urbanjedi wrote:
Tim, I like the idea behind your system but I see a couple things we need to possibly address with it.
1.Your system would seem to punish people for bad losses (ie the kid who rolls 3 Disintigrations against you and loses every other game of the tourney or the game where you can't buy a save) and I am not really sure if you should get penalized additionally for a loss besides a loss.
This is true to a small degree, but I am actually OK with that. Someone who lost to the 1-5 kid (IMO) deserves to lose IN A TIE to someone who only lost to the 5-1 and 6-0. (More often than not SoS will show this anyway, but I'd rather catch this end than the other)
I think IN GAME luck will always be a factor, and is more valid than OUT OF GAME luck. Meaning if the kid rolls 3 disintegrations, that sucks. But it's still more valid to be weighed negatively IMO than getting screwed by beating chumps.
In WI you lost to a better opponent (by a degree of 1)
Jonny beat a better opponent (by a degree of 1)
So then drop down to the next tie-breaker, full SoS and Jonny wins.
urbanjedi wrote:
Also if you lose to someone who finishes higher than you, you should have lost to them in the grand scheme of things. (ie when a 10-5 nfl team plays a 5-10 team we expect the 10-5 team to win) so you seem to also be punishing people for achieving their respective results.
Actually this isn't true. We're talking about 4-2s for the most part here, which means their level is 66.66% (4 out of 6 games won). If you lose to the undefeated then you average in a 100% to your score, thus it helps you. If you lose to the 5-1 you average in a 83.33 to your score also helping you. If you lose to a 3-3, you average in a 50%, which hurts you slightly. Lose to the 1-5 guy and yes, in this tie-breaker it hurts you. But I think that is valid.
urbanjedi wrote:
2. Are you talking about taking counting wins against tied record or higher or tied points or higher because there could be some interesting interactions if someone beats other players with tied records but not tied pts
Totally valid question, and I don't know the perfect answer. It almost seems like a coin flip, but I am leaning toward RECORD vs POINTS. Everything else is based on record (SoS), why switch here? Doubt it would change much either way.
urbanjedi wrote:
3. Just thought of this while writing the last one and it's biggest detractor.
Lose rd 1 to 5-1
Lose rd 2 to 5-1
win rest of rds pushing that person to at least 3rd loss
so my cool new tiebreak is (10-2) which % wise will be better than anyone else's by default.
if someone went 4-2 and only lost to two 5-1s, their tie-breaker should be strong. With your scenario they probably would have had to beat a 4-2 in the last round, so that would make them 14-4 (77.77%), still strong.
Player B beat a 5-1, and lost to the 6-0 and a 5-1, making them 16-2 (88.88%)
Player C lost to a 4-2 and the 5-1 and beat a 4-2, making them 13-5 (72.22%)
Player D lost to the 5-1 and a 3-3, but beat nobody at the same level or above, making them 8-4 (66%)
Ranking them B, A, C, D seems totally valid
I just think in the scheme of things it feels more right to say, "I missed the finals because I lost to weaker opponents" or "I missed the finals because the other guy beat better opponents".
-rather than-
"I missed the finals because I was unlucky to be paired with weak opponents that I thumped."