Kyle
Auto-translated
I received consent from the respected K0Lb@zzeR to release the logs...
If anyone has the strength and reads until the end, please say something relevant to the issue.
And also, we generously ask you to excuse us for any grammatical errors, as the log is posted as-is, without edits.
Kyle (10:18:01 6/03/2008)
by the way, have you given up on your idea of determining the winner yet?
K0Lb@zzeR (10:19:08 6/03/2008)
the absolute leader ???
Kyle (10:19:43 6/03/2008)
uh-huh
K0Lb@zzeR (10:20:50 6/03/2008)
nope, I can't imagine... I can't think of anything... so that no one gets offended... neither those who arrived late nor those who started from the very beginning...
Kyle (10:21:23 6/03/2008)
I've told you how many times already, you just need to sum it up... then no one will be offended...
Kyle (10:21:46 6/03/2008)
and right now the system is truly flawed...
K0Lb@zzeR (10:23:35 6/03/2008)
why sum it up? what if you actually play same-as-god, but entered the race only at stage 6 for example... and until stage 5 you simply didn't know about it... that's a situation that could happen... live in the present but remember the future too
Kyle (10:25:28 6/03/2008)
fine, I don't want to argue with you right now, because I already answered this question before...
but I advise you to listen to advice... because not only am I saying the system is flawed... but a bunch of people on the forum are saying the same thing...
K0Lb@zzeR (11:01:42 6/03/2008)
that's it... my system is fucked... Fine. Situation: 1000, 1000, 1000, 850 = 862.5
and 850, 850, 850, 1000 = 871.875
Who deserves the victory more? The one who messed up for three stages and only played at level once, or the one who tore everyone apart for three stages and then slipped a bit on the last one?
Yes, even if we take the second option like this: 850, 850, 1000, 910 = 864.375
In the first two stages the first is much stronger, the third they are equal, and in the fourth both messed up, but the second one slightly less. And he's the winner???
Kyle (11:02:19 6/03/2008)
exactly what I was talking about... ;-)
K0Lb@zzeR (11:02:39 6/03/2008)
what to do ???
Kyle (11:02:51 6/03/2008)
I told you....
K0Lb@zzeR (11:02:53 6/03/2008)
my head isn't working at all today
Kyle (11:03:23 6/03/2008)
just sum it up... and you will have happiness...
K0Lb@zzeR (11:03:57 6/03/2008)
no, the sum is EVIL ...
Kyle (11:04:09 6/03/2008)
where? in what way?
Kyle (11:04:25 6/03/2008)
our entire rating is based on the sum... is that evil too?
K0Lb@zzeR (11:06:55 6/03/2008)
I'll be honest, yes... the sum is EVIL, because if you missed one (even for a valid reason), then it's all goodbye, everything earned through grueling work.
Kyle (11:08:59 6/03/2008)
it's not as bad as it seems... if there are many tournaments, then this problem simply doesn't exist, because missing one is insignificant...
Kyle (11:09:13 6/03/2008)
and you will have many tournaments...
K0Lb@zzeR (11:12:02 6/03/2008)
example from the first stage, VBN plays great but didn't participate in 1-3 and what now, he doesn't deserve the title of LEADER ???
K0Lb@zzeR (11:12:15 6/03/2008)
of the first stage
K0Lb@zzeR (11:12:43 6/03/2008)
maybe he had problems and didn't participate in 1-3
K0Lb@zzeR (11:13:02 6/03/2008)
where is the fairness of the sum... where ???
K0Lb@zzeR (11:14:36 6/03/2008)
now I've seen an unfair moment in my system, I'll think about how to fix it, luckily the winner hasn't been announced yet
K0Lb@zzeR (11:21:22 6/03/2008)
I've got it, you can just take the average value of points obtained in mini-tournaments
K0Lb@zzeR (11:22:28 6/03/2008)
but there's a flaw here too; how to fix it if a guy played once and scored many points, then he will always be first.
Kyle (11:22:58 6/03/2008)
don't mess around... the simpler the system, the better and more reliable it is...
K0Lb@zzeR (11:23:44 6/03/2008)
I'm not messing around... I'll accept any suggestions except for the sum
Kyle (11:30:30 6/03/2008)
I just can't understand, can't you see that such a system simply doesn't exist!!! It doesn't exist in nature...
i.e., for tournaments the following conditions must be met:
1- a certain number of participants
2- time limit for the tournament itself
3- equal value of each mini-tournament individually..
and that's it... you can't jump higher than your head... if even one of these conditions is not met, then the system will be flawed, no matter how much you struggle with it..
we already went through this several times when choosing the rating calculation...
Kyle (11:31:07 6/03/2008)
so just... sum and that's all...
K0Lb@zzeR (11:31:23 6/03/2008)
well, that's not fair ...
Kyle (11:31:25 6/03/2008)
the most fair system..
K0Lb@zzeR (11:32:18 6/03/2008)
I'll just worry a lot... if I act unfairly toward anyone
Kyle (11:33:20 6/03/2008)
I've said everything...
Kyle (11:33:30 6/03/2008)
I have nothing more to add...
Kyle (11:33:36 6/03/2008)
add*
K0Lb@zzeR (11:58:33 6/03/2008)
That's it, I've got it:
1. Calculate by average
2. Only those participants who played NO LESS THAN 50% of mini-tournaments in a certain stage enter the final table.
Everything is fair !!! You can even miss a tournament and not fear that you'll be out !!!
Kyle (11:59:14 6/03/2008)
flaw...
K0Lb@zzeR (11:59:22 6/03/2008)
where ???
Kyle (11:59:25 6/03/2008)
same eggs, different view...
Kyle (12:00:17 6/03/2008)
the one who played better in the last tournament is in much better conditions...
Kyle (12:00:39 6/03/2008)
and it doesn't matter that he played like a loser before...
Kyle (12:02:35 6/03/2008)
I tell you again, no need to reinvent the wheel.. it was invented 1000 years ago... ;-)
K0Lb@zzeR (12:02:58 6/03/2008)
by average, i.e., played two out of four tournaments (met condition 2), then scored accordingly 1000 and 900... result 950; if three tournaments, it was: 1000, 900, 800, the average will be 900
K0Lb@zzeR (12:03:26 6/03/2008)
and where is the unfairness
K0Lb@zzeR (12:03:34 6/03/2008)
I'll calculate that example now
K0Lb@zzeR (12:04:50 6/03/2008)
1000, 1000, 1000, 850 = 962.5
850, 850, 1000, 910 = 902.5
K0Lb@zzeR (12:05:26 6/03/2008)
everything is fair and no complications about how to calculate, i.e., everything is simple as a wheel :)
K0Lb@zzeR (12:06:26 6/03/2008)
well, what do you say now ???
K0Lb@zzeR (12:07:28 6/03/2008)
And playing 50% of tournaments isn't that stressful, i.e., 2 out of 4, 3 out of 5, 3 out of 6 etc.
Kyle (12:07:49 6/03/2008)
and the unfairness is that player number two suffered... played a 3rd tournament... and because of this they take and kill him by rating...
that won't work...
to make it more or less fair, introduce the right to choose which results are submitted to the final table...
i.e., player two submits only two results: 1000 and 900.. and doesn't submit 800, and what do we see? correctly, his rating became much higher...
Kyle (12:09:50 6/03/2008)
this idea was also discussed by us, by the way... but it didn't work... because active players are discriminated against...
K0Lb@zzeR (12:10:28 6/03/2008)
no, he didn't suffer in 1-3, he just messed up himself and played poorly (clear example, look at kamikaze, he played so disgustingly in 1-3 it was simply a shame, he could have played much better and he knows it himself.
Kyle (12:11:54 6/03/2008)
whatever... you are killing the motivation to play... this is fundamentally wrong...
there should be only one motivation.. to play.. victory is not important, but participation.. and participation in a tournament should not cause harm to the player; according to your system, that's exactly what happens..
Kyle (12:12:30 6/03/2008)
hm.. it came out jumbled.. but I hope you understood me..
K0Lb@zzeR (12:13:21 6/03/2008)
my motivation is: to play and not just play, but with each time better and better, only this way can a result be achieved
K0Lb@zzeR (12:13:37 6/03/2008)
is such motivation bad... or what ???
Kyle (12:13:44 6/03/2008)
YES!
K0Lb@zzeR (12:13:52 6/03/2008)
why ???
K0Lb@zzeR (12:14:46 6/03/2008)
what's bad about encouraging playing better, rather than for some virtual result
K0Lb@zzeR (12:15:29 6/03/2008)
the result should be in the improvement of your skill level... why even play then if you're just blindly chasing horses around a map
K0Lb@zzeR (12:15:37 6/03/2008)
I simply cannot understand this
K0Lb@zzeR (12:15:52 6/03/2008)
just killing time ...
Kyle (12:16:09 6/03/2008)
because you are killing the motivation to play... because if you played poorly, then take a punch in the face...
but if we do it differently:
played well - get a candy..
played poorly - well, you don't get a candy... but try next time.. nothing stops you..
but according to your system - it's a choice between a candy and a sledgehammer blow to the head... what do you think the player will choose? I think he will choose - not participating in this tournament..
K0Lb@zzeR (12:16:09 6/03/2008)
then go do something else.. instead of just killing time
Kyle (12:17:32 6/03/2008)
and our task is the promotion of this game to the masses, and if a player gets punched in the face while playing? then he simply won't play..
K0Lb@zzeR (12:19:48 6/03/2008)
be offended or not, but I would feel sorry with such motivation for having lost so much time without any results, everyone just played and got no results... then why did I kill my time, for whom, for what ...
Kyle (12:20:30 6/03/2008)
fine, do as you wish.. I only expressed my opinion to you...
K0Lb@zzeR (12:21:58 6/03/2008)
do you think why Dirt has such good results? because the person really improves his results with each tournament, and thereby increases my satisfaction that I'm not running this tournament for nothing.
Kyle (12:21:59 6/03/2008)
but keep in mind, what I just told you, they will tell you again on the forum...
maybe in different words, but the meaning will be the same...
K0Lb@zzeR (12:23:21 6/03/2008)
there is one good saying: "If you don't want to shit, don't torture your ass" :)
K0Lb@zzeR (12:26:13 6/03/2008)
only even in this system there is a flaw that also needs fixing, because you can't compare results of for example 1-2 and 1-3, i.e., 1000 points in 1-2 are not comparable to 1000 points in 1-3; the maps are different, meaning they aren't equivalent, which means the results cannot be equated
K0Lb@zzeR (12:27:56 6/03/2008)
O_o I've got it, I will give points for places, and then calculate the average of those points.
Kyle (12:29:16 6/03/2008)
you can.. but again you should take not the average, but the sum, for 50% of stages.. most fair system..
K0Lb@zzeR (12:30:15 6/03/2008)
no there will be no sum... the sum is evil... even if you scratch my head with a stake :) you won't convince me otherwise :)
Kyle (12:30:57 6/03/2008)
there.. that's the main thing: "even if you scratch my head with a stake" - you simply don't want to hear your interlocutor.. that's your trouble..
K0Lb@zzeR (12:31:56 6/03/2008)
no, you misunderstood... the sum is evil... an alternative is needed... and I am searching for it
K0Lb@zzeR (12:32:56 6/03/2008)
well, you yourself understand that Sum is not good ???
Kyle (12:33:48 6/03/2008)
fine.. let it be the average, but everyone will have an equal number of stages, i.e., 2 out of 4, 3 out of 5, 3 out of 6 etc. and it doesn't matter if a player played them all... he chooses and gives those places that he likes.. thereby opening up room for various combinations..
K0Lb@zzeR (12:40:00 6/03/2008)
what do you mean equal number of stages, why ??? If you missed one, I neither punish nor encourage this, because by missing it you yourself lose the chance to fill your piggy bank...
K0Lb@zzeR (12:45:32 6/03/2008)
Just answer this one question: who do you think deserves the title of LEADER of the first stage ??? If Dirty_Player won 2 tournaments out of 4, and Perpolken and vbn only one each, although for Perpolken (if taking the sum he would have more)... I think I've shown with this example that the sum is EVIL.
Kyle (12:55:37 6/03/2008)
I would give first place to perpolken, because he played this tournament much more consistently and therefore more professionally...
Kyle (12:57:55 6/03/2008)
by the way, there's a flaw in your new system too..
for example
tournament of 4 stages:
player A: 1) 1st place; 2) 1st place; 3) skip; 4) skip;
player B: 1) skip; 2) skip; 3) 1st place; 4) 1st place;
who is the winner?
K0Lb@zzeR (12:59:43 6/03/2008)
no one ... :) I'll keep the prize for myself :)
Kyle (12:59:55 6/03/2008)
:-D
K0Lb@zzeR (13:00:02 6/03/2008)
a draw, that is :)
K0Lb@zzeR (13:04:42 6/03/2008)
how so "I would give first place to perpolken, because he played this tournament much more consistently and therefore more professionally..." and you call this fairness... Dirt rose from 6th place and improved his result with every tournament, and now he's thrown overboard for that ...
K0Lb@zzeR (13:05:43 6/03/2008)
and in 1-3 he just beat everyone into the dirt...
Kyle (13:06:06 6/03/2008)
no one is throwing him overboard, but specifically in THIS tournament - he played worse.. perhaps in the next ones he'll get his due.. but specifically in THIS tournament - he is in second place.
K0Lb@zzeR (13:07:31 6/03/2008)
beating Perp by only 1 day... you probably understand what a gap of 1 day is... when there are only 5 total... and that shows nothing, but instead it shows Perp's professionalism ??? is that how it is ...
Kyle (13:09:25 6/03/2008)
just without emotions... and personal preferences.. for - this is an indicator of non-subjectivity..
If the prize were given only for 1-3 - then yes, dirty is the best of all, but since the prize is given for the whole tournament as a whole, then perp is in first place...
If anyone has the strength and reads until the end, please say something relevant to the issue.
And also, we generously ask you to excuse us for any grammatical errors, as the log is posted as-is, without edits.
Kyle (10:18:01 6/03/2008)
by the way, have you given up on your idea of determining the winner yet?
K0Lb@zzeR (10:19:08 6/03/2008)
the absolute leader ???
Kyle (10:19:43 6/03/2008)
uh-huh
K0Lb@zzeR (10:20:50 6/03/2008)
nope, I can't imagine... I can't think of anything... so that no one gets offended... neither those who arrived late nor those who started from the very beginning...
Kyle (10:21:23 6/03/2008)
I've told you how many times already, you just need to sum it up... then no one will be offended...
Kyle (10:21:46 6/03/2008)
and right now the system is truly flawed...
K0Lb@zzeR (10:23:35 6/03/2008)
why sum it up? what if you actually play same-as-god, but entered the race only at stage 6 for example... and until stage 5 you simply didn't know about it... that's a situation that could happen... live in the present but remember the future too
Kyle (10:25:28 6/03/2008)
fine, I don't want to argue with you right now, because I already answered this question before...
but I advise you to listen to advice... because not only am I saying the system is flawed... but a bunch of people on the forum are saying the same thing...
K0Lb@zzeR (11:01:42 6/03/2008)
that's it... my system is fucked... Fine. Situation: 1000, 1000, 1000, 850 = 862.5
and 850, 850, 850, 1000 = 871.875
Who deserves the victory more? The one who messed up for three stages and only played at level once, or the one who tore everyone apart for three stages and then slipped a bit on the last one?
Yes, even if we take the second option like this: 850, 850, 1000, 910 = 864.375
In the first two stages the first is much stronger, the third they are equal, and in the fourth both messed up, but the second one slightly less. And he's the winner???
Kyle (11:02:19 6/03/2008)
exactly what I was talking about... ;-)
K0Lb@zzeR (11:02:39 6/03/2008)
what to do ???
Kyle (11:02:51 6/03/2008)
I told you....
K0Lb@zzeR (11:02:53 6/03/2008)
my head isn't working at all today
Kyle (11:03:23 6/03/2008)
just sum it up... and you will have happiness...
K0Lb@zzeR (11:03:57 6/03/2008)
no, the sum is EVIL ...
Kyle (11:04:09 6/03/2008)
where? in what way?
Kyle (11:04:25 6/03/2008)
our entire rating is based on the sum... is that evil too?
K0Lb@zzeR (11:06:55 6/03/2008)
I'll be honest, yes... the sum is EVIL, because if you missed one (even for a valid reason), then it's all goodbye, everything earned through grueling work.
Kyle (11:08:59 6/03/2008)
it's not as bad as it seems... if there are many tournaments, then this problem simply doesn't exist, because missing one is insignificant...
Kyle (11:09:13 6/03/2008)
and you will have many tournaments...
K0Lb@zzeR (11:12:02 6/03/2008)
example from the first stage, VBN plays great but didn't participate in 1-3 and what now, he doesn't deserve the title of LEADER ???
K0Lb@zzeR (11:12:15 6/03/2008)
of the first stage
K0Lb@zzeR (11:12:43 6/03/2008)
maybe he had problems and didn't participate in 1-3
K0Lb@zzeR (11:13:02 6/03/2008)
where is the fairness of the sum... where ???
K0Lb@zzeR (11:14:36 6/03/2008)
now I've seen an unfair moment in my system, I'll think about how to fix it, luckily the winner hasn't been announced yet
K0Lb@zzeR (11:21:22 6/03/2008)
I've got it, you can just take the average value of points obtained in mini-tournaments
K0Lb@zzeR (11:22:28 6/03/2008)
but there's a flaw here too; how to fix it if a guy played once and scored many points, then he will always be first.
Kyle (11:22:58 6/03/2008)
don't mess around... the simpler the system, the better and more reliable it is...
K0Lb@zzeR (11:23:44 6/03/2008)
I'm not messing around... I'll accept any suggestions except for the sum
Kyle (11:30:30 6/03/2008)
I just can't understand, can't you see that such a system simply doesn't exist!!! It doesn't exist in nature...
i.e., for tournaments the following conditions must be met:
1- a certain number of participants
2- time limit for the tournament itself
3- equal value of each mini-tournament individually..
and that's it... you can't jump higher than your head... if even one of these conditions is not met, then the system will be flawed, no matter how much you struggle with it..
we already went through this several times when choosing the rating calculation...
Kyle (11:31:07 6/03/2008)
so just... sum and that's all...
K0Lb@zzeR (11:31:23 6/03/2008)
well, that's not fair ...
Kyle (11:31:25 6/03/2008)
the most fair system..
K0Lb@zzeR (11:32:18 6/03/2008)
I'll just worry a lot... if I act unfairly toward anyone
Kyle (11:33:20 6/03/2008)
I've said everything...
Kyle (11:33:30 6/03/2008)
I have nothing more to add...
Kyle (11:33:36 6/03/2008)
add*
K0Lb@zzeR (11:58:33 6/03/2008)
That's it, I've got it:
1. Calculate by average
2. Only those participants who played NO LESS THAN 50% of mini-tournaments in a certain stage enter the final table.
Everything is fair !!! You can even miss a tournament and not fear that you'll be out !!!
Kyle (11:59:14 6/03/2008)
flaw...
K0Lb@zzeR (11:59:22 6/03/2008)
where ???
Kyle (11:59:25 6/03/2008)
same eggs, different view...
Kyle (12:00:17 6/03/2008)
the one who played better in the last tournament is in much better conditions...
Kyle (12:00:39 6/03/2008)
and it doesn't matter that he played like a loser before...
Kyle (12:02:35 6/03/2008)
I tell you again, no need to reinvent the wheel.. it was invented 1000 years ago... ;-)
K0Lb@zzeR (12:02:58 6/03/2008)
by average, i.e., played two out of four tournaments (met condition 2), then scored accordingly 1000 and 900... result 950; if three tournaments, it was: 1000, 900, 800, the average will be 900
K0Lb@zzeR (12:03:26 6/03/2008)
and where is the unfairness
K0Lb@zzeR (12:03:34 6/03/2008)
I'll calculate that example now
K0Lb@zzeR (12:04:50 6/03/2008)
1000, 1000, 1000, 850 = 962.5
850, 850, 1000, 910 = 902.5
K0Lb@zzeR (12:05:26 6/03/2008)
everything is fair and no complications about how to calculate, i.e., everything is simple as a wheel :)
K0Lb@zzeR (12:06:26 6/03/2008)
well, what do you say now ???
K0Lb@zzeR (12:07:28 6/03/2008)
And playing 50% of tournaments isn't that stressful, i.e., 2 out of 4, 3 out of 5, 3 out of 6 etc.
Kyle (12:07:49 6/03/2008)
and the unfairness is that player number two suffered... played a 3rd tournament... and because of this they take and kill him by rating...
that won't work...
to make it more or less fair, introduce the right to choose which results are submitted to the final table...
i.e., player two submits only two results: 1000 and 900.. and doesn't submit 800, and what do we see? correctly, his rating became much higher...
Kyle (12:09:50 6/03/2008)
this idea was also discussed by us, by the way... but it didn't work... because active players are discriminated against...
K0Lb@zzeR (12:10:28 6/03/2008)
no, he didn't suffer in 1-3, he just messed up himself and played poorly (clear example, look at kamikaze, he played so disgustingly in 1-3 it was simply a shame, he could have played much better and he knows it himself.
Kyle (12:11:54 6/03/2008)
whatever... you are killing the motivation to play... this is fundamentally wrong...
there should be only one motivation.. to play.. victory is not important, but participation.. and participation in a tournament should not cause harm to the player; according to your system, that's exactly what happens..
Kyle (12:12:30 6/03/2008)
hm.. it came out jumbled.. but I hope you understood me..
K0Lb@zzeR (12:13:21 6/03/2008)
my motivation is: to play and not just play, but with each time better and better, only this way can a result be achieved
K0Lb@zzeR (12:13:37 6/03/2008)
is such motivation bad... or what ???
Kyle (12:13:44 6/03/2008)
YES!
K0Lb@zzeR (12:13:52 6/03/2008)
why ???
K0Lb@zzeR (12:14:46 6/03/2008)
what's bad about encouraging playing better, rather than for some virtual result
K0Lb@zzeR (12:15:29 6/03/2008)
the result should be in the improvement of your skill level... why even play then if you're just blindly chasing horses around a map
K0Lb@zzeR (12:15:37 6/03/2008)
I simply cannot understand this
K0Lb@zzeR (12:15:52 6/03/2008)
just killing time ...
Kyle (12:16:09 6/03/2008)
because you are killing the motivation to play... because if you played poorly, then take a punch in the face...
but if we do it differently:
played well - get a candy..
played poorly - well, you don't get a candy... but try next time.. nothing stops you..
but according to your system - it's a choice between a candy and a sledgehammer blow to the head... what do you think the player will choose? I think he will choose - not participating in this tournament..
K0Lb@zzeR (12:16:09 6/03/2008)
then go do something else.. instead of just killing time
Kyle (12:17:32 6/03/2008)
and our task is the promotion of this game to the masses, and if a player gets punched in the face while playing? then he simply won't play..
K0Lb@zzeR (12:19:48 6/03/2008)
be offended or not, but I would feel sorry with such motivation for having lost so much time without any results, everyone just played and got no results... then why did I kill my time, for whom, for what ...
Kyle (12:20:30 6/03/2008)
fine, do as you wish.. I only expressed my opinion to you...
K0Lb@zzeR (12:21:58 6/03/2008)
do you think why Dirt has such good results? because the person really improves his results with each tournament, and thereby increases my satisfaction that I'm not running this tournament for nothing.
Kyle (12:21:59 6/03/2008)
but keep in mind, what I just told you, they will tell you again on the forum...
maybe in different words, but the meaning will be the same...
K0Lb@zzeR (12:23:21 6/03/2008)
there is one good saying: "If you don't want to shit, don't torture your ass" :)
K0Lb@zzeR (12:26:13 6/03/2008)
only even in this system there is a flaw that also needs fixing, because you can't compare results of for example 1-2 and 1-3, i.e., 1000 points in 1-2 are not comparable to 1000 points in 1-3; the maps are different, meaning they aren't equivalent, which means the results cannot be equated
K0Lb@zzeR (12:27:56 6/03/2008)
O_o I've got it, I will give points for places, and then calculate the average of those points.
Kyle (12:29:16 6/03/2008)
you can.. but again you should take not the average, but the sum, for 50% of stages.. most fair system..
K0Lb@zzeR (12:30:15 6/03/2008)
no there will be no sum... the sum is evil... even if you scratch my head with a stake :) you won't convince me otherwise :)
Kyle (12:30:57 6/03/2008)
there.. that's the main thing: "even if you scratch my head with a stake" - you simply don't want to hear your interlocutor.. that's your trouble..
K0Lb@zzeR (12:31:56 6/03/2008)
no, you misunderstood... the sum is evil... an alternative is needed... and I am searching for it
K0Lb@zzeR (12:32:56 6/03/2008)
well, you yourself understand that Sum is not good ???
Kyle (12:33:48 6/03/2008)
fine.. let it be the average, but everyone will have an equal number of stages, i.e., 2 out of 4, 3 out of 5, 3 out of 6 etc. and it doesn't matter if a player played them all... he chooses and gives those places that he likes.. thereby opening up room for various combinations..
K0Lb@zzeR (12:40:00 6/03/2008)
what do you mean equal number of stages, why ??? If you missed one, I neither punish nor encourage this, because by missing it you yourself lose the chance to fill your piggy bank...
K0Lb@zzeR (12:45:32 6/03/2008)
Just answer this one question: who do you think deserves the title of LEADER of the first stage ??? If Dirty_Player won 2 tournaments out of 4, and Perpolken and vbn only one each, although for Perpolken (if taking the sum he would have more)... I think I've shown with this example that the sum is EVIL.
Kyle (12:55:37 6/03/2008)
I would give first place to perpolken, because he played this tournament much more consistently and therefore more professionally...
Kyle (12:57:55 6/03/2008)
by the way, there's a flaw in your new system too..
for example
tournament of 4 stages:
player A: 1) 1st place; 2) 1st place; 3) skip; 4) skip;
player B: 1) skip; 2) skip; 3) 1st place; 4) 1st place;
who is the winner?
K0Lb@zzeR (12:59:43 6/03/2008)
no one ... :) I'll keep the prize for myself :)
Kyle (12:59:55 6/03/2008)
:-D
K0Lb@zzeR (13:00:02 6/03/2008)
a draw, that is :)
K0Lb@zzeR (13:04:42 6/03/2008)
how so "I would give first place to perpolken, because he played this tournament much more consistently and therefore more professionally..." and you call this fairness... Dirt rose from 6th place and improved his result with every tournament, and now he's thrown overboard for that ...
K0Lb@zzeR (13:05:43 6/03/2008)
and in 1-3 he just beat everyone into the dirt...
Kyle (13:06:06 6/03/2008)
no one is throwing him overboard, but specifically in THIS tournament - he played worse.. perhaps in the next ones he'll get his due.. but specifically in THIS tournament - he is in second place.
K0Lb@zzeR (13:07:31 6/03/2008)
beating Perp by only 1 day... you probably understand what a gap of 1 day is... when there are only 5 total... and that shows nothing, but instead it shows Perp's professionalism ??? is that how it is ...
Kyle (13:09:25 6/03/2008)
just without emotions... and personal preferences.. for - this is an indicator of non-subjectivity..
If the prize were given only for 1-3 - then yes, dirty is the best of all, but since the prize is given for the whole tournament as a whole, then perp is in first place...
