Author Topic: Top Cut (Read 38657 times)

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #175 on:** January 22, 2013, 10:37:58 PM »

Quote from: Chris on January 22, 2013, 10:07:09 PM

Underwood, you seem continually fixated on this idea that past achievements should mean anything at Nats, and I've yet to see a good reason why this is. Can you please explain for me?

A good friend of mine who is a professor of sociology at the University of Idaho State has told me many times, that "past performance is the greatest single indicator of future performance." This also fits with my own observations. I have already talked about Pol in this thread, and that should be a great example of what I'm talking about. He has great past achievements, and even after taking years off the Nats stage, he was still able to come back and place in the top 10 last summer. Guardian has recently made a comeback to the boards, and if he shows up at Nats '13, I'll go ahead and predict that he'll finish top 10 as well in either T1-2p or T2-2p (assuming he plays those events).

Master KChief · « **Reply #176 on:** January 22, 2013, 10:47:47 PM »

A wise man once told me it is better to be at the bottom of a ladder you want to climb rather than be at the top of one you'd rather jump off.

lp670sv · « **Reply #177 on:** January 22, 2013, 10:51:49 PM »

I do not want to reward players for taking a hiatus, you must play to defend your spot in the rankings or we will end up with the old Pokemon system all over again.

JSB23 · « **Reply #178 on:** January 22, 2013, 10:52:03 PM »

Then how do you "rank" players without the appearance of favoritism? The system you're proposing would require the host to either know every single player at the tournament or force them to look at the tournament records or every player. Which discriminates against lesser known players, and players from smaller play groups/with outside commitments, respectively. Even without that aspect the system is incredibly time consuming, assumes that there is the "right" number of players to divide everyone up evenly (what do you do at MN state when 9+ of the top 20 players show up?), and is unnecessary.

The standard swiss pairing pretty well sort out the upper tier players from the casuals, within the first few rounds. It only starts to break down in the last few rounds when all the competitive players are against each other, which can be solved by a top cut.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #179 on:** January 22, 2013, 10:56:53 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 22, 2013, 10:37:58 PM

Quote from: Chris on January 22, 2013, 10:07:09 PM
Underwood, you seem continually fixated on this idea that past achievements should mean anything at Nats, and I've yet to see a good reason why this is. Can you please explain for me?
A good friend of mine who is a professor of sociology at the University of Idaho State has told me many times, that "past performance is the greatest single indicator of future performance." This also fits with my own observations. I have already talked about Pol in this thread, and that should be a great example of what I'm talking about. He has great past achievements, and even after taking years off the Nats stage, he was still able to come back and place in the top 10 last summer. Guardian has recently made a comeback to the boards, and if he shows up at Nats '13, I'll go ahead and predict that he'll finish top 10 as well in either T1-2p or T2-2p (assuming] he plays those events).

You mean like he did in 2011 and didn't get such high placing?

Edit:

If we are going to separate players like this, let's stop pretending like we aren't just giving good players virtual byes or easy ways into the next rounds of the tournament. If you really want to do it like that, just make Nats invite only - anyone who Underwood likes can get invited. Or Rob. Or whatever really, it probably doesn't matter because it'd be really subjective, and if it was objective (such as you must have 10 RNRS points to come) people would cry foul.

Chris · « **Reply #180 on:** January 22, 2013, 11:08:35 PM »

Especially since objectivity isn't a real thing in this type of situation. Need 10 RNRS points? What if I don't have the time or money to get to another tournament?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #181 on:** January 22, 2013, 11:14:25 PM »

Quote from: Chris on January 22, 2013, 11:08:35 PM

Especially since objectivity isn't a real thing in this type of situation. Need 10 RNRS points? What if I don't have the time or money to get to another tournament?

Host one yourself and beat your roommate. Max locals is 10 points

But yes, I agree, which is why this is dumb.

Chris · « **Reply #182 on:** January 22, 2013, 11:15:38 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 22, 2013, 11:14:25 PM

Quote from: Chris on January 22, 2013, 11:08:35 PM
Especially since objectivity isn't a real thing in this type of situation. Need 10 RNRS points? What if I don't have the time or money to get to another tournament?

Host one yourself and beat your roommate. Max locals is 10 points

But yes, I agree, which is why this is dumb.

I'm an RA. This system is biased against people with no friends.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #183 on:** January 22, 2013, 11:21:39 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 22, 2013, 10:56:53 PM

If we are going to separate players like this

I think people are forgetting that I'm speaking entirely hypothetically here. We are NOT going to separate players like this. There is virtually no support for this idea from either the general forum or the other elders. This is just something I've been thinking about this particular season and brainstorming about. It has less than a 0% chance of being implemented

Chris · « **Reply #184 on:** January 22, 2013, 11:38:28 PM »

I do wish ROOT had a bigger pool of people that participated so we could effectively test some of these ideas out. We won't really have the chance to implement any kind of worthwhile test run of Top Cut unless it's at one of the larger regionals (I think we can get enough people in the NE depending on location and release of the new set - and possibly test it there) or Nats. I'm not even really opposed to testing ideas I don't like, like Underwood's, but not at a major tournament.

Master KChief · « **Reply #185 on:** January 22, 2013, 11:59:56 PM »

Could pick a weekend day specifically and test it out over ROOT. Only way people would invest that amount of time and patience into an online tournament throughout the whole day though would be if the prizes were really worth it...hmm...

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #186 on:** January 23, 2013, 12:40:10 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 22, 2013, 11:21:39 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 22, 2013, 10:56:53 PM
If we are going to separate players like this
I think people are forgetting that I'm speaking entirely hypothetically here. We are NOT going to separate players like this. There is virtually no support for this idea from either the general forum or the other elders. This is just something I've been thinking about this particular season and brainstorming about. It has less than a 0% chance of being implemented

It's frustrating that the leadership staff is suggesting nonsensical ideas that no one believes in at the expense of a legitimately idea that's been used by virtually every other major TCG. That's all.

The Guardian · « **Reply #187 on:** January 23, 2013, 12:40:38 AM »

Quote

You mean like he did in 2011 and didn't get such high placing?

Ouch...I didn't play at all for like 5 months and then played T1-2P in a tournament higher than District for the first time since 2003 MN state...

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #188 on:** January 23, 2013, 12:45:15 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on January 23, 2013, 12:40:38 AM

Quote
You mean like he did in 2011 and didn't get such high placing?

Ouch...I didn't play at all for like 5 months and then played T1-2P in a tournament higher than District for the first time since 2003 MN state...

And yet you thought you'd do better in that than t2? Likely story

I sense a throw of the tournament so Nathan could win and the T2 only could hold true.

The Guardian · « **Reply #189 on:** January 23, 2013, 12:48:05 AM »

There is no fighting destiny...since I wasn't able to play at the T2 Only, I knew I had zero chance at Nats...

Gabe · « **Reply #190 on:** January 23, 2013, 12:55:14 AM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 23, 2013, 12:40:10 AM

It's frustrating that the leadership staff is suggesting nonsensical ideas that no one believes in...

Please, let's not group all leadership together on this and call it what it is - Prof Underwood. That is often his modus operandi.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #191 on:** January 23, 2013, 12:56:52 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on January 23, 2013, 12:55:14 AM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 23, 2013, 12:40:10 AM
It's frustrating that the leadership staff is suggesting nonsensical ideas that no one believes in...

Please, let's not group all leadership together on this and call it what it is - Prof Underwood. That is often his modus operandi.

Sorry, didn't mean to make it appear that way. In context, I'm pretty much referring to Prof in more dramatic way.

The Guardian · « **Reply #192 on:** January 23, 2013, 01:00:43 AM »

I agree with Gabe, but also keep in mind that many times the best ideas have roots in nonsensical brainstorming. I suppose Prof could start a new thread with brainstorming ideas for player rankings being used in tournaments, but it's not the end of the world that he posted them here.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #193 on:** January 23, 2013, 08:34:59 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on January 23, 2013, 12:55:14 AM

Please, let's not group all leadership together on this and call it what it is - Prof Underwood. That is often his modus operandi.

I completely agree with Gabe. I'm not speaking in favor of initial groupings as a "leadership staff", but simply as a player. In fact, I specifically mentioned that there is virtually NO support for this idea among the other Elders. So keep your criticism focused where it belongs...aimed right at my back

edit: Also I appreciate Guardian's efforts recently on multiple threads to be a balm.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #194 on:** January 23, 2013, 08:38:00 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 23, 2013, 08:34:59 AM

So keep your criticism focused where it belongs...aimed right at my back

Actually, I'd say this is pretty much in your face....

Red · « **Reply #195 on:** January 23, 2013, 08:40:41 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 22, 2013, 10:37:58 PM

Quote from: Chris on January 22, 2013, 10:07:09 PM
Underwood, you seem continually fixated on this idea that past achievements should mean anything at Nats, and I've yet to see a good reason why this is. Can you please explain for me?
A good friend of mine who is a professor of sociology at the University of Idaho State has told me many times, that "past performance is the greatest single indicator of future performance." This also fits with my own observations. I have already talked about Pol in this thread, and that should be a great example of what I'm talking about. He has great past achievements, and even after taking years off the Nats stage, he was still able to come back and place in the top 10 last summer. Guardian has recently made a comeback to the boards, and if he shows up at Nats '13, I'll go ahead and predict that he'll finish top 10 as well in either T1-2p or T2-2p (assuming he plays those events).

Actually when it comes to games that constantly change this wouldn't be the case.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #196 on:** January 23, 2013, 08:54:57 AM »

Quote from: Red on January 23, 2013, 08:40:41 AM

Actually when it comes to games that constantly change this wouldn't be the case.

I understand what you're saying. It is possible for the game to change so much that players who used to be good cease to be. However, I think that the abilities that they used to become great before, will probably also help them to become great again very quickly if they try.

Red, you are a great T1 player and I've told you that before. I'm a pretty decent T1 player myself. But I'll go on record here with a prognostication that if Guardian plays T1-2p at Nats this summer that he'll end up ranked higher than you or me (even though he's mainly a T2 player, and hasn't played competitively for years).

Professoralstad · « **Reply #197 on:** January 23, 2013, 09:25:42 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 23, 2013, 08:54:57 AM

I'm a pretty decent T1 player myself. But I'll go on record here with a prognostication that if Guardian plays T1-2p at Nats this summer that he'll end up ranked higher than you or me (even though he's mainly a T2 player, and hasn't played competitively for years).

If Guardian plays T1-2P at Nats this summer, it will only be because T2-2P is going on at a different time slot. He already has been reduced to Provisional status in the MTTPA; pulling another stunt like 2011 would probably disbar him permanently. And the stone tablets with the names of the official members are really heavy and are hard to reorder.

News:

Author Topic: Top Cut (Read 38657 times)

Chris

Chris

Chris