RBW5 - Players road to qualification

[PouletMayo1]

I don't see a scenario where Daut does not get in. His buch score is pretty high.
Daut played against at least one of the opponent of each Villese and Vinch.
Both Daut and Villese played against Jordan and Nicov
Both Daut and Vinch played against Capoch.
He needs to be ahead of both.

 

[mgenie]

Is daut in rn?
Can someone confirm?

Yes, DauT is a lock.

 

[Tendo]

If Villese wins Tatoh has good chances.
Both him and Villese would have 7 Buchholz then, while Tatoh gets a point if Hera wins and Villese if Jordan wins and with 6-5 Mapwins Tatoh has a better Score then Villese (rn 3-5, so 5-5 at best).

 

[mgenie]

Updated possibilities (unless I entered a recent result wrong). Please remember, some ties are very hard or even unsolvable. Here are the locks: JorDan_AoE, Liereyy, Hera, TheViper, Capoch, DauT.

MbL is almost a lock. He is out in the crazy edge cases where he loses, Villese wins now, JorDan_AoE beats Liereyy, and Villese secures the win 2-0 while MbL loses 0-2. Any difference to any of those results causes either an unsolvable tie (where BP and map differential is equal, for instance if JorDan wins, Villese wins 2-0, and MbL loses 1-2), or an MbL qualification (if Liereyy wins).

Vinchester is in with a win right now.

TaToH needs a Villese win, and a Hera or Viper win, plus some other help.

Barles {14: 256}
Capoch {5: 72, 2: 8, 3: 80, 6: 56, 4: 40}
dogao {12: 32, 13: 224}
DauT {6: 80, 5: 80, 7: 96}
Hera {3: 76, 4: 52, 6: 64, 7: 48, 5: 16}
JorDan_AoE {1: 128, 4: 12, 2: 112, 3: 4}
Liereyy {2: 120, 3: 8, 1: 128}
MbL {8: 40, 9: 4, 7: 52, 4: 100, 6: 20, 5: 12, 3: 28}
Nicov {13: 32, 12: 224}
slam {10: 256}
TaToH {9: 160, 7: 16, 8: 80}
Villese {11: 128, 8: 32, 9: 92, 7: 4}
Vinchester {7: 24, 11: 128, 8: 104}
TheViper {4: 52, 3: 60, 6: 36, 5: 76, 7: 16, 2: 16}

 

[Influenza]

am i the only one who thinks this entire qualification process is poorly devised?

Like DauT being given extra boosts to his Buccholz score by being matched vs winners even though he was a loser while slam was just totally screwed with his matchups and had no chance at all. When you win/lose and who this random ass system gives you as an opponent weigh way too much.

 

[Tendo]

TaToH needs a Villese win, and a Hera or Viper win, plus some other help.

Sure about that?
What if Lierrey wins and Hera loses?
Won't Tatoh then still be in since both him and Villese have 7 Points but Tatoh has better Mapwins compared to Villese?

 

[PouletMayo1]

Now that Vinch won a single game, MBL is in.

 

[archxeon]

am i the only one who thinks this entire qualification process is poorly devised?

Like DauT being given extra boosts to his Buccholz score by being matched vs winners even though he was a loser while slam was just totally screwed with his matchups and had no chance at all. When you win/lose and who this random ass system gives you as an opponent weigh way too much.

While you have a valid point, this method also gives you a better chance than single elimination. Slam would probably have gone against top 3 and out of round 1. In hindsight, DauT was lucky. However, one could say he was also unlucky to go against higher opponents so he couldn't get more wins. And wins > Buchholz points.

 

[polyomavirus]

Now that Vinch won a single game, MBL is in.

I gotta say, this sounds so odd. I know that this is how the Swiss system works and that every system has pros and cons, but damn, it just sounds so weird. Makes the final day such a strange scramble.

Vinchester won one game against Villese, so MbL has qualified…

 

[mgenie]

That map loss really hurts Villese. His path forward is as follows, if he somehow wins 2-1:

So Villese has two chances with a 2-1 over Vinch:
Hera + Liereyy lose
Liereyy loses and MbL loses 2-0. This creates an unsolvable tie between Villese and MbL.

 

[mgenie]

Sure about that?
What if Lierrey wins and Hera loses?
Won't Tatoh then still be in since both him and Villese have 7 Points but Tatoh has better Mapwins compared to Villese?

If Hera and Liereyy both lose TaToH is stuck at 7 to Villese's 8.

 

[Tendo]

If Hera and Liereyy both lose TaToH is stuck at 7 to Villese's 8.

Yes, but I asked what if Lierrey wins and Hera loses.
Then it's 7-7 and Tatoh is in while Villese is out.

 

[mgenie]

am i the only one who thinks this entire qualification process is poorly devised?

Like DauT being given extra boosts to his Buccholz score by being matched vs winners even though he was a loser while slam was just totally screwed with his matchups and had no chance at all. When you win/lose and who this random ass system gives you as an opponent weigh way too much.

No, it's why this system is so good. In no world should beating Barles and dogao be worth the same as beating Nicov and TaToH. Similarly, losing to a really strong opponent (Jordan) shouldn't be punished like losing to a lower performing opponent (Vinchester).
It's a really good system where 3 wins makes you a lock, but even 2 wins has you in if the losses were to top performers and you beat some high performers.

 

[mgenie]

Yes, but I asked what if Lierrey wins and Hera loses.
Then it's 7-7 and Tatoh is in while Villese is out.

Yes, sorry, that is an additional case where TaToH gets in.

 

[Influenza]

No, it's why this system is so good. In no world should beating Barles and dogao be worth the same as beating Nicov and TaToH. Similarly, losing to a really strong opponent (Jordan) shouldn't be punished like losing to a lower performing opponent (Vinchester).
It's a really good system where 3 wins makes you a lock, but even 2 wins has you in if the losses were to top performers and you beat some high performers.

I did not say that beating different opponents should be seen as equal feats. The fact is that there will be 6 players ending on 2-2 and the tie breaking criteria is based primarily on which players you were randomly selected to play against is simply not a very good system.

I'm sure slam would have much preferred to play vs more difficult opponents and potentially lose 1-3, or qualify with a 2-2 rather than getting a meaningless 2-2 with no chance of qualifying due to the opponents that were chosen for him. There has to be a better tie breaker than this random strength of schedule ****.

 

[mgenie]

I did not say that beating different opponents should be seen as equal feats. The fact is that there will be 6 players ending on 2-2 and the tie breaking criteria is based primarily on which players you were randomly selected to play against is simply not a very good system.

I'm sure slam would have much preferred to play vs more difficult opponents and potentially lose 1-3, or qualify with a 2-2 rather than getting a meaningless 2-2 with no chance of qualifying due to the opponents that were chosen for him. There has to be a better tie breaker than this random strength of schedule ****.

If you get easier opponents, go 3-1. If you're gonna go 2-2, you deserve to be at the mercy of the strength of your schedule.

 

[malamadre]

This system is super confusing.

 

[Influenza]

If you get easier opponents, go 3-1. If you're gonna go 2-2, you deserve to be at the mercy of the strength of your schedule.

If he won his games in a different order he wouldn't even have the same opponents nor the same strength of schedule, lol. In the only league that I am personally familiar with that uses strength of schedule as a tie-breaking criteria, there are 5 other tie breaking criteria that come first. And that's in a league where all the opponents are set in stone and not randomly chosen out of a hat as the season progresses.

 

[_Andrew]

I respect you guys going through all the permutations even for the 1% outcomes. That takes a love for math that I've never had.

 

[mgenie]

If he won his games in a different order he wouldn't even have the same opponents nor the same strength of schedule, lol. In the only league that I am personally familiar with that uses strength of schedule as a tie-breaking criteria, there are 5 other tie breaking criteria that come first. And that's in a league where all the opponents are set in stone and not randomly chosen out of a hat.

AoE2 did not invent Swiss with Buchholz. I'm curious what you think is a better way to run a tournament with 14 players.
"If he lost in a different order", e.g. if he won his first game against Vinchester, who will finish 2-2 at best. That loss should hurt him; it's not a good loss. You suggest he randomly got weaker opponents; if that's true, it's his job to beat at least 3 of them, not two of them.

 

[kw1k000000]

AoE2 did not invent Swiss with Buchholz. I'm curious what you think is a better way to run a tournament with 14 players.
"If he lost in a different order", e.g. if he won his first game against Vinchester, who will finish 2-2 at best. That loss should hurt him; it's not a good loss. You suggest he randomly got weaker opponents; if that's true, it's his job to beat at least 3 of them, not two of them.

If MBL loses his game today vs Viper (quite likely) then he will end up a 2-2 record. MBL only loses to Lierry, Viper (Both top 4 performers in this event and seed wise as well)

Vilese and Vinch are playing against each other so one of them will have a 2-2 record. Vilese only faced one top 4 performer (Jordan) and lost to him, same for Vinch, he also only faced one top 4 performer (Hera) and lost to him.



Would it be really justified if Vinch/Vilese go to playoff at the expense of MBL considering both will end up with a 2-2? This is possible if tiebreaker works out this way.

 

[Influenza]

We did not invent Swiss with Buchholz. I'm curious what you think is a better way to run a tournament with 14 players.
"If he lost in a different order", e.g. if he won his first game against Vinchester, who will finish 2-2 at best. That loss should hurt him; it's not a good loss. You suggest he randomly got weaker opponents; if that's true, it's his job to beat at least 3 of them, not two of them.

The best system I can think of would take too long. But I think one extra day of qualifiers is probably better than a 6 way 2-2 strength of schedule tie breaker.

 

[mgenie]

If MBL loses his game today vs Viper (quite likely) then he will end up a 2-2 record. MBL only loses to Lierry, Viper (Both top 4 performers in this event and seed wise as well)

Vilese and Vinch are playing against each other so one of them will have a 2-2 record. Vilese only faced one top 4 performer (Jordan) and lost to him, same for Vinch, he also only faced one top 4 performer (Hera) and lost to him.



Would it be really justified if Vinch/Vilese go to playoff at the expense of MBL considering both will end up with a 2-2? This is possible if tiebreaker works out this way.

No, that scenario is not possible. Vinchester can not go in at MbL's expense (because Vinch win knocks TaToH out).
Villese can no longer qualify at MbL's expense. Worst case for MbL, they are locked in an unsolvable tie.

 

[mgenie]

The best system I can think of would take too long. But I think one extra day of qualifiers is probably better than a 6 way 2-2 strength of schedule tie breaker.

That would be an interesting wrinkle, but since you would have to set the pairings somehow I think you would find it is still subject to the same complaints you have with the Swiss.

 

[The Bloodless]

Very surprising to see capoch in.

As far as the system goes, I am a bit of a fan of determining tie breaks with "actual" wins ideally but there's no doubt that a 2-2 score with wins vs lierrey and daut, for instance, would/should count a lot higher than wins vs barles and slam. Ideally there's a system in place that makes tie breaks extremely uncommon though. For instance, I would prefer such a system to give an advantage to a player who beats Lierrey, e.g., vs by having him face barles next game for the decider, rather than facing Viper. Such that a tiebreak didn't directly determine a player to "move on" but instead did so indirectly.