World Cup 2018 Signups!

Find the tournament calendar, sign up for tournaments, track tournament results, and fill out the tournament director questionnaire here.
Message
Author
Ogion
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:21 pm
Karma: 122
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#461 Post by Ogion » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:01 am

I guess the seeding doesn't matter now, right? Because I've been working hard at cratering my GR just for this tournament....

Durga
Posts: 9486
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:01 pm
Location: Canada
Karma: 5120
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#462 Post by Durga » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:26 am

Hey our team goal was also doing better than Greater Lakes did last year!

celaph
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:41 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Karma: 1141
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#463 Post by celaph » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:00 am

ChippeRock wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:10 pm
I will admit, if we had 2 way drawn one of our games we would be in but that should never have been needed when we dominatingly finished with 16 & 14 SCs in two 3 way draws.

Also, the points system should honestly give much more of a points advantage TBH for if you were to 3 way draw with 17 SCs versus 3 way draw with 1 SC. I mean your only getting 11% more points than being the weak dude in the draw. And that's the most extreme case!
I agree that the current point system puts a very minimal value on the number of supply centers held by everyone in a draw. I think that the simplest solution moving forward would be to award more than one point for each center held (which is the current system). For example, if everyone got 5 points per center [while keeping the number of points from draw size the same], then larger powers in a draw would get significantly more points. If you have a different system in mind, then feel free to share it.

Looking back at the most recent group stage there are winners and losers with this new system. For example, Canada only ended with 23.5 centers (counting GB centers as 1/2) while the South had 30. As such, putting more value on centers clearly hurts Canada.

I was curious about how changing the value of centers (while holding points from draw size constant) would change the outcome of the group stage. As such, I made a spreadsheet to rescore the group stage with any value for supply centers that I wanted. The following are my results:

Even with a points per supply center of 2, Greatest Lakes edges Canada for the 3rd seed.
We have to have 12 points per supply center for East Coast to take the 4th seed from Canada.
At 25 points per supply center California takes the 6th seed from Poland.

Finally, at 34 points per supply center, South edges out Poland for the 7th seed marking the first change in the teams that are advancing. Meanwhile, Cascadia would have 1888 points under this new system. I, for one, think that 34 points per supply center is excessive.

In conclusion, while I agree that the current system does not reward being a large power in a draw enough, it does not seem to be responsible for the current set of teams advancing. You will have to just stick with blaming the grouping decision.

VillageIdiot
Posts: 714
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:55 am
Karma: 654
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#464 Post by VillageIdiot » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:11 am

Could you tally up what the scores would be if we gave the points based off bodies of water occupied?
1

Durga
Posts: 9486
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:01 pm
Location: Canada
Karma: 5120
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#465 Post by Durga » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:14 am

Why can't we just do SoS

ChippeRock
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:36 pm
Karma: 117
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#466 Post by ChippeRock » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:50 am

CWagYourTail wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:00 am
ChippeRock wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:10 pm
I will admit, if we had 2 way drawn one of our games we would be in but that should never have been needed when we dominatingly finished with 16 & 14 SCs in two 3 way draws.

Also, the points system should honestly give much more of a points advantage TBH for if you were to 3 way draw with 17 SCs versus 3 way draw with 1 SC. I mean your only getting 11% more points than being the weak dude in the draw. And that's the most extreme case!
I agree that the current point system puts a very minimal value on the number of supply centers held by everyone in a draw. I think that the simplest solution moving forward would be to award more than one point for each center held (which is the current system). For example, if everyone got 5 points per center [while keeping the number of points from draw size the same], then larger powers in a draw would get significantly more points. If you have a different system in mind, then feel free to share it.

Looking back at the most recent group stage there are winners and losers with this new system. For example, Canada only ended with 23.5 centers (counting GB centers as 1/2) while the South had 30. As such, putting more value on centers clearly hurts Canada.

I was curious about how changing the value of centers (while holding points from draw size constant) would change the outcome of the group stage. As such, I made a spreadsheet to rescore the group stage with any value for supply centers that I wanted. The following are my results:

Even with a points per supply center of 2, Greatest Lakes edges Canada for the 3rd seed.
We have to have 12 points per supply center for East Coast to take the 4th seed from Canada.
At 25 points per supply center California takes the 6th seed from Poland.

Finally, at 34 points per supply center, South edges out Poland for the 7th seed marking the first change in the teams that are advancing. Meanwhile, Cascadia would have 1888 points under this new system. I, for one, think that 34 points per supply center is excessive.

In conclusion, while I agree that the current system does not reward being a large power in a draw enough, it does not seem to be responsible for the current set of teams advancing. You will have to just stick with blaming the grouping decision.
30 not 34 by the way gets us above California. I'm just saying that you get nothing for a 17 SC draw versus a 1 SC draw.

celaph
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:41 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Karma: 1141
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#467 Post by celaph » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:52 am

Durga wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:14 am
Why can't we just do SoS
Nothing says we can't.

If we scored it this way then the top 7 are:
Greatest Lakes
Cascadia
Silicon Valley
East Coast
South
Poland
California

More interestingly, Canada falls to 11th best overall despite being part of every draw.
1

Claesar
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:34 am
Karma: 1490
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#468 Post by Claesar » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:55 am

Durga wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:14 am
Why can't we just do SoS
That's not a good move going forward, as SoS will have been replaced by our new scoring system.

ChippeRock
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:36 pm
Karma: 117
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#469 Post by ChippeRock » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:57 am

ChippeRock wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:50 am
CWagYourTail wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:00 am
ChippeRock wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:10 pm
I will admit, if we had 2 way drawn one of our games we would be in but that should never have been needed when we dominatingly finished with 16 & 14 SCs in two 3 way draws.

Also, the points system should honestly give much more of a points advantage TBH for if you were to 3 way draw with 17 SCs versus 3 way draw with 1 SC. I mean your only getting 11% more points than being the weak dude in the draw. And that's the most extreme case!
I agree that the current point system puts a very minimal value on the number of supply centers held by everyone in a draw. I think that the simplest solution moving forward would be to award more than one point for each center held (which is the current system). For example, if everyone got 5 points per center [while keeping the number of points from draw size the same], then larger powers in a draw would get significantly more points. If you have a different system in mind, then feel free to share it.

Looking back at the most recent group stage there are winners and losers with this new system. For example, Canada only ended with 23.5 centers (counting GB centers as 1/2) while the South had 30. As such, putting more value on centers clearly hurts Canada.

I was curious about how changing the value of centers (while holding points from draw size constant) would change the outcome of the group stage. As such, I made a spreadsheet to rescore the group stage with any value for supply centers that I wanted. The following are my results:

Even with a points per supply center of 2, Greatest Lakes edges Canada for the 3rd seed.
We have to have 12 points per supply center for East Coast to take the 4th seed from Canada.
At 25 points per supply center California takes the 6th seed from Poland.

Finally, at 34 points per supply center, South edges out Poland for the 7th seed marking the first change in the teams that are advancing. Meanwhile, Cascadia would have 1888 points under this new system. I, for one, think that 34 points per supply center is excessive.

In conclusion, while I agree that the current system does not reward being a large power in a draw enough, it does not seem to be responsible for the current set of teams advancing. You will have to just stick with blaming the grouping decision.
30 not 34 by the way gets us above California. I'm just saying that you get nothing for a 17 SC draw versus a 1 SC draw.
Forget what I just said.

Whatever, I think that we just got screwed with an inadequate scoring system, a competitive group, and the year. Any other year we would be in. Don't get me started on team Netherlands.

celaph
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:41 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Karma: 1141
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#470 Post by celaph » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:58 am

ChippeRock wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:50 am
30 not 34 by the way gets us above California. I'm just saying that you get nothing for a 17 SC draw versus a 1 SC draw.
Huh. I would be curious to see how you got there and where we differ, but that is beside the main point. I agree with your point about a 17 SC draw not meaning much.

-----
EDIT: NVM, just saw your changes.

Balki Bartokomous
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:15 am
Location: Island of Mypos
Karma: 541
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#471 Post by Balki Bartokomous » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:17 am

The scoring system would have been fair if the TD had simply offered the courtesy of telling us all what it was before the event started so that we knew what goalposts to shoot for.

goldfinger0303
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:17 pm
Karma: 1050
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#472 Post by goldfinger0303 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:30 am

Balki Bartokomous wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:17 am
The scoring system would have been fair if the TD had simply offered the courtesy of telling us all what it was before the event started so that we knew what goalposts to shoot for.
I know right? The TD is such a dick.

I'd like to thank CWagYourTail for the analysis. Basically shows it doesn't matter which scoring system is used - the right teams are advancing. And I don't care what you say about SC counts - if a team has been a part of every draw, they deserve to be in the Finals, irrespective of their SC count. That is an impressive feat to accomplish in this tournament.

ChippeRock - yeah, this year was unusually competitive for that 7th slot. We had far many more solos than usual in the other groups. Just bad luck there. That's the primary factor.

Durga
Posts: 9486
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:01 pm
Location: Canada
Karma: 5120
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#473 Post by Durga » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:57 am

CWagYourTail wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:52 am
Durga wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:14 am
Why can't we just do SoS
Nothing says we can't.

If we scored it this way then the top 7 are:
Greatest Lakes
Cascadia
Silicon Valley
East Coast
South
Poland
California

More interestingly, Canada falls to 11th best overall despite being part of every draw.
I like this better

Hamilton Brian
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 4244
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:21 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Karma: 1316
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#474 Post by Hamilton Brian » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:21 pm

Durga wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:57 am
CWagYourTail wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:52 am
Durga wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:14 am
Why can't we just do SoS
Nothing says we can't.

If we scored it this way then the top 7 are:
Greatest Lakes
Cascadia
Silicon Valley
East Coast
South
Poland
California

More interestingly, Canada falls to 11th best overall despite being part of every draw.
I like this better
Canadist!

Mercy
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:03 pm
Karma: 220
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#475 Post by Mercy » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:29 pm

goldfinger0303 wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:10 pm
I remember right after the seeds were announced getting a blistering PM from Mercy crying foul, saying Netherlands had been shafted and put into a Group of Death.
For the record: I didn't do so. Rather, I was legitimately concerned that goldfinger may had made a mistake with the seeding, because I found it very strange that the seeding of my team was so low. The reasons turned out to be that the GR of our subs counted as much as that of our normal players, and our subs were almost only active on other Diplomacy sites, thus they had a low GR; and my GR that was taken into account was from the category 'DSS/SoS, Classic Map, Full Press, Non-Live', and I, despite being in the top 100 of overall GR, had never played under these settings before, thus I had a low GR as well.

Anyways, good luck to all the teams that made it to the finals! Team East Coast, please prove to Cascadia that they made a mistake by allowing your team into the finals and not Team Netherlands. >:D

I will prepare popcorn.

User avatar
JECE
Posts: 1478
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:35 pm
Karma: 393
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#476 Post by JECE » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:57 pm

The scoring system was designed to emulate WTA scoring, with PPSC scoring (extended to drawn games) as a sort of tiebreaking criteria.

User avatar
JECE
Posts: 1478
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:35 pm
Karma: 393
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#477 Post by JECE » Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:02 pm

goldfinger0303: Could you update the tournament webpage with the crossed out names of players that got replaced in their games, like the name of the original Russia in Group A Public Press? That was the norm in prior tournaments.

slypups
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:04 am
Karma: 3
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#478 Post by slypups » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:39 pm

Meh - if you changed the scoring to SoS or more points per SC, that would have changed the way people played, so you cannot score these games based on the system we did not use. For example, in my game, I could have easily picked off another SC (or even two) from another player late in the game before drawing if that would have made a difference in my team advancing.

slypups
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:04 am
Karma: 3
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#479 Post by slypups » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:40 pm

And why does "seeding" matter in the finals? I understand for group play seeding is significant because it attempted to spread out the strongest teams. But for the finals, aren't all seven teams on equal footing going in? So seeding is meaningless, right?

goldfinger0303
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:17 pm
Karma: 1050
Contact:

Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!

#480 Post by goldfinger0303 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:21 pm

It was just some flavor/bragging rights. Was trying to have a bit of fun
2

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests