I'd like to be on the waiting list please, if anyone gets inactive and you need someone ;O

Quote from: Random00 on June 28, 2012, 09:13 PM
You're assuming that the chances will go from 82.5% for A and 17.5% for B to 80% for A, 15% for B and 5% draw, which is not logical imo. Let's say a draw is what it is now (players finishing in the same second), then chances that A finishes first in this second are higher than 50%. If B has not some super mental power which makes him stronger in close situations, A should even be first in 82.5% of the cases. Which means that draws wouldn't change anything at the winning percentage.
Even if B would perform better in close game than he usually does, the winning percentage for A just slightly increases. And you chose a pretty high winning percentage for A as an example.
To sum it up: I don't think draws have practical influence (less than 1%) on the outcome of a game.

Hrm nevermind, that was stupid of me to assume, clearly more wins than losses on player A's side would be converted to draws. Although, I'm not sure it's true that 82.5% of those draws would've been wins, I'd probably need to prove it. Would help if I could look at a concrete example, but I don't have any software to plot normal distributions like Mathematica anymore >_o.

Quote from: MonkeyIsland on June 28, 2012, 08:11 AM
I think Random DID brought up a good point by head-hitting, when the timer goes off by worm hitting his head before finish, that is not the worm physical-reality-true time, is it? If we're about to check replays to find the exact time, shouldn't we also check the exact time when the worm touches finish not when the turn ended by head hitting? I'm trying to say that the real time of turn time is still our definition of it. Our definition could be whole seconds or hundredth of seconds. I was in favor of hundredth of seconds till Random brought up head-hitting.

Anyway I think we're going in circles. In my point of view, if a rule is gonna be set, it should be summed up to this:
Before the game, agree on the definition of the best time: going by whole seconds or hundredth of seconds. (or counting the exact time worm touches finish despite of what timer says)

I'd be fine with or without head hitting. But it adds a small bit of skill to the game in almost all situations, people have to know how to control their worm well to pull it off. It often involves taking a moderate risk for little gain, and it allows for interesting comebacks on occasion. In contrast, judging by whole seconds reduces skill in all situations, or rather, causes us to judge skill incorrectly.

Your version of the rule has a problem MI, people are lazy. They often don't even specify what will count as hitting the finish, at the start of the game. I mean, you have to have a standard means of measurement in case they don't specify anything, or in case they disagree. I'd be fine with this, if the standard is exact times.

You know, it's not draws specifically that are adding fun. It's the game being longer, getting more turns. Why not just play a given match as best of 3? Or even best of 5? You can pretty much choose the length of the game if it feels too short for you.

So CKC and mm, how about playoffs on Saturday July 7th, 20 GMT?

Hah sorry. It just means this: including draws gives the better player a slightly better chance of winning, than if you just went by exact times. And the effect is slightly more pronounced in 2v2, because you can tie with a larger difference between times.

Random: I think you're just making an argument that maybe head-hitting finishes need to be done away with, which is probably worth talking about in another topic.

Flori: The only reason people go by whole seconds is for convenience, it doesn't make sense at all to check the exact times and then not go by them. Also, it would be much more logical go by a 1 second margin of error regardless of the truncated times, so that 105.5 and 106.5 would be considered a draw.

But if you're going to actually check the replay, the only thing that makes sense is going by exact times. If you're gonna stay in-game, the only way to make sure winners don't become losers is to say that 2v2 draws include equal times, and times with 1 second difference.

Also something to consider: ties may have a suspense factor, but they always favor the better player, and the larger the margin of error in times we consider draws, the more it favors them. Suppose you have an 82.5% chance of winning, and 17.5% chance of losing against a particular player. Then suppose a rule creates a 5% chance of a draw, and let's say the probabilities go to 80% chance of winning, 5% chance of drawing, and 15% chance of losing. In actuality, we might not subtract 2.5% from wins and losses evenly, but I think this works assuming both players have similarly shaped normal distributions of their times.

This 5% chance of drawing implies playing another game, so you could rephrase it as "5% chance of (80% chance of winning, 5% chance of drawing, and 15% chance of losing)". Or to just focus on the winning percentage, it becomes .8 + .05(.8 + .05(.8...)), which can be written .8 + (.05)*(.8) + (.05^2)*(.8) + (.05^3)*(.8) +.... This is just a geometric series, .8*(summation from n = 0 to infinity of) .05^n. You might remember learning at one point that a geometric series reduces to 1/(1-r), where r is the ratio. So this sum is equal to .8/(1-.05) = .8421, so the real winning ratio is 84.21%.

The effects are minor, sure, but worth noting. It's pretty much just the same reason that more rounds usually allows the better player to come out on top, although unlike say intermediate, switching who goes first each time doesn't have much effect in RR.

HHC, the reason that some people don't care about changing this is just because they never even considered that a win could really be a loss in clanners. There's no getting around that this situation needs fixing. There is no way this would be that much of an inconvenience for you, since it would happen seldom, especially for people who don't rr much, so I really have to throw the 'it's a hassle' argument out the window. Not to mention that some opponents would still be going by whole secs.

Flori, nobody is getting 'f@#!ed' by going by exact times. People should just always be playing assuming their exact time will be counted, which is basically already how people play. Your problem is just with people's expectations, but if they know exact times may be counted, they won't have those expectations, and they won't have a feeling of getting f@#!ed.

MonkeyIsland, you have revealed mm's most important strategy, and our darkest secret. In light of recent events, it is only logical that you mute yourself as punishment!

I don't think anyone here can see why you hate rr

In that situation, you can go by the draw rule if you both want, since it's based on whole seconds. But if one side wants to get the exact times, the rule would say that you have to go by the exact times. Of course, the side that wants to check could end up losing. But I would always want to check in clanners either way, since the difference in times can be up to 1.96 secs.

Flori, you just seem to be concerned about how people's hopes will get up once they see their in-game times. Solution: just don't expect anything in the case of a tie, until you see the actual times.

In 1v1, what we call draws can actually have time differences of up to 0.98 seconds, and in 2v2, the difference can be up to 1.96 seconds. Everyone should be able to agree that anyone with a better time has objectively performed better than his or her opponent, so the method of judging that should be given preference is exact judging. I think we should just go forward with the rule I proposed, since it still allows people to judge by whole seconds.

I think ties would have to be really, really fun to ever justify giving a win to a losing team. And MonkeyIsland, the main issue is that people don't want to check replays, so your solution is probably not going to work.

But seriously guys, people aren't going to be checking replays every match. It's something that will detract like 1 minute of time once every 20 games, and it's already an extremely quick scheme. It's not that much of an inconvenience.

I think whatever rule is made should apply to 1v1s and 2v2s equally for simplicity. This is something that obviously needs fixing, and it's an incredibly easy fix.

I think the rule as I stated it is satisfactory. In both 1v1 and 2v2, people should have the option to go by non-whole seconds whenever they wish. Whole number enthusiasts can stick to that if neither side wants to bother checking the exact time, but they shouldn't be allowed to enforce that method if the other side wants more accuracy.

Draws can be fun, but they just don't work for 2v2, not unless you also consider it a tie when the times are 1 second off from each other. The way I phrased the rule lets people judge by whole seconds if they want to, if that's what we have to do.

I would really be in support of just having an objective measure of who won and lost though. This way, there's no possibility of people reporting a clanner where the 'winners' were in fact the losers just because both sides went by whole seconds. And by actually enforcing checking replays, more people will be made aware of this situation where clans have a 1 second difference in times.