Jump to content


Photo

Masters Divisions 2017 - Discussion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
46 replies to this topic

#21 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 18 January 2017 - 07:54 PM

If the players in Division 1 are not good enough for you to get anything out of playing them, that's up to you to decide. I'm sure there are willing players waiting in line in the very hope that some Div 1 players decline. (3 of the 10 have yet to sign up).

There are 70 odd players on the list. While some of them are playing in Masters purely for competition - to play the best - it is not the be all and end all of playing online tournaments. Some just like to have fun, and don't mind that the the order of players is not in exact order of World Ranking.

Maybe the chance to play a top player is an opportunity that some players hardly ever get. It is not all about the perspective from the top players view -thats just the tip of the iceberg.

Some players have performed really wel just to grab the last spot in a Division - would it be fair to change the rules at the last minute? Of course not.

If you think this renders the competition pointless then I'm sorry. We would welcome you back in Pyramid when (hopefully - if they accept!) we can get as many of the top players together as possible all in one place.

#22 Master Mind

Master Mind

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 18 January 2017 - 08:22 PM

Just keep it like this, it will be great fun anyways :)


  • Moghedien likes this
First Dutch Champion Juniors 2015

#23 spyros77

spyros77

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 19 January 2017 - 08:31 AM

The unfair is to see Enigma in Division 5 and Morx the current World Champion out of Divisions..if some players performed well (luck always help in tournaments with brackets) in one tournament this doesn't mean they should be considered as top ones. They have to prove their skill again and again..

 

Another food for thought for you...do you think that Enigma would have any fun to play with players from Division 5? 



#24 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Captain

  • WC Online Team
  • 761 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 19 January 2017 - 08:43 AM

If any of the mentioned players wanted to participate in D1 , they could and probably would have qualified themselves according to the rules. I dont really see any problems. Fresh blood in the divisios ois a good development, both for the "new" pplayer and competition in general.

I was fortunate to qualify for masters last year, however, it was my own choice bback then not to participate in qualifier tournaments much.
  • Moghedien likes this
"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

#25 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Major

Posted 19 January 2017 - 11:29 AM

Yes, its doubtful he will enjoy being overrun by Spartan Warriors!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

----------------------------------------------

 

On a more serious note.  When the change from the existing Division structure was posted last year there were only two individuals (myself being one) that raised an issue with the changes that were proposed.  So its a bit late now to suddenly object when the results are different than you anticipated.

 

There were several people that pushed for these changes as they wanted to determine the final rankings and have a true "winner".

 

We had a division structure that allowed new players to advance and old players fight hard to keep their spots even if they didn't enter all the tournaments.  In the interest of weeding out the "undesireables" and declare true winners and final rankings - changes were made.  They were posted a year ago.  I pointed out then that 20 people would feel they should be in the first division. 

 

AT this point the choice is to play or not play.  Not happy about facing Spartan Warrior then run for the hills!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#26 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 19 January 2017 - 01:39 PM

Masters Divisions is not a World Ranking, and it never claimed to be. It is a stand alone competition which uses the results of 3 tournaments to allocate players into a 4th tournament - that's it. The rules of the competition were published in advance, and players were free to enter if they desired.

If the main complaint is that some of the worlds best players are not involved in Div 1 then I don't see how this is relevant to the competition.

The purpose was not to 'create a ranking'.

#27 spyros77

spyros77

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 19 January 2017 - 01:41 PM

ok..now it is clear



#28 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,898 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 January 2017 - 11:08 AM

Spyros yes your are right the distribution of the players in the divisions is somewhat strange but this is coming from the allocation list that may have not been the most well thought. Any disagreement with this allocation system should have been raised at the time it was announced. Now TC is perfectly right that this tournament shall proceed as per the foreseen rules. They are also perfectly right to have identified this allocation system as being somewhat unattractive and to already foresee an improvement for the future with the pyramid league. I'm keen to see it.
As a parallel you can see similarities in other Masters systems. For example in tennis Rodger Federer has been absent from the courts for 6 months so he lost his ranking. He is now coming back but his allocation to australian open 2017 was like being in a 3rd division. If a top player is absent for any reason for a long period he cannot pretend to be put in the top part of the draws any time. He has to walk the way to come back...

If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#29 spyros77

spyros77

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 21 January 2017 - 03:29 PM

Spyros yes your are right the distribution of the players in the divisions is somewhat strange but this is coming from the allocation list that may have not been the most well thought. Any disagreement with this allocation system should have been raised at the time it was announced. Now TC is perfectly right that this tournament shall proceed as per the foreseen rules. They are also perfectly right to have identified this allocation system as being somewhat unattractive and to already foresee an improvement for the future with the pyramid league. I'm keen to see it.
As a parallel you can see similarities in other Masters systems. For example in tennis Rodger Federer has been absent from the courts for 6 months so he lost his ranking. He is now coming back but his allocation to australian open 2017 was like being in a 3rd division. If a top player is absent for any reason for a long period he cannot pretend to be put in the top part of the draws any time. He has to walk the way to come back...

I understand but please don't compare stratego with Tennis or any other sport...I can play stratego if I'm fat, old, ugly and smoke 3 packets of cigars and believe me I will be able to beat players that are divison of 3,4,5 level...tennis? no f...way


Edited by spyros77, 21 January 2017 - 03:31 PM.


#30 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 23 January 2017 - 06:58 PM

To avoid the necessity for potential play-offs between players who cannot be separated by the tie-break criteria initially proposed, TC have decided to use firstly Max ELO and secondly current ELO to resolve any remaining ties.



#31 Grizzlybear

Grizzlybear

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 14 February 2017 - 01:54 PM

Spyros,

I completely agree with you (as I said earlier). This is why we are changing things in the future.

You implied that I was making things up! So this is why I have provided the table above.

We will not change the rules so drastically in the middle of the season - this would be unfair on all the rest of the players involved. This was published almost a year ago. Is it the best method moving forward? Of course not.

The Pyramid League will address all the points you have made.

 

Where can I looking for the rules of the new 'Pyramid League'?


Edited by Grizzlybaer, 14 February 2017 - 02:01 PM.

The only thing that doubles if you share it with somebody was happiness.


#32 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 14 February 2017 - 04:33 PM

Where can I looking for the rules of the new 'Pyramid League'?

 

Hi Grizzlybaer,

 

TC is currently working on the schedule and structure of the new season - We will of course inform you when this is ready. We are currently waiting for admin to open up a Pyramid League sub-forum, at which time we will be able to publish the plans for next season.

 

We can tell you that the next TC tournament (after Masters Divisions) will be the Champions League 2017.



#33 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,898 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 April 2017 - 02:14 PM

This post is to continue the discussion initiated in div1 game arrangement topic:

 

I agree that TC cannot change the rules retroactively for this tournament and I appreciate very much that these rules will be amended as from next tournament in order to avoide similar situations to occur (even though it is not only in case of tie but also in case of loss that the situation can occur). Thanks to TC for all their efforts and for this amendment for future tournament. nevertheless for this tournament I would allow for one little exception to the rules. Let's ask Nortrom what he would think if the situation would be reversed, if he was in the situation of Hielco and Hielco in Nortrom's situation, how would Nortrom feel? If he recognizes that the tournament goes to Hielco I would allow for a derogation to the rules and recognize Hielco as winner of this tournament, otherwise let the rules apply for this tournament but be amended for the future tournaments.


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#34 Lonello

Lonello

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,741 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 08 April 2017 - 05:51 PM

Hmmm I've never been a fan of hiding posts but I can see reasons here so OK, per directive I'll put mine here too, unedited, after Napoleon's, to be pure:

 

Hmmm Napoleon... did you see this Be aware that this topic is locked. You have permission to reply to locked topics.

 

So we can still post but none of the regular members can. Seems unfair to continue the discussion here. But by all means, use the thread TheOptician is pointing at. Since Div 1 is the first Division to end, to me there seems plenty of time to discuss everything. I myself would endorse roeczak's proposal which I liked the other day, but you're right that needs approval from the called out winners first now. Anyway, let us not continue here.

 
Freedom of speech. But there maybe a lot of "would have-could have's" here. I would still endorse the game played, which could easily be done. Since TC has the capacity to de-DQ. But there are a lot of problems added NOW. So I do see why TC in fact finished D1 today:
 
I could see an objection from Nortrom or playa1... what if sevenseas would throw the game to favor Hielco? What if sevenseas has zero appetite to return to the site to favor ending a tournament he was DQ'd off? Etcetera.
 
PS
For the record, I would always strongly oppose "changing the rules retroactively" too. There can be no whining afterwards. But in roeczak's proposal there's no changing rules. There's just another attitude needed. After all, TC has the capacity to DQ and de-DQ players. They've confirmed that themselves today. It's only logical. And MT has the capacity to ban players. 
 
In this case, we didn't, but we prosecuted another punishment for sevenseas. Admin banned sevenseas, on which all bodies of Staff filed an appeal which is still pending today. There's also a Petition from the community forming in the leads of Fairway about which Admin is aware of. 
 
So at the very much sevenseas is penditively banned which gives free space for TC to do whatever they please, especially because D1 has finished early, so the end of Divisions will take some time anyway. There's no deus ex machina to be found in TC's rulesbook. And that is what has happened. A deus ex machina. No ban for sevenseas was filed. There was no case of a no show or a non-meeting of data for the game to be played. There was no refusal from sevenseas to play his game against Hielco, nor the other way around. There was no foul play. There was alltogether nothing of the kind. This is an extraordinary circumstance. This has never happened before and is not covered in any rule, unless you try to find your rule.
 
In that case I'd say let the game be played and not have Rules Rule. But I really can imagine today that that can't be done anymore as there are more people besides Hielco involved now.

Lo

#35 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 08 April 2017 - 09:23 PM

I'd like to clear up a few things:

1. The Results concerning disqualified players rule (in place for Masters) is NOT a 'new rule'. It was in fact in place (exactly the same) for the Champions League 2016

2. The rule does NOT compare the score of a player who had played 8 games with a player who played 9 games. What a 'no-result' does in effect is to ensure that any outcome that COULD have caused a tie between two players - does in fact cause a tie. It is the head to head result between the tied players that decides the tie-breaker.

3. TC actively opposed the banning of sevenseas. He was only disqualified because he was banned. Undisqualifying sevenseas would have meant retroactively removing the rule that prevents banned players from participating. Publicly contradicting admin (after our own member had himself been banned) was not and is not considered a wise move.

4. Div 1 has not finished early. Div 1 went 2 days over and finished last Tuesday, Div 2 went 6 days over and finished tonight.

5. Anyone who thinks that the new rule (that DOES nullify results against Dq'd players in the case of a tie) will eliminate scenarios like this is mistaken. Instead, rather than it being the player who never got the chance to play the Dq'd player who feels hard done by, it will be the player who managed to beat the Dq'd player but then sees their win removed.

You only have to imagine that a player has a LOSS removed (against a Dq'd player) from their record which then causes them to win the Division (ahead of a player who lost less games) to envisage that the uproar may be equal and opposite to now.

So we are trying out the other side of the coin, and invite the pro-nullifiers to imagine how their position could change depending on the circumstances.

6. The decision to uphold the current rules for the tournament (and not fit the new rule retroactively) is also taken in the context of the several other cases in all Divisions which would see results change. It is not only about this single case which has caused such controversy, but about the other linked consequences which would occur - and doubtless bring many more cries of injustice

#36 Hielco

Hielco

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 611 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 April 2017 - 11:44 PM

so nortrom wins this tournament because he maybe feels bad for winning a game against a dq player that wont count?

yeah, makes sense.


Edited by Hielco, 08 April 2017 - 11:47 PM.


#37 Hielco

Hielco

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 611 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 April 2017 - 11:59 PM

you can only use the dq result if had both played it



#38 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Major

Posted 09 April 2017 - 05:48 AM

It seems to me that in round robin type tournaments there is no good way to deal with players who quit or are removed (one of the reasons elimination tournaments are far better!).

 

Hielco, I'm in the same boat as you - in my division I finished 3rd (supposedly).  2nd place finished with 37 points and I finished with 32.  But I played one less game.  Now we all know Spartan Warriors would have won that game and finished with 38 points.  Which according to advanced Spartan Warrior math.... 38 is more than 37!!!!!

 

So what?  Is it screwy?  Yes - but so are all the potential abuses of folks intentionally dropping out to help their friends or countrymen or damage someone they may not want to see win.  Now that doesn't mean that its right.  It just means its a no win situation.

 

So I think you should simply declare yourself champ, declare war (figuratively) on the TC and tell them you'll see them all on the battlefield in the next tournament and that your army will educate them as to who is the winner.

 

Because no matter what is decreed.................. Everyone knows that..................................................................

SPARTAN WARRIORS ARE ON THE MARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  • Lonello likes this

​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#39 Lonello

Lonello

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,741 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 09 April 2017 - 08:13 AM

I'd like to clear up a few things:

I'm still not seeing the Deus ex machina-rule explaining what happened. But let me ask it this way. Does or does not TC agree that it's playing the game first, rules second?

 

 

you should simply declare yourself champ, declare war (figuratively) on the TC and tell them you'll see them all on the battlefield in the next tournament and that your army will educate them as to who is the winner.

That's the spirit :D  :lol:  :D  :lol:  :D  :lol:  :D  :lol:  :D  :lol: !

 

Hielco, do keep playing these games. It would be of no fun for Nortrom and playa1 anyways, seeing you three always end up 1-3. Maybe they get the deus ex machina the next time... we all here hold the three of you as eternal winners anyway... well... right after these then:

 

SPARTAN WARRIORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 


Lo

#40 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,199 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 09 April 2017 - 08:24 AM

so nortrom wins this tournament because he maybe feels bad for winning a game against a dq player that wont count?
yeah, makes sense.


Your game v sevenseas would have determined the outcome of the tournament. Had you lost or drawn, Nortrom would have won. Had you won, you would have won.

Unfortunately for you (yes someone has to be unlucky) you never had the chance to play the game.

So in this case - where a missing result would have determined the outcome - the head to head record is used to decide the winner.

Nortrom wins the tournament because he beat you.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users