- Category 1 (276+) - 1 kudos
- Category 2 (201-275) - 2 kudos
- Category 3 (176-200) - 3 kudos
- Category 4 (151-175) - 4 kudos
- Category 5 (141-150) - 5 kudos
- Category 6 (131-140) - 6 kudos
- Category 7 (121-130) - 7 kudos
- Category 8 (111-120) - 8 kudos
- Category 9 (101-110) - 9 kudos
- Category 10 (91-100) - 10 kudos
- Category 11 (81-90) - 11 kudos
- Category 12 (71-80) - 12 kudos
- Category 13 (61-70) - 13 kudos
- Category 14 (51-60) - 14 kudos
- Category 15 (41-50) - 15 kudos
- Category 16 (31-40) - 16 kudos
- Category 17 (20-30) - 17 kudos
As noted, I also made a minor "suggestion" for splitting Category 1 into 2 cats. After looking at the bots registered for Cat 1, I though this seemed like a fairly good spot to split it for now (until more higher level bots come along and warrant it to be split more).
I moved my entry fee post to its own thread to suggest splitting cat 1 into 2 separate cats. After looking at the bots that entered, I felt I chose a very respectable place to split it. Any thoughts?
|
atm i think it would be pointless changing the category due to there only being 11 of 24 that will join due to the other 13 being win dumpers/ratio whores/energy whores
in the future when there is atleast 20 solid 276+ then i am all for this
|
i agree, i suppose, if you do splits make it 201-250 and 250-299 and 300 plus.
Also there should be a checkbox whether you want to receive XP or not, i was counting on it this time, anything helps at this level
|
An option of XP or not would be nice, amount given very by placement. Unless it's kept all to clan points then it won't matter.
|
i mean for cat 1 xp does not hurt, most of us want it probably
|
atm i think it would be pointless changing the category due to there only being 11 of 24 that will join due to the other 13 being win dumpers/ratio whores/energy whores
This thought process makes no sense, as it would be the exact same thing as it is now, yet we still got 27 entrants in cat 1. Your logic eludes me. If anything, if the cat was split in half we'd get more people joining.
i agree, i suppose, if you do splits make it 201-250 and 250-299 and 300 plus.
I think the category needs to be divided, but not to this extent, not yet.
|
I'm leaning pretty strongly towards splitting category 1 for edition 2. I agree that the current spread is too wide. The break I had in mind was at level 300, but I'm open to other opinions.
Thanks for starting a new thread for this, Nos. That's the best way to do it so discussions stay organized. I started a new thread for the discussion about exp gain:
http://bots4.net/forum/4/6469
|
I noticed every level 300+ bot entered the tourney, so 300 would be a good spot.
|
I am thinking, maybe it would be reasonable to split new cat2 into two more cats? 201-250 and 251-300?
/Ratty
|
I think that's fairly reasonable, as cat 2 actually has the most entrants out of all other cats except one of the lower level ones, where someone entered a heap of dumpers. It doesn't sound fair for a level 201 bot to be battling a 299 bot anyway.
|
+1, i suggested two cats for that, 201-250, 251-300, then 301+
|
anyway, only second tourney, we will see how this goes right?
|
I see the split as it is now as a win in the books, as far as geting things changed. But after looking at all the bots in the HoF, another split might actually be good. As stated already, there are a lot of 200-299 bots, however, unless the split is going to allow for a decent amount of bots in both cats, I don't see the point in splitting them if Cat 2 is only going to have 3-5 bots in it, and the new cat 3 have 20.
|
I think cat 2 needs to be divided into 201-250 and 251-300. It just makes sense to do it Ender.
|
|
|
|
|
In tourney edition 2 there was 34 entrants in cat 2. 10 of them are 251-300 so 24 are 201-250. I think it's the perfect level to split this cat.
|
Having 10 bots in a category is shit it only takes 3 people not log in and enter or forget
I would say leave category 2 as it is
|
Surely that logic applies to cat 1? In that case cat 1 should be expanded ...
|
Perhaps this isn't the right place to suggest this, but starting a new thread seemed redundant..
At the moment the categories are evenly distributed; 10 levels apart, 25 levels apart, etc. This looks 'pleasing and logical', but it isn't really.
A level 30 participant has almost 50% more statpoints than a level 20 participant.
It makes more sense to me to pick a range of how strong bots in each category should be, and determine the brackets from there.
For instance, if the difference between the weakest and strongest bot shouldn't be more than 15% worth of statpoints, the brackets could look like this:
20 - 23
24 - 28
29 - 34
35 - 41
42 - 49
50 - 58
59 - 68
69 - 80
81 - 93
94 - 108
109 - 128
127 - 146
147 - 169
170 - 196
197 - 227
228 - 263
264 - 304
305 - 351
352 >
|
|
|
I like the more mathematical way of approaching this, but will there be enough bots in each cat Jans?
|
lesley yes i think it should be expanded 10 bots above 301 is shit for a tourney i think it should of been left till atleast 20 level 301+
|
Increasing the percentage-difference would lower the number of categories needed. I picked 15% kinda randomly, and it lead to 20 cats instead of 17.
At 17.5% you'd get:
20 - 24
25 - 30
31 - 37
38 - 45
46 - 55
56 - 67
68 - 81
82 - 97
98 - 116
117 - 138
139 - 164
165 - 194
195 - 230
231 - 272
273 - 321
322 >
|
Your suggestion Is stupid Jan's you think a level 127 blaster bot could beat a 147 wyrmhammer bot? No obviously not thats just 1 example the rest are v stupid too
|
Ok. New approach; starting with 33% difference, diminishing to 5%:
20 - 25
26 - 32
33 - 41
42 - 51
52 - 63
64 - 76
77 - 90
91 - 106
107 - 123
124 - 141
142 - 160
161 - 179
180 - 199
200 - 219
220 - 239
240 - 259
260 - 279
280 - 299
300 >
|
Sorry to keep knocking you back Jan's but the level gaps are way to far for me.
|
also how about making the cat 1(or maybe any cat) 5 fights in total, might take aways total randomness
|
lol no Otto, that is the whole point of just the one fight.
|
pfft 5 fights would make it more fair suppose, bet Ender can run a private practise round to see how it goes
|
fair is not the goal, if that were so then wiggin would run a hundred fights.
the idea is that there can be upsets & a win is not guaranteed. as shown in tourney no. 2 ;)
|
lets await the opinion of the more capable players
maybe its a silly suggestion, maybe its not
|
I beg your pardon? Don't pat me on the head & call me a silly little girl.
you are not guaranteed a win each tourney. get over it.
your odds are still far better that bots2 where the highest level bot could NEVER win regardless of their build.
|
first of all im not the highest level, and sorry if i offended you.
but it still might be a nice thing make it 5 wins.
i dont care if i win or lose, any of the top 4-5 can sneak a win in atm
|
let me add something:
tourneys are here to find out who is the best bot in a certain CAT, by having 1 fight its fucking luck only.
Bots2 tourneys were based on 10k fights.
10k is not needed, but a first to 3 would be nice, this will show the skills of the builder, not only a fucking lucky fight.
this would also effect the lower levels a lot, but i think it is more fair.
|
Its ridiculous to have a tournament every month and the winners never vary. Stop having an opinion just to benefit yourself.
|
Decent analogy: the (Football) World Cup isn't decided by the teams playing each other over and over again. Its partially down to how you perform on quarter/semi/final day. Does that mean occasionally the best team might lose? Sure! But overall they'll win it more than anyone else
|
im not suggesting this to benefit myself.
and dont be ass, atm its fucking random, 5 wins is not a lot, ender could run a practise run.
|
wtf you bring foorbal into this, has absolutely nothing to do with this
|
|
|
What do you want from the tournaments? For the winner to be decided right now and they win the tournament for the rest of the life of the game? How much fun!! Not really a tournament, more of a simulator.
|
so you wanna keep this random shit instead of it being a proper tournament?
winner based on skills/stats etc, is not possible, tourneys where found to determine the best, not the most lucky that day
|
I actually agree with thecause on this one. It should be the build that wins, not a lucky/unlucky fight.
sim 100 fights or so and take the winner.
|
I think having more than 1 fight for the category's such as cat 1 that only as 10 people in it maybe not 5 but 3 fights is enough I would say
|
1 fight is enough to cause an upset so for me 1 is enough
|
Fishwick, in your football analogy; teams do get 2x45 mins to determine who's better. It's not decided by who gets the first goal.
2 out of 3, or 3 out of 5 doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
If it's one fight per opponent, it feels more like a lottery.
|
I think your bot should fight every other bot in his cat. about 5 times. to make it fair
|
Ok let's say Bot A can beat Bot B 1 out of 5 fights.
Each fight has the same probability of Bot A winning - 1/5. However the more fights that are run the more you negate the chances of luck playing a factor & Bot A wins a fifth of the fights.
With 1 fight Bot A just needs 1 lucky roll. With 5 you need to be 'very' lucky & beat the odds 3 out of 5 times. Sure that is still possible, but less likely.
So the question here is do you want an element of luck in the fights or do you just want the strongest bot to win.
Personally I find the strongest bot option stale & boring.
|
Getting back on topic, I tend to agree with the majority and believe that cat 2 should be split again (201-250, 251-300). You make a good point Jans about % stat differences between levels - conceptually it makes sense, but put simply it doesn't in the 'real world'. Leave it at that for now.
As for the tournament dynamics everybody is discussing, I don't think a lot of people truly understand the repercussions of more fights. You might want it to be more fair, but in doing so the majority of you will greatly decrease your chances of winning (If that's what you really want). Perhaps a small increase in the number of fights is warranted to help differentiate between the top few bots, but anything >5 I would advise against.
|
tourneys are here to find out who is the best bot in a certain CAT
No they aren't, we can already figure that out for ourselves. It's not a simulation.
so you wanna keep this random shit instead of it being a proper tournament?
Single round elimination is a proper tournament.
How fucking boring would it be to see the same bot win over and over in each category? If not the same bot, the same build. It'd be a simulation, which I already stated isn't the point of these tournaments. If it was going to be like that then honestly there's no point of even having them. You can call it a lottery/luck if you want, but even that is a hell of a lot more thrilling than watching a simulation.
|
i suggest a first to 3, min 3 fights max 5 to win.
tourneys are not a platinum lottery, supposed to be decided who is the better one, not the most lucky bot of the day.
FYI, im not doing this ti improve my own plats, this could be a each cat thing, not even sure if i would win, all bots in top4 can beat me, easily actually
|
i think we should have first to 3 tbh only on categorys under 20 bots so plus1 on that otto
|
The more fights there are, the more likely the results will never change, meaning people will get bored of the tournament. As we are, the 2nd round of results were still somewhat of a surprise due to Eucli's win, and some of Rivans bots taking wins from Rene, which made it much more interesting and no doubt motivated people. The tournaments will not have been worth the hype if the same thing happens every month.
I'd prefer a tiny amount of randomness and luck leading to a fun, contested tournament, over a simulation calculating what the best build is (which will be decided once and likely never change). The best bot will still win more overall, but shock victories are much more interesting than "Bot A wins Cat 1 for the 15th time in a row".
As we stand, a few people in the game know the absolute best chance of winning, so no doubt those bots exist already, that build will forever dominate, wouldn't you like to see the odd occasional very slightly sub-optimal bot win, just for a change?
Note: My opinion would probably be wildly different if the categories changed each month.
|
eucli's surprise win?
eucliwood possibly is the strongest on the game its definitely not a surprise
|
eucli's surprise win?
eucliwood possibly is the strongest on the game its definitely not a surprise
Exactly, the better bots are already winning, so why are people even bitching?
|
47
