The Championships - 1v1 - [t4mcr53s2]

by **agentcom** on Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:05 pm

Who's ready for Round 2?! Almost here ...

by **Winged Cat** on Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 pm

The final round 1 game has ended! (With an anticlimactic deadbeating, but it's over.) How much time do the remaining freemiums in the top 96 have to upgrade? (I upgraded specifically for this tournament.)

by **shoop76** on Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:29 pm

Winged Cat wrote:The final round 1 game has ended! (With an anticlimactic deadbeating, but it's over.) How much time do the remaining freemiums in the top 96 have to upgrade? (I upgraded specifically for this tournament.)

Kind of wondering myself when the next round is starting. Figured it was run as an autotournament and next round would be immediate.

by **NoSurvivors** on Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:31 pm

shoop76 wrote:
Winged Cat wrote:The final round 1 game has ended! (With an anticlimactic deadbeating, but it's over.) How much time do the remaining freemiums in the top 96 have to upgrade? (I upgraded specifically for this tournament.)

Kind of wondering myself when the next round is starting. Figured it was run as an autotournament and next round would be immediate.

I think they have to set it up and it creates the games. They need to seed the players moving on based on wins into groups of 16 (I think?)

by **PedroV100** on Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:48 pm

for some reason i think murphys law is going to get me this time... these bunch of new games are going to come at worst time posible lol

any guestimates for how much longer it will be?

by **shoop76** on Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:57 am

PedroV100 wrote:for some reason i think murphys law is going to get me this time... these bunch of new games are going to come at worst time posible lol

any guestimates for how much longer it will be?

They are waiting for my premium to expire, so I'm forced to buy another one.

by **agentcom** on Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:14 pm

If you look at the standings, they're sorted by group number instead of by wins, so I'm guessing that there's some manual work that needs to be done to go back and correct some stuff before we can start the next round.

I copy-pasted the results into Excel, and it looks like anyone with 7 or more wins will move on. 12/18 of the players with 6 wins will also move on.

by **pearljamrox2** on Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:58 pm

It wasn't like that earlier today when I looked at it. Maybe that means progress is happening. The second post in this thread has the "tiebreaker rankings by score". It would take me maybe 10 minutes to rank the players with 6 wins to see who advances, and maybe another 30 minutes tops to break all the other ties for purpose of seeding for the next round. Probably not even that long. It's really not that hard, I'm sure that isn't what the wait is for.

by **Jippd** on Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:07 pm

So what is the official reply on what the next steps with this are?

by **Bigragooch** on Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:18 am

If it helps, here is what I determined to be the tiebreakers among those with six wins. I only determined the 2nd to play wins for the three that it affected since I could only figure it out manually.

by **shoop76** on Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:42 pm

Bigragooch wrote:If it helps, here is what I determined to be the tiebreakers among those with six wins. I only determined the 2nd to play wins for the three that it affected since I could only figure it out manually.

Nice work. Though I don't see how head to head can be used here, with the discrepancies in amount of head to head games. What if 1 player would be eliminated because he had no head to head games. I see its not the case here, but for me this tiebreaker makes no sense.

by **alaskanassassin** on Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:47 pm

There was lots of discussion earlier about sitters. Could they possibly be going through all the games checking on sitters, I know there was issues with that.

by **Bigragooch** on Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:31 pm

shoop76 wrote:Nice work. Though I don't see how head to head can be used here, with the discrepancies in amount of head to head games. What if 1 player would be eliminated because he had no head to head games. I see its not the case here, but for me this tiebreaker makes no sense.

Thanks. I agree with you that the H2H tiebreaker is an odd one with this many players. Usually, it is only used when everyone has played one another at least once. To your point, in this case, stuboy is being eliminated because he played no H2H games. I just followed the tiebreaker rules and showed the results in case someone hadn't had time to do it.

To alaskanassassin - I believe they determined that they were going to ignore the sitter rule in round 1 and revised the rules for the remainder of the tournament.

by **shoop76** on Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:32 pm

Bigragooch wrote:
shoop76 wrote:Nice work. Though I don't see how head to head can be used here, with the discrepancies in amount of head to head games. What if 1 player would be eliminated because he had no head to head games. I see its not the case here, but for me this tiebreaker makes no sense.

Thanks. I agree with you that the H2H tiebreaker is an odd one with this many players. Usually, it is only used when everyone has played one another at least once. To your point, in this case, stuboy is being eliminated because he played no H2H games. I just followed the tiebreaker rules and showed the results in case someone hadn't had time to do it.

To alaskanassassin - I believe they determined that they were going to ignore the sitter rule in round 1 and revised the rules for the remainder of the tournament.

And why is 1/4 better than 0/0. Besides the obvious percentage it gives you.

by **josko.ri** on Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:40 pm

shoop76 wrote:
Bigragooch wrote:
shoop76 wrote:Nice work. Though I don't see how head to head can be used here, with the discrepancies in amount of head to head games. What if 1 player would be eliminated because he had no head to head games. I see its not the case here, but for me this tiebreaker makes no sense.

Thanks. I agree with you that the H2H tiebreaker is an odd one with this many players. Usually, it is only used when everyone has played one another at least once. To your point, in this case, stuboy is being eliminated because he played no H2H games. I just followed the tiebreaker rules and showed the results in case someone hadn't had time to do it.

To alaskanassassin - I believe they determined that they were going to ignore the sitter rule in round 1 and revised the rules for the remainder of the tournament.

And why is 1/4 better than 0/0. Besides the obvious percentage it gives you.

I had already pointed out this issue, check it here: viewtopic.php?f=91&t=198986&start=345#p4408777

And here is answer from TO who did not think this is a big issue (or did not understand it):

chapcrap wrote:I am not worried about this. That's why there are additional tiebreakers. Obviously, I can't give you the answer to your Player A, B, C hypothetical, because you didn't tell me who the winners were. But, I tiebreak there is easy enough to figure out.

by **pearljamrox2** on Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

H2H is the 1st tie-breaker. It should always be used first to break the tie. But if you have multiple people tied, head to head usually doesn't work. So if the 1st tie-breaker doesn't break the tie, you go on to the next one. There are more ties to break in this tournament than just who is on the cut off line. Every round gets seeded in some way. H2H will be used as a tiebreaker a bit, I'm sure...but when it doesn't work you go on to the next one. I hope you are not saying what you have shown is official. I think maybe you misunderstand. I would assume in this instance the second and third tiebreakers would determine the field.

I'm not saying this is how it will be done, or should be done. But in the NFL, when they have a tie for the wildcard, they break the ties in the divisions first. So in our case, you take all the "group A" players with 6 wins, come up with the top rep from that division and do the same for all divisions. Once all groups have only 1 rep, compare those players to come up with the winner. If you break the ties in the divisions first, you MIGHT be able to use head to head, since teams in a division have played each other. But even then, it could be inconclusive. After you have determined the one who beat out all the rest, you do it again. All the other divisions winners are the same, you just check the division that the winner came from and replace him/her with the next winner from that division...repeat until tie is sufficiently broken.

But ultimately, everytime you try to break a tie, you try to use head to head. Eventually it will work, but when it doesn't you move to the next one. I dont think it works here. If someone has an 0-0 record in H2H, wouldn't that just mean they came from a division where they were the only team that had 6 wins? And someone 1-4 just means a bunch of people in their division had 6 wins.

Anyway, I'm sure Chap has it under control. I really don't think it will come out like you think.

Also, head to head means how I did against YOU, individually...not a collections of people....that would be head to heads..right?

by **Bigragooch** on Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:13 pm

I did not mean for it to be official. I was just trying to offer some help in case it was needed since this tournament has been sitting for a couple of weeks.

If there are more than two teams, you can obviously use head to head tie-breakers if they have all played each other once (this happens in the SEC frequently). In the particular case of this tournament, I wasn't sure what the intent was of the H2H tiebreaker with a different number of games. I took a shot at it based on win % followed by, number of wins, followed by number of games played (in reverse).

Pearl - your point makes perfect sense that the tiebreaker is H2H, if applicable. So in this case, since H2H won't work, you first break ties with "wins going 2nd". If there is tie after that, you would go back to H2H, if possible. If not, go to the third tiebreaker (seed at start of round). So the determination of whether to apply H2H as the tiebreaker only applies if the teams in that particular tie have played an equal number of games against one another.

I can't easily access "wins going 2nd", so I can't update my analysis of the tiebreakers. I would be glad to help if someone knows how to easily get the data.

BTW - I just found an interesting article on Head to Head tiebreakers with more than two teams that explains it perfectly (including how to handle an unequal number of games played):
http://www.quickscores.com/Orgs/Head-To-Head_Tie-Breaker.pdf

In the case of this tournament, the answer proffered by the article is still to move on to the next tiebreaker, as Pearl said.

by **PedroV100** on Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:31 pm

lol that makes sense.... so i might still pass with my 0/1 HH record then? phew

i was getting worried

by **agentcom** on Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:37 pm

pearljamrox2 wrote:
show

What you're saying there makes a lot of sense. It could also explain why they've put up the standings with the order within groups. That was a bit of a mystery to me.

Anyway, it sure would be nice if we could get some official word on this ... or even someone official noting that they haven't forgotten about this one

by **pearljamrox2** on Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:55 pm

Players with 6 wins, broken down by the second tie-breaker(games won when the opponent had first move). If it is like this, you can see where the cut off would be, around 96}. I don't know if the line would be affected by players going freemium, like Sirmium Samurai.

5 WINS

85]WPBRJ -- Game 13941372, Game 13918499, Game 13918435, Game 13918365, Game 13918250

4 WINS

86]BENCLUB -- Game 13941411, Game 13941404, Game 13918208, Game 13918207
87]Pyrhhus -- Game 13941230, Game 13941229, Game 13918379, Game 13918218
88]Leverpuller -- Game 13941382, Game 13941364, Game 13918521, Game 13918520

3 WINS

89]jpk--Game 13941386, Game 13941371, Game 13918335
90]MEP -- Game 13941254, Game 13918556, Game 13918555
91]alaskanassassin -- Game 13941236, Game 13941227, Game 13918593 2-0 vs aalii
92]aalii -- Game 13941219, Game 13918576, Game 13918482 0-2 vs alaskanassassin

2 WINS

93]PedroV100 -- Game 13941176, Game 13941163
94]Sirmium Samurai -- Game 13941231, Game 13918447
95]shaneback -- Game 13941128, Game 13918319
96]Winged Cat -- Game 13941038, Game 13941035
97]Paul Tabinor -- Game 13940989, Game 13918585

1 WIN

98]deanof7 -- Game 13941401 1-0 vs morleyjoe
99]stuboy -- Game 13941315
100]morley joe -- Game 13941395 0-1 vs deanof7
101]Aussie02 -- Game 13918544
102]azak848 -- Game 13918572

by **Jippd** on Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:52 am

Am I the only one hearing crickets on where this is going??

by **Jurasu** on Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:05 pm

Been wondering and checking back here daily myself. Nearing a month since the final game ended. Would love to at least hear when we should expect these games to start.

by **shoop76** on Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:48 pm

I was really excited when these championships were introduced, but with the pace and lack of updates its really taking my interest away. I wonder if these will finish and doubt that this will be an annual thing unless there is a major overhaul in the structure of these events.

The organizers seem like they are disinterested in these tournaments, probably because of the massive amount of work that is required. I think a simple single elimination bracket would have been the way to go. It would have progressed steadily and people would have stayed interested.

by **Winged Cat** on Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:00 pm

If it gets to the 21st and there's no further action, we should report this inactive at http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=126085 - that might get someone else to rescue.

by **EBConquer** on Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:36 pm

I too was pretty jazzed about this tourney but since have lost interest. Kind of a shame. How hard is it to give an update? Something to the nature of "we're really busy, check back in two months" will do. Whatevs. ](*,)

I can't help but to think that this is one of the many reasons I've been losing interest in CC as a whole within the last 6 months. Hopefully things will turn around from my perspective in the near future.