suggestion for tie breakers
- juliuscaesar007
- Musketeer
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Jan 4, 2017
- ESO: juliuscaesar007
suggestion for tie breakers
No tie breaker rules are fair i think most can agree on this. This is maybe a wild suggestion and would take extra time and work but what if we had a jury like thing wich looks at all the replays in case of a tie in group. Then they can give something like score for who they think they played best and thus deserves to go trough?
- juliuscaesar007
- Musketeer
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Jan 4, 2017
- ESO: juliuscaesar007
Re: suggestion for tie breakers
because if you have a jury of like 3 or 5 people who watch the games they should have a decent idea who played better and thus deserves to go trough right? so thats the idea of a tournament right the player who played best goes trough. Ao that seems more fair then someone who is higher seeded but maybe just been playing alot of EP goes trough. In this case u could argue ppl can like postpone their games until a tiebreak wich they would win cuz higher elo lol this is more keen to be abused i think and it serves not the purpose of rewarding good play wich i think my idea does. I know its not flawless and u could argue like friend politics and stuff but i think they are enough people who can look at the games with an open and impartial look.
- dicktator_
- Howdah
- Posts: 1565
- Joined: Nov 14, 2015
- ESO: Conquerer999
Re: suggestion for tie breakers
I'd rather they try something like double elimination 4 player groups instead of the 3 player groups.
Player A vs Player B
Player C vs Player D
Winner's match (winner advances 1st)
Loser's match (loser is out)
Loser of winner's match vs winner of losers match (winner advances 2nd loser is out)
The advantage of this is that every match matters and ties are impossible. Disadvantage is that it's more matches (every match matters is also a disadvantage because it means every match must be played, also two players in the group will have to play 3 matches instead of 2) which means more scheduling, also u have to get the number of players in this stage divisible by 4 (maybe make the placement matches like this but leave qualifiers unchanged).
Player A vs Player B
Player C vs Player D
Winner's match (winner advances 1st)
Loser's match (loser is out)
Loser of winner's match vs winner of losers match (winner advances 2nd loser is out)
The advantage of this is that every match matters and ties are impossible. Disadvantage is that it's more matches (every match matters is also a disadvantage because it means every match must be played, also two players in the group will have to play 3 matches instead of 2) which means more scheduling, also u have to get the number of players in this stage divisible by 4 (maybe make the placement matches like this but leave qualifiers unchanged).
steniothejonjoe wrote:I can micro better than 99% of the player base and that's 100% objective
Re: suggestion for tie breakers
Pretty much this ^
Re: suggestion for tie breakers
juliuscaesar007 wrote:because if you have a jury of like 3 or 5 people who watch the games they should have a decent idea who played better and thus deserves to go trough right? so thats the idea of a tournament right the player who played best goes trough. Ao that seems more fair then someone who is higher seeded but maybe just been playing alot of EP goes trough. In this case u could argue ppl can like postpone their games until a tiebreak wich they would win cuz higher elo lol this is more keen to be abused i think and it serves not the purpose of rewarding good play wich i think my idea does. I know its not flawless and u could argue like friend politics and stuff but i think they are enough people who can look at the games with an open and impartial look.
Code: Select all
7.1 - In the case of a tie during the group stages, the following protocol will be used in deciding a winner:
1) Most Series Wins
2) Most Game Wins
3) Highest ELO
Admins reserve the right to make Activity Decisions that may supersede steps 2 and 3.
Seed isn't even the first criteria, it is just a residual one and it has the perk of being objective. Not to mention it is the seed at the time of the sign up, so you can't manipulate games as you say (which would be extremely unlikely to happen anyway).
Subjectively deciding who plays better is far less fair than a math criteria which instead is not subject to opinion. If anything were to be argued would perhaps be that the lowest seeded player should go through, as breaking even with higher seeded players somehow means he overperformed.
With that said, admins do have some residual discretion but that's for behavior-related stuff mostly.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest