weathertop wrote:Litotes wrote:agwyvern wrote:

It does look like the old method, "score", is still active, just not visible, and acts as the tiebreaker in these kinds of tourneys.

So that's how I ended up with the trophy? As mentioned in the tourney messages, i didn't think 4-6 should be in the running; but wasn't going to complain too hard.

So, if this is true, how does the score play out in the second example in determining which team got the win and the trophy.

I'm afraid I am not communicating my point here. In the 6 way Tie I don't understand the logic of someone in the second tier of 3 even being considered for the win, lacking in both H2H and SODOS. In other tourneys if a couple of players finish with same record a difference in H2H is highlighted in red and one is declared the winner and shows them as the winner in the Status column.

In the two examples I show it appears that the win and the trophy are awarded to the PLAYER/TEAM LISTED LAST IN THE STAUS COLUMN AS TIED (Yes you have to side scroll, didn't take that into account on my screenshots. Sorry, but a shrug of the shoulders and "it must be the tournament score" isn't selling me. Are we talking about the tournament score that appears briefly at the end of match and disappears?

The tourney side of things get no respect, lol. But if you look at the percentage of games created every day, it's close to a third of the games on any given day, and if you give it some thought you know those games are much more likely to be filled and completed compared to games with larger number of players on the TnT (Truce n Treachery) side of things known as the regular games.

hootz72 wrote:I'm afraid I am not communicating my point here. In the 6 way Tie I don't understand the logic of someone in the second tier of 3 even being considered for the win, lacking in both H2H and SODOS. In other tourneys if a couple of players finish with same record a difference in H2H is highlighted in red and one is declared the winner and shows them as the winner in the Status column.

In the two examples I show it appears that the win and the trophy are awarded to the PLAYER/TEAM LISTED LAST IN THE STAUS COLUMN AS TIED (Yes you have to side scroll, didn't take that into account on my screenshots. Sorry, but a shrug of the shoulders and "it must be the tournament score" isn't selling me. Are we talking about the tournament score that appears briefly at the end of match and disappears?

The tourney side of things get no respect, lol. But if you look at the percentage of games created every day, it's close to a third of the games on any given day, and if you give it some thought you know those games are much more likely to be filled and completed compared to games with larger number of players on the TnT (Truce n Treachery) side of things known as the regular games.

I understand the logic. I don't approve, but I understand it.

Number of wins decide who is in contention.

H2H is first tiebreaker. If it decides, nice, we have a winner. If it doesn't, disregard it completely.

SODOS is 2nd tiebreaker. If it decides, nice, we have a winner. If it doesn't, disregard it completely.

Score is 3rd tiebreaker. And yes, the tournament score that appears briefly. After a win in R1 against an opponent who haven't finished anything else yet you get 10500. A loss gives 9500. Then you get around 500 for further wins and around 500 for further losses, but like with other rankings it depends on what your opponent has so if you with 10500 beat another 10500 you get 11000 (common in elimination tourneys) but if you beat someone on 9500 you get less. Here it pays to beat the least successful opponents early (before their score tumbles too far from 10000) and the most successful opponents late (after they've improved on the initial 10000).

M57 wrote:How about a tie breaker after SODOS/SOWOS or whatever is chosen based more or less what we have now? (..the scoring system where everyone comes in at 10,000) Combine the somewhat arbitrary old with whatever new we come up with for a compromise solution?

--> New system / Old System.

Probably the only instance it will be used is in the circular win case, and it's likely as good as anything else we can come up with; AND there are a couple of plusses I can think of. It's already coded ..and understood by the community in that it's essentially the system we use for global and board rankings. Tom has it ready and waiting. It could be hidden from view during the tournaments and only posted/announced if/when it is used.

This is in fact what happened.

Apart from the being posted/announced when it is used.

The calculation for change in score appears to be (loser's score/winner's score) x 500.

My issue with this is:

The discrepancy in the first tiebreaker should eliminate the bottom tier of folks from consideration for the win. The second tiebreaker does the same.

If you take one individual from the first tier and put them up against any one of the second tier and say those were the only top two finishers in any tourney the final standings would show top tier tied player as the winner with the bottom tier player as one of the losers and H2H would be highlighted in red.

So after the first tie breaker is employed there really should only be 3 players left in contention for the win, not 6.

This comes from decades of running pool/softball/fantasy football leagues and tournaments, if a winner was announced from the second tier to any one of the leagues I can say it would result in police reports across the board, lol.

That's my point, tie breakers were employed and should have eliminated the bottom tier from contention. I don't want the win/trophy, I don't want wt to lose the win/trophy, I want this to work logically and it doesn't.

Thanks Litotes that was a lot of work for you and it was avoidable had I expressed what my issue was a little more clearly.

No worries, it wasn't too much work and I understood you perfectly. I said I understood it but didn't agree with it. I just established what happened. Any tiebreaker that doesn't produce a winner is then simply disregarded, and not used to separate anyone into tier 1 and tier 2. A better tiebreaker (in my opinion) would have, so that the best score of the top-3, if anyone, should win.

As I said in the tourney messages: I don't think anyone is disagreeing that the fact that there were a 2nd grouping of 3 that could be considered as winner is just plain wrong.

I think there's a break in the code logic that skipped from W/L to SCORE when is has been established that W/L > H2H > SODOS ?>? SCORE is the precedence.

Having proof that it skipped the logic is good. Tom should be able to work his way thru and find the break.

and i don't recall there being an official 4th option (i.e. SCORE). i thought it stopped at SODOS and if there was still a tie all (or none? can't remember what the official result was) got the trophy and the win count incremented.

I have never seen an example of a tourney providing trophies to more than one person or one team.

Likewise I have never seen a tournament not produce a trophy to one player or one team.

dunno; i can't remember ones where there was a 3way tie. and i can't figure out how to sort tourneys anywhere close to that condition.

I remember mine. All of them gave a trophy to someone, even though noone was officiually declared "winner".

Well, the example in post 96 is pretty amazing. And seems to be solvable. Nice observation, Hootz72.

There is another option entirely: No trophy, no winner. The SCOREs will be calculated properly and we all want to keep playing. The graphic is made. One could set up a rematch. Heck, there could even be a prompt for the rematch with clear losers surrendering before round 1. ;)

I think everyone agrees the tiebreaking coding didn't work correctly in that particularly extreme case and needs fixing. I will also issue an apology for a misinterpretation. When I said "show your work" regarding the use of the SCORE as the tiebreaker I honestly did not mean to take advantage of Litotes' good will and coax him into calculating it, I meant it should have it's vary own column in the standings. It could even highlight the tiebreaker used to establish the winner like it does the other tiebreakers. So that's the suggestion - fix the tiebreaker mechanism and show the tourney score in the standings.

Also, sorry to Litotes

hootz72 wrote:I think everyone agrees the tiebreaking coding didn't work correctly in that particularly extreme case and needs fixing. I will also issue an apology for a misinterpretation. When I said "show your work" regarding the use of the SCORE as the tiebreaker I honestly did not mean to take advantage of Litotes' good will and coax him into calculating it, I meant it should have it's vary own column in the standings. It could even highlight the tiebreaker used to establish the winner like it does the other tiebreakers. So that's the suggestion - fix the tiebreaker mechanism and show the tourney score in the standings.

Also, sorry to Litotes

No need to apologize. I love numbers and I like to calculate. And I'm curious and wanted to find out for sure.

I also agree, as Score is still used it would be better to have it visible again like in the past.

I have no luck with score, btw. I've had five tournaments end up in ties by any other method and in all five someone else got the trophy. Most recently I had a six wins and one termination in seven rounds go to the other one with the same result. That was on Dolbamache Saray.

https://www.wargear.net/tournaments/view/3460