Because when I started the league, I was already in Group A, so I never got to experience the climb up the ladder that others have to make.

Haha you're great I have to admit!

i have to admit the feeling climbing the ladder is awesome

Thanks huddyj. It's good to see you're still running it!

GROUP G

3P Boomshank 6-2(8, beat Kaerox)
2P Kaerox 6-2(8, lost to Boomshank)
2P Private Pabse 6-2(6, beat Suschel)
2P Suschel 6-2(6, lost to Private Pabse)
P Dogberry 5-3
P Cata Cauda 4-4
P Colonel Gavilian 2-6
8 tomjh 1-7
R mobtrio 0-8

Edited 10/1/2016 13:59:13

I would like to join the league!

tomjh, can you spell out how the tiebreakers played out? I don't understand how that ranking occurred.

Me neither tbh

you just look at the tourney played between the top 4 players.

2 of them have 2-1 and one of them beat the other. he is first the other guy is second.
2 of them have 1-2 -||- . he is thir the other guy is fourth.

EDIT:at least i think it´s so. could also be a bucholz setting :)

you just count the number of wins of the players you beat. meaning a loss against a bad player is good for you.
but both kaerox and boomshank lost to the same non 6-2 player so in the end their match has to decide the tiebreaker for first place, similar to the tiebreak for 3rd.

Edited 10/1/2016 20:27:47

I'll put out the official rankings for each group. But in this instance, since 4 players have the same record, you simply look at the games they played against each other. The top 2 have a 2-1 record, so their game against each other then decides 1st place. The other 2 have a 1-2 record, so their head-to-head result then decides 3rd and 4th places.

I don't think that's technically how the tie-breaker rules are written, though it does make a decent amount of sense.

@Dogberry, first it goes to win/loss ratio:

Player A adds the total wins of all the people they beat, then takes away the total wins of all the people they lost to.

Then without going to a tiebreaker, because Boomshank beat Kaerox, Boomshank tops our group and for the same reason Pabse came 3rd (they beat Suschel, though to no extra value).

just to add that first summing up the number of wins of the people you beat, then subtracting the sum of the wins of the people you lost against is pointless (since the sum of those two numbers is constant for people who have the same number of wins). it´s just enough to look at the first number (sum of the number of wins of the players you beat) which is called Bucholz (in a swiss-type chess tournament).

Warlight made this tiebreaker record confusing. In real life, players with same records should split their results from the table and see what is going on between themselves.

If they equal records between themselves, then they should see how they played against better ranked players out of that group, and if that makes the same result, either dice or game between tiebreaker should occur or nothing if the order doesn't affect anything.

This one is pretty obvious, and it should be like tomjh and gogo2711 have shown.

But Boomshank and Kaerox both lost to a 5-3 player and a 6-2 player while Suschel and Private Pabse both lost to two 6-2 players. Does this not give Boomshank a lower win/loss ratio because he lost to a worse player?


EDIT: Also, the rules, as currently written do a poor job of of clarifying to what degree each layer of rule breaking applies (or if it applies at all) when it does not fully resolve the tie.

Edited 10/3/2016 06:12:46

Hi Dogberry. I'll attempt to clarify the tie-break rules as I see them. I'll do this by starting from the very beginning.

#1. Normal Separation. Two players are separated first through their win-loss record.

---

Scenario 1: Players separated with Win-Loss record
Player A (6-3)
Player B (5-4)
Scenario 2: Unbreakable win-loss tie (See #2: head-to-head rule)
Player A (6-3)
Player B (6-3)

#2. Head-to-head rule. If multiple players finish with the same win-loss record, they are separated taking into account only the games played between the tied players (head-to-head games).

---

Scenario 1: 2-player breakable tie
Player A (6-3)(1-0) Defeated B
Player B (6-3)(0-1) Lost to A

Scenario 2: 3-player breakable tie
Player A (6-3)(2-0) Defeated B and C
Player B (6-3)(1-1) Defeated C but lost to A
Player C (6-3)(0-2) Lost to A and B

Scenario 3: 3-player unbreakable tie (See #3: Overall win-loss ratio)
Player A (6-3)(1-1) Defeated B but lost to C
Player B (6-3)(1-1) Defeated C but lost to A
Player C (6-3)(1-1) Defeated A but lost to B

Scenario 4A: 4-player breakable tie
Player A (6-3)(2-1)(1-0) Defeated B and one of either C or D but lost to one of either C or D
Player B (6-3)(2-1)(0-1) Defeated C and D, but lost to A
Player C (6-3)(1-2)(1-0) Defeated D but lost to A and B
Player D (6-3)(1-2)(0-1) Defeated one of either A or B, but lost to C and one of either A or B

Scenario 4B: 4-player breakable tie
Player A (6-3)(3-0) Defeated B, C, and D
Player B (6-3)(2-1) Defeated C and D but lost to A
Player C (6-3)(1-2) Defeated D but lost to A and B
Player D (6-3)(0-3) Lost to A, B and C

Scenario 4C: 4-player breakable tie with resultant 3-player unbreakable tie
Player A (6-3)(3-0) Defeated B, C, and D
Player B (6-3)(1-2)(1-1) Defeated one of either C or D but lost to A and one of either C or D
Player C (6-3)(1-2)(1-1) Defeated one of either B or D but lost to A and one of either B or D
Player D (6-3)(1-2)(1-1) Defeated one of either B or C but lost to A and one of either B or C
or
Player A (6-3)(2-1)(1-1) Defeated D and one of either B or C but lost to one of either B or C
Player B (6-3)(2-1)(1-1) Defeated D and one of either A or C but lost to one of either A or C
Player C (6-3)(2-1)(1-1) Defeated D and one of either A or B but lost to one of either A or B
Player D (6-3)(0-3) Lost to A, B, and C

#3. Overall Win-Loss Ratio. When the head-to-head rule fails to resolve a tie, a new win-loss ratio will be devised for each tied player. This is displayed as (x-y) following the head-to-head tie-break, where 'x' equals the combined wins of all players the tied player has defeated, and 'y' equals the combined wins of all players the tied player has lost against.

---

Scenario 1: 3-player unbreakable head-to-head tie is now breakable using win-loss ratio rule
Player A (6-2)(1-1)(22-8) Defeated B, D, E, F, G, and I but lost to C and H
Player B (6-2)(1-1)(20-10) Defeated C, D, F, G, H, and I but lost to A and E
Player C (6-2)(1-1)(19-11) Defeated A, E, F, G, H, and I but lost to B and D
Player D (5-3)
Player E (4-4)(1-0)
Player F (4-4)(0-1)
Player G (3-5)
Player H (2-6)
Player I (0-8)

#4. Tie-Break Tournament. If a tie cannot be split using any of the methods listed above, a tournament will be run involving only the tied players to separate the tie.

---

#5. Average Turn Speed. If a tie-break tournament results in another unbreakable tie, average turn speed within the tie-break tournament will be used to split the tie. (Or if time, a second tie-break tournament may be run)

Edited 10/3/2016 23:15:32

#999. Coin Flipper. Just in case.

So, based on what I am seeing, scenario 4a occurred in Division G and it did NOT in fact get decided by win/loss ratio.

Seems kind of silly that a player is rewarded for losing to inferior opponents though...


Additionally, I recommend clarifying the rules better, as there seems to be a lot of assumptions made that are not advertised, especially as they pertain to head-to-head result interpretation.


Thank you for the explanation.

it´s not silly that you reward consistency against tougher opposition, especially on a map that is so coin flippy sometimes.

You're rewarding inconsistency actually. Consistency would be rewarding the person that lost to 2 players with a 6v2 record. Inconsistency would be rewarding the player that lost to only one of those 6v2 players but also lost to a 1-8 player (hypothetically).

do you have trouble reading or just comprehending parts of my sentence?

consistency against tougher opposition. which is exactly what should be valued, especially on this type of map.