@Dogberry, first it goes to win/loss ratio:

Player A adds the total wins of all the people they beat, then takes away the total wins of all the people they lost to.

Then without going to a tiebreaker, because Boomshank beat Kaerox, Boomshank tops our group and for the same reason Pabse came 3rd (they beat Suschel, though to no extra value).

just to add that first summing up the number of wins of the people you beat, then subtracting the sum of the wins of the people you lost against is pointless (since the sum of those two numbers is constant for people who have the same number of wins). it´s just enough to look at the first number (sum of the number of wins of the players you beat) which is called Bucholz (in a swiss-type chess tournament).

Warlight made this tiebreaker record confusing. In real life, players with same records should split their results from the table and see what is going on between themselves.

If they equal records between themselves, then they should see how they played against better ranked players out of that group, and if that makes the same result, either dice or game between tiebreaker should occur or nothing if the order doesn't affect anything.

This one is pretty obvious, and it should be like tomjh and gogo2711 have shown.

But Boomshank and Kaerox both lost to a 5-3 player and a 6-2 player while Suschel and Private Pabse both lost to two 6-2 players. Does this not give Boomshank a lower win/loss ratio because he lost to a worse player?


EDIT: Also, the rules, as currently written do a poor job of of clarifying to what degree each layer of rule breaking applies (or if it applies at all) when it does not fully resolve the tie.

Edited 10/3/2016 06:12:46

Hi Dogberry. I'll attempt to clarify the tie-break rules as I see them. I'll do this by starting from the very beginning.

#1. Normal Separation. Two players are separated first through their win-loss record.

---

Scenario 1: Players separated with Win-Loss record
Player A (6-3)
Player B (5-4)
Scenario 2: Unbreakable win-loss tie (See #2: head-to-head rule)
Player A (6-3)
Player B (6-3)

#2. Head-to-head rule. If multiple players finish with the same win-loss record, they are separated taking into account only the games played between the tied players (head-to-head games).

---

Scenario 1: 2-player breakable tie
Player A (6-3)(1-0) Defeated B
Player B (6-3)(0-1) Lost to A

Scenario 2: 3-player breakable tie
Player A (6-3)(2-0) Defeated B and C
Player B (6-3)(1-1) Defeated C but lost to A
Player C (6-3)(0-2) Lost to A and B

Scenario 3: 3-player unbreakable tie (See #3: Overall win-loss ratio)
Player A (6-3)(1-1) Defeated B but lost to C
Player B (6-3)(1-1) Defeated C but lost to A
Player C (6-3)(1-1) Defeated A but lost to B

Scenario 4A: 4-player breakable tie
Player A (6-3)(2-1)(1-0) Defeated B and one of either C or D but lost to one of either C or D
Player B (6-3)(2-1)(0-1) Defeated C and D, but lost to A
Player C (6-3)(1-2)(1-0) Defeated D but lost to A and B
Player D (6-3)(1-2)(0-1) Defeated one of either A or B, but lost to C and one of either A or B

Scenario 4B: 4-player breakable tie
Player A (6-3)(3-0) Defeated B, C, and D
Player B (6-3)(2-1) Defeated C and D but lost to A
Player C (6-3)(1-2) Defeated D but lost to A and B
Player D (6-3)(0-3) Lost to A, B and C

Scenario 4C: 4-player breakable tie with resultant 3-player unbreakable tie
Player A (6-3)(3-0) Defeated B, C, and D
Player B (6-3)(1-2)(1-1) Defeated one of either C or D but lost to A and one of either C or D
Player C (6-3)(1-2)(1-1) Defeated one of either B or D but lost to A and one of either B or D
Player D (6-3)(1-2)(1-1) Defeated one of either B or C but lost to A and one of either B or C
or
Player A (6-3)(2-1)(1-1) Defeated D and one of either B or C but lost to one of either B or C
Player B (6-3)(2-1)(1-1) Defeated D and one of either A or C but lost to one of either A or C
Player C (6-3)(2-1)(1-1) Defeated D and one of either A or B but lost to one of either A or B
Player D (6-3)(0-3) Lost to A, B, and C

#3. Overall Win-Loss Ratio. When the head-to-head rule fails to resolve a tie, a new win-loss ratio will be devised for each tied player. This is displayed as (x-y) following the head-to-head tie-break, where 'x' equals the combined wins of all players the tied player has defeated, and 'y' equals the combined wins of all players the tied player has lost against.

---

Scenario 1: 3-player unbreakable head-to-head tie is now breakable using win-loss ratio rule
Player A (6-2)(1-1)(22-8) Defeated B, D, E, F, G, and I but lost to C and H
Player B (6-2)(1-1)(20-10) Defeated C, D, F, G, H, and I but lost to A and E
Player C (6-2)(1-1)(19-11) Defeated A, E, F, G, H, and I but lost to B and D
Player D (5-3)
Player E (4-4)(1-0)
Player F (4-4)(0-1)
Player G (3-5)
Player H (2-6)
Player I (0-8)

#4. Tie-Break Tournament. If a tie cannot be split using any of the methods listed above, a tournament will be run involving only the tied players to separate the tie.

---

#5. Average Turn Speed. If a tie-break tournament results in another unbreakable tie, average turn speed within the tie-break tournament will be used to split the tie. (Or if time, a second tie-break tournament may be run)

Edited 10/3/2016 23:15:32

#999. Coin Flipper. Just in case.

So, based on what I am seeing, scenario 4a occurred in Division G and it did NOT in fact get decided by win/loss ratio.

Seems kind of silly that a player is rewarded for losing to inferior opponents though...


Additionally, I recommend clarifying the rules better, as there seems to be a lot of assumptions made that are not advertised, especially as they pertain to head-to-head result interpretation.


Thank you for the explanation.

it´s not silly that you reward consistency against tougher opposition, especially on a map that is so coin flippy sometimes.

You're rewarding inconsistency actually. Consistency would be rewarding the person that lost to 2 players with a 6v2 record. Inconsistency would be rewarding the player that lost to only one of those 6v2 players but also lost to a 1-8 player (hypothetically).

do you have trouble reading or just comprehending parts of my sentence?

consistency against tougher opposition. which is exactly what should be valued, especially on this type of map.

If its a coin flip, as you said, then how can we trust your definition of consistency?

Also, thanks for the insult.

no problem, it´s just that if you persist on being stubborn while adding no relevant info to the conversation, it kinda ticks me.
it is not my definition of consistency. again, read the words precisely. it is consistency against
stronger
opposition.

(notice how this time i bolded the most important word from the whole phrase)

if you ask why do i think that it is more important to value wins against stronger opps (we can, hopefully, agree that people with more wins are stronger opps), well that´s something related to my own, personal, subjective common sense.

beating tougher opps is harder therefore more worthy. nothing complicated in that.

and to clarify, the game it self is not a coin flip, i said it was coin flippy , a term i had coined (puns galore!) on the fly.
to give an example, in a standard pick problem where the wasteland is not in europe or any of the 2-bonuses, the weaker players decides to pick europe and africa (or asia) because these pick enable him to take europe in two turns. Hero, on the other hand, takes the standard route of picking SA and AUS. Hero will get to north africa in two moves usually and will then have a coin flip in move three on what to do. the (nominally) weaker player can therefore force a flip situation onto the (nominally) stronger player. if he manages to defend for a couple of moves he will win.
Whereas a non-gambling player wouldn´t take that picking route, and would try to outplay the opponent mid-game.
if you didn´t understand what i´ve tried to explain it´s not a big deal (to emphasize, this is not an insult attempt, i´m honestly stating my belief that maybe 5 players here can understand what i´m trying to explain). but please, quit whining about pointless things. focus on your game skills. and such.

cheerio!

To be honest, whilst gogo has made some very good points, at the end of the day, 2 players with the same win loss record finishing on top of a group will always have at least one loss. Assuming 2 players each with just one loss in this scenario, one player must always have lost to the other top player, and one to a lower player. It would be ridiculous to place the player who lost the head-to-head between the two higher just because he had a win against a lower ranked opponent. This is why I always use head-to-head before looking at results against non-tied players, and I have stated as much very clearly in the league tie-break rules!

Edited 10/4/2016 23:39:21

if they only have those losses it is consistent with my point of view.

if i.e. they had 2 losses

assume A(7-2) lost to B(7-2) and C(1-8)
and B(7-2) lost to D(6-3) and E(5-4)

then i would place A in front of B regardless of their head-to-head. but that´s just my opinion.

gogo2711, in the case you described last, B should be winner - as huddyj said, first check head to head score then everything else (after total score, of course).

i wasn´t commenting on the rules. i was explaining my opinion on what the rules should be.

Group B has finished, and it turned out it was a perfect time to post tie-breaking rules :)

It has an interesting 4-way tie, and the outcome matters, as only 3 players get promoted to group A.

Players are TWOLKER (A), Leo (B), rocky1 (C) and mslasm (D)

A beat B and C
B beat C and D
C beat D
D beat A

This seems like a "#2. Head-to-head rule => Scenario 4A: 4-player breakable tie", with players as listed, am I right?

(btw, if we were to assume this tie is unbreakable, and use "#3. Overall Win-Loss Ratio" the result would be different I think)

Based on the spirited responses I generated, everybody seems to think it is not an unbreakable tie and that 4A fully resolves all issues.

Edited 10/6/2016 06:21:49

I would like to join this league please

No worries Archdruid, I'll put you down for next season.