[vote] K-D is a bad factor for ranking teams. Should we fix it now with rematch?

[griffin1987]

1. Delaying the game for a better K-D is NOT a normal BT behavior. Just think about the game you played before, those league/priv games, when you can destroy the base and end the game, did you ever delay the game for a better K-D? I doubt about it. This is a common sense of the BT game. Also it is a default assumption when I designed the BTT rule.

That's just plain false. The league ranking system encourages better k/d, as you get more points the more k/d factor you have compared to the worst, thus its better to get a higher difference out of a game. Also, would a fifa team stop trying to shoot goals after already having a score of 3:0 ? No, they wouldn't.

2. In my opinion, killing a weak team again and again to get a better K-D is against the spirit of the sport. It is like in the boxing game when your opponent is on the ground and you are still beating him. Even if the rule allows this, it wouldn't be a nice thing to do. Yes, Beertanks is a weak team. We know it and they know it too. All they want is try to play as long as they can. So they were already happy when the game went for 1hour, they think that's the new record. I like the Beertanks spirit: when you know basically you cannot win, but still never give up, and have fun. On the other hand, OldSchool just make me feel cruel. Just thinking as if you are Beertanks, if some other people kill you again and again, would you like it? Btw, to team OldSchool, this is only my personal idea. Please don't take it as official. Different people may have different perspective and standard. Here I just want to tell you how do I feel. And I respect what you think too.

Most of you probably know I never give up a game and always play it till the end. Just as beertanks did. You make it sound like we executed someone. ITS A GAME. Really, I don't like it how you've been insulting my team from the start. We did nothing against the rules and you make it sound like we're the most evil guys in the world. You might not see it that way, but you're the btt organizer, and thus your word in that matter can't be taken as "only personal idea". That is why I've repeatedly asked to please remove your insults to my team. Thank you.

3. The reason OldSchool is ranked higher, is because their an abnormal behavior. Without the +70 K-D earned from Beertanks, they cannot ranked at 1st. But when designed the BTT rules, I was based on the common sense of BT. I assumed all games should happen with normal behaviors, i.e. no one tries to get a better K-D on purpose. So this is my problem when making the BTT rules.

Again, getting a good k/d is one of the basics of bt. For example, the kick system is based mostly around k/d (And that's a fact, not a personal oppinion.), so it can't be "abnormal behaviour" to try and get a good k/d.

4. I knew we might have to change the BTT rule from the very beginning. The BTT tournament is more like a 1-time thing. It doesn't happen every month. Actually this is the 2nd time of the human history. So we don't have a lot of experience, plus we are trying the new FIFA-like system for the 1st time. I already spend a lot of time on the BTT rules to make it working well. But my time is limited, and I am also not smart enough to foresee everything. So the BTT rule was never meant to be perfect. This is why we had Rule 17. Just in case something goes wrong, we can correct it at any moment.

"goes wrong" = the end result doesnt match someones personal oppinion?

5. Making extra games is the most fair way. In the old BTT rule, we had 3 factors for ranking. (a) team points, (b) win-lose relationship, ( c ) K-D. If all 3 factors fail, the old rule says we need to make extra games to decide the rank. Now I am only asking to remove the 3rd ranking factor, which is the minimum change to the existing BTT rule. In this case, it won't be unfair to the other teams. And because the rank of the 3 teams in Group C cannot be decided by factor 1 and 2. We shall make extra games as the old rule said. Only the 3rd factor is now removed.

"fair" is something that everyone of us decides for himself. Still, a fair judge is always someone who weighes facts against each other objectively, without being influenced by anyones oppinion - and without adding his own, personal oppinion.

6. Why do you dislike extra games? In my opinion, the good part of join BTT is to have some real games, where all players are seriously playing it. So I wouldn't mind to have more games. It is also a good chance for team training. If my team deserves the 1st of tournament, I wouldn't be afraid of 1-2 extra games. If my team don't deserve it, we could lose anyway in the next round.

I don't dislike them, but there's 2 problems in this case:
1. Why do some teams get additional games, while others don't?
2. Why should the other teams have to shift their schedules by a week because you want to change rules?

Think about it that way: If every team was given the chance for a rematch now, it would be possible that those who're in one of the last 2 places now get one of the two top spots.

7. If we follow exactly the BTT rule, many game would have become default win. Some people may think this way: yes, the rule is bad, but it is the same for everyone. And because the tournament has started, we should just follow it. What I want to say is, the BTT rules can be sometimes a bit flexible to make sure the tournament going well. In fact, we had adapted the rule many times to avoid default win. The Revoltek re-group was an example, otherwise they cannot play any game. The 3v3 games were also an example. Also we had many times that people came late, and not sitting in the game on time. In the OldSchool vs. Beertanks, green used once "-afk" which is not allowed, etc. My point is, provided it is fair and based on the common sense of BT, we can tolerant the rule for some certain situations to make the tournament going well.

You're still arguing with "fair" and "common sense of BT". Yes, we all want a "fair" game, but in this situation, wouldn't fairness mean, that all were given the same possibilities, and the same options from start? Isn't that actually what happened?


Sorry if something I write doesn't read as nice, but being from a technical background I really dislike it when people speak of terms such as "fairness" and then take their personal views as a measurement scale - well, that might be what "fairness" is actually defined as, but then it's definitely got nothing to do with treating people equally, which makes it the same kind of "fairness" others use to justify their political means.

Best Regards