tain.totalcodex.net

Myself and an associate are very close to finishing the code required to start up an online Myth players league and we need people to help us test the system. This league will be a Web site that runs tournaments. Players can start a tournament, have people join, and the on-site PHP will auto-pair the rounds. The site also keeps track of wins and losses and assigns points on a 1600+- scale. I'm hoping this new site will become a hub for the Myth-playing community.

If you're interested in helping us perfect the system, please send me your e-mail address. We need a good group of folks to help test all the different facets of the site. Also, we'll need mature individuals to help run it once it goes live. There are many different job positions we'd like to fill.

• We need responsible people to help manage and run large, scheduled tournaments.
• We need mature individuals that can "referee" or "judge" matches in case there are discrepancies.
• We need moderators to help keep discussion civil in our IRC channel.
• We need feedback from all sorts of Myth players on how to make the system work better. The idea is to get a site going that brings the community together and expands on the simplistic server-based ranking system while offering a variety of team-based and FFA tournaments on a daily basis.

Again, send me your e-mail if you'd like to help with any of these items.

you should post this at www.mwc07.com

Heh, prepare for the worst before you do.

I have no desire to bathe in piss and vinegar.

That said, my colleague and I have run up against a problem. A large part of the code we've got comes from an already-existing league site we both run. The problem while converting it from a trading card game league to a Myth league is FFA pairings. We can pair 3v3, 2v2, or any combination of XvX, but pairing XvXvX is going to require a complete redesign of the automated pairing system. The code simply is not there to declare one person the winner over two or more other individuals.

There might be a couple ways around this. We can pair 1v1 across the board and promote the winners to the next round based on placement at the end of a game. For example:

A vs B
C vs D
E vs G

Pairs are still divided 1v1. However, all six players play KoTH on Killing Grounds together in a FFA match. You get the following placements:

A
C
G
D
B
E

Then players report results.

A wins vs B
C wins vs D
G wins vs E

Pair the next set and you'll get 1v1 and 1vBye. No need to play another game, just use the results from the last round.

A wins vs C
G wins vs Bye

Pair the next round.

A wins vs G

Problem? G gets awarded second place, even though he placed third in time. Solution? Pair the next round with the top players. In this case, there are three winners. 3-way FFA. Going off the 1v1 pairs, we've got:

A vs C
G vs bye

A's goal is to beat C in time no matter what. Reverse is true for C. The problem is that G has no goal. He got the bye, so he advances to the next round. Should he not play at all and the second half of the tournament be turned into a 1v1 playoff? Seems a bit wrong to me. Then again, it seems wrong to have G play when he has no stake in the future. Either way, the final match will be a 1v1 playoff, and isn't this supposed to be a FFA tournament, anyway?

It's just not going to fly with a 1v1 pairing system, no matter what way you slice it. I thought we could make it work, but after seriously doing the math, the project looks like it has to go back to formula.

SUCKS.

Unless ... maybe you can think of a way to make it work with what we've got?

you could have the players playing in the tournament rate each player, and thier overall rank determines what position they get for seeding. then have player 1 vs player 64, player 2 vs 63, etc etc. have it run as single elimination. how does that sound?


like :

A = 8.2
B = 4.2
C = 6.1
D = 9.6
E = 5.3
F = 7.6
G = 9.8
H = 3.1

therefore ranks go as (best to worst, left to right)
G-D-B-F-C-E-B-H
1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5
then uh, it evens out to 1v8 winner vs 4v5 winner and 2v7 winner vs 3v6 winner


then winner vs winner = biggest winner

The system already does that. It will run five rounds of Swiss play, then cut to top eight with the first-place player playing the eighth-place player and so on. The system seeds well enough and works very well for 1v1 play. The problem is representing standings in a FFA match without having to redo the current paring system, which is based on 1v1 matches.

Have you considered opening the source, if possible?

Also, does your system rank by anything other than win or loss? If not, one simple but dirty way to express the results of a… damn, this forum doesn't like subscripts. To express the results of a X0vX1v…vXn game, you could record n wins valued at k/n where k is the value of a X0vX1 win. Essentially, you reduce an n-way game to (n-1) 2-way games of lesser value.

It gets more complicated, but the same idea applies if scores are weighted by team size (so an X0vX1 win would give a different score than a (X0 + 1)vX1 win).

~J

if you're looking for a different idea for the FFA formulas, here are some rules that igmo wrote that i used in my FFA tournament last spring (and he used in his Opop tournaments)

<p><b>Scoring:</b><br>
scoring follows the formula (# of players) - (final rank) = score.</p><p>
this means a 6 start game scores 5 4 3 2 1 0, and a 4 start scores 3 2 1 0.
</p><p> there will also be a +1 bonus per game for the player with the most damage
in all game types except BC.
</p><p>
<b>Game ties:</b><br>
There are no ties! Rank is determined by perm, with damage then
kills as tiebreakers. This is not especially fair in games like
CTF or ASSASS, but, as my mamma would say "tough
tiddies!"
</p><p>
<b>Match ties:</b><br>

If the match results in a tie, advancement is determined by which player has
the most 1st place finishes. If the tie remains, the player with the most 2nd
place finishes advances. If there is still a tie, the tourney officials will
review film and make a ruling based on objective game conditions. </p>

It might be possible to adapt the Elo system for Myth ranking. I'll have to think about this more when I've got more time.

~J

Death's Avatar wrote:Heh, prepare for the worst before you do.

Be honest, the guys there would make up the majority of the people who might bother to play.