Fairness of matchups

lordraphael · Post by **lordraphael** » 03 Jul 2015, 10:31

hunter wrote:Imagine football would be so boring if you have had same 8 teams for every quarterfinal...

there simply arent that many good players left anymore and the only way to bring (good) people back is by hosting tourneys and creating competition. The chances that a low lvl player suddenly becomes the next h2o or samwise is very unlikely.

macacoalbino · Post by **macacoalbino** » 03 Jul 2015, 14:17

jerom wrote:
diarouga wrote:If we bann iro and otto and choose fair maps, it is because we want the bests to win not the more lucky isnt it?
The best will win even if he has tough opponents, thats the idea. Im not saying the way it was done here was wrong, but it is discrimination towards lower ranked players, and I can understand that they are upset with that.

Sure, the way current seeding was done, is fair as far as good players are concerned. What we are trying to achieve with the discussion is a system that keeps this fairness in the top, but brings something interesting for the bottom players as well. Random seeding wouldnt be a guarateed solution to this, and would also fuck up the fairness of top level players. Imagine that the second best faces the best in the first round, he would never be able to reach his deserved prize.
In my opinion, for next tourneys, the organizers could think of some sort of qualifiers for everybody under PR or Elo x with a limited ammount of spots. Then the main event would keep the normal seeding and lower players can have 1 or 2 good games before facing an opponent whos way better.
Is this too hard to implement for future events? If someone who helped organize spring or summer champs is reading this, pls tell me if its a good idea

To me this is a way to bring the whole community together and keep that high Eso Population we praise so much.

musketjr · Post by **musketjr** » 03 Jul 2015, 14:25

lordraphael wrote:
hunter wrote:Imagine football would be so boring if you have had same 8 teams for every quarterfinal...
there simply arent that many good players left anymore and the only way to bring (good) people back is by hosting tourneys and creating competition. The chances that a low lvl player suddenly becomes the next h2o or samwise is very unlikely.

tbh this happens anyway

the last 4 in the champions league are going to be barcelona/real madrid/bayern then pick n mix from 3 or 4 teams

most sports are pretty predictable toward the latter stages. some less so, sure, but its not abnormal to see the same faces showing up

Garja · Post by **Garja** » 03 Jul 2015, 15:59

which also means the sport/game is good enough

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 03 Jul 2015, 16:51

I fail to see why this is an issue Tbh. The good players are gonna win and t he bad players are gonna end up loosing no matter whether it happens in the first round or the last. Don't complain about getting to play less games. Just go play and pretend it's a tourney lol. A game in a tourney is exactly the same as one out. The same civs are strong and the same Bo is viable.

The reason why most sporting events are seeded the way they are is because of the money. Take for example the men's ncaa basketball tournament. ESPN and CBS I think have a contract with the ncaa to show the tournament. Privetly held companies have contracts with ESPN and CBS to show commercials. How much Budweiser pays ESPN for a sixty second commercial is based off of the Chanel's television rankings. The Chanel will have much higher ratings if they show Wisconsin (#1 seed) vs duke (#1 seed) then Wisconsin vs Austin peay (white scrub team) because the game will be more interesting. This motivates the NCAA to set up the tourney so the two best teams will meet in the finals because ESPN will pay them more for the rights to show the tourney because they know they will get more money from Budweiser if the trouney is interesting.

Television contracts are not an issue for aoe3, but Chanel viewership is. The more people watch the Chanel, the more the Chanel will be publicised and the more people will here about aoe3. This is why top players must meet in the final. No one is going to go watch a master sergeant scrub play a top player, but people will come watch two top players play. The longer and more interesting the better

divine_moon · Post by **divine_moon** » 03 Jul 2015, 17:01

i think it's not the fact that they'll lose ultimately that's disappointed the lower rank players gibson, it's the fact that they'll all get such a tough pairing in the first round itself that, they'll get knocked out...

No one expects a scrub to go to the final ..

we all know they'll all fall along the way.. but it's the fact that they won't get to play more than 2 matches is possibly a disappointing thought. (i for example WILL surely get knocked out when i play over the weekend..

i know it... ) we don't expect ANY upsets do we with this table?

maybe next tourney we can have level based tiers, from which people get "promoted" into the top256 draws, it would possibly ensure everyone gets more than 1 player to play against... more details on this can be worked out after this tourney...

momuuu · Post by **momuuu** » 03 Jul 2015, 18:28

It's not as much a problem as it is an area that could potentially be improved upon.

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 03 Jul 2015, 19:00

divinemoon wrote:i think it''s not the fact that they''ll lose ultimately that''s disappointed the lower rank players gibson, it''s the fact that they''ll all get such a tough pairing in the first round itself that, they''ll get knocked out...

No one expects a scrub to go to the final .. we all know they''ll all fall along the way.. but it''s the fact that they won''t get to play more than 2 matches is possibly a disappointing thought. (i for example WILL surely get knocked out when i play over the weekend.. i know it... ) we don''t expect ANY upsets do we with this table?

maybe next tourney we can have level based tiers, from which people get "promoted" into the top256 draws, it would possibly ensure everyone gets more than 1 player to play against... more details on this can be worked out after this tourney...

So why is playing in a tourney so much better then just playing normally? Its not. If you''re dissapointed not to make it far in the tourney, there are hundreds of players willing to play you independently of the tourney

momuuu · Post by **momuuu** » 03 Jul 2015, 19:04

gibson wrote:
divinemoon wrote:i think its not the fact that theyll lose ultimately thats disappointed the lower rank players gibson, its the fact that theyll all get such a tough pairing in the first round itself that, theyll get knocked out...

No one expects a scrub to go to the final .. we all know theyll all fall along the way.. but its the fact that they wont get to play more than 2 matches is possibly a disappointing thought. (i for example WILL surely get knocked out when i play over the weekend.. i know it... ) we dont expect ANY upsets do we with this table?

maybe next tourney we can have level based tiers, from which people get "promoted" into the top256 draws, it would possibly ensure everyone gets more than 1 player to play against... more details on this can be worked out after this tourney...
So why is playing in a tourney so much better then just playing normally? Its not. If youre dissapointed not to make it far in the tourney, there are hundreds of players willing to play you independently of the tourney

What do you think about the idea of different leagues then?

Then the medium players can play for maintaining themself in say, the highest league, while the lower players can still have fun and have a shot at getting pretty far in their league or even winning it.

Id like this solution the most, but its hard to continuously have these tournements with changing sign ups.

macacoalbino · Post by **macacoalbino** » 03 Jul 2015, 19:07

I'd rather have a qualifying round or a group stage with people till pr X who fight to get to RO128 or something like that.

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 03 Jul 2015, 19:28

jerom wrote:
gibson wrote:So why is playing in a tourney so much better then just playing normally? Its not. If youre dissapointed not to make it far in the tourney, there are hundreds of players willing to play you independently of the tourney
What do you think about the idea of different leagues then?

Then the medium players can play for maintaining themself in say, the highest league, while the lower players can still have fun and have a shot at getting pretty far in their league or even winning it.

Id like this solution the most, but its hard to continuously have these tournements with changing sign ups.

What exactly is meant by a league? Does it just mean that players between x-y play for z amount of weeks and at the end there is someway of determining a winner?

momuuu · Post by **momuuu** » 03 Jul 2015, 19:34

gibson wrote:
jerom wrote:What do you think about the idea of different leagues then?

Then the medium players can play for maintaining themself in say, the highest league, while the lower players can still have fun and have a shot at getting pretty far in their league or even winning it.

Id like this solution the most, but its hard to continuously have these tournements with changing sign ups.
What exactly is meant by a league? Does it just mean that players between x-y play for z amount of weeks and at the end there is someway of determining a winner?

Just like, the top 64 play in a tournement. People that drop out in the first round will have to play for seeds in the top tournement again (or something like that), while the lwoer players play in a lower tournement and can try to play in the top tournement. Then, if they play in the top tournement, there might be the personal goal of maintaining yourself there, while the goal could be to get to the top tournement if you arent there already. And even if you dont have any chance to get there, youd have the possibility to still get reasonably far in the B tournement since the skill level is not that high.

Like that way theres actually things to play for. Just look at the brackets, mostly 2-0s now that might aswell have not been played because they were plain stomps.

jsimons1289 · Post by **jsimons1289** » 03 Jul 2015, 19:43

well veni won 5-0 vs naga which was a surprise. But you saying because it was 5-0 in hindsight they might as well not have played?

macacoalbino · Post by **macacoalbino** » 03 Jul 2015, 20:08

You understand what he said man. Come on, ONE 5-0 match is one thing, 127 2-0's in 128 matches are completely different.

momuuu · Post by **momuuu** » 03 Jul 2015, 20:29

Well, my games were close to a waste of time. A sergeant is never going to beat a captain ever.

jsimons1289 · Post by **jsimons1289** » 03 Jul 2015, 20:51

macacoalbino wrote:You understand what he said man. Come on, ONE 5-0 match is one thing, 127 2-0''s in 128 matches are completely different.

If you suck you''re going to lose. I really don''t get what you''re expecting here :/

momuuu · Post by **momuuu** » 03 Jul 2015, 20:55

jsimons1289 wrote:
macacoalbino wrote:You understand what he said man. Come on, ONE 5-0 match is one thing, 127 2-0s in 128 matches are completely different.
If you suck youre going to lose. I really dont get what youre expecting here :/

I was trying to come up with other ways to organise the tournement.

Unfortunately every now and then someone passes by who isnt capable of understanding how horrible this format is for lower level players. I think the main function of a tournement is granting as much people as much fun as possible, but apperantly some people only want to get as far in the tournement as possible facing the least resistance as possible.

jsimons1289 · Post by **jsimons1289** » 03 Jul 2015, 21:02

I suggested some fun ways you can organise a different type of tournament. I had lots of these conversations when I ran the NerVe tourney a few years ago.

It seems the lower players want some kind of advantage for being bad. With any competition, you need to get better if you want to win. Or you want some 'luck' to get further. Get further why? You won't get far enough to win anything, because eventually you'll meet someone good. So what is it you're looking for?

macacoalbino · Post by **macacoalbino** » 03 Jul 2015, 21:09

jsimons1289 wrote:
macacoalbino wrote:You understand what he said man. Come on, ONE 5-0 match is one thing, 127 2-0s in 128 matches are completely different.
If you suck youre going to lose. I really dont get what youre expecting here :/

Exactly this, lower players want to expect something as well. Even if they dont reach later stages, winning a match or two is nice, or just having one balanced match, where they have a chance to win. There are systems that allow for this to happen without fucking up better players chances.

benj89 · Post by **benj89** » 03 Jul 2015, 21:12

agree with @macacoalbino

jsimons1289 · Post by **jsimons1289** » 03 Jul 2015, 21:14

You can win a match or two in quick search within 1 or 4 tiers. Why does it have to be in a tourney? I would've thought lower players join to play players that ordinarily would kick them from their games - generally you get better by playing better players. Sure - you don't have a chance if you're playing the best players, but you'll have to play them at some point if you keep winning matches vs lower ranked players, right?

Even having a 'mini-tourney' before the tournament could work, but when you enter the main draw, you'll then have to play good players and lose? So the position is the same - you play people your level (what do you learn from that? Why does it have to be in a tournament?) and then you enter the main draw, and then you play a better player for one match and lose.

Even capping PR doesn't work. Because you'll still have a spectrum of players. It may be narrower, but still there will be 'top players', just defined more narrowly.

As mentioned before, change up the rules of the entire tourney, not the format. Throw in some crazy rules to nullify part of the learned advantage for the top players. This will allow lower level players to have a better of chance of going further. I just don't see the point of lower players winning a game or two to feel better.

Post by **_H2O** » 03 Jul 2015, 23:04

We are looking at qualifiers since there was a large mid tier group interested. We think by shaving the top players off of that process it will create more fun for others. At the same time if you are pr 15 it's not gonna be easy to win games.

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 03 Jul 2015, 23:23

jerom wrote:
gibson wrote:What exactly is meant by a league? Does it just mean that players between x-y play for z amount of weeks and at the end there is someway of determining a winner?
Just like, the top 64 play in a tournement. People that drop out in the first round will have to play for seeds in the top tournement again (or something like that), while the lwoer players play in a lower tournement and can try to play in the top tournement. Then, if they play in the top tournement, there might be the personal goal of maintaining yourself there, while the goal could be to get to the top tournement if you arent there already. And even if you dont have any chance to get there, youd have the possibility to still get reasonably far in the B tournement since the skill level is not that high.

Like that way theres actually things to play for. Just look at the brackets, mostly 2-0s now that might aswell have not been played because they were plain stomps.

So basically like soccer in Europe

[Armag] diarouga · Post by **[Armag] diarouga** » 04 Jul 2015, 05:27

h2o wrote:We are looking at qualifiers since there was a large mid tier group interested. We think by shaving the top players off of that process it will create more fun for others. At the same time if you are pr 15 it''s not gonna be easy to win games.

Good idea.

divine_moon · Post by **divine_moon** » 04 Jul 2015, 11:17

First of all jsimons1289, lower rated players don't want an "advantage", neither are they here 'cuz they "get kicked" from most games they join, there are TONS of low rated players games, i'd think they're here 'cuz they feel they want to be &' are a part of a "community".. sheesh .......why else would they join? unless some nub thinks they're gonna win the 1k

A communitys supposed to be one with higher &' lower rated players, where people play for fun, converse &' help each other out...

since gibson asked about what kind of system i'll put out what i have in mind:
I'd think maybe have 3 tiers? based on PR. where people face off against mostly their PR &' slightly above, then the top 16 from each face off in a TOP league ?

eg:

A League (Can Have top 32 Players)
B League (33-128)
C League (128=256)

^ have that as knock out to reach top of groups.

next,

Top 16 from each group face off in a 64 player face off:

A League top 16
B League top 16
C League top 16
16 Wild cards

the remaining 16 from A, B &' C can face off for the wild card entries. Wild Cards can also be handed out to interesting players who are low rated but play a "different" kind of game (can be community voted)..

this would obviously be lot more work as the organisers would have to first have 3 tables for the "knockout leagues" then the "Main 64" draw. but it should ensure that lower rated players get at least more than 2 matches..

(unless ofc they're super bad to lose in round 1 in this format! <'- very likely me ') )

Also notice how the main "Top 32" top tier players WILL reach the finals of the tourney.

would be interesting set of ides huh?

ESOC

Top Live Streams

Legacy AoE3