@ckrow u the kinda guy to show up an hour late to a 30 minute meeting
Information about Inquisition
Best posts made by Inquisition
Latest posts made by Inquisition
@Xenagos Fractions aren’t that hard. I’m stating that my proposed system is very obviously constructed in a way that respects the fact we don’t care about match wins. I’ll make this point once again though… If we think that we actually do care about match wins, then we had better run a poll to make sure
Its much less convoluted when you see that in the current system, you’re getting something like 1/9 points when you’re winning 1/5 rounds. It makes no sense. The physical numbers you use for the scores are also irrelevant, as long as people can read and easily understand them. We can use decimal approximations to avoid this, as long as we also accept that a team’s proper match points will be exact quotients, so as to avoid the rounding errors that admins have already fixed this season.
@Micahlele What the hell are you talking about? Aad didn’t do any math and nothing was proved. You guys were literally bitching about how I used a different random generation than you did and how I shouldn’t do that.
Or if you’re referring to the other proposal I made for the “different swiss system”, still untrue, because nobody did any math. To quote us both in the conversation we had:
Inq: “Micah, if I prove to you mathematically that this system is better, will we use it?”
Micah: “No, we wont”
Inq: “Then you are stupid”
And I dropped it there because there was no sense arguing after you told me that even if I proved myself right that you would ignore it.
I haven’t changed at all because I am still correct, and hoping that the new admins are more reasonable than you were. You admitted that you were too stubborn to do anything that exa didn’t tell you to do, and you literally never made a decision as head admin that changed anything about the league. I, on the other hand, was 100% successful in implementing actual changes that we know for a fact were correct, because every change I made was voted for by a poll.
You’re correct that the system is consistent with the arbitrary rules that the admins wrote years ago. It’s also true that this system is completely baseless and much more convoluted than it would be to just divide by rounds won, especially since we know that we dont care about wins. As I mentioned above, if you want to know which way we should be doing it, whether it’s my suggested method, or your current one, then we need a poll.
@exa Thanks, great, that’s the poll I’m referring to. We voted not to prioritize wins so there’s no reason we should be prioritizing wins in the match point system. Sorry for causing any confusion. This poll showed that we didn’t want to have wins be the determining factor, so I’m pointing out that we’re still doing that with the match point system.
At the very least, we can still run a poll that provides more specific details about how rounds should be distributed. There is no downside to this.
@Xenagos That line was in reference to an old argument I had with admins. It was week 2 of the season and something like 5 or 10 teams in main were tied with max match points. My claim (really, my observation) was that the league table was ordering these teams arbitrarily, and that it didn’t actually matter which of the teams with identical records and matchpoints was in which of the top seeds.
Also @Mothership, the point I am making is that the system is inconsistent with itself. If you want to see which way it goes, then we should run the poll. I have never advocated for any rule change that doesn’t involve a poll, and I never will, because that’s the only good way to make decisions. It’s also worth noting that the people who post on forums don’t makeup the majority of rgl players, so its almost irrelevant what their opinions are when it comes to actual polls. Even if my suggestion loses the poll, its much more important that we actually use a poll to decide.
Just because you don’t care about your match points minty doesn’t mean that other people don’t… and if you want to stop wasting your time here then stop replying. I’m just trying to preserve league integrity, pointing out obvious flaws that have easy fixes.
As for the poll I referenced, I was directly told that there was such a poll when I was still an admin. Once again, the surest way to know what people want is to poll it again. That we know for sure what people want. I’m not claiming to know the result of such a poll, just that regardless of what those results will be, the current system does not fit any reasonable metric and not consistent within itself.
Lastly, @Micahlele, what you misremember about my argument (from years ago) is that it had literally nothing to do with the swiss system. To this day, it still baffles me that anyone in that group could ever think that there is a difference in seeding between two arbitrary teams with identical match points (there isn’t).
Instead of being rude (minty), we could discuss why the thing that won a majority of player votes isn’t being implemented correctly.
You may think this, but we polled for it and you are in the minority. It is impossible to differentiate between the value of rounds unless you give added benefits to the winning team, which we agreed not to do. Again, we can poll this again if we see the need to do so, but regardless, there is inconsistency between KOTH and stopwatch, and it should not be this way.
Can we implement a match point system that accurately reflects the percentage of rounds won? This is already done for stopwatch maps, if the final scores are 1-2, then one team gets 1/3 match points, the other team gets 2/3. If the scores are 3-0, then one team gets full points. Why can’t we do this for KOTH maps also?
When I was an admin, I was told that polls from a while back determined that we don’t want to give any bonus for simply winning a match, so each round won should count equally. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why KOTH should be treated differently from payload. If final scores from a KOTH match are 4-3, then the winning team should get 4/7 and the loser 3/7. On a 4-1 score, winner gets 4/5, loser gets 1/5. It’s really quite simple, and its also only correct way of assigning points, given that we already decided to count each round equally.
Also for the admins, when you make this change, you’ll have to deal with the decimal approximation issue again here (I know you fixed it for this season). Either use fractions (best option), or if you need whole numbers again, you’ll have to assign maximum points to be 210. (The smallest number that is divisible by 5, 6, and 7)
If you have a problem with using fractions or making the match point system assign very high numbers, then too bad because this is literally the only way to assign points fairly. If you think we should be giving the winning team a bonus, then we need to run the poll for it again because that’s not what we’re trying to do right now.