Re: World Cup 2018 Signups!
Posted: 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....
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=298
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.ChippeRock wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:10 pmI 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!
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.CWagYourTail wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:00 amI 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.ChippeRock wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:10 pmI 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!
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.
Forget what I just said.ChippeRock wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:50 am30 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.CWagYourTail wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:00 amI 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.ChippeRock wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:10 pmI 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!
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.
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.ChippeRock wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:50 am30 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.
I know right? The TD is such a dick.Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:17 amThe 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 like this betterCWagYourTail wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:52 amNothing 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.
Canadist!Durga wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:57 amI like this betterCWagYourTail wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:52 amNothing 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.
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.goldfinger0303 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:10 pmI 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.