 1, Korea DPR 0
- United States 3, Ghana 2, South Africa 1, Nigeria 0
- Uruguay 3, Chile 2, Cote d'Ivoire 1, Algeria 0
- Netherlands 3, Portugal 2, Greece 1, Honduras 0
- Paraguay 3, Mexico 2, Slovenia 1, Italy 0
- Spain 3, Slovakia 2, Australia 1, Cameroon 0
The number next to each team is the number of goals it scores in each
match.
But you have a total of 32 extra-goals that you can add to your teams
during the tournament.
In fact, before each matchday (there will be two matchdays a week),
you'll be able to send me an e-mail stating how many extra-goals (if
any) you want to use for each of your teams.
E.g. you control North Korea (0 base goals), Jesus control Brazil (3).
You use 4 goals, Jesus 1. Final result: North Korea 4-4 Brazil.
The points for the final ranking are allocated according to the
following table:
- eliminated at round of 16 = 1 point
- eliminated at quarters = 3 points
- 4th place = 5 points
- 3rd place = 7 points
- final = 10 points
- winner = 15 points
The player who gets most point in total from his four teams wins.
---
Summing up: playing means telling me twice a week how many goals you
want to spend for each of your 4 teams. Nothing else.
The game will start as soon as the 8th player will join. If there will
be less than 8 people interested (but at least 4!), we could have a 4-
player Euro re-enactment.
This game was inspired by The World Cup Game
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/23604/the-world-cup-game
(but CotN is way simpler!)
--
Cheers
milivella
Jesus Petry
> (but CotN is way simpler!)
I'm in!
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
milivella
> I'm in!
Thanks. What would I do without you? :)
Also I hope that there will be enough negotiations in this game to
entertain a fine diplomat like you! (secret agreements are allowed,
indeed they are encouraged...)
--
Cheers
milivella
Lleo
> ---
>
> Summing up: playing means telling me twice a week how many goals you
> want to spend for each of your 4 teams. Nothing else.
>
> The game will start as soon as the 8th player will join. If there will
> be less than 8 people interested (but at least 4!), we could have a 4-
> player Euro re-enactment.
>
> (but CotN is way simpler!)
I'm in too.
--
Lléo
milivella
> I'm in too.
Great!
OK, I won't individually thank every RSSer who'll join the game, but I
can do it generally and in advance. Hope that you'll have fun (I know
that some of you will manage to overthink it, but I see it as a game
of thrill and insults!).
--
Cheers
milivella
Mark V.
> (but CotN is way simpler!)
I'll play.
MH
> We'll replay World Cup 2010 (same groups).
Sure count me in if you can't reach 8 without me; I will happily concede
my spot if 8 other enthusiastic participants can be found.
Mark V.
>
> The player who gets most point in total from his four teams wins.
So one could have a team win the whole C.o.t.N. tournament but still
lose, eh?
milivella
Yep, you can't put all your eggs in one basket, you should care for
all your teams (or three of them? or two? strategy musings ahead!).
(does this rule make sense?)
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
"milivella" <mili...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:344bea0e-7998-4f4f...@l14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> We'll replay World Cup 2010 (same groups).
Can I stay out of this? No.
Will I regret having fallen prey once again to the evil scheme of the up and
coming Dark Prince? Yes.
Still, bring it on...
D
Futbolmetrix
news:i9hig0$e68$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Will I regret having fallen prey once again to the evil scheme of the up
> and coming Dark Prince? Yes.
>
But I have a suggestion. If we find a willing gamemaster that will receive
the emails and publish the scores, then the Dark Prince himself can join the
game!
D
Clément
> "Futbolmetrix" wrote:
>>
>> Will I regret having fallen prey once again to the evil scheme of the up
>> and coming Dark Prince? Yes.
>>
>
> But I have a suggestion. If we find a willing gamemaster that will receive
> the emails and publish the scores, then the Dark Prince himself can join
> the game!
I would be glad to do this.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> "milivella" <milive...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:344bea0e-7998-4f4f...@l14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > We'll replay World Cup 2010 (same groups).
>
> Can I stay out of this? No.
Exact: no, you can't.
> Will I regret having fallen prey once again to the evil scheme of the up and
> coming Dark Prince?
"Up and coming Dark Prince"? I call it psychological pressure! Let
this poor boy develop his evil tendencies in time. It's like being
dubbed the next Maradona...
(silent and still for a minute, seemingly realizing something...)
...Argh, I've just received the kiss of death!
> Still, bring it on...
Thanks. :)
Also, thanks for your proposal to find someone else to do the really
light work of gamemaster (= mail recipient). I'll really enjoy
playing!
And thanks to Luiz for taking this burden.
So we need two more players (so far we have Jesus, Lleo, Mark V.,
Michael, Daniele, me). Come on people!
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
(Thanks again!) Now that you're the gamemaster you choose, so I only
have a suggestion: if we go with two matchdays a week, it seems to me
that Monday night and Friday night as deadlines could somewhat be OK
both for "usenet-only-in-the-weekend" people and "usenet-only-in-
working-days" people (I'm not sure that the first kind exists,
though!).
Context: I expect that some private diplomatic treaties *could* be
signed - and violated! -, so it could be nice to have time for some e-
mails before sending your extra-goals allocation for the matchday.
Also: I would have liked to play against you! :(
--
Cheers
milivella
Mark V.
Yes.
How will you handle running into one's self in the round of 16? Part
of me says fix it so you can't run into yourself until very late in
order to minimze likelihood of running into yourself at all.. The
other part says that it might be unfair if you faced yourself in the
semis and two distinct individuals faced off in the other half. You'd
be able to save all of your goals for the final!
milivella
> How will you handle running into one's self in the round of 16? Part
> of me says fix it so you can't run into yourself until very late in
> order to minimze likelihood of running into yourself at all.. The
> other part says that it might be unfair if you faced yourself in the
> semis and two distinct individuals faced off in the other half. You'd
> be able to save all of your goals for the final!
...Luiz's problem, not mine! ;)
Kidding, kidding. I thought that part of the game is exactly trying to
obtain two teams of yours to play each other (e.g. in the round of 16
if you manage to have 3 of them out of the group stage) and at the
same time to avoid that your opponents manage the same thing.
But it will be really chaos and luck.
--
Cheers
milivella
Mark V.
I didn't even consider the flip of it. You have 0 chance of having
both teams to go on to gain more points if you play yourself.
Hmmm..... I like it. Lots of strategy.
We need to rustle up 3 more now, right?
milivella
> Hmmm..... I like it. Lots of strategy.
Actually I can only hope that everything is OK: the main idea of the
game, the extra-goals mechanics, the numbers of extra-goals per
player, the allocation of points for each stage reached, the eventual
matches between two teams of the same player, etc. When I have the
idea of a game, I'm not able to foresee what the actual gameplay will
be like, I can't be sure that there are not monumental flaws: I try to
spot them, but it's not enough. I need playtesting... and you are the
playtesters as much as the players. Your feedback - both playing and
commenting - is more than useful, it's necessary. This is another
reason - as if I needed more - to thank you all. (of course I could
avoid proposing games if I'm not sure about them, but it would mean
proposing no game at all... I prefer to risk and launch games,
assuming that I'm confident enough about them: after all, by now you
know what to expect)
> We need to rustle up 3 more now, right?
Do you mean how many players we need to reach 8? 2, if I'm not wrong.
--
Cheers
milivella
Joachim Parsch
milivella schrieb:
I'm in, if there is still someone needed.
Joachim
milivella
> I'm in, if there is still someone needed.
Yay! Thanks!
We need just one more brave volunteer, guys!
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> Joachim Parsch:
>
>> I'm in, if there is still someone needed.
>
> Yay! Thanks!
>
> We need just one more brave volunteer, guys!
Thanks for joining, Joachim!
These are the players so far: Jesus Petry, Lleo, Mark V, MH*, Futbolmetrix,
milivella, Joachim Parsch.
* MH is willing to concede his spot if someone wants it, but obviously we'd
like very much that he plays.
As milivella wrote, just one more player is needed! I'm already taking some
gamemaster-fu lessons from milivella, and we'll be ready to start shortly
after we have the 8 players.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> As milivella wrote, just one more player is needed!
I'd like you (Luiz) to be that player (am I wrong assuming that you
would like to play?). But we would have no more gamemasters... This is
not a problem! A very quick Google search didn't help me in finding
something like a site where you post something that is revealed at a
given date, but there is a simple solution: the gamemaster - either
Luiz or me - sets up an e-mail address for this game alone, and he
checks this account only after each deadline (I guess that we all
trust each other).
(Yes, princes of evil and the likes, but we are sophisticated
evildoers: we'll never use the straight cheat that anybody would think
of. And yes, this is the reason why all the great villains - James
Bond's enemies and the likes - don't kill the hero straight away but
build a complex clockwork machine to do the job instead.)
> I'm already taking some
> gamemaster-fu lessons from milivella
It's actually the other way round!
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> Cl�ment:
>> As milivella wrote, just one more player is needed!
>
> I'd like you (Luiz) to be that player (am I wrong assuming that you
> would like to play?).
I would, but as I already told you in private e-mail, the timing is not the
best for me. So, me being the gamemaster allows you to play, which is a
great thing, and is also a better fit for me right now. It's win-win.
(Plus I do like to gamemaster too).
> But we would have no more gamemasters... This is
> not a problem! A very quick Google search didn't help me in finding
> something like a site where you post something that is revealed at a
> given date, but there is a simple solution: the gamemaster - either
> Luiz or me - sets up an e-mail address for this game alone, and he
> checks this account only after each deadline (I guess that we all
> trust each other).
That would work. Still, there are some regular posters/players that are yet
to join the CotN. I'm sure we'll find the 8th player?
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Clément
While we wait for our 8th and last player to join the game, I just attended
a conference at the Dark Prince's Internet Evil Lair.
The main goal was to fine tune the game's rules, namely those that decide
what happens if we have draws in the knock-out rounds.
We came up with a proposal that hereby is added to the rules if everyone is
OK with it. Of course, your opinions will be appreciated. After all, we're
all about keeping the players happy (yes, we're that evil).
Here are the complete rules, with the new KO tie-breaker rule added (and
other bits).
On Oct 17, 8:19 pm, milivella wrote:
> We'll replay World Cup 2010 (same groups).
>
> Each player controls one of the following pools of 4 teams (randomly
> assigned):
> - Brazil 3, Korea Republic 2, Switzerland 1, Serbia 0
> - Argentina 3, Japan 2, New Zealand 1, France 0
> - Germany 3, England 2, Denmark 1, Korea DPR 0
> - United States 3, Ghana 2, South Africa 1, Nigeria 0
> - Uruguay 3, Chile 2, Cote d'Ivoire 1, Algeria 0
> - Netherlands 3, Portugal 2, Greece 1, Honduras 0
> - Paraguay 3, Mexico 2, Slovenia 1, Italy 0
> - Spain 3, Slovakia 2, Australia 1, Cameroon 0
>
> The number next to each team is the number of goals it scores in each
> match.
>
> But you have a total of 32 extra-goals that you can add to your teams
> during the tournament.
>
> In fact, before each matchday (there will be two matchdays a week),
[This is not set in stone. I'm a 100% comfortable running it twice a week as
milivella suggested, but if the players want a different interval, let us
know].
> you'll be able to send me an e-mail stating how many extra-goals (if
> any) you want to use for each of your teams.
>
> E.g. you control North Korea (0 base goals), Jesus control Brazil (3).
> You use 4 goals, Jesus 1. Final result: North Korea 4-4 Brazil.
>
> The points for the final ranking are allocated according to the
> following table:
> - eliminated at round of 16 = 1 point
> - eliminated at quarters = 3 points
> - 4th place = 5 points
> - 3rd place = 7 points
> - final = 10 points
> - winner = 15 points
>
> The player who gets most point in total from his four teams wins.
>
> ---
The 1st stage groups, matchdays, and tie-breaking criteria will be the same
ones used in the actual 2010 World Cup. So will be the brackets for the
knock-out stages.
In the knock-out stage, if a match ends up tied, the involved players will
have the opportunity to spend further goals in the OT. The goals spent here
will naturally be deducted from the remaining extra-goals the player has,
which means that playing OTs could leave you "out of gas" for the following
rounds.
The OT period will be shorter than a matchday, i.e., if we are playing
weekly matchdays, the OT would last half a week or so.
If the match is still tied after OT, then the game master will randomly
assign the winner on PKs. [I'm not too fond of the random solution for PKs,
but it's the best we came up so far. Let us know if you have any
suggestions].
---
> Summing up: playing means telling me twice a week how many goals you
> want to spend for each of your 4 teams. Nothing else.
>
> The game will start as soon as the 8th player will join. If there will
> be less than 8 people interested (but at least 4!), we could have a 4-
> player Euro re-enactment.
>
> This game was inspired by The World Cup
> Gamehttp://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/23604/the-world-cup-game
> (but CotN is way simpler!)
>
> --
> Cheers
> milivella
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello, interim gamemaster
milivella
> While we wait for our 8th and last player to join the game, I just attended
> a conference at the Dark Prince's Internet Evil Lair.
You make it seem grimmer than it is... Why haven't you cited the free
soda?!
> Here are the complete rules, with the new KO tie-breaker rule added (and
> other bits).
Perfect. Thanks a lot for all the clarifications.
> Abraço,
>
> Luiz Mello, interim gamemaster
Why "interim"? You have full rights, you are the no-further-
specification-needed gamemaster!
--
Cheers
milivella
MH
A suggestion
1) team having expended the fewer goals so far (for that team, not for
the manager) moves on on PKs. This diminishes the possibility of a
walkover in the next match, and will make the players more cautious in
other games and in OT.
If that doesn't resolve the tie, use total goals expended by the manager.
If that still doesn't worked, the team with fewest goals scored so far
in the tournament moves on (inherent goals plus expended goals)
If that doesn't work, the manager with the fewest goals scored moves on.
milivella
> While we wait for our 8th and last player to join the game
He should be quick, because I'm beginning tinkering with rules...
Luckily I'm now just a player so the burden of decision is on someone
else's back (hi, Luiz!). :)
I'm afraid that there is too much difference between 3-goal teams and
0-goal ones. Wouldn't it be better if everyone has one 2-goal team,
two 1-goal team and one 0-goal team? (or, even more radical, one 1-
goal team and three 0-goal teams: even FIFA seeds only one team for
group)
Pros:
- You could easily have 3 teams at the round of 16 - or 1!
- Likely no team in KO rounds will start from -2 goals: results will
be less predictable.
So, mighty gamemaster, are you willing to change the rules a bit? ;)
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> On 19/10/10 7:52 AM, Clément wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the knock-out stage, if a match ends up tied, the involved players
> > will have the opportunity to spend further goals in the OT. The goals
> > spent here will naturally be deducted from the remaining extra-goals the
> > player has, which means that playing OTs could leave you "out of gas"
> > for the following rounds.
>
> > The OT period will be shorter than a matchday, i.e., if we are playing
> > weekly matchdays, the OT would last half a week or so.
>
> > If the match is still tied after OT, then the game master will randomly
> > assign the winner on PKs. [I'm not too fond of the random solution for
> > PKs, but it's the best we came up so far. Let us know if you have any
> > suggestions].
>
> A suggestion
>
> 1) team having expended the fewer goals so far (for that team, not for
> the manager) moves on on PKs. This diminishes the possibility of a
> walkover in the next match, and will make the players more cautious in
> other games and in OT.
Actually, if the winning _manager_ has expended more goals than the
opponent manager (despite that team has expended less than the
opponent team), there are more chances of a walkover. But I like the
idea.
> If that doesn't resolve the tie, use total goals expended by the manager.
> If that still doesn't worked, the team with fewest goals scored so far
> in the tournament moves on (inherent goals plus expended goals)
> If that doesn't work, the manager with the fewest goals scored moves on.
Very interesting. Luiz will decide, but I (as player) support your
proposal.
--
Cheers
milivella
Joachim Parsch
milivella schrieb:
>
> Cl�ment:
>
> > While we wait for our 8th and last player to join the game
>
> He should be quick, because I'm beginning tinkering with rules...
> Luckily I'm now just a player so the burden of decision is on someone
> else's back (hi, Luiz!). :)
>
> I'm afraid that there is too much difference between 3-goal teams and
> 0-goal ones. Wouldn't it be better if everyone has one 2-goal team,
> two 1-goal team and one 0-goal team? (or, even more radical, one 1-
> goal team and three 0-goal teams: even FIFA seeds only one team for
> group)
Not unreasonable. The problem with the 3-goal team is, that the
point system more or less ignores the otofinalists. Normally the
winner of the final will also win the whole competition. Even if
the losing finalist has all his teams in the otofinal and two
teams left in the quarterfinal, he'll just have the same 15 as
the other guy. So probably everyone will look to get the 3-goal-team
through to the quarters, and then we are all level.
I like both the 1-0-0-0 and the 2-1-1-0 solution better than the
original one, and I'd like to suggest a 1-1-0-0 scheme as well
(so that no player has one leading team, giving more
room for guesswork and double bluffing :-))
> Pros:
> - You could easily have 3 teams at the round of 16 - or 1!
> - Likely no team in KO rounds will start from -2 goals: results will
> be less predictable.
>
> So, mighty gamemaster, are you willing to change the rules a bit? ;)
I support this.
Joachim
milivella
> The problem with the 3-goal team is, that the
> point system more or less ignores the otofinalists. Normally the
> winner of the final will also win the whole competition. Even if
> the losing finalist has all his teams in the otofinal and two
> teams left in the quarterfinal, he'll just have the same 15 as
> the other guy.
Yeah, the point allocation bit could be fixed too. As I wrote replying
to Mark, my concern was to avoid someone using all his goals for his
main team, while of course making the cup the main aim. Even assuming
that this is OK, maybe a better allocation could be conceived. Ways to
do it:
- Imagine some situations and decide which one deserves the CotN title
more: e.g. as you did, "winner team + 3 teams out at the group stage"
vs. "losing finalist + quarters + 2 round of 16".
- Imagine a scenario for the semi-final (effectively the last round
played, everyone uses all his remaining goals in the final): I guess
that we want to avoid, if possible, that someone already won the
competition before playing the last round (of course it would be fine
if he has 3 teams at the semis!).
> So probably everyone will look to get the 3-goal-team
> through to the quarters, and then we are all level.
True, but probably not with the same extra-goal tally... Anyway, yeah,
3-goal teams should be ditched.
> I like both the 1-0-0-0 and the 2-1-1-0 solution better than the
> original one, and I'd like to suggest a 1-1-0-0 scheme as well
> (so that no player has one leading team, giving more
> room for guesswork and double bluffing :-))
Very interesting!
(Luiz, at some point you'll have to stop us. It's perfectly fine. But
I'm having a lot of fun disassembling the rules! :) )
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> Cl�ment:
>> While we wait for our 8th and last player to join the game, I just
>> attended
>> a conference at the Dark Prince's Internet Evil Lair.
>
> You make it seem grimmer than it is... Why haven't you cited the free
> soda?!
You can't mention free soda and still be considered a badass evil
gamemaster.
(...)
>> Luiz Mello, interim gamemaster
>
> Why "interim"? You have full rights, you are the no-further-
> specification-needed gamemaster!
Well, I'm interim because I'm just temporarily relieving the gamemaster in
charge. =)
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> "milivella" escreveu:
>
> > Clément:
> >> While we wait for our 8th and last player to join the game, I just
> >> attended
> >> a conference at the Dark Prince's Internet Evil Lair.
>
> > You make it seem grimmer than it is... Why haven't you cited the free
> > soda?!
>
> You can't mention free soda and still be considered a badass evil
> gamemaster.
You're right. Free *diet* soda.
> >> Luiz Mello, interim gamemaster
>
> > Why "interim"? You have full rights, you are the no-further-
> > specification-needed gamemaster!
>
> Well, I'm interim because I'm just temporarily relieving the gamemaster in
> charge. =)
Well, what matters is that *you* will enjoy the couple of open issues
on the table right now! ;)
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> (Luiz, at some point you'll have to stop us. It's perfectly fine. But
> I'm having a lot of fun disassembling the rules! :) )
Then go for it! If I have to make a call so we start playing, I'll make it.
But until then, it can't hurt to discuss (and maybe improve) the rules as
much as we can.
That could last until we get the 8th player. Speaking of which, anyone? =)
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Clément
>
> I like both the 1-0-0-0 and the 2-1-1-0 solution better than the
> original one, and I'd like to suggest a 1-1-0-0 scheme as well
> (so that no player has one leading team, giving more
> room for guesswork and double bluffing :-))
I like this very much. I'm not sure about what numbers would work best, but
I like the idea of not having a main team for each player. 1-1-0-0, maybe
2-2-1-0.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Clément
> On 19/10/10 7:52 AM, Cl�ment wrote:
>>
>> If the match is still tied after OT, then the game master will randomly
>> assign the winner on PKs. [I'm not too fond of the random solution for
>> PKs, but it's the best we came up so far. Let us know if you have any
>> suggestions].
>
> A suggestion
Thanks for replying!
> 1) team having expended the fewer goals so far (for that team, not for the
> manager) moves on on PKs. This diminishes the possibility of a walkover
> in the next match, and will make the players more cautious in other games
> and in OT.
> If that doesn't resolve the tie, use total goals expended by the manager.
> If that still doesn't worked, the team with fewest goals scored so far in
> the tournament moves on (inherent goals plus expended goals)
> If that doesn't work, the manager with the fewest goals scored moves on.
I had thought of something along these lines (except I didn't consider
counting goals spent for the team, just overall goals spent by the players).
I held the idea back because I wondered whether it is a good idea to have a
"default" winner before the knock-out is played. Under such a system,
someone plays with the advantage of being able to just draw to move on. That
is not true in a real World Cup knock-out round.
That said, I can think of a few counter-arguments to my counter-arguments:
- Due to the nature of this game, it's likely unavoidable that points
previously spent by a player have a large influence on both his or his next
opponent's decision. So maybe I'm overthinking this, and should just assume
that this game's knock-out rounds don't have to be so "realistic";
- Even if we have a "default" winner before a knock-out tie, maybe the
variables in play would assure it's not obvious for the players who the
"default" winner is;
- Maybe the prospect of randomly dediding who advances is so lame, that it's
totally acceptable to play with the knowledge of who advances in case of a
tie.
What do you think?
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Futbolmetrix
news:i9md5a$mjd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> - Maybe the prospect of randomly dediding who advances is so lame, that
> it's totally acceptable to play with the knowledge of who advances in case
> of a tie.
As opposed to deciding who advances to the next stage of the WC using PKs...
I'm actually in favor of randomly deciding the winner, exactly because of
the reasons you mention above. Or, to make it more interesting than just a
flip of a coin, the two players could play a single round of
Rock-Paper-Scissors to determine the winner.
D
milivella
> "MH" escreveu:
>
> > 1) team having expended the fewer goals so far (for that team, not for the
> > manager) moves on on PKs. This diminishes the possibility of a walkover
> > in the next match, and will make the players more cautious in other games
> > and in OT.
> > If that doesn't resolve the tie, use total goals expended by the manager.
> > If that still doesn't worked, the team with fewest goals scored so far in
> > the tournament moves on (inherent goals plus expended goals)
> > If that doesn't work, the manager with the fewest goals scored moves on.
>
> I had thought of something along these lines (except I didn't consider
> counting goals spent for the team, just overall goals spent by the players).
>
> I held the idea back because I wondered whether it is a good idea to have a
> "default" winner before the knock-out is played. Under such a system,
> someone plays with the advantage of being able to just draw to move on. That
> is not true in a real World Cup knock-out round.
BTW, his opponent will probably "score" more goals than he would have
if he had 50% chances to go to the next round (i.e. if PK = random),
so, considering that he already is the player with most goals used, if
he win a walk-over in the next round becomes more likely (somewhat
weakining this argument - that anyway stands, together with the
determinism-is-the-better-than-random).
> - Even if we have a "default" winner before a knock-out tie, maybe the
> variables in play would assure it's not obvious for the players who the
> "default" winner is;
I'm not sure that I understood this point: if we count _team_ goals,
you know who is the default winner; it can get more complex if we
count _manager_ goals, since a manager can have more than one team
playing OT at that round. Am I wrong?
> - Maybe the prospect of randomly dediding who advances is so lame, that it's
> totally acceptable to play with the knowledge of who advances in case of a
> tie.
>
> What do you think?
I'll maybe think again about this issue, but for the time being I must
say that any solution proposed so far is OK for me.
But it seems to me that there is still too little to discuss... ;)
Let's go back to goal and point allocation.
Point allocation. If we goes with Formula 1, we don't fix the winner-
weighs-too-much problem highlighted by Joachim, since the points
should be something like:
25 Winner
18 Losing finalist
15 Third
12 Fourth
7 Quarters
1 Round of sixteen
Forget about it.
But f we go with an average between the system I proposed and one that
gives 1 points for each stage (goes out at the round of 16 = 1, at the
quarters = 2, etc.), we have:
10 Winner
7 Losing finalist
5 Third
4 Fourth
2.5 Quarters (i.e. 2, or 3)
1 Round of sixteen
(do you see how I didn't follow my own suggestions about the ways to
find an optimal allocation?)
Goal allocation. According to Chance de Goal...
http://chancedegol.uol.com.br/rksel.htm
(consider that the difference between the ratings of two teams is the
expected goal difference)
...the top 8 teams in the world have an average rating of 7.85;
8th-16th are at 7.13, 17th-24th at 6.82, 25th-32th at 6.61. So a
"realistic" deafult goal allocation would be 1-0-0-0. But I'd sell all
the realism in the world for even a bit of fun, so e.g. 1-1-0-0 is OK.
Seriously: it's nice to write down hypotheses on hypotheses during the
brainstorming phase, but it's the right of the gamemaster to read what
he wants to read, consider what he wants to consider, decide or put to
votes what he wants to decide or to put to votes. So I don't expect
Luiz to read/reply to everything!
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
news:i9mfuk$v91$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Actually, regardless of the decision on how to settle ties, we could do that
for knockout matches player submit their number of goals for the match,
*and* the eventual number of goals for Extra Time in the same email, (and
the sequence of Rock-Paper-Scissors throws if we decide to go that way).
This has at least two advantages over the current system:
a) there is no awkward delay in the game.
b) A player can't strategically choose to put a lot of goals in extra time
depending on the outcome of the concurrent matches his teams are involved
in.
PS: instead of Rock-Paper-Scissors, we should just do "Odds and Evens", that
has no ties.
D
Abubakr
lcmello...@terra.com.br says...
>
> "milivella" escreveu:
> > Clï¿œment:
I'll play if a spot is available and an extra player is needed.
Clément
> lcmello.lis...@terra.com.br says...
>
> > That would work. Still, there are some regular posters/players that are yet
> > to join the CotN. I'm sure we'll find the 8th player?
>
> I'll play if a spot is available and an extra player is needed.
Awesome, thanks! Now on to finish our rules tweak so we can start the
game soon.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Clément
>
> Actually, regardless of the decision on how to settle ties, we could do that
> for knockout matches player submit their number of goals for the match,
> *and* the eventual number of goals for Extra Time in the same email, (and
> the sequence of Rock-Paper-Scissors throws if we decide to go that way).
> This has at least two advantages over the current system:
>
> a) there is no awkward delay in the game.
> b) A player can't strategically choose to put a lot of goals in extra time
> depending on the outcome of the concurrent matches his teams are involved
> in.
>
> PS: instead of Rock-Paper-Scissors, we should just do "Odds and Evens", that
> has no ties.
Excellent suggestion, and I think we should just do that.
Before every KO round, each player submit the number of goals he wants
to spend on regulation, the number of goals he wants to spend on OT
(if necessary), and a number that will be used to determine the winner
on PKs (if necessary) through the "odds and evens" method.
The "home" team (first team on the bracket) always chooses "odds" by
default.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Clément
> Clément:
>
> > - Even if we have a "default" winner before a knock-out tie, maybe the
> > variables in play would assure it's not obvious for the players who the
> > "default" winner is;
>
> I'm not sure that I understood this point: if we count _team_ goals,
> you know who is the default winner; it can get more complex if we
> count _manager_ goals, since a manager can have more than one team
> playing OT at that round. Am I wrong?
No, you are right. I was thinking in terms of counting manager goals,
as opposed to team goals, but I forgot to make it clear.
Anyway, if you guys like Daniele's proposal, this part of the
discussion could be moot. I like it myself, because it keeps the rules
simple.
> But it seems to me that there is still too little to discuss... ;)
> Let's go back to goal and point allocation.
>
(...)
>
> But f we go with an average between the system I proposed and one that
> gives 1 points for each stage (goes out at the round of 16 = 1, at the
> quarters = 2, etc.), we have:
> 10 Winner
> 7 Losing finalist
> 5 Third
> 4 Fourth
> 2.5 Quarters (i.e. 2, or 3)
> 1 Round of sixteen
>
> (do you see how I didn't follow my own suggestions about the ways to
> find an optimal allocation?)
=)
I particularly would like an allocation that puts less emphasis on
winning the Cup and that rewards more advancing further with more
teams.
> Goal allocation. According to Chance de Goal...http://chancedegol.uol.com.br/rksel.htm
> (consider that the difference between the ratings of two teams is the
> expected goal difference)
> ...the top 8 teams in the world have an average rating of 7.85;
> 8th-16th are at 7.13, 17th-24th at 6.82, 25th-32th at 6.61. So a
> "realistic" deafult goal allocation would be 1-0-0-0. But I'd sell all
> the realism in the world for even a bit of fun, so e.g. 1-1-0-0 is OK.
You don't like 2-2-1-0?
> Seriously: it's nice to write down hypotheses on hypotheses during the
> brainstorming phase, but it's the right of the gamemaster to read what
> he wants to read, consider what he wants to consider, decide or put to
> votes what he wants to decide or to put to votes. So I don't expect
> Luiz to read/reply to everything!
I'm reading everything, and will be glad to reply. Today was a little
busier than usual at office, and since I came home (to continue
working =), I can't connect to eternal-september.og. I was waiting to
see if it starts working, before deciding to come to Google Groups to
keep the discussions going.
By the way, thanks for all the suggestions. Since now we have 8
players, I suppose we could reach a conclusion regarding the rules and
play.
Let's hear what the players have to say about the current proposals,
maybe for the next 24 hours.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> Anyway, if you guys like Daniele's proposal
I do.
> this part of the
> discussion could be moot. I like it myself, because it keeps the rules
> simple.
Yeah, you maybe wouldn't say it, but such a complex mind always spits
out simple diamond-like rules!
> > Goal allocation. According to Chance de Goal...http://chancedegol.uol.com.br/rksel.htm
> > (consider that the difference between the ratings of two teams is the
> > expected goal difference)
> > ...the top 8 teams in the world have an average rating of 7.85;
> > 8th-16th are at 7.13, 17th-24th at 6.82, 25th-32th at 6.61. So a
> > "realistic" deafult goal allocation would be 1-0-0-0. But I'd sell all
> > the realism in the world for even a bit of fun, so e.g. 1-1-0-0 is OK.
>
> You don't like 2-2-1-0?
Oh yeah. I was just adding some noise. ;)
> I'm reading everything, and will be glad to reply. Today was a little
> busier than usual at office, and since I came home (to continue
> working =), I can't connect to eternal-september.og. I was waiting to
> see if it starts working, before deciding to come to Google Groups to
> keep the discussions going.
You're doing too much! Such a great work that in fact I am ashamed of
my usual gamemastering work. Like avoiding to think about the great
job Jesus does for the Maluco wasn't striving enough!
> By the way, thanks for all the suggestions. Since now we have 8
> players, I suppose we could reach a conclusion regarding the rules and
> play.
Yay!
> Let's hear what the players have to say about the current proposals,
> maybe for the next 24 hours.
Perfect. I can't promise that I'll manage to stay quiet for 24
hours :) but all the proposals so far are OK for me. If I'm not wrong,
we have a strong enough proposal for KO rounds (send goals+OT goals
+odds vs. even number) and some interesting proposals for default-goal
allocation (2-2-1-0 preferred?), but we need at least an exact
proposal for point allocation. The latter is in my perception the most
urgent issue. It's not difficult to give one's opinion: e.g. ask
yourself "WC winner + 3 teams eliminated at the group stage is better
or worse than 3 teams eliminated at the quarters + 1 at the group
stage?"
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> I particularly would like an allocation that puts less emphasis on
> winning the Cup and that rewards more advancing further with more
> teams.
Here is a rough way to find a way not to give the same weight to all
the strategies (everything on one team, balanced between two teams,
etc.). If it's effective, then one could tweak e.g. to reward
advancing with more teams.
chances that 1 random team wins the WC = 1/32 = 0.03
but you have 4 teams, so it's 4/32 = 0.12
[to simplify, I'm not considering that not all teams are created
equal!]
Now, what's a outcome - involving not 1, but 2 teams - that has more
or less the same probabilities to happen? If it's (I'm guessing, I
haven't computed!) two teams out at the quarters (or later), one
should allocate points so that 1 team winning = 2 teams out at the
quarters.
...One should continue on this line of thought. I can't right now, and
I hope to do it later, but if someone (surely more apt than me) wants
to do it, he's very welcome. It's a very far from perfect way to
allocate points, but it hopefully makes sense.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Here is a rough way to find a way not to give the same weight to all
> the strategies (everything on one team, balanced between two teams,
> etc.). If it's effective, then one could tweak e.g. to reward
> advancing with more teams.
>
> chances that 1 random team wins the WC = 1/32 = 0.03
> but you have 4 teams, so it's 4/32 = 0.12
> [to simplify, I'm not considering that not all teams are created
> equal!]
>
> Now, what's a outcome - involving not 1, but 2 teams - that has more
> or less the same probabilities to happen? If it's (I'm guessing, I
> haven't computed!) two teams out at the quarters (or later), one
> should allocate points so that 1 team winning = 2 teams out at the
> quarters.
>
> ...One should continue on this line of thought. I can't right now, and
> I hope to do it later, but if someone (surely more apt than me) wants
> to do it, he's very welcome. It's a very far from perfect way to
> allocate points, but it hopefully makes sense.
Here is a first sample: the chances that, out of your 4 teams, ...
is ...
1 wins = 13%
1 reaches final + 1 reaches quarters = 9%
2 reach semi-finals = 9%
1 reaches semi-finals + 2 reach round of 16 = 13%
Considering all these outcomes equivalent, one could have
winner = 10 points
final = 7 points
semi-final = 5 points
quarters = 3 points
round of 16 = 2 points
But I'd like to give you something more systematic.
--
Cheers
milivella
Jesus Petry
This is very similar to the point scheme of my club and NTs rankings!
Each phase advanced scores 2^(1/2) times more points.
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
milivella
I guess I have never asked you what's the reason behind this formula:
does it empirically fit well? or is it a formula used elsewhere?
In our case, your formula gives (rounding):
win = 8
final = 6
semi-final = 4
quarters = 3
round of 16 = 2
Probably better than my allocation above, since:
2 reaching quarters + 1 reaching round of 16 = 13%
4 reaching round of 16 = 6%
Mighty Gamemaster, at least for the time being (but if the game won't
start I'll keep posting about new silly ideas!) consider this one
(8-6-4-3-2) my official proposal (there is no difference between 3rd
and 4th place, though). Winning the cup has maybe too little weight,
but all the strategies (from "I use all the goals for one team" to "I
equally distribute goals between my four teams") should be rewarded
equally (if they are played with the same degree of effectiveness!).
--
Cheers
milivella
Jesus Petry
I tried several values and this one seemed to have the nicest
properties and a decent scaling. I've never tried the golden ratio,
but it might fit too.
> In our case, your formula gives (rounding):
> win = 8
> final = 6
> semi-final = 4
> quarters = 3
> round of 16 = 2
I'd support this, maybe with a bonus for winning the whole thing.
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
milivella
> On Oct 21, 6:05 pm, milivella <milive...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jesus Petry:
>
> > > This is very similar to the point scheme of my club and NTs rankings!
> > > Each phase advanced scores 2^(1/2) times more points.
>
> > I guess I have never asked you what's the reason behind this formula:
> > does it empirically fit well? or is it a formula used elsewhere?
>
> I tried several values and this one seemed to have the nicest
> properties
E.g. (reaching round n) = 2 * (reaching round n-2)
1/sqrt(2) is also the ratio used in ISO paper sizes (A3, A4, etc.),
because when cut in half lengthwise, the halves also have the same
aspect ratio. And it's the ratio diagonal/side in a square. Etc.
> I've never tried the golden ratio,
> but it might fit too.
In our case, it would be
14
8
5
3
2
> > In our case, your formula gives (rounding):
> > win = 8
> > final = 6
> > semi-final = 4
> > quarters = 3
> > round of 16 = 2
>
> I'd support this, maybe with a bonus for winning the whole thing.
Maybe multiplying by 1.5? (the iPhone ratio!)
10
7
4 [actually 4.5]
3
2
(i.e. +2 win, +1 final)
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Clément:
>
> > "milivella" escreveu:
>
> > > Clément:
> > >> While we wait for our 8th and last player to join the game, I just
> > >> attended
> > >> a conference at the Dark Prince's Internet Evil Lair.
>
> > > You make it seem grimmer than it is... Why haven't you cited the free
> > > soda?!
>
> > You can't mention free soda and still be considered a badass evil
> > gamemaster.
>
> You're right. Free *diet* soda.
No, wait, stop the press: I've a better reply. You can mention free
soda and still be considered a badass gamemaster when your anagram
is...
...I'M ALL EVIL
(Found using http://deanjackson.dj/nameanagram/ : you put your name,
it supposedly spits put the *best* anagram. I can't complain.)
--
Cheers
MILIVELLA
Clément
>
> No, wait, stop the press: I've a better reply. You can mention free
> soda and still be considered a badass gamemaster when your anagram
> is...
> ...I'M ALL EVIL
Ok. Now I'm officially scared. It's not just the appopriate anagram, it's
also the beautiful simplicity of it:
mi (I'm) - live (evil) - lla (all).
It can't just be a coincidence. =)
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Clément
> Cl�ment:
>> Let's hear what the players have to say about the current proposals,
>> maybe for the next 24 hours.
>
> Perfect. I can't promise that I'll manage to stay quiet for 24
> hours :) but all the proposals so far are OK for me.
I don't expect you to stay quiet for 24, nor do I think you should. =)
Anyway, we are a bit over 24 hours now, so I guess we should just summarize
the current proposals for point/goals allocation and make a call?
> If I'm not wrong,
> we have a strong enough proposal for KO rounds (send goals+OT goals
> +odds vs. even number)
Yes. If nobody opposes this one, we can consider it official.
> and some interesting proposals for default-goal
> allocation (2-2-1-0 preferred?),
I believe the stronger options are 1-1-0-0 and 2-2-1-0, so no player has a
single leading team. I would like to go with the one we feel is richer,
strategy-wise.
> but we need at least an exact proposal for point allocation.
True. Let me write down the best proposals so far:
Winner 10; finalist 7; third 5; fourth 4; quarters 2 or 3; round of 16 1.
Winner 10; finalist 7; semi-finalist 5; quarters 3; round of 16 2.
Winner 8; finalist 6; semi-finalist 4; quarters 3; round of 16 2.
Winner 10; finalist 7; semi-finalist 4; quarters 3; round of 16 2. [Same as
above, with bonuses for finalists].
Those proposals look pretty much the same to me, I'm not sure whether these
point differences will have a big impact in the outcome.
Opinions?
I plan to post a complete, updated version of the rules over the weekend,
and run matchday 1 right away.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Joachim Parsch
Cl�ment schrieb:
> I believe the stronger options are 1-1-0-0 and 2-2-1-0, so no player has a
> single leading team. I would like to go with the one we feel is richer,
> strategy-wise.
I suggest 1-1-0-0, but would not at all mind 2-2-1-0 as long as we start
asap :-)
> > but we need at least an exact proposal for point allocation.
>
> True. Let me write down the best proposals so far:
>
> Winner 10; finalist 7; third 5; fourth 4; quarters 2 or 3; round of 16 1.
This is a little worse than the other 3 suggestions IMHO (i.e.
satisfaction factor 80%)
> Winner 10; finalist 7; semi-finalist 5; quarters 3; round of 16 2.
My preferred one (sat fac 100%)
> Winner 8; finalist 6; semi-finalist 4; quarters 3; round of 16 2.
> Winner 10; finalist 7; semi-finalist 4; quarters 3; round of 16 2. [Same as
> above, with bonuses for finalists].
Both with a sat fac of 95%.
> Those proposals look pretty much the same to me, I'm not sure whether these
> point differences will have a big impact in the outcome.
Agree.
> Opinions?
>
> I plan to post a complete, updated version of the rules over the weekend,
> and run matchday 1 right away.
Go on!
Joachim
milivella
> Anyway, we are a bit over 24 hours now, so I guess we should just summarize
> the current proposals for point/goals allocation and make a call?
Yeah!
> I believe the stronger options are 1-1-0-0 and 2-2-1-0, so no player has a
> single leading team. I would like to go with the one we feel is richer,
> strategy-wise.
Both are OK. Slight preference for 1-1-0-0 (no minnow, you could try
the 4-teams-at-the-round-of-16 trick).
> > but we need at least an exact proposal for point allocation.
>
> True. Let me write down the best proposals so far:
>
> Winner 10; finalist 7; third 5; fourth 4; quarters 2 or 3; round of 16 1.
> Winner 10; finalist 7; semi-finalist 5; quarters 3; round of 16 2.
> Winner 8; finalist 6; semi-finalist 4; quarters 3; round of 16 2.
> Winner 10; finalist 7; semi-finalist 4; quarters 3; round of 16 2. [Same as
> above, with bonuses for finalists].
All are OK for me, but I have a order of preference: #3, then #4
closely followed by #2 (it would be odd to have them not close!), then
#1.
> Those proposals look pretty much the same to me, I'm not sure whether these
> point differences will have a big impact in the outcome.
The only big difference in my perception is that in proposal #1 a team
at the round of 16 is 1/10 of a winner, in the other it's 1/5 or 1/4.
> I plan to post a complete, updated version of the rules over the weekend,
> and run matchday 1 right away.
Great! I'm ready to plot.
--
Cheers
milivella
Jesus Petry
> Clément schrieb:
> > Winner 10; finalist 7; semi-finalist 5; quarters 3; round of 16 2.
>
> My preferred one (sat fac 100%)
I second this vote.
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
milivella
Yeah yeah. Also in Italian an anagram could be "il vil male" (or "il
vile mal", it's the same), i.e. "the vile evil". I'm all evil, I'm all
vile... I admit that all this makes me a good candidate to the D.P. (=
Dark Prince) title. Acutally I could be beaten only, if he existed, by
someone whose initials were D.P. ...
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
"milivella" escreveu:
Cl�ment:
>
>> I believe the stronger options are 1-1-0-0 and 2-2-1-0, so no player has
>> a
>> single leading team. I would like to go with the one we feel is richer,
>> strategy-wise.
>
> Both are OK. Slight preference for 1-1-0-0 (no minnow, you could try
> the 4-teams-at-the-round-of-16 trick).
1-1-0-0 it is.
>> Winner 10; finalist 7; third 5; fourth 4; quarters 2 or 3; round of 16 1.
>> Winner 10; finalist 7; semi-finalist 5; quarters 3; round of 16 2.
>> Winner 8; finalist 6; semi-finalist 4; quarters 3; round of 16 2.
>> Winner 10; finalist 7; semi-finalist 4; quarters 3; round of 16 2. [Same
>> as
>> above, with bonuses for finalists].
>
> All are OK for me, but I have a order of preference: #3, then #4
> closely followed by #2 (it would be odd to have them not close!), then
> #1.
Since both JPs prefer #2, and it's a close second for you, I'm going to go
with that. (For the record, my favorite is #3).
I'm now on class, so the rules post will be later today, followed by
matchday 1.
(I've already randomly assigned the team pools, BTW).
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
of death right now is "tension while waiting for Luiz to reveal the
results of a matchday"). Hopefully, now that the rules have been fine-
tuned, the game will also have some *strategic depth* (is it better to
win the WC with one team or to make advance as many teams as possible?
is it better to use extra-goals in early matches or to save them for
KO rounds?). So fun and hopefully strategy... but I also see a
*diplomatic potentiality* in the game: e.g.
- My team scores 1 default goal, my opponent's team scores 1 default
goal, a draw is OK for us both: I could contact my opponent and we
could decide to not use any extra-goal (final result 1-1), so we'll
both get the desired draw and save extra-goals for the next matches.
- I play the same opponent in two different groups: we could agree to
have 1 win each, using the minimum amount of extra-goals needed.
And of course: can I trust my opponent in such treaties? or will he
backstab me?
Now, my question is: what's your opinion about this eventual
diplomatic layer of the game? Do you like it or not? Is it OK for you
if someone will fix matches that way?
I see it like just another aspect of the strategic layer, but I'm all
evil so I know that I can't trust my perception. :) Also, I wouldn't
like to make plots if some players don't: if everyone is Machiavelli
it's nice, otherwise it's less funny.
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
> - My team scores 1 default goal, my opponent's team scores 1 default
> goal, a draw is OK for us both: I could contact my opponent and we
> could decide to not use any extra-goal (final result 1-1), so we'll
> both get the desired draw and save extra-goals for the next matches.
> - I play the same opponent in two different groups: we could agree to
> have 1 win each, using the minimum amount of extra-goals needed.
> And of course: can I trust my opponent in such treaties? or will he
> backstab me?
I think it was plainly understood that this was the whole point of the
game!
D "Trustworthy is my second name" P
milivella
But you would conspire even in a game of Snakes and Ladders!
> D "Trustworthy is my second name" P
You should consider that if the diplomatic line of the game passes,
I'll have to write a post to specify that, despite some call me Dark
Prince, I will keep my word...
Nobody will make arrangements with us!
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
On Oct 24, 11:41 am, milivella wrote:
>> - My team scores 1 default goal, my opponent's team scores 1 default
>> goal, a draw is OK for us both: I could contact my opponent and we
>> could decide to not use any extra-goal (final result 1-1), so we'll
>> both get the desired draw and save extra-goals for the next matches.
>> - I play the same opponent in two different groups: we could agree to
>> have 1 win each, using the minimum amount of extra-goals needed.
>> And of course: can I trust my opponent in such treaties? or will he
>> backstab me?
>
> I think it was plainly understood that this was the whole point of the
> game!
Agreed, from a game design perspective.
Plus, from a rules enforcement perspective, how are we supposed to avoid
players making these kind of deals? Granted, I would trust all our players
not to do that, if we decided it's not OK. However, why should we set such
an artificial and unenforceable restriction?
Let players make deals, and break them if they think doing so will benefit
them!
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Clément
adjustments:
***
We'll replay World Cup 2010 (same groups and same knock-out brackets).
Each player controls one of the following pools of 4 teams (randomly[1]
assigned):
Jesus Petry - Brazil 1, Korea Republic 1, Switzerland 0, Serbia 0
Futbolmetrix - Argentina 1, Japan 1, New Zealand 0, France 0
Mark V - Germany 1, England 1, Denmark 0, Korea DPR 0
Joachim Parsch - United States 1, Ghana 1, South Africa 0, Nigeria 0
MH - Uruguay 1, Chile 1, Cote d'Ivoire 0, Algeria 0
Lleo - Netherlands 1, Portugal 1, Greece 0, Honduras 0
milivella - Paraguay 1, Mexico 1, Slovenia 0, Italy 0
Abubakr - Spain 1, Slovakia 1, Australia 0, Cameroon 0
The number next to each team is the number of goals it scores in each match.
But you have a total of 32 extra-goals that you can add to your teams during
the tournament.
In fact, before each matchday (there will be two matchdays a week), you'll
be able to send me an e-mail stating how many extra-goals (if any) you want
to use for each of your teams.
E.g. you control North Korea (0 base goals), Jesus control Brazil (1).
You use 4 goals, Jesus 1. Final result: North Korea 4-2 Brazil.
The points for the final ranking are allocated according to the following
table:
- eliminated at round of 16 = 2 points
- eliminated at quarters = 3 points
- semi-finalist = 5 points
- runner-up = 7 points
- winner = 10 points
The player who gets most point in total from his four teams wins.
Tie-breakers
The 1st stage tie-breaking criteria will be the same ones used in the actual
2010 World Cup: points, goals difference, goals scored, head to head, random
decision[1].
Before every knock-out round, players will be able to send me an e-mail
stating how many goals they want to spend on regulation (as they had been
doing for group stage matches) and also 1) how many extra-goals they want to
spend on overtime (if necessary), and 2) a number thet will be used to
determine the winners on PKs if necessary) through the "odds and evens"
method.
Whenever a PKs decision takes place, the "home" team (first team on the
bracket) chooses "odds" by default.
***
[1] Using Excel's randbetween function.
***
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Clément
Teams were swapped with other teams of the same tier, so no harm is done to
anyone's chances and strategies.
"Cl�ment" escreveu:
> We'll replay World Cup 2010 (same groups and same knock-out brackets).
>
> Each player controls one of the following pools of 4 teams (randomly[1]
> assigned):
Jesus Petry - Brazil 1, Korea Republic 1, Switzerland 0, Serbia 0
Futbolmetrix - Argentina 1, Japan 1, New Zealand 0, France 0
Mark V - Germany 1, England 1, Denmark 0, Korea DPR 0
Joachim Parsch - United States 1, Portugal 1, South Africa 0, Cameroon 0
MH - Uruguay 1, Chile 1, Cote d'Ivoire 0, Algeria 0
Lleo - Netherlands 1, Ghana 1, Greece 0, Italy 0
milivella - Paraguay 1, Mexico 1, Slovenia 0, Honduras 0
Abubakr - Spain 1, Slovakia 1, Australia 0, Nigeria 0