AMERICA vs EUROPE: RESULTS!

[owned]

We also had a tournament EVA back in 2008:

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 9&start=15


@wap: If people don't choose their positions when they signup on the wiki, then I think positions shouldn't be involved at all in the voting. There are certain players who it's unclear what position they are and their votes could be split.

[wap]

That makes sense.

Then I guess there are two options. We either don't take positions into account at all in the vote, or we allow people to vote for the same player on two positions (instead of just one).

The good thing about the first option is that the 6 'best' fort players of both regions are chosen. The downside is that teams can get unbalanced, for example when 5 out of 6 players turn out to be attackers.

If we use the second method, the vote is really about the best players for a specific position. Allowing people to vote for the same player on two different positions will eliminate the problem that votes could be split. After all if a player is chosen for more than one position he will take the one he got most votes for.

Personally I think the second option would be best, but it is a bit more complicated than the first one.

Either way, positions on the sign-up are unnecessary.

[sinewav]

I think you can realistically have voting with positions, and as wap said, they are not necessary at sign-up. One thing to consider is only allowing EU players to vote for EU candidates, same for NA. This would prevent spoiling the other team by promoting weak players.

Server choice is easy since we have a quality tracker.

I'll comment if there is a stream.

[wap]

We still have to make a decision as to whether or not the voting process will be anonymous. If we decide to make it anonymous, how would we check who casts a vote without seeing its content?

It only makes sense for people to vote on players from their own region, so we still need to check who is allowed to vote and who isn't.

[Gonzap]

it's as easy as somebody trustworthy that know the votes of each player. That person accounts them and that's about it..

[Soul]

it's as easy as somebody trustworthy that know the votes of each player. That person accounts them and that's about it..

Yeah I'd say everyone just PM's sine their votes (if he would be willing to of course).

[Titanoboa]

Let the US players decide the EU server, and the EU players decide the US server.

[sinewav]

Anonymous voting could make people more comfortable. Some might be embarrassing to vote against their own clan in public. We all know there is a lot of mutual respect behind all the politics. I can re-purpose the Tronny ballot and tally the scores. There needs to be a cutt-off time for sign-ups and voting.

I imagine a ballot that lists all the players and some check boxes for positions. I can record all of these and provide a total. I don't see a problem naming the same person for multiple positions or two players for the same position since all of this will be weighted against a cumulative vote. If there is a tie for one position then the player with the most overall wins the spot.

Code: Select all

Sample Ballot

C W W S S G
........... - Player 01
..X........ - Player 02
........... - Player 03
......X.... - Player 04
X.X........ - Player 05
........... - Player 06
..........X - Player 07
X.......X.X - Player 08
........... - Player 09
........... - Player 10
........... - Player 11
.......X... - Player 12

[wap]

Looks pretty good, sine, but that method doesn't take the '3-2-1' scoring system into account, right?

What about doing it like this:

Code: Select all

Sample ballot

CENTER
1: Choose from: [Player 1, Player 2, Player3, ..., Player 15]
2: Choose from: [Player 1, Player 2, Player3, ..., Player 15]
3: Choose from: [Player 1, Player 2, Player3, ..., Player 15]

ATTACK
1: Choose from: [Player 1, Player 2, Player3, ..., Player 15]
2: Choose from: [Player 1, Player 2, Player3, ..., Player 15]
3: Choose from: [Player 1, Player 2, Player3, ..., Player 15]

SWEEP
1: Choose from: [Player 1, Player 2, Player3, ..., Player 15]
2: Choose from: [Player 1, Player 2, Player3, ..., Player 15]
3: Choose from: [Player 1, Player 2, Player3, ..., Player 15]

DEFENSE
1: Choose from: [Player 1, Player 2, Player3, ..., Player 15]
2: Choose from: [Player 1, Player 2, Player3, ..., Player 15]
3: Choose from: [Player 1, Player 2, Player3, ..., Player 15]

- All first choices will be allocated 3 points, all second choices 2 points, and all third choices 1 point;
- The same player can be chosen for multiple positions;
- However, the same player cannot be chosen more than once for the same position;
- If a player wins in a certain category, he will be disregarded in the other categories;
- If a player wins in multiple categories, he will take the position which he has gotten most points for.

This covers everything I think?

Would it be possible to make it like this?

[sinewav]

I don't see the value of assigning points to choice. It won't prevent ties.

[wap]

I think the outcome of the second method represents the thoughts of voters better than the first.

For example, say my first choice for Europe's center is Player A, my second choice Player B, and my third choice Player C. I can voice my opinion well through the second method.

When we use the first method, what would I vote? There is no way for me to make a distinction between my choices. I either vote for them all, thereby giving them the same value, or I only vote my top choice, leaving out the other two. This will give no points to Player B and C, although I could have wanted them to prevail over other options that I don't want to win at all.

[Titanoboa]

+1 to wap's suggestion

[owned]

When is this tournament going to be? I can't really decide if I can go or not if the date isn't down.

Also, +1 to wap's idea

[sinewav]

I'm sorry, I still don't see the value of voting for more than one person per position. Just pick one. There really aren't that many choices.

[Nanu Nanu]

Wouldn't voting for more than one person per position make ties more likely? I think sine's idea makes the most sense, just vote for one person per position. I don't see any one player on atk or sweep getting so many votes that the second highest voted person has so few votes that it doesn't really seem like they should play.