Purely and simply, because elimination-style tournaments where multiple players advance are in the works, the rankings for tourneys and Ranked games should not be combined.

In a situation where you can advance an elimination round by getting 2nd place, "playing for 2nd" is a valid and legitimate winning strategy. If you don't agree with that statement you are simply wrong.

This tourney hasn't started the second round, even though all first round games have completed: http://www.wargear.net/tournaments/view/1

I think it has something to do with the game btw. glenn and captmorgan, as neither of them have a win recorded on the leaderboard but the game was completed with a boot.

Leaderboard shows blackdog as 6 games finished with 6 wins but clicking on View only shows 5 games http://www.wargear.net/tournaments/view/11?viewselector=Tournament-Player&filter2=fbfae5aba936c580c90b5d4480d1b6d9#tabs-games I believe it is missing the Surrendered game (Round 4 Game 4, which should also display differently somehow on the Rounds tab of the tournament).

asm wrote:
In a situation where you can advance an elimination round by getting 2nd place, "playing for 2nd" is a valid and legitimate winning strategy. If you don't agree with that statement you are simply wrong.

Sure, it could be a winning strategy as far as the tournament goes, but not for that specific game goes.  If you start a game with the goal of getting second place, then you full-well deserve to have your ranking lowered because of it.  Everyone should play every game with the intent to win it.  Sure, during a tournament game it may become apparent part of the way through that your best bet is to just hole-up and go for second to advance in the round, but you've still lost that game.

I guess the thesis of my argument is that every player should go into every game with the intent to play to the best of their ability regardless of if it part of a tournament or not.  "Playing for 2nd" could be a winning strategy for the tournament (and thus reflected in tournament stats), but a losing strategy for the game and therefore makes it no different than any other game you'd play.

Toaster wrote:

asm wrote:
In a situation where you can advance an elimination round by getting 2nd place, "playing for 2nd" is a valid and legitimate winning strategy. If you don't agree with that statement you are simply wrong.

Sure, it could be a winning strategy as far as the tournament goes, but not for that specific game goes.  If you start a game with the goal of getting second place, then you full-well deserve to have your ranking lowered because of it.  Everyone should play every game with the intent to win it.  Sure, during a tournament game it may become apparent part of the way through that your best bet is to just hole-up and go for second to advance in the round, but you've still lost that game.

 

I guess the thesis of my argument is that every player should go into every game with the intent to play to the best of their ability regardless of if it part of a tournament or not.  "Playing for 2nd" could be a winning strategy for the tournament (and thus reflected in tournament stats), but a losing strategy for the game and therefore makes it no different than any other game you'd play.

Sorry Toaster, but you are begging the question, as well as throwing up a strawman.

Your strawman is 'starting the game with the goal of getting second place', then you knock it down with 'Everyone should play every game with the intent to win it'.  Yes, of course.  Even in tournaments everyone STARTS a game with the intent to win.  Move on.

You are begging the question by assuming that tournament games are the same as every other game, which is the very assertion that we are arguing (discussing).  You then use that assertion to point out that if you play a losing strategy for a game that is the same as every other game, then you should suffer the same penalties for doing so.

I'm not saying you have an invalid opinion, but you do have invalid logic to back it up.

"In a situation where you can advance an elimination round by getting 2nd place, "playing for 2nd" is a valid and legitimate winning strategy. If you don't agree with that statement you are simply wrong."

Right now with the Swiss style you certainly can argue that there is nothing different about these games, but as asm points out rather eloquently an elimination style game is demonstrably NOT the same as a regular game, and if you don't agree with that statement you are simply wrong.

I had this whole elaborate attempt at intelligent rebuttal worked out, but it may be more effective (especially because it's late and I always think I'm cooler than I actually am when I'm sleep deprived) to just use simple analogy.


On the back of a baseball card, do you see player stats broken up by regular season, post season, all-star, etc.?  No; every game effects your career stats as one total.  I was going to use hockey, but you guys all seem to be baseball people.

The point is, that in the simple snapshot of player performance it just seems ridiculous that things are getting broken up into so many categories.

Bengal and Yertle - I'll fix up those tournaments as soon as I can, may be another 24 hours before I can get them working again.

WHAT??? LACK OF SERVICE! I'M LEAVING!

;-) Thanks tom, appreciated as always.

I don't get the baseball card analogy, but who buys those things anymore anyway? Check out baseball-reference.com and tell me that WarGear stats are too complicated and granular compared to baseball stats. ;)

Mostly I want to post +1 for 11's actually using the proper meaning of the 'begging the question' fallacy and explicating it elegantly and concisely.

While toaster might not have had some bad arguments, those should not be used to dodge the good argument he did have, which is that if you lose a tourney game, whether or not you are playing for second by the end, you did lose that game.

Disagree.

If I am playing a team game and I lose but my team won, did I lose?

Alpha wrote: If I am playing a team game and I lose but my team won, did I lose?

You shouldn't.  If you're eliminated in a team game it shouldn't matter or make a difference to rankings/standing in any way (other than going down as a Player Eliminated stat for the person that eliminated you).

Someone surrendered in the GearWars tournament so now it shows the following on My Tournaments list: Players 10, Joined 9 (seems a bit odd IMO).

2

2010-04-23

Gear Wars: Tournament I

Round Robin

Gear Wars: Episode I

10

9

Live

If I am playing a team game and I lose but my team won, did I lose?

Team games never apply towards stats, as I understand it?

I think you're missing his point.

BlackDog wrote:

If I am playing a team game and I lose but my team won, did I lose?

Team games never apply towards stats, as I understand it?

You have a team stats section on your profile.  Although I thought he just asked a general question and not in regards to the should tournament games be Ranked discussion, so perhaps I missed his point too :P

*edit* Reading more...I think I definitely missed his point :P

For tournament games, on the info page, can we get the Hosted By: "Tournament" row changed to have the name of the tournament and the name link to the tournament page instead of saying "Tournament"?

Yertle wrote:

BlackDog wrote:

If I am playing a team game and I lose but my team won, did I lose?

Team games never apply towards stats, as I understand it?

You have a team stats section on your profile.  Although I thought he just asked a general question and not in regards to the should tournament games be Ranked discussion, so perhaps I missed his point too :P

 

*edit* Reading more...I think I definitely missed his point :P

I'm glad the point was at least seen ;), but I really see them as being the same, so that tournament games don't count if team games don't count. A loss that leads to advancement is the same as a lose that leads to a team winning.

Looks like we have a lot of "stalled" tourneys.