#sPec# Summer Tournaments - Results

[Neoterra]

Tryed to find a good compromises but with this bracket impossible.
You need a better one next tournament.

Why i think you joked? Maybe it is a mistake between $ and g2?

[Rick]

at and @ loose first match and come to loosers round but because an other position in the bracket (only position) @have more points? (quote my self)

I assume that this is some form of ELO system, so my reply relies upon that. Also, I think you're in g2?
Also note that this is going to be using my own, not JMR's ELO calc

We shall start everyone off with 1500 points.

Let's have a look.

1st Round(WIN):
.xj9| - 1564 (+64)
.oXz. - 1564  (+64)
>>g<< - 1564  (+64)
>>g2<< - 1564  (+64)
.vT. - 1564  (+64)
u - 1500  (+0)
#sPec# - 1500  (+0)
eX - 1500  (+0)
.wQ. - 1436 (-64)
vF' - 1436  (-64)
[aT] - 1436  (-64)
@ - 1436  (-64)
[$] - 1436  (-64)

2nd Round(WIN):
.oXz. - 1627 (+63)
u - 1576 (+76)
#sPec# - 1576 (+76)
eX - 1576 (+76)
>>g<< - 1501 (-63)
>>g2<< - 1488 (-76)
.vT. - 1488 (-76)
.xj9| - 1488 (-76)

3rd Round(WIN):
u - 1647 (+71)
eX - 1638 (+62)
.oXz. - 1556 (-71)
#sPec# - 1514 (-62)

Semi Finals(WIN):
u - 1706 (+59)
eX - 1579 (-59)

1st Round(LOSERS):
vF' - 1502  (+66)
[aT] - 1370  (-66) Eliminated.

2nd Round(LOSERS):
vF' - 1564 (+62)
>>g<< - 1553 (+52)
.vT. - 1543 (+55)
.xj9| - 1543 (+55)
>>g2<< - 1426 (-62) Eliminated.
@ - 1384 (-52) Eliminated.
.wQ. - 1381 (-55) Eliminated.
[$] - 1381 (-55) Eliminated.

3rd Round(LOSERS):
.vT. - 1610 (+67)
.xj9| - 1608 (+65)
vF' - 1496 (-67) Eliminated.
>>g<< - 1488 (-65) Eliminated.

4th Round(LOSERS):
.vT. - 1662 (+52)
#sPec# - 1595 (+81)
.xj9| - 1527 (-81) Eliminated.
.oXz. - 1504 (-52) Eliminated.

1st SEMI(LOSERS):
.vT. - 1711 (+49)
#sPec# - 1546 (-49) Eliminated.

2nd SEMI(LOSERS):
.vT. - 1748 (+37)
eX - 1542 (-37) Eliminated.

1st Finals:
.vT. - 1799 (+51)
u - 1655 (-51)

2nd Finals:
.vT. - 1833 (+34)
u - 1621 (-34) Eliminated.


Final Results
1. .vT. - 1833
2. u - 1621
3. #sPec# - 1546
4. eX - 1542
5. .xj9| - 1527
6. .oXz. - 1504
7. vF' - 1496
8. >>g<< - 1488
9. >>g2<< - 1426
10. @ - 1384
11. .wQ. - 1381
-. [$] - 1381
12. [aT] - 1370

As you most likely can see, JMR's and my ELO system differ, though the results are very similar. I posted this so you could get an idea of why your team may not be where you thought they would be. Looking at the results, you can see that if the ELO of the winning team is lower than that of the losing team, more points are awarded as, by this tournament, they were the better team and vice-versa.

One thing I'm quite confused about. The losing teams in the first round lose 2 points, but the winners didn't gain 2. Why? And why in some rounds teams gain/lose 3 instead of 2?

Could be just some rounding issues, as the points need to be an Integer.

[MyeRs]

I think teams that fail to show up should not be tied in points with teams who lost their first 2 games. I feel like you deserve some form of reward for signing up and showing up with your team. A team who doesn't show up without warning should be penalized - not kept on equal footing. Or at the very least, there should be points awarded for participation. It just makes teams that lose their first 2 matches feel like they would do as good without showing up? Kinda dumb.

LAST EVER FORUM POST BY FRIENDS IM LEET

[Ace]

Wasn't accounting for rounding issues. I do like the 1500 point system more. I'm guessing you're using this because of LoL. If you are, why not just use a base of 1200 and k value of 50 (for tournament scoring, 15 is normal) so that is makes sense to people that see it. People know that scoring format. ELO is not "points" it's a rating, that should probably also be known.

Side Note: Not participating should be a penalty equal to losing slightly more than 2 rounds and winning none.

[Neoterra]

OK, at first: @ and .wQ. and [$] and [aT] loose the first both matches.
So all should have the same places and some points more as the teams that not played right?

[JosephGoebbels]

Final Results
1. .vT. - 1833
2. u - 1621
3. #sPec# - 1546
4. eX - 1542
5. .xj9| - 1527
6. .oXz. - 1504
7. vF' - 1496
8. >>g<< - 1488
9. >>g2<< - 1426
10. @ - 1384
11. .wQ. - 1381
-. [$] - 1381
12. [aT] - 1370

so basically if we ff first round and win the losers brackets, we get intercourseload more points/higher elo than winner of semifinals of winnersbrackets, because we will play more matches, thats how it works? seems fair and accurate!

i dont get why we cant just use normal basic pointsystem used in every competition, where you gain points for finishing place.
yeah i almost forgot that underdog in hockey, football, basketball gains more points! (about the ELO, in LCS they use ELO as ranking in qualifying rounds too?)

this happens when someone tries to do a new pointsystem



and yeah also, its our fault that some team couldnt make it to tourney, they should really get refund by stealing points because thats how it works everywhere

[22:09:22] <shk> if u don't show up for work, you get fired

[Rick]

so basically if we ff first round and win the losers brackets, we get intercourseload more points/higher elo than winner of semifinals of winnersbrackets, because we will play more matches, thats how it works? seems fair and accurate!

i dont get why we cant just use normal basic pointsystem used in every competition, where you gain points for finishing place.
yeah i almost forgot that underdog in hockey, football, basketball gains more points! (about the ELO, in LCS they use ELO as ranking in qualifying rounds too?)

this happens when someone tries to do a new pointsystem



and yeah also, its our fault that some team couldnt make it to tourney, they should really get refund by stealing points because thats how it works everywhere

[22:09:22] <shk> if u don't show up for work, you get fired

Again, this is not JMR's point system/ELO system. So any answer from me is in regard to my knowledge of MY OWN ELO system

1) My ELO system is like that, yes. I'm not sure if JMR has any safe guards against it or not.
2) I completely agree with you, all that is needed is a simple point system for such a tourney. Maybe if you present the idea to JMR nicely, he will implement it or take it into account.
3) Yes, when someone tries something new everyone cries, we get it.
4) Not sure about what you're saying here, maybe someone else can jump in.

[69:69:69] <shk> haters gon' hate

[JosephGoebbels]

Again, this is not JMR's point system/ELO system. So any answer from me is in regard to my knowledge of MY OWN ELO system

2) I completely agree with you, all that is needed is a simple point system for such a tourney. Maybe if you present the idea to JMR nicely, he will implement it or take it into account.
3) Yes, when someone tries something new everyone cries, we get it.
4) Not sure about what you're saying here, maybe someone else can jump in.

[69:69:69] <shk> haters gon' hate

2) i did present it to him, i guess jmr is too stubborn to change his pointsystem and will rather try to change it which will still result in inaccurate unfair and unnecessarily complicated ranking

3) naw, no one cries, its just inaccurate, thats the prob

4) what im saying is that jmr said that he made this pointsystem (stealing points from others) so the teams who didnt participate at least on one tourney, could still have chance finishing high. thats why i quoted shk

i guess i explained everything

[Neoterra]

The problems to find a point system that looks fair is the complicated bracket. Next Round need a better one.

[Rick]

2) i did present it to him, i guess jmr is too stubborn to change his pointsystem and will rather try to change it which will still result in inaccurate unfair and unnecessarily complicated ranking

3) naw, no one cries, its just inaccurate, thats the prob

4) what im saying is that jmr said that he made this pointsystem (stealing points from others) so the teams who didnt participate at least on one tourney, could still have chance finishing high. thats why i quoted shk

i guess i explained everything

I have not talked to JMR about this at all, I'm going off what I know about him
2) It's good that you're trying to help JMR. I don't think he was too stubborn, I think he played it right. Implementing such a point system was most likely a test for JMR, it's easier to go back to the traditional point system than it is to go from it to what he is using now. I'm sure if enough people ask nicely, JMR would change it.
3) That's the whole point of trying it To find errors and what not.
4) I'm not sure what you mean by 'Stealing points from others', but I agree with the rest of what you're saying. Clans should be rewarded for turning up, not automatically given points when they don't.

Also, I hope you're not getting annoyed at my responses, I'm just trying to make it easier for JMR when he comes on.

The problems to find a point system that looks fair is the complicated bracket. Next Round need a better one.

Are you just saying that JMR is over complicating the point system?

[JosephGoebbels]

I have not talked to JMR about this at all, I'm going off what I know about him
2) It's good that you're trying to help JMR. I don't think he was too stubborn, I think he played it right. Implementing such a point system was most likely a test for JMR, it's easier to go back to the traditional point system than it is to go from it to what he is using now. I'm sure if enough people ask nicely, JMR would change it.
3) That's the whole point of trying it To find errors and what not.
4) I'm not sure what you mean by 'Stealing points from others', but I agree with the rest of what you're saying. Clans should be rewarded for turning up, not automatically given points when they don't.

Also, I hope you're not getting annoyed at my responses, I'm just trying to make it easier for JMR when he comes on.

2) i meant stubborn after the first round, i didnt see the pointsystemformula before the tourney, now that he got some feedback on it, that its inaccurate blahblah, he still uses the old one with few tweaks. thats why i said stubborn

3) yus.

4.) well basically, team that wins steals the point from the loser therefore losers are still capable of finishing high, even without participating in one or more tourneys. and im sure this was the main reason for this pointsystem

no worries im not, im not against jmr in any way, i appreciate his efforts to make dp active again, its his tourney which got eX myers/shk oXz and some more teams playing again

[Neoterra]

Are you just saying that JMR is over complicating the point system?

I dont think so. But it don`t work with 13 teams. 16 teams and it would work fine. But look at the last tournament.
2 hard example in there.
1.) [aT] never come in the point system. 3 other teams looses the first both matches too. and get points?
2.) If you work with a point steel system... .vT. had 7 matches to final and (u) only 3 matches.


MY RANKING:

I would say the teams that was signed up and not played can not have so many points.

The last places are definitely [at] and [$] and .wQ. and @. They all looses there first both matches. Rank 10 (all)
>>g2<< win one match. Rank 9
.vT. was the winner. Rank 1
(u) lost the final. Rank 2

Now its getting hard.
.xj9| wins 3 times ; [eX] wins two times but there looses was vs (u) & .vT. and they won two times in the winners round my meaning: [ex] = Rank 3
spec wins one in the winner round and one in the looser round ; .xj9 win the quali and 2 wins in looser round. Rank 4 for both
oxz win the quali and one in the winner round. Rank 5
>>g1<< win the quali and one in looser round. Rank 6
vF loose quali and win two times in looser round. Rank 7

[Neoterra]

JMR you want to say that this: http://paintball.jordanmrichards.com/tournaments.php?results are your end results?

[JosephGoebbels]

Let me make these points very clear.

 - You earn more points by staying in the winners bracket.
 - If you win against a team who has more points, you will "steal" more.
 - If you lose against a team who has less points, you will "lose" more.
 - I do not think a team who cannot make every single tournament in the series should have no chance of catching up. Imagine if vT won every single one, but missed the 2nd one.
 - As you can see based on Rick's ELO system, #sPec# was actually ranked ahead of eX, even though eX came further in the bracket. A bracket not to the power of 2 causes these issues.
 - Prozajik did 95% of the work on the stealing mechanic. I just implemented it basically.
 - This point system determines overall skill. People will improve over the tournaments, meaning if someone beats vT next time, they will steal more points. - The way it should be.
 - Please stop with this "over-complicated" garbage. Brackets like this are complicated and so is ranking teams in the first place. If you want to make comments, then learn how it works first.
 - Looks like some didn't read...
 - Final note: there is a slight, small error at the losers part of the bracket which is being fixed.


A "standard" point system like just giving first place 15pts, 2nd 14pts etc is a terrible measure of skill. As I said, in this community, people improve over time. The last tournament, a ton of stealing will go on and will truly measure each team's skill based on their actual performance and who they won against.

who said it will be 15 14 etc? lol also terrible measure? what does have ELO to do with ranking? did you even read what i said? both vT and sPec played more points so OBVIOUSLY theyll have better chance/have more points. also, who the intercourse would care if they won 3 and miss out on one? thats their problem. its 4 week tourney. if eX will miss out on tourney we wont come here and cry about it that we should have won the tourney just because we couldnt show up. does it actually makes sense to you? wanna win? PARTICIPATE. jesus christ kids and their thinking nowadays.


no we cant have pointsystem like 1st gets 10, 2nd gets 8 3rd gets 6. that would be too fair and original, we need something more complicated and claim that it actually measures skill but its not a problem that thats not how it works in other competitions. because when racing driver misses a race, he can steal his opponents points right?

Prozajik did 95% of the work

yeah sorry but explains a lot


we should definitely ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ﾉ RIOT ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ﾉ until we get new pointsystem

[Neoterra]

Your idea was good JMR. You want have a program to steel the points on the next tournament right? I like this idea.
But it doesn,t work with the last bracket.

And sorry the result is not fixed right?

[Neoterra]

It could be correct if you had stay all 16 teams. And the teams that dont play get a loose.
vt was good playing but they had to many matches to steel points.

On this side https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZeMd7gHMKCvPiuIUmrJL2pnPJiPoTwSUH5yW5W4DBok/edit#gid=168695147 i have some questions.
On the winning round the teams get 3 points by a win? On the looser round only 1 point for win?

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

EDIT: some teams start in looser round one with 20 points other with 18.

[Ace]

Bottom line is ELO is a ranking system, not a points system. It does not work well for short term play.

[Rockyar_96]

It's really funny how this game is about fun and you start complaining around about the points like it's MLG or something.