Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grungebob
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UranusPChicago
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grungebob
Let's just make sure we are understanding PD here. PD rewards more decisive victories. It doesn't punish anybody. Two players who are equally ranked will be compared to each other by how decisive their games were. The player who defeated his opponents more thoroughly each time ranks higher than the player who only manages to beat his opponent by a tiny margin.... Correct?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FunRun
1. In the first round some players ended up with +500 points because they got a random draw against a very weak army or player, and the loser starts out with -500. These extremes severaly tip the balance of who plays who for at least the next few rounds. Swiss doesn't start allow for such extremes.
|
It may not happen that often, but it certainly will happen. What it you end up with an identical record of someone who you never got to play during the tournament and they spent the first one or two rounds or the tournament playing much weaker opponents?
[comical aside]Does this remind anyone else of College Football Rankings?  [/comical aside]
|
What if after each game, win or lose you just counted your own surviving points and used that as a tie breaker. The player who can save more of his army consistently gets rewarded??????
|
But again, that is limiting the styles that I can play effectively in a tournament (unless of course I just win out ...
)
The inherent problem with any tournament style is that only definitive ranking is number one. After first place, it is just groupings of people with identical records. I agree with "rewarding" wins, we just disagree with "rewarding" the style in which you win.
If you are looking for the simplest answer, then PD may work. Unfortunately, it is not the most fair answer. What should be more important in a tournament?