Adventure Gamers - Forums

subbi - 05 January 2015 05:14 AM

Yes, things are running now. I’m not sure a next round of groups would be the best way forward, but you can redraw the winners of each round and match them up randomly, so then it’s still possible that Sierra games get to both sides of the tournament and more Lucas draws in the next round.

Is this contest somehow Sierra Vs LucasArts?

LOL, no ofcourse not….and if it’s only about 1 winner, it won’t matter how we do it.

But if we also generate a ranking out of all of this, and I believe that was the plan,  (based on how far games got and how many points games got during the group stages) then it does matter how the big developers (that eventually contribute the majority of games at least in the top section) are stacked up against eachother.

subbi - 05 January 2015 05:14 AM

Bogi - 05 January 2015 04:36 AM

@Sefir

It’s of course up to your choice, but I would vote in that situation for the game I played and liked.

@subbi

Maybe we should have considered something like that, unfortunately now it’s too late.
Still it is about the one game that stays to the end, but of course rest of the placement is indicative too.

I also had an idea of a second group stage with the final 16 games (4 groups x 4 games or 2x8) before the quarter-finals, especially because all of these games could be original group winners and it would be more fair, but I felt I was pressing too much.
(Although it still isn’t too late for that )

Yes, things are running now. I’m not sure a next round of groups would be the best way forward, but you can redraw the winners of each round and match them up randomly, so then it’s still possible that Sierra games get to both sides of the tournament and more Lucas draws in the next round.

Uh, I don’t know if this is a good idea, this already was a completely random draw (except 1-4 ... - ... 2-3 pairings), there would be to much interference if we forbid LA and Sierra games to clash between themselves before a certain stage.
I’m not so much in this Sierra-Lucas Arts rivalry, but would like that the “best” games enter final stages, so that’s a reason for the idea that each half of the draw could have it’s Top16 group and then 4 top placed games from both groups would meet in the quarter-finals.

We already have 2 Daedelic games clush each other in this stage. Wouldn’t changing the current format (and not allowing Sierra-Lucas Arts games clash together) be very unfair for that company?

No, IMHO the current format is fine as it is.

Yes, it would and also Sierra has already 3 pairings in the first round. Only LucasArts benefits from it sofar.

But, yes, maybe we’re making things to complicated, so let’s leave it as is.

I don’t want to create a Sierra-Lucasarts rivalry here, at least no more than already is the case, but I only wanted to make sure that IF we do create a final ranking based on this, that pairing too many games from one company does create a ranking advantage for another….that is, for the high profile games that are expected to go through at least 1 or more rounds.

You are taking it far too seriously subbi. If you really want the most subjective opinion around, then the Top-100 of the site is probably the best choice, since it includes many -not that well known - but high quality games (Callahan’s, The Dark Eye, etc) , games that in this kind of competition wouldn’t stand much chance. It is a bit 6-7 years old of course, but it still does the trick if you except the more recent gems. This is just a competition to have fun!!

So it is. I don’t see this as a replacement of the Top 100 obviously. You can’t compare a critics assessment to a popularity contest by users.

subbi - 05 January 2015 06:51 AM

So it is. I don’t see this as a replacement of the Top 100 obviously. You can’t compare a critics assessment to a popularity contest by users.

Have you and other critics played DanganRonpa series???

How many of you? then how many of you are familiar with Animes and Japanese culture, to what extent?? then compare your fascination with Animes(DR) vs Toons(DoTT) and in the end its as subjective as it comes.

Yeah this is largely a measure of games that have been played by the most people, at this stage at least. Shrug, its ok. Everyone has different obscure games that they wish were more recognized… no particularly great way to reflect that.

Bogi - 05 January 2015 05:24 AM

I’m not so much in this Sierra-Lucas Arts rivalry, but would like that the “best” games enter final stages, so that’s a reason for the idea that each half of the draw could have it’s Top16 group and then 4 top placed games from both groups would meet in the quarter-finals.

Yeah, now that I think about it I agree that would result in more of the best games getting through to the final rounds.  Right now certain groups of 16 will inevitably lead to 2 big games facing off in the round of 16, and then in other groups other big games seem to have no serious competition until the quarterfinals or even the semi-finals.

A group stage for a redraw at 16 would be a lot more fair, because the way things are weighted there’s really no epic showdowns of favorites before then, so they’d be on relatively equal ground.

(For the record, I’m fine with whatever Bogi decides.  But Bogi asked for opinions, and the more I think about it, the more I do like the redraw at 16.  It’d make the competition much less predictable going forward too.)

I honestly think another group stage is an overkill for this tournament and would just create more unnecessary complexity. There is much more excitement in knockoff stages like in the world cup, where unlikeley teams meet early on. The way it is at the moment is best in my opinion. Also who cares how many Lucasarts vs Sierra games make it far? The pairings were very random, and if luck means more Lucasarts games make it to further rounds, so be it. It doesn’t diminish from the value of Sierra games, as this whole tournament is for fun and not scientific in any way.

So now we have an idea that R16 should be transformed into a group stage (2 groups of 8 teams), where top 4 teams would advance to quarters (and again 1stvs4th VS 2ndvs3rd) or maybe it would be an overkill and we should continue like this?

More people give their opinion about this, the better.

edit:
Now I’m reviewing the thread and still can’t believe Flight of the Amazon Queen couldn’t acquire 4 nominations and enter the tournament!!??

a partial group stage to help some games advance? noooo dont do it.

subbi - 05 January 2015 05:20 AM

LOL, no ofcourse not….and if it’s only about 1 winner, it won’t matter how we do it.

But if we also generate a ranking out of all of this, and I believe that was the plan,  (based on how far games got and how many points games got during the group stages) then it does matter how the big developers (that eventually contribute the majority of games at least in the top section) are stacked up against eachother.

I don’t believe we will be generating a ranking of all the games, at least not as an official part of the tournament. Looking at the Overview thread, it looks like we will declare a first, second, and third place from the four games that make it to the semi-finals, but that’s it.

The problem with trying to rank all the games via an elimination tournament is basically what you’ve pointed out, some very good games will get eliminated early in a tournament like this, not because they necessarily weren’t good enough to make it to a later round of the tournament under other circumstances, but just because they’re in the destructive path of the games that will ultimately win the tournament.

For example, consider this bracket of the tournament:

If we go based on the results of the group stage, The Longest Journey will most likely beat out Under a Killing Moon for the Round of 16 slot, and then beat out Botanicula for the Quarter Finals slot. (I’m not saying this is what will actually happen, it’s just an example. Personally I won’t be too surprised if a current dark horse beats Botanicula prior to the R16.)

We cannot rank Botanicula and Under a Killing Moon relative to each other based on this, because we cannot conclude that Botanicula would have beaten Under a Killing Moon if they went head to head. Even though in this scenario Botanicula makes it to the R16 and Under a Killing Moon only makes it to the R32, that’s just because Under a Killing Moon was doomed by being up against The Longest Journey sooner than Botanicula. Indeed, in the group stage, Under a Killing Moon had 167 points from 34 voters and Botanicula had 131 from 28 voters. So it’s quite possible that Under a Killing Moon might have made it to the R16 instead of Botanicula if it had been up against Botanicula prior to The Longest Journey.

What we can feel confident about under this example scenario is that neither game could beat The Longest Journey.

So it doesn’t really make sense to rank all games using an elimination tournament. Some people might do it unofficially for the heck of it, but unless I’ve misunderstood, I think the tournament will only declare a first, second, and third place.

Thanks for clarifying, yes, I think it makes sense to declare just 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th place, as you suggested.

I must have been triggered by the ‘final standings, based on calculated results’ placeholder link on that same overview page.