New tie breakers for auto tournaments

[DJENRE]

Hello,
Just a quick word about the tie breaker in auto tournaments, it sucks
You should think about changing some rules to be more fair.

See this tournament : http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... nt_id=6221

I reached the finale wiht 2 points under my opponent, so my only choice was to score 5-2!
ANd I did. so we both finish at 26/35.
But because of a strange tie breaker, he wins the tournament.
Rules say :

Spoiler

Scoring
By default scoring is based on number of Game Wins over the entire tournament. However, individual Rounds may Reset the scores, so that the scoring will begin again from that round. When the first round of the Tournament is seeded by score, the player's score at time of joining the tournament is used in that round only.

Ties in Score shall be broken by the following rules, applied in order:
Percentage of wins in the tournament as a whole
The cumulative number of Game rounds required to win the games they have won in the tournament (since the last point reset, or the start of the tournament if no point reset has occurred). Note: winning in less rounds is better.
The order in which the player joined the tournament (first player to join wins)

Strange to count the number of round when a player can draw HIVE and WORLD 2.1 (like I did) and the other player can draw MACEDONIA and AUSTRALIA (like he did).
Of course you don't need the same ammount of rounds to end it!!!
The direct confrontation should have been taken in this kind of format! and it was 5-2, no need to count rounds when there is actually odd number of games.....In direct elimination!!!

I think it's really unfait for players to see this kind of results after winning 5-2 in the finale. And being tied in total scores.
If total scores were not tie, I could understand.
Being kicked because of rounds it's just...................

Also, in case TD and mods don't want to think about it, you should at least put the total rounds number on the side, so we don't have to count all rounds one after another to see if we have more or less rounds.

DJ

[Chariot of Fire]

Firstly may I say you're being very unsporting in respect of the result. I led the tournament by three games over you (not two, as you've said) with a 24/28 record to your 21/28. The final was not a head-to-head contest but was based on overall results after 35 games. Yes, we each finished with 26/35 of which we should congratulate ourselves. It was a tough competition, with settings that weren't very familiar to me. Nevertheless I studied the rules, entered, and tried my best on every turn. Overall I had a good success rate at finishing off my opponents as quickly as possible. That is how I play the game.

In our last encounter, the 'final', you even said yourself how lucky you were to get the start in five of our seven games. That was really quite extraordinary. It's very difficult to recover in any game playing 2nd when it's manual deploys and unlimited forts. You must agree yourself that four of your five wins were just too easy and were already won after your first turn. But somehow you managed to lose the one that mattered most - Cairns Coral Coast - despite starting the game and having a large bonus on the drop. It's not my fault that your method of forting allowed me back into the game. So please give credit where credit is due, for I won that crucial game against all odds.

You conveniently cherry-pick games such as Australia (which I lost btw) and Hive which you got. Of course I followed your Hive game with much interest as the player I faced in the final could have been the winner of that game. You could have won it several rounds earlier but you didn't. You already knew you were going to win but did not make the coup de grace as quickly as you should have done, so please don't use Hive as an excuse for your loss. It's too convenient for you to blame unlucky maps (it was Random after all) and yet overlook lucky starts

I'd like to think that in your heart you knew you didn't deserve to win. Nevertheless I enjoyed our head-to-head and I'm sure you will fare better in future tournaments when you don't have 169 active games which restricts your ability to concentrate and play the best moves.

Till next time,

Your champion xxx

[DJENRE]

Dude, if I was unsport, I wouldn't have asked you (on your wall) to come here and comment this suggestion.
You have the victory, no doubt about it, because of rules!
It's a SUGGESTION to have less unfair issues in next tournaments!

SO you saw the rules and that's how you played the game? Do we have to check your first round?
You played hypno1973 who missed his manual deploy in all 7 games. It's then pretty easy to finish all those games in 4 to 6 rounds!

About number of games started : 5-2 is better of course, but not a big stat. (only 21% chance to start 5-2 than a 4-3 or 3-4) So it's not EXTRAORDINARY , it just happen more or less 3 times on 5 drops. Starting 6 or 7 would be a shame (regarding stats, respectively 8% and 2 %), I agree!

Yes about cairn coral coast, dices were awfull, despite to my start and bonus almost dropped, shit happens, but it was the same on another game that you started and that you should obviously win! And you've lost!

You're right about HIVE, I didn't realize at this point that rules were based on total round into the whole tournament.
So I'm not taking this as an excuse, it was an EXAMPLE.
How can we base the tie breaker on round limit when player can be dropped such different kind of map? The question remains....

In my heart, if you want to know, I don't care about finishing first or second in this tournament, and it was nice to play with you in those games. We discussed a lot about those games and also about tournament rules if you remember well!
I just don't like unfair issues for player, that's why I posted here to found if any change is possible for all next tournaments!
I also thought you could give your point of view about unfair rules like you said into our games. But you are not arguing this way, you're just telling that I'm "unsport"

Also don't you remember what you've said into the other tournament we're playing together?
"2018-01-15 16:41:16 - Chariot of Fire: I know right! It upset me when I saw the player manhatton after 2 rounds, he was 10/10 and above me. I thought "Wow, impressive" and then when I checked I discovered he had the SAME deadbeat opponent in Rounds 1 & 2 so of course he scored 10/10.
2018-01-15 16:41:57 - Chariot of Fire: and now this player cellioti gets similar because his opponent is a freemium
2018-01-15 16:42:27 - Chariot of Fire: I don't think I will join these auto tourneys any more because this system is daft"

So, as a conclusion, it upsets you when missers get point to other players, but it's fine when it's for you!
And as you said, if CC don't change some rules about it, some players (like you), will not join anymore tournament!

Chariot, this post wasn't made to make a fight beetween you and me!
It was made to found BETTER RULES FOR CC TOURNAMENTS.
I'm sorry if you didn't understand that.
Be sure I'm not upset about it.
If you are, well, I cant do nothing........;

Also it seems that even while playing 160 games or more, I'm still able to CONCENTRATE enough to win 5-2 in finale vs a BRIGADIER!!

DJ

[Dukasaur]

Also, in case TD and mods don't want to think about it

TD and mods have thought about it plenty. This is not something within our control. The tiebreakers are coded into the system and there is only one man who can change the system, and he has a lot on his plate. Improving the code in autotourneys is not currently on his radar. Trust me, if I could get his to revise the autotourney engine, I would have much higher priorites than screwing with the tiebreakers.

My priority list runs something like:

1. Change autotourneys to enable them to handle team games
2. Allow autotourneys to carry a reserve list and replace deadbeats
3. Allow autotourneys to start next round without waiting for all games to end (if it is a non-elimination round)
4. Enable more intricate scoring for autotourneys (not wins alone but kills, streak kills, etc.)

Adding more sophisticated tiebreakers would either be #5, or it could be seen as a component of #4 and part of the same package. However, my priority list is just as irrelevant as yours. The boss is the boss, and he will not be dictated to. He has his own priority list, and the system is running well enough right now that he feels he can best put his time into something new.

If we had a staff of thirty programmers, I could see demanding this change or that change, but we don't. We have one part-time webmaster doing all the coding changes, and the body of code is a lot bigger than you might think. Changes are limited in scope and limited in frequency, and when something is running well enough, we leave well enough alone. It's not the world's greatest set of tiebreakers, but it gets the job done.

I know you're good, but you can't win them all...

[Mad777]

Also, in case TD and mods don't want to think about it

TD and mods have thought about it plenty. This is not something within our control. The tiebreakers are coded into the system and there is only one man who can change the system, and he has a lot on his plate. Improving the code in autotourneys is not currently on his radar. Trust me, if I could get his to revise the autotourney engine, I would have much higher priorites than screwing with the tiebreakers.

My priority list runs something like:

1. Change autotourneys to enable them to handle team games
2. Allow autotourneys to carry a reserve list and replace deadbeats
3. Allow autotourneys to start next round without waiting for all games to end (if it is a non-elimination round)
4. Enable more intricate scoring for autotourneys (not wins alone but kills, streak kills, etc.)

Adding more sophisticated tiebreakers would either be #5, or it could be seen as a component of #4 and part of the same package. However, my priority list is just as irrelevant as yours. The boss is the boss, and he will not be dictated to. He has his own priority list, and the system is running well enough right now that he feels he can best put his time into something new.

If we had a staff of thirty programmers, I could see demanding this change or that change, but we don't. We have one part-time webmaster doing all the coding changes, and the body of code is a lot bigger than you might think. Changes are limited in scope and limited in frequency, and when something is running well enough, we leave well enough alone. It's not the world's greatest set of tiebreakers, but it gets the job done.

I know you're good, but you can't win them all...

Found odd you have the same priority list in regards of Auto Tournament

[Chariot of Fire]

Thanks Dukasaur for your detailed reply and I understand the complexities of how the system works. It's the most efficient way with the resources you have available and I'm appreciative of that (this was actually my first auto tourney and I thought the program ran very well). I agree with DJENRE in that the rules could do with some tweaking so players don't get easy passes into the next round (I think having freemiums join is the biggest issue). But at the end of the day one has to beat the competition whether they got there by skill or luck, so the end result probably never looks too misplaced.

And to DJENRE....come on man, just be good-natured about it. It seems you are bitter and feel cheated - that is the tone of your post - and now you go trawling through game history. I haven't brought up your luck in the early rounds, e.g. the player JEUX who lost 0-7 to you because he wasted all his troops attacking neutrals, or the player plumb who missed all his turns in R2 which is worse than not making the manual deploys, or the sitter fairman you had who did not finish games as quickly as possible (e.g.Game 17890545). All these things worked for and against you but you are now just writing about my luck?

If I was to start a thread on rule change suggestions I would start with "Congratulations to __________ on winning the XXXX Tournament, however may I suggest some modification to the Rules....". But this isn't how it comes across. Your two posts just highlight a lot of resentment, so much so that you feel the need to go back through game history. Well now that I've done the same I'd say you had been far luckier than I was throughout this tournament, so let's just leave it at that shall we and say 'gg'. Merci.

[Donelladan]

Doh ! DJENRE didn't ask to change the result of the tournament you played, read his post again, he asked to change the rule for future tournaments.
And come on, number of round to win the game, how can anyone think it is a fair system to design the winner.

I'd like to think that in your heart you knew you didn't deserve to win.

Really ? You really think in your heart that you deserve to win this tournament because you won your games faster than DJENRE ?
I mean I am not asking if you played well overall in all games, I am just asking, do you think it is a good reason to win a tournament that some of your games were finished in fewer rounds that those of your opponent ?

Just fyi, I already complained about this rule in the past, and one of my argument was the following, if you win your game in very few rounds, it usually means it was pure luck, when the game last many rounds, usually it means there was more skills involved.
I rarely win any game in less than 6 rounds unless I am just super lucky in the first few rounds. Thus, this exact rule is actually making lucky player win in general. Regardless of random map which obviously make it even worse.
I am not caring about this specific case, and yes, drawing big map will make your game longer if tournament is on random maps. No one can win a USA 2.1 in 6 rounds, but a doodle earth, lux, or even classic you can. That is obvious with the extreme case but work the same for any map.

So, mind replying on the topic, do you think it is FAIR that someone win a tournament because he finished his games in fewer rounds ? If you don't think so, then your comment that I quoted above was maybe a bit wrong.
And overall all your arguments about DJENRE's luck or whatever, because that is out of topic. The topic isn't trying to determine who between DJENRE and you should win the tournament, the topic is " is the current tie breaker rule for auto tournament a good one ?" ( the topic title is kind of clear about the topic I think). Djenre said no because obviously if someone got Hive and someone else got Macedonia it is kind of dumb to compare number of turns to win the game. I think we can all agree that he is right on that point.

[Chariot of Fire]

Doh ! DJENRE didn't ask to change the result of the tournament you played, read his post again, he asked to change the rule for future tournaments.

I never implied that he asked that, so WTF are you talking about? My point was simply that he hasn't accepted defeat gracefully and, further to his initial post, has gone on a mission to discredit my achievement. That is a pretty shitty thing to do and was uncalled for. Just move on, suggest changes, but not in the vein of "I should have won" for that is rather unsavoury for the player who did win over the 35 games.

And on a final note I never said I "deserved to win this tournament because I won my games faster than DJENRE". I deserved to win because I won more games than anybody else in a shorter time. Is that fair? You tell me, but I'm OK with that system unless a fairer one can be found. Thank you.

[Donelladan]

You implied that when you start justifying that you deserved the win.
Actually everything you said looks like you are thinking he want to take the win away from you.

To said he has gone on a mission to discredit your achievement is grotesque. Especially after he told you personally it is not the case at all, that he is only looking for a change the rule, so I really don't get your 3rd and even 4th post.

Is that fair? You tell me, but I'm OK with that system unless a fairer one can be found. Thank you.

I can give you a fairer system in one second, it is called head to head results and is used in most if not all tournament I ever played on CC except auto tournaments.
But really, anything is fairer that this system because this system does not make any sense in any way to find who played better.
To tell me that, to me, it looks like you are screaming " no I deserve this !! " grasping at straws, while actually no one care that you win that tournament, that is not the point of the topic.

Maybe you should read again everything without taking it like a personal attack about yourself. You seems really butt hurt about all of it. It is about a stupid tie breaker rule, that DJENRE is not even the first to complain about.
No one want to take away that "achievement" of yours.

[IcePack]

DJ

I’m not clear after reading the OP and thread what exactly you are suggesting. I agree some parts of the auto tournament rule isn’t great, but can you clearly state what exactly you are suggesting replaces it?

Thanks

[rockfist]

What difference does it make what the tiebreaker is, if we all know what it is before a tournament starts? As long as the rules aren't changed in the middle it should be fine. I've heard this argument about the CL tiebreaker (goal differential vs head to head) and this seems to be along the same lines.

[IcePack]

What difference does it make what the tiebreaker is, if we all know what it is before a tournament starts? As long as the rules aren't changed in the middle it should be fine. I've heard this argument about the CL tiebreaker (goal differential vs head to head) and this seems to be along the same lines.

I agree in general, but total rounds isn’t exactly a fair tie breaker as pointed out when one can get hive and the other doodle. Now for the tournament when you sign up, everyone knows and it’s fine.

But doesn’t mean it can’t use improvement at the same time for future tie breakers

[Mad777]

yes I confirm this has been mentioned more than once and not only from a « player level » but from a department level such as mine, the answer is and will still be the same until webmaster is willing to revise the actual auto-Tournament engine, refer to the written rules and hope for improvement in a near future, I know this is not much as a bandage but this is all I can tell to hope clearing the whole thing...

Note: I join to those who feels that the round amount to be a factor in random map Tournament...

Sorry folks

[IcePack]

I get that it won’t be changed anytime soon. But we can use this area to discuss and determine what the community would like it changed too.

So if it was going to be replaced eventually, what is the suggestion?

[TheForgivenOne]

I get that it won’t be changed anytime soon. But we can use this area to discuss and determine what the community would like it changed too.

So if it was going to be replaced eventually, what is the suggestion?

I honestly think if we get to a point where the "Final score" has become a tie, that a Sudden Death game could be played by the remaining participants that are in the tiebreaker. This would work for 1v1 tournaments. Might be tricky for multiplayer rounds, but if it's possible where a Final of a tournament was an 8 player game, where 3 players tied for first, that a final game would be played between those 3 players with the same settings/map pool as the original rules.

Of course this can be expanded upon and tweaked, but I view it as the best way to settle a tiebreaker. Not a "He only played X rounds compared to Y rounds".

[Swifte]

I just wish we had bracket-style auto tournaments.. those wouldn't require a tie-breaker.

[Dukasaur]

I just wish we had bracket-style auto tournaments.. those wouldn't require a tie-breaker.

We do have quite a few of those.

[DJENRE]

Also, in case TD and mods don't want to think about it

TD and mods have thought about it plenty. This is not something within our control. The tiebreakers are coded into the system and there is only one man who can change the system, and he has a lot on his plate. Improving the code in autotourneys is not currently on his radar. Trust me, if I could get his to revise the autotourney engine, I would have much higher priorites than screwing with the tiebreakers.

My priority list runs something like:

1. Change autotourneys to enable them to handle team games
2. Allow autotourneys to carry a reserve list and replace deadbeats
3. Allow autotourneys to start next round without waiting for all games to end (if it is a non-elimination round)
4. Enable more intricate scoring for autotourneys (not wins alone but kills, streak kills, etc.)

Adding more sophisticated tiebreakers would either be #5, or it could be seen as a component of #4 and part of the same package. However, my priority list is just as irrelevant as yours. The boss is the boss, and he will not be dictated to. He has his own priority list, and the system is running well enough right now that he feels he can best put his time into something new.

If we had a staff of thirty programmers, I could see demanding this change or that change, but we don't. We have one part-time webmaster doing all the coding changes, and the body of code is a lot bigger than you might think. Changes are limited in scope and limited in frequency, and when something is running well enough, we leave well enough alone. It's not the world's greatest set of tiebreakers, but it gets the job done.

I know you're good, but you can't win them all...

Hello Duka,
Thank you again for taking time to answer this.
Ok I understand what you're saying here and it seems it's not the priority because there are not enough programmers into CC. are they recruiting?
"The system run well enough" : I can't stop thinking about BW in front of the food distributor. He puts 2$ into the machine because he really wants some chips potatoes. But the machine gives him a "snicker". And the next person tell him "well, it works enough, you have some food anyway!"

Instead thinking of programming, have you ever think about non programming?
I mean, how many auto tournaments has ended this way? Where a winner cannot be shown after so many rounds, and where the first tie breakers (I mean fair tie breakers here) hasn't shown a winner. I don't think there are a lot...
Next "code" (and rule) could be : "If no winner is shown after tie breaker #1 and #2, the winner will be declared by a TD. TD will apply rule xxxxxxxxx.
I know this option also requires some new coding, but we could think about it for next codes to come. Sometimes, you should not put all AUTOMATED (when coding is too hard).

About your point #3 :

Allow autotourneys to start next round without waiting for all games to end (if it is a non-elimination round)

You should leave it like this. I mostly prefer to see the scoring round after round. I don't know what other players think.

+ I'm not pretending I'm good enough to win them all!

@Chariot of Fire
I told you GG in many games we shared, Think what you want man, I'm not bitter at all, believe it or not. And if you still think the same, please refer to Donelladan's post, who explained it better than I could (thanks Done! )
Also I'm not sure premium can join those tournaments, I presume they joined while PREMIUM but became FREEMIUM before it starts.
Not sure about it.

Also to Duka, what we've seen in many tournaments ( including last USA 52) is that differents players have been quicked out. Why do we give points to all their opponents? We should pair those players left instead giving them all points. Just another idea!

My point was simply that he hasn't accepted defeat gracefully and, further to his initial post, has gone on a mission to discredit my achievement

Man, 1 minute after creating this thread, I posted the link into you wall and asked you to come and comment about rules. Not about who deserve the victory or not.....
Never mind!


Regarding all next comment and if we turn this thread back into what it firstly belong => SUGGESTIONS!
Indeed like Done said, in this kind of tournament, I think 1vs1 results would be more fair than round limit.
About Freemium, I hope they're not able to join, and it's only PREMIUM who become FREEMIUM before the tournament starts.
If the total rounds remains (what I could agree if maps played are the same for all), you should add a column giving the total number of rounds (it's already calculated by the system, just show it!).
And as I said previously, when we're not able to code fair rules, maybe we should think about keeping some little things NOT AUTOMATED

DJ