NWC Tournament Disqualifications - Tit and kynesie

[Kaiserklein]

I edited my post while you were replying, about that point.

Anyway what you just said isn't true. The game 1 is irrelevant since players agreed on a match up. So what matters is only the next games. The player who's down 2-0 actually had an advantage in game 2 lol, so it's only fair if the "2-0 player" has an advantage in game 3. Totally balanced so far, game 1 is fair, then they both had an advantage in one game.
The only case where these esoc rules are unfair is when the player who lost the first game ends up winning a series where an even amount of games was played. For example, the guy who lost first wins 3-1. Then it means he got to counterpick twice while his opponent could counterpick only once. That's all.

So in conclusion, the esoc rules are a bit in favour of the player who lost first game, only in the cases where that guy manages to win the series and it also happens to be an even number of games (so I guess that makes it roughly 25% probable). On the other hand, the escape rules are a bit in favour of the weaker player in every single series. So the esoc rules are arguably more fair, though less entertaining.

[Mitoe]

They're about the same, but it always felt dumb to be down 0-2 and then have to get counter picked.

[Kaiserklein]

They're about the same, but it always felt dumb to be down 0-2 and then have to get counter picked.

Yeah but that means you managed to lose on your counterpick, as well as losing a fair game where you agreed on a mu. So it's kind of deserved really. But I know what you mean, it feels rough.

[Jaeger]

At no point does losing a game improve your chances of winning a set.

But if you’re convinced of that, I recommend you try it and prove us all wrong! Strategic forfeiture, will we see it at LAN???

It doesn't increase your chances of winning the series, but it does increase your chance of winning the next game,which is stupid

But that results in more games which is good for the viewers.

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

Momentum. Maps. Staying in the series longer gives you more potential for a comeback.
It's not just a question of statistics. We've had this discussion before btw https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... icks+first

I look forward to the strategic forfeitures at LAN that will take advantage of this counterpick momentum to propel players to victories!

Leave no competitive advantage unsqueezed, I say!

Cute

It’s cute that you have to resort to ad hominem when confronted with the cognitive dissonance of your own position!

Yeah because your argument was in such good faith. *Sigh*

I have explicitly mentioned this is not just about statistics and you've ignored it.
You look at this and you treat the winning chance of someone who gets to counter pick as a constant, yes? My point is that it's not a constant. Someone who is up 2-1 (and just lost a game) and gets to counter pick is (much) more likely to lose than someone who is up 2-0 and gets to counter pick. There's this nasty thing called psychology. AoE3 games are not dice rolls, they're played by humans.

[Jaeger]

Show hidden quotes

Momentum. Maps. Staying in the series longer gives you more potential for a comeback.
It's not just a question of statistics. We've had this discussion before btw https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... icks+first

I look forward to the strategic forfeitures at LAN that will take advantage of this counterpick momentum to propel players to victories!

Leave no competitive advantage unsqueezed, I say!

Cute

It’s cute that you have to resort to ad hominem when confronted with the cognitive dissonance of your own position!

Yeah because your argument was in such good faith. *Sigh*

I have explicitly mentioned this is not just about statistics and you've ignored it.
You look at this and you treat the winning chance of someone who gets to counter pick as a constant, yes? My point is that it's not a constant. Someone who is up 2-1 (and just lost a game) and gets to counter pick is (much) more likely to lose than someone who is up 2-0 and gets to counter pick. There's this nasty thing called psychology. AoE3 games are not dice rolls, they're played by humans.

Lesllamas’ argument about strategic forfeiture has nothing to do with statistics. If you believe that losing gives you an advantage in winning the series, weather statistical, psychological, or otherwise, you should employ strategic forfeiture.

[Cometk]

I edited my post while you were replying, about that point.

Anyway what you just said isn't true. The game 1 is irrelevant since players agreed on a match up. So what matters is only the next games. The player who's down 2-0 actually had an advantage in game 2 lol, so it's only fair if the "2-0 player" has an advantage in game 3. Totally balanced so far, game 1 is fair, then they both had an advantage in one game.
The only case where these esoc rules are unfair is when the player who lost the first game ends up winning a series where an even amount of games was played. For example, the guy who lost first wins 3-1. Then it means he got to counterpick twice while his opponent could counterpick only once. That's all.

So in conclusion, the esoc rules are a bit in favour of the player who lost first game, only in the cases where that guy manages to win the series and it also happens to be an even number of games (so I guess that makes it roughly 1/4th of the series). On the other hand, the escape rules are a bit in favour of the weaker player in every single series. So the esoc rules are arguably more fair, though less entertaining.

Ok, I understand where you're coming from. In the regards to the totality of the series, Smackdown rules aren't unfair, but in consideration for a 3-0 series, it advantages the losing player. However that's only really in regards to the 3-0 where the losing player lost anyway. Or maybe I'm still missing something, sorry split-brained at work rn.

[princeofcarthage]

Blind picks!!! Also you are all on wrong thread!

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

Momentum. Maps. Staying in the series longer gives you more potential for a comeback.
It's not just a question of statistics. We've had this discussion before btw https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... icks+first

I look forward to the strategic forfeitures at LAN that will take advantage of this counterpick momentum to propel players to victories!

Leave no competitive advantage unsqueezed, I say!

Cute

It’s cute that you have to resort to ad hominem when confronted with the cognitive dissonance of your own position!

Yeah because your argument was in such good faith. *Sigh*

I have explicitly mentioned this is not just about statistics and you've ignored it.
You look at this and you treat the winning chance of someone who gets to counter pick as a constant, yes? My point is that it's not a constant. Someone who is up 2-1 (and just lost a game) and gets to counter pick is (much) more likely to lose than someone who is up 2-0 and gets to counter pick. There's this nasty thing called psychology. AoE3 games are not dice rolls, they're played by humans.

Lesllamas’ argument about strategic forfeiture has nothing to do with statistics. If you believe that losing gives you an advantage in winning the series, weather statistical, psychological, or otherwise, you should employ strategic forfeiture.

Lesslamas' argument about strategic forfeiture is either in bad faith or he is not worth discussing this with. In no way is anyone here implying that losing is advantageous. It's a comparison between 2 different rule sets, one of which is more advantageous to the weaker player than the other. Do I really need to explain that isn't the same as arguing that the weaker player has an advantage in the series with WPF rules? Are they not plainly two very different things?

[lesllamas]

Show hidden quotes

Momentum. Maps. Staying in the series longer gives you more potential for a comeback.
It's not just a question of statistics. We've had this discussion before btw https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... icks+first

I look forward to the strategic forfeitures at LAN that will take advantage of this counterpick momentum to propel players to victories!

Leave no competitive advantage unsqueezed, I say!

Cute

It’s cute that you have to resort to ad hominem when confronted with the cognitive dissonance of your own position!

Yeah because your argument was in such good faith. *Sigh*

I have explicitly mentioned this is not just about statistics and you've ignored it.
You look at this and you treat the winning chance of someone who gets to counter pick as a constant, yes? My point is that it's not a constant. Someone who is up 2-1 (and just lost a game) and gets to counter pick is (much) more likely to lose than someone who is up 2-0 and gets to counter pick. There's this nasty thing called psychology. AoE3 games are not dice rolls, they're played by humans.

This is not at all what my argument is about. I’m not even thinking about statistics (threw it out in my first post because as I stated, there’s no statistical difference between alternating pick and WPF, so any discussion about it must come down to holistic or qualitative assessment). I apologize if this was not clear.

My satirical statements are supposed to draw attention to the heart of the dissonance of this proposition:

—Matches were won by players that should not have won because they are presumably less skilled, but the counterpicking system conferred upon them an advantage that made up for the skill gap.

My refutation shows the absurdity of that proposition through syllogism:

If—A skill gap existed, and the worse player won the match.

If—The player who wins X out of Y games wins the series

If—The player who loses gets to counterpick in the following game *(edited for clarity)

If—The resulting order of maps and counterpicks creates so much “momentum” that he who lost at certain points wins the series not by being the better player, but rather as an artifact of counterpicking mechanics.

Then—In identical map and counterpicking environments, it would be advantageous for a player to mimic the outcome to take advantage of this “momentum”

Then—The only way to do this would be to intentionally forfeit in one or more places.

Point—That is obviously absurd. One of the “if” statements must be false. The only if statements that can be false are 1 and 4. The others are known and givens. If 1 is false, the better player won and the system is good. If 4 is false, 1 is also false.

[Goodspeed]

The fact that momentum changes the odds doesn't mean it changes the odds enough to make intentionally losing worth it. It doesn't mean the player who loses games has an advantage in the series. That was never my or anyone else's claim. You are arguing against an imaginary position. Convenient, isn't it?

[HUMMAN]

Well a kinda accept physocologically and cause of civ pool counterpick may allow to comeback in tourneys. But i wonder if that was the case if we just take into account skill, affect of counter pick, and number of matchs played as arbitrary values.
Here is the code for the purpose:

Code: Select all

// calc.cpp: Konsol uygulamasının giriş noktasını tanımlar.
//

#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>


std::vector<float> enterVal()
{
   std::cout << "Enter the power of P1 between 0-100: ";
   float P1;
   std::cin >> P1;
   std::cout << "Enter the power of P2 between 0-100: ";
   float P2;
   std::cin >> P2;
   std::cout << "Enter the advantage of counter pick between 0 and 1, 0 means counter pick does not affect result, 1 means counterpick always win: " << std::endl;
   float counter;
   std::cin >> counter;
   float p1counters;
   float p2counters;
   p1counters = (P1 / (P1 + P2))*(1 + counter);
   
   if (p1counters > 1)
         p1counters = 1;
   p2counters = (P2 / (P1 + P2))*(1 + counter);
   if (p2counters > 1)
      p2counters = 1;
   std::vector<float> returnVals;
   float p1base = (P1 / (P1 + P2));

   returnVals.push_back(p1counters);
   returnVals.push_back(p2counters);
   returnVals.push_back(p1base);
   return returnVals;


}

std::vector<std::vector<float>> alter (int bestOf,std::vector<float> info)

{
   int crit = (bestOf / 2 + 1);
   float base1 = info[2];
   float counter = info[0];
   float discounter = 1-info[1];
   
   std::vector<std::vector<float>> results;
   std::vector<float> start2(3);
   std::vector<float> start1(3);
   start1[0] = base1, start1[1] = 1, start1[2] = 0;
   start2[0] = 1-base1, start2[1] = 0, start2[2] = 1;
   results.push_back(start1);
   results.push_back(start2);
   
   
   
   for (int x = 0; x < results.size(); x++)
   {
      int flag = 0;
      while (flag < crit & (results[x][1] < crit) & (results[x][2] < crit))
      {
         int numb = results[x][1] + results[x][2];
         if (numb % 2)
         {
            std::vector<float> temp = results[x];//lose
            temp[0] *= 1 - counter;
            temp[2] += 1;
            results.push_back(temp);
            results[x][0] *= counter;//win
            results[x][1] += 1;

         }
         else
         {
            std::vector<float> temp = results[x];//lose
            temp[0] *= 1 - discounter;
            temp[2] += 1;
            results.push_back(temp);
            results[x][0] *= discounter;//win
            results[x][1] += 1;
         };
         flag++;
      };
      
   };
   return results;
   

}
std::vector<std::vector<float>> counter(int bestOf, std::vector<float> info)

{
   int crit = (bestOf / 2 + 1);
   float base1 = info[2];
   float counter = info[0];
   float discounter = 1 - info[1];

   std::vector<std::vector<float>> results;
   std::vector<float> start2(4);
   std::vector<float> start1(4);
   start1[0] = base1, start1[1] = 1, start1[2] = 0, start1[3]=1;
   start2[0] = 1 - base1, start2[1] = 0, start2[2] = 1, start2[3]=0;
   results.push_back(start1);
   results.push_back(start2);



   for (int x = 0; x < results.size(); x++)
   {
      int flag = 0;
      while (flag < crit & (results[x][1] < crit) & (results[x][2] < crit))
      {
         int numb = results[x][1] + results[x][2];
         if ((results[x][3]==0) || ( results[0][1]==0) )
         {
            std::vector<float> temp = results[x];//lose
            temp[0] *= 1 - counter;
            temp[2] += 1;
            temp[3] = 0;
            results.push_back(temp);
            results[x][0] *= counter;//win
            results[x][1] += 1;
            results[x][3] = 1;

         }
         else
         {
            std::vector<float> temp = results[x];//lose
            temp[0] *= 1 - discounter;
            temp[3] = 0;
            temp[2] += 1;
            results.push_back(temp);
            results[x][0] *= discounter;//win
            results[x][3] = 1;
            results[x][1] += 1;
         };
         flag++;
      };

   };
   return results;


}

void printvector(std::vector<std::vector<float>> input)
{
   float total = 0;
   float p1chance = 0;
   for (int x = 0; x < input.size(); x++)
   {
      std::cout << "Score: " << input[x][1] << "-" << input[x][2] << " chance: " << input[x][0] << std::endl;
      total += input[x][0];
      if (input[x][1] > input[x][2])
         p1chance += input[x][0];
   };
   std::cout << "Total Chance: " << total << std::endl;
   std::cout << "P1 Winning Chance: " << p1chance << std::endl;
}


int main()
{
   std::vector<float> win_chance = enterVal();
   std::cout << "Enter Best of Number: "<<std::endl;
   int best;
   std::cin >> best;
   
   printvector(alter(best, win_chance));
   printvector(counter(best, win_chance));

    return 0;
}

Results:
- as number of matches increase; better player has higher chance to win the series.
-The chance of winning the series is same regardless of alternate pick or counter pick. Which i found quite interesting and wonder it's mathematical proof.
-However, distribution is changed, for example in scenario with P1=80, P2=60 relative skills, second pick constant being 0.2 in bo5;
P1 wins 3-0 with 0.19 chance in alternate pick while in counter pick wins 3-0 with 0.13 chance; however total winning chance is in both cases same, 0.65.

[Goodspeed]

It's established that the two rule sets are statistically the same if winning odds are static throughout the series. But they aren't.

[lesllamas]

The fact that momentum changes the odds doesn't mean it changes the odds enough to make intentionally losing worth it. It doesn't mean the player who loses games has an advantage in the series. That was never my or anyone else's claim. You are arguing against an imaginary position. Convenient, isn't it?

This was the position from your earlier post that I take issue with:

“I think the civ picking rules contributed to these weird results. Having the winner pick first every time often leads to close series and can make even long series feel like best of 3's, where only one thing needs to go wrong for a victory to slip through your fingers even if you're the better player. This is the reason we went for alternating first picks at the time, and I believe the current rules to be misguided. But that's another discussion.”


I dispute that the counterpicking rules ever make the person who plays better lose the series. They played worse than their opponent and deserved to lose.

[Garja]

WPF is totally fine but with civ freedom of choice. When you can't pick the winning civ anymore that's a double advantage to the temporary loser.
This is why we need tri-civ rule

[lesllamas]

I think this issue has always come down to players who win a lot being generally annoyed that they have to slog through a bunch of series never getting counterpicks because they sweep their opponents, and it feels bad to never get to play matchups you enjoy. Consequently, the common thread is always these players complaining about “losers getting rewarded” and giving them an unfair advantage. It’s not really unfair, but I can entirely understand how it feels that way when you’re never the one accessing counterpicks.

[lesllamas]

WPF is totally fine but with civ freedom of choice. When you can't pick the winning civ anymore that's a double advantage to the temporary loser.
This is why we need tri-civ rule

I agree with this generally. IMO the most competitively balanced environment is one where players are free to choose whatever civ they want. Of course, this is also the most staling potential situation for many viewers in a community this small. If there were tons more events and players with more civ diversity and shorter average matches the cost to viewer interest would be much lower.

[Goodspeed]

The fact that momentum changes the odds doesn't mean it changes the odds enough to make intentionally losing worth it. It doesn't mean the player who loses games has an advantage in the series. That was never my or anyone else's claim. You are arguing against an imaginary position. Convenient, isn't it?

This was the position from your earlier post that I take issue with:

“I think the civ picking rules contributed to these weird results. Having the winner pick first every time often leads to close series and can make even long series feel like best of 3's, where only one thing needs to go wrong for a victory to slip through your fingers even if you're the better player. This is the reason we went for alternating first picks at the time, and I believe the current rules to be misguided. But that's another discussion.”


I dispute that the counterpicking rules ever make the person who plays better lose the series. They played worse than their opponent and deserved to lose.

You dispute an imaginary position.

The point was to draw a parallel between this and the difference between a best of 3 series and a longer series. In a bo3, win 2-1 you played better and you deserved it. But my point was about whether the series result reliably tells us who the better player is. A best of 1 series, as we all know, is not as reliable as a best of 9. That doesn't mean that if a worse player wins a best of 1 he didn't deserve it. He played better in that one game. But, importantly, he wouldn't have won the best of 9.

Similarly, WPF rules give the weaker player better chances than alternating first pick. Again, whoever wins the series played better in that particular series and deserved it, but WPF rules are (admittedly very slightly) less reliable in deciding who the better player is.

[HUMMAN]

It's established that the two rule sets are statistically the same if winning odds are static throughout the series. But they aren't.

Good point but i cant see difference in so called momentum. Lets take a lower guy in counter pick:
he won with second pick now he has to first pick which is an disadvantage.
In alternate pick
if he wins with second pick he play next match in disadvantage. (like counter pick)
if he wins with first pick, he play next match in advantage. (I think this can be called a good momentum)
So its harder to bash in counterpick system, however after player tries to comeback he is in disadvantage. In alternate pick, he has a chance to gain momentum if he wins with first pick.
However as i sad, due to civ limit, as series goes longer pro player may have higher chance to throw. If there was no civ limit, i cant see any reason giving worse player an advantage. Also as a bonus it makes series closer.

[Cometk]

@Goodspeed I'm not sure where Best of 3 series' ties into all this. A best of 3 with WPF rules would be the exact same as with alternating pick rules. This isn't what you're saying, right?

[lesllamas]

The fact that momentum changes the odds doesn't mean it changes the odds enough to make intentionally losing worth it. It doesn't mean the player who loses games has an advantage in the series. That was never my or anyone else's claim. You are arguing against an imaginary position. Convenient, isn't it?

This was the position from your earlier post that I take issue with:

“I think the civ picking rules contributed to these weird results. Having the winner pick first every time often leads to close series and can make even long series feel like best of 3's, where only one thing needs to go wrong for a victory to slip through your fingers even if you're the better player. This is the reason we went for alternating first picks at the time, and I believe the current rules to be misguided. But that's another discussion.”


I dispute that the counterpicking rules ever make the person who plays better lose the series. They played worse than their opponent and deserved to lose.

You dispute an imaginary position.

The point was to draw a parallel between this and the difference between a best of 3 series and a longer series. In a bo3, win 2-1 you played better and you deserved it. But my point was about whether the series result reliably tells us who the better player is. A best of 1 series, as we all know, is not as reliable as a best of 9. That doesn't mean that if a worse player wins a best of 1 he didn't deserve it. He played better in that one game. But, importantly, he wouldn't have won the best of 9.

Similarly, WPF rules give the weaker player better chances than alternating first pick. Again, whoever wins the series played better in that particular series and deserved it, but WPF rules are (admittedly very slightly) less reliable in deciding who the better player is.

I’m not sure I understand your point here, so please clarify before I respond to more so called imaginary positions:

Are you saying simultaneously that shorter series are less indicative of overall skill, but that a system which biases a series to last for MORE games is LESS indicative of overall skill....???

[Cometk]

There's also the case where the "weaker" player might be leading a 2-0 series but the WPF rules incline the "stronger" player to win game 3 and stay in the series longer, from which he has the continued opportunity to bring the series back to the expected result.

[nimanoe]

I think there is some confusion between the weaker player and the player that is currently losing.
In the WPF the player that is losing gains a small advantage, but that's not necessarily the weaker player.

[gibson]

@Kaiserklein it certainly gives a marginal advantage to the player who's performing worse in the series, but should not change the outcome of series' and is not an unfair format, as some others have been arguing.

Again this just goes to show that it gives the worse player an advantage since in a long series they'll get more counterpicks and will be more likely to won a game or two early.

@gibson the number of counterpicks per player does not change should the series go longer than a clean sweep. the only difference is the order in which players counterpick each other

yes?

Just wanted to make clear there wasn't a misunderstanding since your wording is a bit strange.

what I meant is it's more likely to turn a 4-1 series into a 4-2 or 4-3.

[Kaiserklein]

I think people arguing that the winner picks first + can't use his civ again doesn't favour the weaker player just don't have aoe3 tourney experience. So much talk about stats and maths, and so little consideration for actual tourney stuff.
It's much harder to clean sweep someone, even if he's lower and "deserves" to get swept, when he keeps counterpicking you on several kinds of maps, with any civ of his choice, while your own civ pool gets smaller. Or even to beat him, say, 4-1. And believe what you want, but as the underdog, being able to win 1 or 2 games thanks to that makes a comeback much more likely