NintendoAge http://nintendoage.com/forum/ -Sqooner NintendoAge 2015 Weekly Contest Summer Tournament Presents Round 3: Stinger http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=149995 2015-07-28T21:43:06 -05.00 arch_8ngel 272 NintendoAge 2015 Weekly Contest Summer Tournament Presents Round 3: Stinger http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=149995 2015-07-28T21:02:42 -05.00 arch_8ngel 272 Originally posted by: neodolphino
 
Originally posted by: skinnygrinny
 
Originally posted by: neodolphinoThis would prevent someone who placed 1st 1st 2nd from losing to someone who places 7th 5th 1st... in the most extreme example... it mitigates the luck of the draw effect in the last round.

Does that make it clearer, what I was suggesting?

Not saying it should be done, just want my suggestion to be clear.



I just don't understand why it matters if someone who places 1st twice can eventually lose to someone who sneaks by the first two rounds.

Because had the games been in a different order (luck), they would have won and because they performed so much better than the other person more consistently (not luck).  It makes the final result mainly about getting lucky with the game selection in the last round.  You aren't necessarilly the better gamer overall, just in that one game.  Sure you can get lucky/unlucky with all 3, but it is less likely.  What I was suggesting also encourages everyone to fight as hard as possible in each round (each round matters more), as the points gained might matter later.  This, as opposed to just doing good enough to move to the next round (in the 1st or 2nd round).

Does my thought process make any more sense?
I hesitate to reply to any of this. Perhaps we need a thread for this specific topic as to not cloud up the Stinger thread.

At any rate, some thoughts on this. What you describe makes sense, in theory. However, I see some potential downsides with this.

(1) This concept essentially replicates what the weekly contests do right now. You are awarded more "weight" (i.e. points), which are counted across all rounds. The better you do each round, the better you do overall.
(2) The "luck" factor flattens the playing field to a certain degree. Example: if I had to face Tom V (rdrunner) every game based on pure skill and experience, who would always win?  That "luck" factor gives me a bit more of a chance and ...
(3) It makes for a more interesting competition. 

Now, I have no idea what the discussions were creating the summer and winter contests. I wasn't here at that time. However, I have to say that having multiple contests with the same rules and weight doesn't seem to make for very interesting competition. Why even have a separate contest? Sure, a stroke of luck can get me ahead of a more skilled player, and surely did as I took 2nd in Tier 3!  I am as shocked as anyone that I made it that far, let alone placed in the top 3 of my tier in the last round. I think that's what makes these short, seasonal contests appeal to the broader NintendoAge community. It lets everyone at every level get involved and truly have a shot at winning. The weekly contests are still great, and I continue to play in them every chance I get, but I believe that these short contests were build to be something different.
Everything here is said with respect to the NA community and its members. I enjoy playing with you all and have no issue, but thought I'd share this perspective.

- ninjistar
]]> NintendoAge 2015 Weekly Contest Summer Tournament Presents Round 3: Stinger http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=149995 2015-07-28T19:11:38 -05.00 arch_8ngel 272 Originally posted by: skinnygrinny
 
Originally posted by: neodolphinoThis would prevent someone who placed 1st 1st 2nd from losing to someone who places 7th 5th 1st... in the most extreme example... it mitigates the luck of the draw effect in the last round.

Does that make it clearer, what I was suggesting?

Not saying it should be done, just want my suggestion to be clear.



I just don't understand why it matters if someone who places 1st twice can eventually lose to someone who sneaks by the first two rounds.
Because had the games been in a different order (luck), they would have won and because they performed so much better than the other person more consistently (not luck).  It makes the final result mainly about getting lucky with the game selection in the last round.  You aren't necessarilly the better gamer overall, just in that one game.  Sure you can get lucky/unlucky with all 3, but it is less likely.  What I was suggesting also encourages everyone to fight as hard as possible in each round (each round matters more), as the points gained might matter later.  This, as opposed to just doing good enough to move to the next round (in the 1st or 2nd round).

Does my thought process make any more sense? ]]> NintendoAge 2015 Weekly Contest Summer Tournament Presents Round 3: Stinger http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=149995 2015-07-28T18:31:11 -05.00 arch_8ngel 272 Originally posted by: neodolphinoThis would prevent someone who placed 1st 1st 2nd from losing to someone who places 7th 5th 1st... in the most extreme example... it mitigates the luck of the draw effect in the last round.

Does that make it clearer, what I was suggesting?

Not saying it should be done, just want my suggestion to be clear.


I just don't understand why it matters if someone who places 1st twice can eventually lose to someone who sneaks by the first two rounds. ]]> NintendoAge 2015 Weekly Contest Summer Tournament Presents Round 3: Stinger http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=149995 2015-07-28T18:06:01 -05.00 arch_8ngel 272
The only time the points actually matter is when the last 3 standing are identified after the 3rd round is completed.

It keeps the elimination element/feel, but buffers the last round effect in the final placement. ]]> NintendoAge 2015 Weekly Contest Summer Tournament Presents Round 3: Stinger http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=149995 2015-07-28T18:00:23 -05.00 arch_8ngel 272 Originally posted by: neodolphino

I don't think people are reading through my entire suggestion... some people anyway.

I said that the first two rounds would -still- be elimination. The whole top 7 and then top 5 would advance and accumulate points based on placement. In the final round, the top 3 win, but the place they come in is determine by overall contest points.

This would prevent someone who placed 1st 1st 2nd from losing to someone who places 7th 5th 1st... in the most extreme example... it mitigates the luck of the draw effect in the last round.

Does that make it clearer, what I was suggesting?

Not saying it should be done, just want my suggestion to be clear.
How, exactly, would you weight the results of the previous rounds?

The problem, I see, is that you risk ending up with a system where:
(1) round 1 -- person A makes the bottom advancing spot (position 7)
(2) round 2 -- person A makes the bottom advancing spot (position 5)

In round 3 is then conceivable that person A makes 3rd place "naturally" but is somehow bumped from the podium because the guy that won 1st in rounds 1 and 2 made 4th "naturally".


It feels strange to have a tournament where a person gets knocked off the podium like that.


Or are you only talking about "rearranging the podium"? ]]> NintendoAge 2015 Weekly Contest Summer Tournament Presents Round 3: Stinger http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=149995 2015-07-28T17:47:37 -05.00 arch_8ngel 272
I said that the first two rounds would -still- be elimination. The whole top 7 and then top 5 would advance and accumulate points based on placement. In the final round, the top 3 win, but the place they come in is determine by overall contest points.

This would prevent someone who placed 1st 1st 2nd from losing to someone who places 7th 5th 1st... in the most extreme example... it mitigates the luck of the draw effect in the last round.

Does that make it clearer, what I was suggesting?

Not saying it should be done, just want my suggestion to be clear. ]]> NintendoAge 2015 Weekly Contest Summer Tournament Presents Round 3: Stinger http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=149995 2015-07-28T17:23:50 -05.00 arch_8ngel 272 Originally posted by: guillavoie

Originally posted by: bearcat-doug

Originally posted by: bimmy_lee

I understand completely that the rules for Stinger ended up not being the greatest and created a lot of controversy.  When the rules were revised last Monday, the looping problem was not considered to be an issue because it was believed that no one would be looping the game 8+ times.  Had we known this beforehand, one loop would have been all that was allowed.

I guess that I have to shoulder some of the blame for this since I suggested the new rule set after the potential flaws with the original set were found. I had no idea that multiple people would be able to loop the game enough times that their runs would last over several days or I would've suggested that it be limited to a single loop as well. I'm as frustrated about how things turned out as anybody, but after having time to cool off and think about it, I don't really think there was any way to expect this as being a potential issue going in.
 

I don't want to go in lenght about it, but if I had been around, there is good chances that the rules would have stayed the same from day 1. The problems raised against the first set of rules weren't really solid at all. You can't view lives counts? Whatever, since we're already playing on honor and any excessive score would have required some kind of verification. You can't pause during boss fight? Well, if you die during a boss fight, just grab your camera and take a picture, it doesn't matter at all to lose more lives during the process since the score won't change.

We played that game back then with the 1-life rule, and 4 players scored over 3 million in just one life ( http://vintage.nintendoage.com/fo... ). Take note that the level of competition was way lower than it is today. Now, letting people play all their lives and considering how much extra lives you can get in this game, it was quite normal to see those huge scores getting posted.

My concern here is that I verified the rules for the final round before leaving for vacation, and I knew it was a workable set of rules for a competition. If the rules had to be changed, they had to be changed in order to keep it competitive, which was the point of the 1-life rule. Allowing only one loop would have been workable, but you need to know the game very well before realizing it.

With all this said, it wouldn't be impossible that the same dudes that were able to score 100-75-50-etc. millions would have got the best scores in a one-loop only contest, so I really don't think that the final results are as outrageous as some are making it looks like.



I don't want to go into it anymore either since it's over and done with, but even Tom said changing to my rule set was "for the best" and Bimmy, who has the final say, chose to change them. It was my suggestion, it blew up and I took ownership of it. Saying that the original rule set should've been left in place after the fact is just pouring unnecessary gas on the fire at this point, in my opinion. ]]> NintendoAge 2015 Weekly Contest Summer Tournament Presents Round 3: Stinger http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=149995 2015-07-28T16:29:37 -05.00 arch_8ngel 272
Contest was fine no changes needed. it has worked for all these years no need to overthink it now. no need to change the tournament formats or rules ]]> NintendoAge 2015 Weekly Contest Summer Tournament Presents Round 3: Stinger http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=149995 2015-07-28T15:54:32 -05.00 arch_8ngel 272 Originally posted by: arch_8ngel

Originally posted by: skinnygrinny

 I'm just intrigued by this "luck of the draw" idea being something that takes away from the legitimacy of the victory.
I don't think it does, anymore than it detracts from the standings of any given week.
(though i suppose in that case people can see the forecast game selection to practice ahead of time)



The only other option I could think of that would be applicable would be to device a competition style that worked like NWC.  Not timed or a dedicated cart, but come up with a genre-blend with weighted scoring and unlease all 3 or 4 games on the list at once to let people figure out their own optimal strategy for the highest total score.




Agreed. I'm not familiar enough with the weighted scoring : / ]]>