Dice roll for resolve ties sucks
Acbishop
the dice roll to get a place in the finals :(
And even worse, aparently only the finalists of previous Continental
championship and not the first five people of the previous are
qualified for the next one. I can understand that for playing the
final it should be a way of determining the finalist, but in
qualifiers tournaments people tied with the last spot get also
qualified for the next EC, why could it be fare not to be qualified
for next EC when I finished within the first 5 people(tied) after the
3 rounds of Day 2 of the EC?
So the dice roll rules on that as well?
Why not implement a système which calculates as wells the points that
people in your tables did to have any other way of avoidings ties like
ELO system in other cardgames?
Huruem
I gotta say that I like the ELO system. Basically any system which is
not a random one
to determine who's going to the final sounds better to me than a dice
roll. Apart from
that, I don't really see what could be it !
Arthur
Acbishop
indicates the average of the summatory of table points of all your
oponents during the tournament, cause if people you have played
against in the three rounds got lost of table points it indicates more
or less the quality of your oponents. And this column could be used
only in case of a tied whit the Table points column.
!it's only an idea.
Acbishop
> against in the three rounds got lost of table points it indicates more
sorry bad typing I wanted to say
lots of table points
Baaliprimogen
I like this idea. Really like it!
_angst_
> I finished 5th place the EC last Sunday tied with Kamel, and I lost
> the dice roll to get a place in the finals :(
>
> And even worse, aparently only the finalists of previous Continental
> championship and not the first five people of the previous are
> qualified for the next one. I can understand that for playing the
> final it should be a way of determining the finalist, but in
> qualifiers tournaments people tied with the last spot get also
> qualified for the next EC, why could it be fare not to be qualified
> for next EC when I finished within the first 5 people(tied) after the
> 3 rounds of Day 2 of the EC?
>
A couple of years ago at the Swedish ECQ we had the last players
qualifying tied on gw's, vp's and tp's. So we rolled a dice
determining who would qualify and who would not. The loser was
ofcourse gutted and I found it very strange that a dice roll would
determine a qualification issue. So I talked to Oscar and Scott and
got a rule introduced that in the event of a qualifier tie both
players qualify. This should apply in this event too, shouldn't it?
Roll a dice to determine who will play the finals, but both players
qualify.
Will take a look at and comment on your system later. Just wanted to
share this with you. Perhaps Oscar or Scott or Johannes could clarify
this.
Regards
Alex Ek
Swedish NC
_angst_
* If multiple players tie for a qualifier spot, then all the tied
players qualify.
That's from the WW website. So I can't see why you wouldn't qualify.
//Alex
Acbishop
I don't know If I'm qualified or not, cause I asked Oscar on Sunday
and He said I'm not cause I'm not on the final, I asked Robyn and she
said that normally I'm qualified. So for the moment I don't know if
I'm or not qualified, as I'm currently living in Paris for me it
should be great being already qualified for next EC which is going to
be held in Paris(hope to see there lots of people :) )
Huruem
I'm not sure that Oscar is a really reliable source on that kind of
matter. :p
Scott?
Johannes Walch
In a qualifier 25% qualify and ties for the 25% qualify as well.
In a championship finalists qualify. There are no ties for finalists,
since they get resolved before the finals. You haven�t been the 6th
finalist, you have been no finalist.
That are the rules as they stand. We might think about changing them, we
might think about making an exception in this special case of hardship
(I mean getting booted out of the final AND not being qualified is
really hard).
Acbishop
It's really hard, that's true, and I don't see the point of not giving
a qualification for next EC to someone who lost a dice roll. Specially
with the rules for people tied in qualifiers. Cause I can understand
that only one can play the final, but I think that Kamel and me both
of us deserve the qualification for next EC. But as my usual luck now
I'm fucked by a dice roll, no final, no qualify, nothing. It is so
unfare. The rules of the qualifiers about getting the qualify for the
players who tied is because the people tied did same valuable effort
to get the qualify. So what's the difference between Kaml's efforts
and mine during EC Day 2? I think no difference, same GWs, same VPs,
same Table Points, the only difference is the result of a dice roll.
How can a dice roll determine who deserve a qualification or not for
next EC? I think it's enough punishment not to be in the EC Final,
don't need to punish more saying "Listen guy, you are not good rolling
a dice, you don't deserve being qualified for next European
Championship for that", It is senseless.
Johannes Walch
I agree with you. I was just stating that the rules say otherwise and I
suggested to probably bend the rules a little in this situation. Rest
assured I�ll stay on it.
_angst_
Then I would suggest bending them for this occasion but also changing
them for the future.
//Alex
Wilsoros
A day of great cards shouldn't be wrecked due to a bad die roll.
David Wilson
Baron of Ann Arbor
Sire of Many.
brandonsantacruz
feel sympathy for you. To have no expectation to be in the finals and
luck into it feels great. It must feel equally bad to luck out of the
finals. What you suggest about qualifying if you tie on GWs VPs and
TPs seems fair. Are there any counter-arguments?
Brandon
squidalot
Difficult to say even with a rating system whether or not you or Kamel
had tougher opponents on the day even with average points of opponents
as quality in that size event when you've just cut should be fairly
evenly distributed (at least that's the point of the 2 day).
Hugh
texasjusticar
> I finished 5th place the EC last Sunday tied with Kamel, and I lost
> the dice roll to get a place in the finals :(
I feel your pain. We should start a support group.
-----------------------------------------------
Ethan Burrow - hosed at NAC 2001
echia...@yahoo.com
Several years back, with the old qualifying rules (no ties for
qualifying spots), I was in a 3-way tie for 2 qualifier spots. We had
to roll a dice and, suffice it to say, I rolled the lowest among the
3. (That really sucked).
I was really pleased when years later, they changed to allow for ties
in Qualifying spots (though that still sometimes creates hassles when
there aren't enough t-shirts).
- Regarding ties for the actual finals, I don't think there's really a
better way to do it. When you get to the point where even Tournament
Points are tied, you're going to be splitting hairs regardless of what
method you choose. There's sufficient randomness in the game that you
really can't compare the performance of the other players (besides
through TP's in that game). So the die roll is the simplest and
fastest.
- Regarding the qualifying spots, I do think you make a good argument
on why they should alter the rules so that those who tied for a finals
spot (but lost on the dice roll) would still qualify. I really don't
think it's a big deal from an organizational standpoint, since over
the past few years, they have gradually been relaxing the qualifying
standards (to broaden participation). Allowing local mini-qualifiers,
giving automatic qualifying spots for organizers, automatic
qualification for those in the continental finals from the previous
year, etc. It shouldn't be a problem to also have an allowance for
people who just barely lost out on the finals due to the dice roll.
Daneel
<antonio_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I finished 5th place the EC last Sunday tied with Kamel, and I lost
> the dice roll to get a place in the finals :(
>
> And even worse, aparently only the finalists of previous Continental
> championship and not the first five people of the previous are
> qualified for the next one. I can understand that for playing the
> final it should be a way of determining the finalist, but in
> qualifiers tournaments people tied with the last spot get also
> qualified for the next EC, why could it be fare not to be qualified
> for next EC when I finished within the first 5 people(tied) after the
> 3 rounds of Day 2 of the EC?
Finalists qualify. Or the first five people qualify. You ended up being
6th place; there are four 2nd place and one 1st place players.
> So the dice roll rules on that as well?
Dice (coins, etc.) are used as a tie-breaker. Unless something better
tournament-specific performance indicator can be used (e.g. counting
pool you have left at the end of each game, etc.), I don't see an
alternative to randomization.
> Why not implement a systï¿œme which calculates as wells the points that
> people in your tables did to have any other way of avoidings ties like
> ELO system in other cardgames?
Because such "systï¿œme" would suck. If you introduce a pre-condition that
has nothing to do with performance at the given tournament (e.g. the
ELO or some ranking) then not only do you put an extra pressure on the
people processing the results (I can imagine a similar whine-post on
losing the ELO-based tie-breaker because a previous tournament result
wasn't processed), but you are not necessarily being any more fair
than with the 50/50 randomness.
If you use something at the tournament... You don't get a guarantee of
fairness. Assume a 50-player tournament with two hubs. First hub
contains world-class players as opponents, second hub contains noobs
as opponents. Getting the same result (e.g. 2 GW 6 VP) from each hub
will carry a completely different set of difficulty. Even the 50/50
randomization is more fair in this case than to say that the guy
scoring 2/6 in the noob hub had a more difficult set of adversaries
(if they happen to score better).
I really hate the randomization. I just don't see an alternative to it.
Going beneath TPs would create artificial criteria that would introduce
more book-keeping, more calculations, and not necessarily be any more
fair (TPs are a borderline case, even they are pretty artificial, and
serve only as tie-breakers - but do they really track performance? Is
it really a "better" loss to lose to a single opponent than to lose to
two opponents who potentially table-split? etc.).
Random tie-breakers, while unfair when applied, have a generally
beneficial side too - they remove the tactical element from the game
that aspires to exploit whatever favorable pre-condition the player
may be subject to, and instead urges everyone to achieve as many GWs
and VPs as possible.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Brum
Unless they are in Portugal. Then only the Winner qualifies.
Eliseu Angelo
Yeah... somehow they got a really special rule for Portugal... and
Portugal only... probably for fairness... aren't we special?
Obtenebration
can be used?
How does Elo work in a multiplayer game?
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> A die roll is a bad way of breaking a tie, for sure. But what else
> can be used?
>
> How does Elo work in a multiplayer game?
Poorly.
In any case, yeah, dice rolls to break ties sucks. But there isn't
really a better option. Although I agree that if X players tie for
whatever the last place is to Qualify, they should all qualify
regardless of how many people are supposed to. If it means that an
extra 2 or 3 people qualify? So be it.
-Peter
Brum
I think the real problem here is to Qualify to a Final (or even a
Win).
Also, lets not forget the qualification for tournaments of limited
number of players, like 2nd day EC or NAC.
I don't know how it works, but could the Archon order between players
through "quality of ousts"?
For instance, when in tie, the player that ousted the better players
wins.
Could this bring any extra problems?
Tiago,
Known Toaster Lover
echia...@yahoo.com
> I think the real problem here is to Qualify to a Final (or even a
> Win).
> Also, lets not forget the qualification for tournaments of limited
> number of players, like 2nd day EC or NAC.
>
> I don't know how it works, but could the Archon order between players
> through "quality of ousts"?
> For instance, when in tie, the player that ousted the better players
> wins.
> Could this bring any extra problems?
I think the main challenge is that systems that work well in 2-player
games don't port over quite as well in multi-player (4 or 5-player)
ones. In a two-player game (i.e. MtG) the quality of defeated
opponents does make some sense (because you win largely on your own
merits). But in VTES, I don't think it's as useful. You'd have to keep
careful notes of table seating and order of ousts (if B ousts C but
then A ousts B, does the transitive property apply with A being a
better player than C?). Also, the political dynamic really alters
things as well. If anything, a lot of the the best players (or the
ones with the best decks) may be seen as the table threat and everyone
else may try to oust him. Alternatively, there may be times when you
get your predator or grandprey ousted on purpose, etc. None of that is
reflected by the quality of ousts, which is why I think it would be a
poor system to implement.
Drain
>
> Unless they are in Portugal. Then only the Winner qualifies.
>
Huh, what's all this about? Something I missed?
Drain
Brum
wrote:
Indeed. Bad idea.
But the randomness of dice is just... too random.
Once we had a number of players tied and we did a table to see who
would pass just with them. Of course we didn't have problems of time
that day and I don't think it was a sanctioned event. It was years
ago.
I'm not saying that this should be done, specially because it would
only solve 4 or 5 ties before a tournament like EC day 2.
Johannes Walch
When the national championship has less than 15 players not all
finalists qualify, but only the winner. A maximum rate of 33% (as in
LCQ) seems about right. Would be rather ridiculous to have a national
championship with 5 players = auto-qualify.
We have been increasing the number of possible qualifications in many
ways (mini-qualifiers, LCQ at 33% ...) but at some point there needs to
be a limit, else we can just dump the qualification system.
Brum
Again, I fully agree with you. Those seem like sensible rules.
But since those rules are not anywhere, and I believe they should be,
its rather unfair to impose them in just one case.
I'm sure that once these rules are clarified things will run more
smoothly.
Johannes Walch
I would put them somewhere if there was any access to the White-Wolf
website. Unfortunately there is no such access and there is no other
page to move the information to.
I�ll work on getting something up.
--
Johannes
Peter D Bakija
> But the randomness of dice is just... too random.
It is. This is true. But *all* tie breakers eventually end with "well,
we have to flip a coin, then". You can split and parse and split all
day long, but eventually, you are still going to end up with a tied
tie. And the only way to break the tied tie (or tied tied tied tie) is
random selection (well, that, or feat of strength, but there is only
so far that is going to get you...). As it stands, we have 3 levels of
ranking/tie breaking--GW/VP/TP. *Most* of the time, there is enough
differentiaton that you don't need to flip a coin. Every once and a
while, you do. If there was a 4th level of tie breaking, still, every
once and a while, you'd need to flip a coin. Sure, it sucks. But it is
really the only reasonable way to go about things.
-Peter
Drain
I see. And got to agree with you. Shame about the info being concealed
until late notice, though I didn't participate in said tournament.
Drain
Brum
But you do. You can talk to Robyn or Oscar and have the rules changed.
Then they would continue to be equal to everybody, since they would
change at the same time to everybody.
The rules are quite clear in the fact that a National Championship
qualifies the top 5 players. No exceptions.
If one would agree or not, that is a diferent question (in that one I
agree with you), but exceptions are not there.
Anyway, we don't expect to have the same problem again, since we'll be
organizing things sooner this year.
Cheers,
Tiago
librarian
Even the NFL has to use a coin toss as their 11/12th tie breaker:
http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures
best -
chris
librarian
Math people, help me out - my feeling is that at larger tournaments, you
are more likely to have a tie, since there will be more people with
exact same results. And of course at a larger tournament, it feels
worse to decide something like who is in the finals on a coin flip.
best -
chris
Frederick Scott
"Brum" <tiago...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3c166295-fe13-447b...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> But the randomness of dice is just... too random.
What are you going to do, though? The randomness of tournament points
is just too random for my blood. The whole concept is silly. TPs don't
begin to measure the quality of how a player played a tournament. They're
just a static version of rolling the die. On top of this, you want a
_different_ static version of rolling the die?
I'd question whether such systems are a good thing. In theory, they
allow players to predict whether they'd qualify for finals in a given
set of circumstances ("Joe on table 5 gets his oust before being ousted
by his predator whereas I win this table with 2 1/2 victory points;
would I get in or not?") which is actually not good because it might
encourage people to play games with their tournament standing in
mind. That is, it's OK to play with the mindset that, "The better I
do in this game, the better chance I'll have to make the finals." But
my understanding of the play-to-win rule is that it's NOT OK to play
with the goal that (for instance) "1 1/2 VPs gets me into the finals
but only 1 does not".
To that end, I think it's actually better to leave it to a die roll,
the result of which cannot be predicted until it takes place.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:he13i1$pqn$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> Math people, help me out - my feeling is that at larger tournaments, you are more likely to have a tie, since there will be more
> people with exact same results. And of course at a larger tournament, it feels worse to decide something like who is in the
> finals on a coin flip.
I think it would depend on the statistical curve. That is, to make the top
5 out of 12 is a different thing than making the top 5 out of 80. Of
necessity, the top 5 out of 80 will have won more victory points and
probably be less likely to land on exactly the same number of VPs and TPs.
On the other hand, the effect you cite matters, too. I don't know which
one would matter more. But my point is, it's not just the number of
people - it's also what position on the curve is one that matters for
breaking ties. (If there's a tie between three people for third place,
it would get broken but we wouldn't care that much about it. If there's
a tie for 12th place, we wouldn't care about it unless it's where the
qualification line stood. And with current rules, I'm hearing that it
wouldn't get broken anyway.)
Also, keep in mind: with more people, organizers tend to plan longer
tournaments. Three rounds provides more results than two round so there
will be fewer ties for that (indirect) reason.
Fred
LSJ
> That is, it's OK to play with the mindset that, "The better I
> do in this game, the better chance I'll have to make the finals." But
> my understanding of the play-to-win rule is that it's NOT OK to play
> with the goal that (for instance) "1 1/2 VPs gets me into the finals
> but only 1 does not".
PTW means that you play for the 1.5 VPs instead of the 1 VP for no other reason
than 1.5 > 1 (it has nothing to do with the finals).
PTW:
Play to get the best result reasonably possible for yourself.
Order of results:
1 GW
0 GW and 2 VP
0 GW and 1.5 VP
0 GW and 1 VP
0 GW and 0 VP
Frederick Scott
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:he178s$kff$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> That is, it's OK to play with the mindset that, "The better I
>> do in this game, the better chance I'll have to make the finals." But
>> my understanding of the play-to-win rule is that it's NOT OK to play
>> with the goal that (for instance) "1 1/2 VPs gets me into the finals
>> but only 1 does not".
>
> PTW means that you play for the 1.5 VPs instead of the 1 VP for no other reason
> than 1.5 > 1 (it has nothing to do with the finals).
>
> PTW:
>
> Play to get the best result reasonably possible for yourself.
Sure. I think the reason this is an issue has to do with evaluating scenarios
where a player is making value judgements between, say, a high chance of
finishing with 1.5 VPs (in the above scenario) vs. a smaller chance of going
for 2 VP or more and taking the game win.
Of course, neither strictly violates play-to-win, as the player is left to his
own devices in sorting out such priorities. I'm just saying that the value of
the rule, in my humble opinion, is to keep the opportunities for each game more
equal to all the players involved. So it doesn't have to matter to another
player - who may need a game win and a sweep to make the finals - whether he's
seated in a game where there's one or more people who are merely trying to get
a victory point or so and then sit on their positions rather than being seated
at a table of four other players who all feel they need to go for game wins.
The latter would certainly provide the easier opportunity to sweep.
You said it yourself: playing to get the best result reasonably possible for
yourself has nothing to do with the finals - which was my point.
Fred
Nico
> On Nov 17, 2:08 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Acbishop schrieb:
> > >> since they get resolved before the finals. You haven´t been the 6th
> > >> finalist, you have been no finalist.
>
> > >> That are the rules as they stand. We might think about changing them, we
> > >> might think about making an exception in this special case of hardship
> > >> (I mean getting booted out of the final AND not being qualified is
> > >> really hard).
>
> > > a qualification for next EC to someone who lost a dice roll. Specially
> > > with the rules for people tied in qualifiers. Cause I can understand
> > > that only one can play the final, but I think that Kamel and me both
> > > of us deserve the qualification for next EC. But as my usual luck now
> > > I'm fucked by a dice roll, no final, no qualify, nothing. It is so
> > > unfare. The rules of the qualifiers about getting the qualify for the
> > > players who tied is because the people tied did same valuable effort
> > > to get the qualify. So what's the difference between Kaml's efforts
> > > and mine during EC Day 2? I think no difference, same GWs, same VPs,
> > > same Table Points, the only difference is the result of a dice roll.
> > > How can a dice roll determine who deserve a qualification or not for
> > > next EC? I think it's enough punishment not to be in the EC Final,
> > > don't need to punish more saying "Listen guy, you are not good rolling
> > > a dice, you don't deserve being qualified for next European
> > > Championship for that", It is senseless.
>
> > I agree with you. I was just stating that the rules say otherwise and I
> > suggested to probably bend the rules a little in this situation. Rest
> > assured I´ll stay on it.
>
> Then I would suggest bending them for this occasion but also changing
> them for the future.
>
> //Alex- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
I totally agree with Alex...
Nicolas, French Prince of Oye Plage
Nico
And what about ECQ with 5 players ? such as in the UK ?
Kevin M.
> Math people, help me out - my feeling is that at larger tournaments,
> you are more likely to have a tie, since there will be more people
> with exact same results. And of course at a larger tournament, it
> feels worse to decide something like who is in the finals on a coin
> flip.
Of course your hypothesis is correct, and a coin flip sucks, sure.
The problem is: what else is there which we could use?
I'd just LOVE for the 4th tiebreaker to be:
- Number of tables finished before Time was called
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html