Clash Of The TITANS - 1v1 tournament with $600 prize pool

Discussion in 'PA: TITANS: General Discussion' started by exodusesports, August 26, 2015.

  1. cdrkf

    cdrkf Post Master General

    Messages:
    5,720
    Likes Received:
    4,793
    I agree, although I think the issue is Swiss style needs more rounds to be definitive. Really, at the end if 5 players are tired in win loss, there should be a tie breaker of some kind.
    Killerkiwijuice likes this.
  2. towerbabbel

    towerbabbel Active Member

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    106
    As I understood it the winning was not based on Buchholtz. It was based on win-losses with two fallbacks to sort out ties. Based on win-losses there were five players tied for number 1: Matiz, Clopse, burntcustard, Oxide, and you.

    The first fallback to break ties is the TB score. You get one TB point for each match you've won against someone you're tied with. Becuase Matiz had won matches against burntcustard and Oxide he had a TB score of 2. That put him as #1. Becuase you never won (or even played against) anyone that had a 5-1 win-loss you had a TB score of 0, same as Oxide. That means you and Oxide were still tied.

    That second fallback was the tie-breaker match, which you won and netted you fourth place.

    If you had lost your match against Oxide then you would have come fifth. If you had won the match against Xankar you would have won the tournament because you would have had a 6-0 win-loss.

    EDIT: I agree with cdrkf. I think it would have been more definitive with more rounds. More clear win-loss differences, less tie breaking.
    Last edited: September 20, 2015
    Killerkiwijuice, FSN1977 and Quitch like this.
  3. philoscience

    philoscience Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,022
    Likes Received:
    1,048
    Yeah, this makes sense, but doesn't seem particularly rewarding for the 5 tied players to lose on account of matches they didn't even get to play. Seems the Swiss style would work a lot better with more players. I would have loved to see a tiebreaker match last night as we had some very nice matches in the final round.
    tracert likes this.
  4. crizmess

    crizmess Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    317
    Coming from computer science, the Swiss tournament scheme looks a lot like a robust shuffle sort. (Here is a paper from 1983 about robust sorting, for everyone who wants his/her head to be blown off on a Sunday.)

    Basically, more rounds will increase the probability that the resulting ordering is correct.
    The minimum number of rounds is the log_2 of number of participants (with 36 you will need 6 rounds minimum, whereas for 32 you only need 5). The minimum number of rounds guarantees that from every starting position there is a path up towards the first place.
    I would assume that in practice the ordering is more correct at both ends of the list, than in the middle. This means that the first and the last place is the best determined rank in this tournament scheme. (For example, if matiz would have won the last match it would be 6-0-0 for him, which means he cut of every path of a contestant to the first place, the comparison graph for this case would be equal to total elimination. The same is true for the last place. Sorry for whoever got 0-6-0.)
  5. Clopse

    Clopse Post Master General

    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    2,861
    Please use the questionaire exodus asked us to fill out after the tournament. I agree with everything being said, the reason you didnt get a chance to play better layers was becasue xankar lost 2 games after beating you. It's crazy but that's how it goes. I have mentioned that swiss is great for the community and to bring the competitive scene to everybody, but the top 8 of the swiss should go into a round robin best of 3 tournament the following week.
    rivii, Corgiarmy, cdrkf and 7 others like this.
  6. Dainank

    Dainank Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    3
  7. Bsport

    Bsport Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    415
    Also we accept match summaries, so if there was a great match while not put a summary on it for other people.
  8. Antiglow

    Antiglow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    319
    Let's be frank, only in a team game are titans going to play a part. Honestly I did not watch this tournament, 1v1s while fun to play are not that interesting to watch.

    I am sure the casting, organization, and play were all great, but to me it is not that interesting to watch (as a non-competitor) unless teams multi-planet systems are involved. That way you can see and/or hear the teamwork, the players actually get out of tech 1, there is long-game and short game strategy, and in my experience the casters seem to get more excited. Which in turn makes the experience more interesting to the watcher.

    That all to say, can't wait for the next Clan Wars.

    [edit]
    As a side note, I think it would be interesting to have a Clan Wars without shared eco.
    Last edited: September 20, 2015
    Corgiarmy likes this.
  9. mot9001

    mot9001 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    650
    Unshared aint that good for real teamplay since yu cant actualy help eachother out and its gg after 1 comm dies.
    tracert and stuart98 like this.
  10. Antiglow

    Antiglow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    319
    Actually I think that is the exact reason it would be. Let me explain...

    First, I don’t think it would be gg after 1 com dies. Who knows the current states of the other players when the said 1 com dies. One might be pushing the army or eco equivalent of two players. The other team may have just done a snipe and still be losing after the said 1 com dies. etc...

    Second team play with shared is interesting in a since with the need for all to work on the same eco system, units etc... but unshared would force the teams to work together even more in some cases:

    • Unshared units require all to control their units to the team's best benefit (and not have one person do it for them). Whether that be one big push, raiding, multipronged attack, etc...
    • Unshared army makes (as you somewhat pointed out) the death of a com more severe. Which IMHO is a better system.
    • Unshared eco forces a teams members to work together to section out what they need to have to do their part. Instead of have one person who is good at eco do it all.
    • Unshared also forces each team member to work to their best, instead of having each team member only work on what he/she is good at. That way one team member cant pull the force of the whole team and it is truly the best team that will most likely win.
    • Unshared also requires the team to act as a whole to protect any member that is not holding up with his/her eco (by sending units). (kinda what you said was not possible?)

    [edit adding one more point]
    • (also) From a casting standpoint it also allows the caster to know which team member is doing what.
    All that to say I might even argue that it forces you to act more as a team.
    Last edited: September 21, 2015
  11. mot9001

    mot9001 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    650
    The strats you are relating to shared are not valid. Most of them are strats used by CULT and they lost all games. The things u want from unshared are actually being done in shared already most of the time.

    There still is no way of helping eachother fast in most cases, if you get double teamed your dead and you should have double teamed 1 of the enemy before that happened. Teleporters don't work so if they come for you, your basicly dead. The teamwork you are describing is probably gonna be ''these 2 focus him and you 2 focus her'' ok lets go. Also, spawns on most planets are not made for unshared. You need a fair spot for every commander. Expansion directions are also discussed in shared, so i don't count that.

    Ofcourse if 1 commander dies and the enemy team also is about to lose 1 commander its not gg instandly. But my gues is the chance of this happening are extremely low. But its not interesting anyway because killing 1 comm kills his entire army and stops all his ability to control. (this is EXTREMELY boring compared to shared where you can play with what u got left)

    Also, most of your arguments have opposites. What if nobody in your team is any good but your all good in teamgames? This means you got no chance at all because of sniping and doubleteaming. Normally you could juggle control of things to the place needed. Like 2 players defending 1 base while the other 2 control 3 bases. These are things i would call good teamwork. Taking eachothers units when required. Helping eachother micro and macro. Keeping eachothers commanders safe and all of that leads to good teamplay. Unshared is more like a ffa with alliances imo.
    Clopse likes this.
  12. Clopse

    Clopse Post Master General

    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    2,861
    I agree with Mott, sniping a commander and worrying about a commander snipe will take away any enjoyment from playing and dictate how the game is played. Say a classic bomber snipe. Hard to keep track of all the enemies planes. Say one controls bombers and the other fighters. They can then choose which of the two commanders they want to snipe. You need your whole air force to be in two places at the same time or have 100% radar coverage of where their air is. Or surround both commanders in aa.
    mot9001 likes this.
  13. elodea

    elodea Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,696
    Likes Received:
    3,050
    Sweet games

    Thanks to exodus for organising such big prize pool which motivated people like matiz to come back and play seriously.

    And thanks also to krazychickenman for shoutcasting some of the other games that exodus couldn't cover.
    ljfed and towerbabbel like this.
  14. towerbabbel

    towerbabbel Active Member

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    106
    Yeah, when the official cast was doing Xankar vs Oxide and kfc was shoutcasting Matiz vs burntcustard it got tricky to decide what to watch:

    [​IMG]
  15. Antiglow

    Antiglow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    319
    I dont see where I said any shared army strats. All I said is you are working off the same eco, instead of each having their own.

    1. Make your own map that would work of unshared if you think that.
    2. It should be hard to help each other fast, thus you should prepair for it.

    This is a blatant opinion so really all I can do is say no I dont think so.

    I am assuming by team games you are saying "shared team games".

    Yes those are good forms of team work. Both systems require their own form of teamwork, and both forms of teamwork are different. I still stand by the arguments I made eairler. Which one is turly better is really up to the eyes of the beholder IMHO.

    And what is wrong with a ffa with fixed alliances?

    Regardless of this argument (which looks like I lost by popular opinion). I still think that it should be a thing that is tried in a real tournament before a concrete community decision is made.
    Last edited: September 21, 2015
  16. mot9001

    mot9001 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    650
    Its certainly nice to try it out for a tournament, but a whole set of matches like clanwars would probably be better shared.
    Antiglow likes this.
  17. superouman

    superouman Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    That game on Aquarius between Xankar and Oxide, it went well beyond my expectations. Metal heavy maps have some potential. :D

    The game on The Island was very interesting with the comm rush to the middle and the landvs naval scenarios.
    stuart98 and mot9001 like this.
  18. stuart98

    stuart98 Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,008
    Likes Received:
    3,888
    Please just tell me that you admit that Diadem is bad and you should feel bad for making that map where air is even more important than usual.
  19. Clopse

    Clopse Post Master General

    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    2,861
    Air is not too important on diadem. Just build order and patience. Patience only if they spam air. There are too many areas to defend with air. Front/back of your base, the hills, the pools. Put pressure on their base so they have to defend, then expand with fabbers on the hills or in the water. I done this against annihil8r in the tournament, he spammed air (5/6 factories, I built my 3) only built more when t2 was up so I could squeeze his expansions as my arm went straight up the middle with enough as to counter any air blob.
  20. mot9001

    mot9001 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    650
    Yeah but still lots of naval pathfinding and building placing issues on Diadem.

Share This Page