Player vs. Player 2011

DeletedUser

Guest
Please post if you wish to enter the tournament. If you play under an alternate name please give the account you play as.


Players Entered:

1. Obryant
2. Jeor
3. Rascal-the-cat
4. The Gammy 1
5. Jurasu (crosamich)
6. Adamjrose2
7. Lamarth
8. Malckam
9. Haza Teh Great
10. Gamecat
11. Lavim
12. JonnyFlame
13. Monsterbro (Cyclopz)
14. Crazyplayer4
15. auguthy2 (kafs)
16. u6s5l (Orel/Robonot)


16 Players
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser78416

Guest
What the hey, I'll do it if it means forum activity
 

DeletedUser

Guest
adamjrose2 said:
Please post if you wish to enter the tournament. If you play under an alternate name please give the account you play as.


Players Entered:

Adamjrose2
Jeor
Rascal-the-cat
Haza Teh Great
Monsterbro (Cyclopz)
Lavim
Gamecat
Lamarth
Click to expand...


so far this looks exactly like my incomings page...... minus monsterbro and lamarth anyway lol
 

DeletedUser

Guest
why not.. it will give me reason to look at the forums again and hopefully not see ppl fighting with one another
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Entries will be closed on saturday night. Also I will seed the players based upon their current ranking.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Why not randomly generate numbers and assign the numbers to the players, then use that as seedings?
 

DeletedUser78416

Guest
u6s5l. said:
Why not randomly generate numbers and assign the numbers to the players, then use that as seedings?
Click to expand...

I think it's a moot point nonetheless. Regardless if the supposed #1 player takes on the least likely to win player, or the #2 player...the #1 player will still be #1.

Having a random drawing just means a player who isn't heavily liked amongst their peers and/or might not be valued as highly skilled as another, would just last a bit longer.

To make it fair, everyone voting needs to base decisions on facts (stats) or personal experience with said player.

The more elaborate the examination is between players, the more entertaining this will be and the longer it will last.

For instance, if this were just 100% stat based, award points. 1 point for each category a player wins...ODA for example, enemy conquers, awards even, etc. Then another point based on peer voting.

So basically, in my opinion, to eliminate as much bias as possible, have a criteria list to compare players with, then do a peer vote for an additional bonus point (which may make or break a potential tie).

Some examples to compare:

-ODA only

-Village conquers
--war targets percentage/number
--player vill conquers
--barbarian conquers (less is better)

-award points/categories???
--with the exception of the friends one and others that don't show a gameplay level of activity, etc

-ratio of conquers vs losses ??

-growth rate per day??

Etc., etc.

I think the more categories the better, but only me opinion.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think it's a moot point nonetheless. Regardless if the supposed #1 player takes on the least likely to win player, or the #2 player...the #1 player will still be #1.
Click to expand...

That's the only point that matters, because we agree on how it should be compared. And yes, it means the other player who is #2 will last longer. But if you randomize it, then you aren't going solely on account size. If you go solely on account size, you place some of the best against some of the worst, but you might end up with some really weird results with the middle area, and as a result you'll have players getting eliminated before they should be, so you don't get accurate rankings. But meh, whatever, it doesn't really matter. This isn't accurate anyways.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I can do random seedings as well as it doesn't matter to me. I just though based on rank would be the most fair. I am sure we can all think of players who are smaller than some others, yet we would vote as winning a 1v1 contest.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Hehe, lol you can always include me. we need a round number ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top