The Official Team Battle Thread Jan 2012- Feb 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Treadmill look above. I'm recomending that the scores are then divided by the numbers present. Do you think that is fairer now?
 
Treadmill look above. I'm recomending that the scores are then divided by the numbers present. Do you think that is fairer now?

Haha hate to be the thorn in The side but the same problem persists.

We could get max 18 points off of Texas that's 6 points average. Next time if they have all 4 and they play someone who uses only 3 like us that's a max of 36 points total and an average of 12, so we are still screwed. I think it should be averaged between the number of matches played.
 
Haha hate to be the thorn in The side but the same problem persists.

We could get max 18 points off of Texas that's 6 points average. Next time if they have all 4 and they play someone who uses only 3 like us that's a max of 36 points total and an average of 12, so we are still screwed. I think it should be averaged between the number of matches played.

Texas will only have 2 players for the whole tournie now as Tama Tones doesn't want to play.

I need to be on a comp to discuss this in greater detail.
 
Texas will only have 2 players for the whole tournie now as Tama Tones doesn't want to play.

I need to be on a comp to discuss this in greater detail.

It's not just Texas, this can happen with ANY team.

I think the idea I had works pretty well, it's like a relay race, everyone's performance matters, but it just matters who finishes the line first. Team EU beat Team America 23-22, that's a win, 1-0. Points no longer matter.
 
Check it...

Team A(4ppl) vs. Team B(2ppl). A sweeps taking all 24 points. Divide that by the number of matches, 8 and it comea out to 3 points earned per match.

Then team C(4ppl) plays team B(4ppl this time), C sweeps earning 48, divide by 16 matches, equals 3 points per match. Nobody is penalized. Even if a small team sweeps a larger team they get a 3 average and vice versa.

Say 5 person team plays a 1 person team. The one person wins half the points, he gets an average of 1.5, the same as the large team.

This the only way to make the number of competitors not matter...and its extremely easy.

This directly reflects how well each team performs despite their numbers.
 
Last edited:
Okay Tread, I understand where you get the numbers for like the sweeps, for instance in your battle with Texas, 18 points were up for grabs hence where the 3 point figure comes from (18 points divided by 6 matches), and in our battle with USA, 45 points were up for grabs, and at 15 matches, that is 3 points again....but how are you awarding the points?

For instance, in your meeting with Texas, you won 5 matches, they won 1. In our meeting with USA, EU won 8 matches, USA won 7.

So how are you converting those results into points (just so I understand)? You have 15 points and Texas has 3 points?
 
Last edited:
We only had 3 members present. Shouldnt our score be divided by three?

Yeah, I just amended that, giving you an average of 7 points instead of 6.

I just need to see what Treadmill has to say about his method. Because even though you have the best "average score", you won 7 games to our 8 so im not sure who exactly "the victor" should be. I think adding up the points and dividing by the number of players is probably the "fairest" way, so teams aren't running away with huge points but we'll see.
 
For instance, we had 16 points, there were 6 match UPS...so we get 2.7 rounded up. Texas would get .3

See what I mean...its average points per match up so that the actual number of matches doesn't matter.
 
Ahh, I get you now.

By that reckoning, EU had 1.53 and USA got 1.46, so we'd both be on 1.5 which would be an approximate draw.

Where did you get this method/idea from, Tread?

EDIT: Okay, i've got this now. Points won divided by games played. It's best to keep it as 2.7, 0.3, 1.5 and 1.5.

Thanks Tread I think you're right, the previous point system only works on the basis that every team has the exact number of players.

Give me two tics and i'll update the table.
 
Last edited:
Ahh, I get you now.

So, does this work better by putting in the score exactly (2.7 and 0.3) or if the scores were rounded up, thus giving you 2.5 and Texas 0.5?

By that reckoning, EU had 1.53 and USA got 1.46, so we'd both be on 1.5 which would be an approximate draw.

Where did you get this method/idea from, Tread?

EDIT: Okay, i've got this now. Points won divided by games played. It's best to keep it as 2.7, 0.3, 1.5 and 1.5.

Thanks Tread I think you're right, the previous point system only works on the basis thatt every team has the exact number of players.

me two tics and i'll update the table.

U didn't know treadmill works for NASA?
 
U didn't know treadmill works for NASA?

Is his wrestling name "The Astronaut"?

But seriously, thanks Tread.

Everyone, carry on as normal, post your results in here as normal, and just remember, your total points won is divided by the amount of games played for your final score. If you're unsure on how this works, just ask myself or Treadmill to convert your score.

EDIT: League table updated!

Currently Virginia are top, EU and USA are joint 2nd and 3rd with the other two teams yet to play!
 
I guess cause he rounded up to the tenth decimal place, suppose it could be avoided using the hundredths...

Anywho glad it makes sense now, I just think it works easier when 3 is always the max amount of points regardless of how many players. And it's easier to see how well a team did.
 
I still think my way makes sense because why does Europe win but really ties America?

We won more games, but their average score was better, so who do you give it to? Treadmill's way gets around the issue of numbers and points. Your team won the lion share of points in your match with Texas as reflected in the (new) points system. EU and USA pretty much got equal points out of the total that was available.

While your method is sound as well Saix, what this does though is put massive pressure on a smaller team, as the bigger team doesnt have to work that hard to win, and yours and my previous method only really works if each team had the exact amount of players.

Maybe if we do a league next time, there has to be an exact number, like 3 players a team. Then it's done like a sport event, a win is 3 points, a draw is 1 point and a loss is 0.
 
Hey guys, sorry for butting in again lol. On seeing Treadmill post and the method he proposed, I thought it was right, but I still worked out a small illustration anyway and noticed a flaw. Its not really a mathematical flaw but a question arises if using that method shows the true skill of a Team. I shall type out the illustration in excel and post a printscreen here in a few and eplain how.

Sorry if I seem to be bringing in uneccesary complexities,as a follow of your tournaments I just wanted to ensure it runs well on all levels. :)
 
This is blowing my mind.

Or if there is a 3 person team vs. a 5 person team, we just turn it into a 3 vs 3 (the 5 person team picks the top 3?) just throwing something in but it may be too late for that.
 
Last edited:
This is blowing my mind.

Or if there is a 3 person team vs. a 5 person team, we just turn it into a 3 vs 3 (the 5 person team picks the top 3?) just throwing something in but it may be too late for that.

I considered this, but then realised that would mean everyone playing Texas could only submit 2 players. Texas would never get good points.

I know what Treadmill has shown looks confusing, and it took me awhile but I see what he is doing now and it's really just a way of improving the current system that is fair to all teams, regardless of size. Basically the total points won at the end of a battle is a percentage of 3 points. If you add EU and USA points up in the league table, they come to 3. If you add up Tex and Virginia, it comes to 3. See?

Our two teams came to a draw last night. I just saw the scores and Pink got completely blown up! O_O
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top