CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

CWT is a yearly hosted Intermediate tournament. It's considered the most prestigious of its kind and has money prizes involved.
User avatar
Kayz
NNN member
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:57 pm

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by Kayz » Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:44 pm

With that low activity 2 separate forums would be dead within a week. I see no problem to discuss CWT things in a CWT section. The normal community grew so small that one forum is more than enough. There are far more important matters than this.

And I disagree about the current point system being "unfair and stupid". If someone wins all games barely 3-2, he's playing worse than someone who wins all games 3-0, even though they get the same amount of points (but not ratio). That's why it's called group stage, the performance of all games you played are counted overall, not single games over others. Usually when we had this situation, the involved players had no problem with it, but some other people complained, who weren't even involved. So yes, if they have the same amount of points and ratio, the one goes through who won the other player, but round ratio must be accounted too.
[FaD] im pro jumper
[lNNNxDario] i see

User avatar
Zemke
NNN member
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:23 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by Zemke » Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:08 pm

CWT forum wasn't merged into a clan site. The site wears the name of a clan, but normalnonoobs.com isn't actually a clan site, but a Intermediate community site administered by a clan which has taken responsibility of the Intermediate scheme. Since CWT is also an Intermediate tournament I think it fits perfectly into an Intermediate-targeted site and draws attention to either of the platforms, the Intermediate league and the Intermediate tournament. Win-win situation. That's part of my whole idea, that NNN isn't a clan, but rather a committee taking care of the Intermediate scheme including its popularity, development and community.
CWT forum is important, yes, but for me it's not too important where it is. Though I see some benefits in having it where it is right now. Back then Joschi and I had just posted to the separate CWT forum and then pasted the message into this forum, because otherwise people would just miss it.

Concerning the head-to-head record I could just repeat kukumber's words: "Considering a single game outcome over the group stage performance denies the whole point of group stage."

khamski
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:24 pm
Location: Russia
Contact:

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by khamski » Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:51 pm

Kayz wrote:... If someone wins all games barely 3-2, he's playing worse than someone who wins all games 3-0, even though they get the same amount of points ...
Now that was stupid.
It's impossible for two players to win all games in the group.
One player winning all games means other one have lost at least one.
Zemke wrote: Concerning the head-to-head record I could just repeat kukumber's words: "Considering a single game outcome over the group stage performance denies the whole point of group stage."
You won't make wrong statement right if you keep repeating it.
Would be great if "same points" question was decided on poll.
Yeah, really. When you change your cows to pigeons you loose the big fucking sledgehammer called COWS. Without it you will hardly make it to SD.

User avatar
Kayz
NNN member
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:57 pm

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by Kayz » Sun Jan 25, 2015 8:56 pm

Would be great if you gave reasonable arguments, instead of calling on other people's stupidity. Right now you aren't discussion material. You could also say why kukumber's statement is wrong. It is indeed a valid point.

Why do you think we give 1 point for 2-3 loss? Because the ratios don't matter! Right! But they do, that's why your idea makes no sense.
khamski wrote:
Kayz wrote:... If someone wins all games barely 3-2, he's playing worse than someone who wins all games 3-0, even though they get the same amount of points ...
Now that was stupid.
It's impossible for two players to win all games in the group.
One player winning all games means other one have lost at least one.
No it wasn't. It was a general statement, not regarding to a group stage. It was a general statement that someone who wins all games 3-2, is worse than someone with 3-0, but they still get the same points. This is correct. That's why we tried to give 4 points for 3-0 in one edition, which soon showed to be stupid as well. That's why the ratio decides in those cases. I already gave detailed examples, but instead of analyzing them you just called it all stupid. Good job.
[FaD] im pro jumper
[lNNNxDario] i see

User avatar
MrTPenguin
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:54 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by MrTPenguin » Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:32 pm

I'm on the fence on this one, but I have an opinion regarding the (very unlikely) Rock Paper Scissors situation - and also the even less likely scenario of the entire group being tied. What we want is a kind of "sudden death" or "penalty shootout" of the group, so the extra games should be no more than best of three. To those who say that qualification for the KO stage shouldn't be based on such short games, I say that the players had their chance to progress properly and failed, and that they should be grateful we don't draw lots!

User avatar
Kayz
NNN member
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:57 pm

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by Kayz » Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:47 pm

Entire group being tied? With 4 people?

Sorry, but that's impossible. There are no draws, only wins and losses, and then it's not possible. Imagine adding a fourth element to Rock Paper Scissors, and then you see it won't work.

To solve ties:
I'd suggest a bo1 cave match to decide ties. And I agree with you, bo1 can be unfair, but this is still the most fair option, because they blew it in regular group stage and at least get a chance decided by skill, not luck.
[FaD] im pro jumper
[lNNNxDario] i see

User avatar
MrTPenguin
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:54 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by MrTPenguin » Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:38 am

Kayz wrote:Entire group being tied? With 4 people?

Sorry, but that's impossible. There are no draws, only wins and losses, and then it's not possible. Imagine adding a fourth element to Rock Paper Scissors, and then you see it won't work.
I stand corrected.
To solve ties:
I'd suggest a bo1 cave match to decide ties. And I agree with you, bo1 can be unfair, but this is still the most fair option, because they blew it in regular group stage and at least get a chance decided by skill, not luck.
I'd roll with that.

User avatar
Kayz
NNN member
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:57 pm

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by Kayz » Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 pm

It's also less time consuming than a full rematch.
[FaD] im pro jumper
[lNNNxDario] i see

User avatar
Kayz
NNN member
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:57 pm

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by Kayz » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:20 am

We should have qualifiers for CWT 2015. After thinking a long time about it, I really feel bad for just kicking players out, because they simply are too unknown or inexperienced. Maybe earlier signups or later tourney start?
[FaD] im pro jumper
[lNNNxDario] i see

User avatar
MrTPenguin
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:54 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by MrTPenguin » Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:40 pm

It's a decent idea, and the number of wannabe players will obviously influence how it's set up, e.g. if there are groups or just individual playoffs. There could be a hard and fast rule about who gets a guaranteed CWT spot, e.g. the 16 KO-stage players from the previous year, or the 24 players who didn't finish last in their group.

Regarding the timing, if the tournament gets pushed back too far, the year will become inaccurate - although this probably doesn't matter (haven't we already had at least one final that was played in the "wrong" calender year?) One thing that worries me a bit is hosting a qualifying competition in the heat of summer, when the brain struggles to function.

User avatar
Kayz
NNN member
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:57 pm

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by Kayz » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:42 pm

It actually was DreamTrance's idea. And CWT used to have qualifiers before.
We had a long discussion about this topic, and I agree with him that sorting "weak" players out gives the impression of some elitist snob community, which thinks some people are not worth having a chance attending CWT (even though they all get a chance next year). But CWT is only once a year, and waiting a full year sucks. With qualifiers this problem is solved. September is not that much summer anymore. Start the qualifiers at 20th September, give people 10 days to play one bo5 match against each other, and done.
My suggestion: We make the 4 pots as usual, with Pot D being the biggest. Pot A,B,C get sure CWT spots obviously.
Then we pair Pot D players against each other in one bo5 game. Winner gets a spot. Simple and fast. If someone doesn't play, the one gets a spot who made a bigger effort of arranging. (We will see that in CWT shoutbox) If you complain about being in Pot D, you could have made yourself known to the Intermediate community. Unknown players definitely need to be treated differently to long-time pros and known veterans, but excluding them just like that is gross and wrong.
[FaD] im pro jumper
[lNNNxDario] i see

kukumber
NNN member
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by kukumber » Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:45 pm

On the topic of 5 people per group I'd say that it would make too many players and huge waiting time. Plus CWT is kinda "best of the best" tourney, so you don't really want to put everyone there. Moreover it could happen that we don't get 40 players each year (sad but true). Last but not least is that current point system will probably have to be revised for that.

As for qualifiers, I think it should be held in a very rapid format, cause it wouldn't be good to stretch time between start of the signups and the start of the group stage. It could make some difficulties for players to know if they would have time to play or not. Week or even weekend seems quite enough. My thought was wo give a Saturday/(Monday-Saturday) for players to play their games once signups are closed and pairs set. And then remaining games are played in one evening tourney format on Sunday. If someone doesn't show up his pair gets a tech win.
The reason behind this is activity, I think we surely don't want to end up with random inactive guy which we don't even know how to contact. Even though most of players usually play their games quite active, it only takes one person of this kind to decrease pace of the tournament greatly.

And I like idea of giving a free pass to players in top 24 or 16 of last couple of years probably or just one previous, but I think that it should be an addition to current "subjective" seeding. It may sound like there is no sense but what i mean is basically that qualifiers may happen to run not for the whole D pot, but only for the part of it, cause players with "free pass" and those "who proved themselves" didn't manage to fit into 24 spots of A, B and C and got stretched partly into pot D. So people in qualifiers will compete for the rest of the D pot. But either this or current system plus D pot qualifiers addition seems reasonable enough for me. It's a nice thing to discuss I think. :)

So I'll put what I propose step by step:
1) Signups start, signups end (as usual)
2a) We take in everyone who got into top 16 during last 2-3 years (maybe just last year), and we take in everyone "who proved themselves" / 2b) We seed A, B and C pots as usual
3) Remaining players are paired into one(two if needed) bracket to compete over the remaining spots
4) Qualifiers start. Players are given time to play their games till Sunday evening. Starting from Monday or maybe other day of the week, depending on when signups end
5) Sunday evening. One evening format last chance to play the game. Date and time will be set in the beginning of the qualifiers, so everyone knows it ahead. If someone didn't play their game and didn't show up, he gets a tech loss. If both players do not show up we give a place to player who lost first reported game of qualifiers.
6) Group stage (as usual)
7) KO stage (as usual)

And I forgot to mention that player's location should be taken in consideration when setting pairs, so two guys with like 12 hour difference won't be paired. Also Sunday part may take place in time not comfortable for someone. We will pair these people and they will have a week to set up their game. If they don't, well they had a week, too bad. Obviously there would be an announcement to add your location and contacts in profile settings.

User avatar
Kayz
NNN member
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:57 pm

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by Kayz » Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:54 pm

Good plan! The activity could be an important factor. Restricting it to one weekend might show who really wants to be in. But we should maybe grant exceptions if someone is really hindered at 2 days. So I agree a week from Monday to Sunday is the better solution. Point 5 sounds like 2009's fixed schedule. :D I prefer to just check in shoutbox who made the bigger effort of arranging instead of having a big event on Sunday evening.
[FaD] im pro jumper
[lNNNxDario] i see

kukumber
NNN member
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: CWT 2014 possible rules modifications

Post by kukumber » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:42 pm

That's supposed to be somewhat a compromise for people who can't come to an agreement on play time.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests