Poll: Should we disregard K-D and make extra game for Seig-GeiL, OldSchool, Oldscotch?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes, using K-D as a factor is bad. We should fix it now to make rematch. Otherwise it is unfair for Oldschotch.
47.22%
17 47.22%
No, maybe K-D is bad, but the tournament has started. We should stick to the existing rules and accept the fact Oldscotch is ranked 3rd.
52.78%
19 52.78%
Total 36 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[vote] K-D is a bad factor for ranking teams. Should we fix it now with rematch?
#1
In this tournament we used "the overall team kills minus deaths" as the 3rd factor to rank the teams. See BTT rule 5.4.
But now I have to admit it is clearly a mistake to use the k-d as a factor.

When making the rules, I thought the k-d might be a good factor because:
1. It is easy to understand/explain. All bt players know what is kill/death.
2. It is easy to calculate. The numbers are shown on the scoreboard. So good for referees.
3. The bt tournament system is a copy from the FIFA football system, where the "goal difference" (goals scored minus goals conceded) is commonly used as a tie breaker.

But after 3 rounds of games, I realized k-d has problems:
1. The BT games have no equal length. This is unlike the football games are all in 90min long. So it means the chance of having kills are not equal.
2. When the skill differences are too big between the 2 teams, the good team can delay the game on purpose to get a better k-d. I used to thought this could not happen, because a good team wouldn't bother to do it. But i was wrong.
3. Getting a kill in BT game is more easier than shootting a goal in the football. When 2 teams have really close k-d, like +/-1, it cannot measure their skills. Also you can easily fake it.
4. I thought with "-giveup" allowed, it will prevent the teams who seek for better K-D on purpose. But I didn't thought enough that some teams would try hard until the last minute.



The Group C games finished yesterday was a good example. 3 teams are with the same points.

And because the win-lose relationship is like a loop:
Seig-GeiL wins OldSchool
OldSchool wins OldScotch
OldScotch wins Seig-GeiL

According to the rules, we need to use the k-d as a tie breaker in this case.

The K-D of all games within group C is like this:
OldSchool (+47)
Seig-GeiL (+42)
OldScotch (+37)

If we follow strictly the BTT rules, OldSchool will end up in 1st rank, because they have 10 more k-d than the 3rd team OldScotch.



But it will be surely unfair to kick out OldScotch.

If you watch the replay of the last OldSchool game vs. BeerTanks. It was clear that they delayed the game on purpose, only because they want to get more kills.

OldSchool could've finish the game much earlier. I'd say within maximum +50 k-d against BeerTanks they could win the game. But they delayed it until they get a good k-d of +70.

If we substract the K-D vs. BeerTanks for all 3 teams, it will be like this:
Sieg-GeiL (+9)
OldScotch (-6)
OldSchool (-23)

This means the OldSchool ranked as 1st only because they kills on purpose a lot more in the game vs. BeerTanks. But Sieg-GeiL, OldScotch didn't do this when they play against BeerTanks.



On 1 side, what team OldSchool did violated the spirit of the sport.

But on the other side, team OldSchool didn't do anything outside the rules. The BTT2012 is a tournament. It is not wrong to do all you can do to get a good result. So on this point, I could understand them. If any other people was at this situation, they might probably do the same.

The BTT rule never allow or encourage any team to fake the K-D on purpose, but it also didn't clearly forbid it. When I write the rules, I assumed all the games finished in a natural way, i.e. no game delay for more k-d like OldSchool did.

So to speak, the BTT rule designer (me) should take the main responsibility. A bad rule can make good people doing bad things.



To summary,

First, I admit the K-D is a bad factor in BT to rank teams. It will not be used anymore in the future BT tournaments (if any). I want to thank Prokrastinat (Frechheit) and other people who mentioned this already long time back, but I didn't listen.

More imporantly, should we fix the bad rule now?
This means we will schedule extra games to decide the final rank between Sieg-GeiL, OldSchool and OldScotch. We will discuss how the extra games will be later. So this is why I start this voting thread. If we have enough supports, we will call BTT Rule 17 to abandon the K-D factor, and schedule extra games for the 3 teams.


p.s. If we abandon the K-D factor, we should also consider team BuG vs. team Boozers situation too.
BuG/Boozers have the same points, but BuG didn't even have the chance to play the 3rd game. Otherwise the K-D could be different.

Reply
#2
How about considering playing time instead of k/d. I haven't thought much about it, but the idea is that a good team will win faster than a bad even (or a bad loser will lose faster than a good loser which can hold it longer)

just another 2 centsWink
Marvin Wrote:The first ten million years were the worst and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million years I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline
Reply
#3
(2012-03-05, 16:12:32)eSVau Wrote: How about considering playing time instead of k/d. I haven't thought much about it, but the idea is that a good team will win faster than a bad even (or a bad loser will lose faster than a good loser which can hold it longer)

just another 2 centsWink

i also thought about that... problem is close to same with k/d... if you have a default win you have gametime 0Wink

theres no perfect solution.

Reply
#4
(2012-03-05, 16:33:19)gozo1985 Wrote:
(2012-03-05, 16:12:32)eSVau Wrote: How about considering playing time instead of k/d. I haven't thought much about it, but the idea is that a good team will win faster than a bad even (or a bad loser will lose faster than a good loser which can hold it longer)

just another 2 centsWink

i also thought about that... problem is close to same with k/d... if you have a default win you have gametime 0Wink

theres no perfect solution.

Have to agree with that. I also thought about using gametime, but there's too many factors in there as well. Also, it would lead to pretty aggressive use of advanced troop command pack, which is already being discussed at the moment.

I'm in on having rematches, and there's another solution which I'd like to propose: Having rematches not between the teams that already played, but between the teams in the different groups. Sieg-Geil vs Bug for example. This should circumvent getting to the same situation again (pairing would be up to you to decide ofc and this is only an example), as well as provide for games which didn't happen already.

Getting used to the Sand everywhere. At least it brings us map updates.
Reply
#5
btw. i will not vote for any of theese options. i mean yes its a poll (and i love them) but as i cant be objective its not fair. its a forum and if i want to register myself some more times i can push this poll to the side i want. sorry but i guess this should not be voted - especially not from ppl which are involved in this situation.
Reply
#6
btw.: What I didn't think about (and maybe neither did you): If we have rematches, it would postpone the matches of the rest of btt, which could mean that some people might be on vacation etc in the later games. That would be pretty unfair to them then, which would mean, if we were to have rematches, we would have to have them before the next round (quarter-finals) start, which looks pretty impossible to me, considering we only had 1 game per week till now :/

Edit: I won't vote either, for the same reasons.
Getting used to the Sand everywhere. At least it brings us map updates.
Reply
#7
worst case szenario happend -.-´

yes, abusing a (sadly, not perfect) rule isnt that nice at all, but since everyteam could use it in the grouphase (i hate this comparison), and we also reachd already the last round (3.) i wouldnt favour rematches or something like that.
Gustave Le Bon "... Die Einseitigkeit und Überschwänglichkeit der Gefühle der Massen bewahren sie vor Zweifel und Ungewissheit. Den Frauen gleich gehen sie sofort bis zum Äußersten. ...".
Reply
#8
Well, u can make this poll open. i mean so people can see who voted for wich option and don't count the votes of non-btt players.
It isn't the best solution imo. There isn't one.

I think the most logical is to count the k-d excluding matches vs BeerTanks since one of the teams didn't have chance to play against them.
It's a bit bitchy solution, but most logical imo.
Reply
#9
Delaying the tournament of one week so these teams can play against each other seems good for me. (and icnreasing the duration of btt = keep priv community active one more weekBig Grin)
I am so good that I don't even need to type -rc because I never die !
Reply
#10
Well i voted for NO . I shouldnt Vote, but obvious i wont get kicked out of tournament because of rulechange after finishing all games ^^
When Game shedule came out we should play vs Beer Tanks in 2nd week of tournament, but it changed to last weekend.
If we had played vs them before last Game and knowing about our K/D compairing to other teams we wouldnt have delayed game that much.
If they didnt show off we had been out of tournament without having any chance of doing something against it ... so we took our chance , didnt break any rules ...



Multiacc will get u better Teammates maybe, but u still unskilled as before. !!
True Story
Reply
#11
hi all,

anyway smartie....

teams which are involved in this situation should not vote....so oli take out those votes plz....
we cant vote objectively correct....

so oldscotch could vote 5 times "yes".

just let the dicision other more objective person, who are playing this tournament.....

greetings
Reply
#12
(2012-03-05, 17:42:08)progg Wrote: Well, u can make this poll open. i mean so people can see who voted for wich option and don't count the votes of non-btt players.
It isn't the best solution imo. There isn't one.

I think the most logical is to count the k-d excluding matches vs BeerTanks since one of the teams didn't have chance to play against them.
It's a bit bitchy solution, but most logical imo.

That'd be the worst solution possible, because then you'd need to do the same for every other match where 1 team didn't show up. Also it would be against the rules.

(on a sidenote: why do we talk about changing rules while the tournament has already started? What do we have those rules for then, if someone can change them at will?)
Getting used to the Sand everywhere. At least it brings us map updates.
Reply
#13
(2012-03-05, 18:10:40)griffin1987 Wrote: (on a sidenote: why do we talk about changing rules while the tournament has already started? What do we have those rules for then, if someone can change them at will?)

Code:
17. The BTT organizers reserve the right to modify the rules at a later time with valid reasons.
Marvin Wrote:The first ten million years were the worst and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million years I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline
Reply
#14
(2012-03-05, 16:12:32)eSVau Wrote: How about considering playing time instead of k/d.

Using "playing time" instead of k/d is also not fair, because game length is not equal.
Some team may delay the game to have longer time, which is easy to do.

Reply
#15
(2012-03-05, 18:13:54)olivercamel Wrote:
(2012-03-05, 16:12:32)eSVau Wrote: How about considering playing time instead of k/d.

Using "playing time" instead of k/d is also not fair, because game length is not equal.
Some team may delay the game to have longer time, which is easy to do.

Thats my point - a better team should win in shorter time than a not so well playing team. Shorter time are better than longer timesWink


Marvin Wrote:The first ten million years were the worst and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million years I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline
Reply
#16
in this case i would mention one of those many examples which are against the k/d rule:

i remember that a team had to play 3vs3 once cause their opp. didnt have 4 players on that day....so they had 2 options: to get a free win or play 3vs3....in both cases they would have bad k/d ratio....
so what would happen if that team would be in same situation? there are many little examples like that even in this tounament which become a big problem in special cases like this.....
so in my opinion k/d ratio does not work on btt.....

im done.....ich habe fertigWink

Reply
#17
(2012-03-05, 16:39:20)griffin1987 Wrote: I'm in on having rematches, and there's another solution which I'd like to propose: Having rematches not between the teams that already played, but between the teams in the different groups. Sieg-Geil vs Bug for example. This should circumvent getting to the same situation again (pairing would be up to you to decide ofc and this is only an example), as well as provide for games which didn't happen already.

Thanks griffin1987 for supporting having rematches.
But having games like Sieg-GeiL vs. BuG is also not fair. And hard to evaluate who play vs. who.

I think the rematch should be between only Sieg-GeiL, OldSchool, OldScotch.


Reply
#18
Tongue 
we should do a triple thread match ... or rage in a cage ... weapons allowed
Reply
#19
(2012-03-05, 16:57:00)griffin1987 Wrote: btw.: What I didn't think about (and maybe neither did you): If we have rematches, it would postpone the matches of the rest of btt, which could mean that some people might be on vacation etc in the later games. That would be pretty unfair to them then, which would mean, if we were to have rematches, we would have to have them before the next round (quarter-finals) start, which looks pretty impossible to me, considering we only had 1 game per week till now :/

I think we can use the next weekend only for the rematch. The other games can be delayed for 1 week. That's no big deal.


(2012-03-05, 17:42:08)progg Wrote: I think the most logical is to count the k-d excluding matches vs BeerTanks since one of the teams didn't have chance to play against them.
It's a bit bitchy solution, but most logical imo.

Yes, this is more logical to me. But it is not in the rule.

If we change the rule like this, it would be unfair to OldSchool.

I think the most fair way is to have rematch.

(2012-03-05, 18:15:39)eSVau Wrote: Thats my point - a better team should win in shorter time than a not so well playing team. Shorter time are better than longer timesWink

But then there are default wins. In that case the game time is 0.

It doesn't mean 1 team is super greater to win a game in such short time, it simply means the other team didn't show up.


Reply
#20
oli.. i mean it maybe happens (we all dont think soBig Grin ) that this matches again result in a loop... should we end this in paper, rock, scrissors (lizard, spock) ?

talking again k/d ratio of theese matches will be a facepalm for oldscotch and oldschoolWink
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Keeping teams up / Team League? griffin1987 2 3,160 2012-03-08, 23:23:15
Last Post: progg



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)