The Official Team Battle Thread Jan 2012- Feb 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alright Flagg, this is my illustration and explanation. Hope it helps.

Assume that there are 3 teams, A,B and C and they have equal number of members at the begining (or can have unequal numbers, does not matter). But the number of players who played are as follows. Round 1 is A vs B, round 2 is B Vs C, Round 3 is C vs A.

table1-1-1.jpg


In the next table I calculated the number of matches in each round based on the number of members who played

table2-1.jpg


Next, the table below shows the total points won by each team in each round. Also note than in each round, the total points would be the maximum possible point per match (which is 3) multiplied by the number of matches in table 2. The total of the points of the opposing teams in each round must tally with the aforementioned calculation.

total points in each round

Round 1:25+20=48=15*3
Round 2:18+12=30=10*3
Round 3:37+38=75= 25*3

table3-1.jpg


In the next table I just took an average based on two methods. One based on number of players played and the other based on number of matches. I shall came back to this again soon.

table4-1.jpg


Finally in the last table I made an aggregate total for each type of score for all teams to assess who is the winner.

table5-1.jpg


Thus from the above it is clear that we get three different rankings for all the three methods.
A wins in the first, C wins in the second and A wins in the third.

Now my arguments for each of the method

Method 1: I don't think this method of just considering the aggregate total is viable mainly because a team with a higher number of players has a starting advantage over the other. Also if team A scored 20 points with 5 players and team C scored 20 points with just 3, I would say Team C has done a better job. This point is also my support for the points per player method.

Method 3: Points per match method. I initially favored this method but my main gripe was that in each round we are diving the total aggregate score of each of the teams with the same denominator. For example in round 1 A scored an aggregate of 25 points vs B who scored 20. When both of these are divided by 10 we get 1.67 and 1.33 respectively. In other words, as far as a single round is concerned it does not make a difference if we take the aggregate or the average since in both cases A is winning. however I do agree this method has some importance while totaling up all the averages, which is evident in table 5.

Method 2:points per person method. I favor this method mainly because of my argument in method 1 and also the fact that we are dividing the total score by the persons played (different denominators for each, A-5, B-3, in round 1). Thus it has its relevance in individual rounds and also the total as a whole.

Hope this helps you somehow, also if you got doubts I don't mind explaining again.

Cheers mate! :)
 
Last edited:
Jinko I see what your doing but I think just basing it out of a possible 3 points is the best way due to the random number of participants from any team at any time. I understand that 2 ppl technically have a harder time beating 4 but if they are better they are rewarded with the appropriate points. And in doing so they prevent the team of 4 from gaining any, I don't really understand changing it to a more complicated method.

Also the points per player idea is greatly affected by the number of opposing team members, which is the problem we are trying to avoid. Abstract ideas like skill level shouldn't be figured in imo.
 
Jinko I see what your doing but I think just basing it out of a possible 3 points is the best way due to the random number of participants from any team at any time. I understand that 2 ppl technically have a harder time beating 4 but if they are better they are rewarded with the appropriate points. And in doing so they prevent the team of 4 from gaining any, I don't really understand changing it to a more complicated method.
Yea, your point has merit. But still I wouldn't agree fully that a team of 4 does not have a higher advantage. Suppose we assume that all the players of the team of 4 and the team of 2 have equal skill, the team of 4 has a sure advantage due to their increased numbers.

Also the points per player idea is greatly affected by the number of opposing team members, which is the problem we are trying to avoid. Abstract ideas like skill level shouldn't be figured in imo.
I don't think this is really so. In this method we are not dividing the the total points by the total number of members like in the matches method. Here the total points of a team A is divided by the no. of players of team A alone. The same for Team B. At the end is would be like comparing Team A and Team B as individual players.
 
Jinko, not to keep harping on it but the points per player idea also makes the points unfairly balanced for smaller teams. The more players on a team the lower their average points even if they sweep. The less players the higher the average. Therefore smaller teams have a higher point possibility than a larger team, even if the larger team wins every round.

The purpose of this is teams. I don't think we should try to incorporate our ideas of which individuals ate better. If that were the case mikemetroid should be on his own team because he could get more points than any other team.
 
Jinko, not to keep harping on it but the points per player idea also makes the points unfairly balanced for smaller teams. The more players on a team the lower their average points even if they sweep. The less players the higher the average. Therefore smaller teams have a higher point possibility than a larger team, even if the larger team wins every round.
Yes sir, I absolutely agree, but at the same time I think we are overlooking the fact that the team with the most members has a possiblity to get a higher aggregate score.

The purpose of this is teams. I don't think we should try to incorporate our ideas of which individuals ate better. If that were the case mikemetroid should be on his own team because he could get more points than any other team.
I think the averaging per player supports this idea actually. Since by averaging we are not giving preferences to any individuals of a team.

However I am starting to understand your logic though. Though the point per player may seem technically and theoritically correct, I too think points per match method is the way to go about it, although Im not 100% sure of it.
 
Pink really man? It's not good practice to blame your defeats on alcohol it discredits the people who beat you. It's a real cowardly move.
 
FJ, think I'm just going to stick with what Treadmill suggested otherwise this is going to get too complex! Buty I do appreciate the help, you should sign up next time!

Sigh, did D South and Canada play then? You guys are supposed to be playing your second set of matches on Sunday.

Infact, DSouth is playing my team tomorrow and no, I will not be moving this to another date.
 
@Flagg - Yea , I thought about it again and agree Treadmill's method is more accurate and simple.

I would have signed up if I had a Xbox :p, perhaps sometime in the future though and no problem! :)
 
I just want to say... I really don't like this system. But that's me lol.

I could go into detail. But I already suggested my points in previous threads, and apparently no one liked it.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, this system will work. But I really don't think I'd have fun with it.

as I tend to hate round robin type competitions. IMO round robin type games should stay in pools, or when entrants are EXTREMELY low.

Where is cl when u need him...

I'm only a visitor message or a private one away. Don't know why people wait for me to find a thread lol. I've been to a lot of threads where people are like "Critical Limit needs to jump in here and give his 2 cents" and I discovered said thread like 4 days late because frankly I mostly only use New posts button and Subscribe button, and if there wasn't a fresh post during my online time, or I haven't already posted. Chances are I'm not gonna visit that page. I don't usually actually legit navigate through, as the post traffic is alot slower than it use to be.
 
Last edited:
Critical lives inside us all. All you need do is accept him as your lord and savior, and eternal salvation is yours. If you pray with sincerity and humility in your hearts he will answer.
 
Critical lives inside us all. All you need do is accept him as your lord and savior, and eternal salvation is yours. If you pray with sincerity and humility in your hearts he will answer.

LOL Treadmill. Good job on your system, it's the most accurate representation of team skill vs team skill.

I just like the team elimination method. It's more tense/fun to me. Knowing your progress in the team fight every step of the way. and being able to watch your teamates fight and cheer you on, all while counterpicking players with their players. Saving your best player as an anchor? or use him to take out the other big name. ect ect.I like the feel those elements bring to team battles.

you just don't get that from round robin type set ups like this team battle thread has.

I'm suddenly inspired now to make a thread for the way I enjoy playing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top