Jump to content

Khift

Members
  • Content Count

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Khift

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm not completely confident, but I also agree with the others that Kosori likely adds skill while bowed and at home. One thing to note - this doesn't say they can't contribute their skill, this says they don't. Kosori, on the other hand, says she does contribute. It's also not even obvious to me that this is even a rule; it seems perfectly logical to say that this line is a description and not a rule itself; this could be just be pointing out that bowed characters don't contribute because they aren't included in the list of characters 3.2.3 spells out do contribute, as opposed to this being an explicit (and totally redundant) forbiddance on bowed characters contributing.
  2. The issue is that the people who are 4-2 don't know this. It's not an apparent outcome, in fact the opposite is the default assumption. I've spoken to several people who are themselves 4-2 and they've all been really let down by me informing them this. I guarantee you there are more who don't know this result and are going in with false hope. And I do think that there's an element of cruelty in that, to imply that someone can achieve something (by letting them in the cut), but have it actually be effectively impossible. It's also not the only issue with the situation, either. The 5-1 players who go 6-2 are going to make or miss the cut entirely off of a coin flip. Like, that's not a tie breaker, that's just randomly determining who gets in and who doesn't. It only pretends to be a tiebreaker.
  3. The ANOVA was never to show that groups are not different in skill or different in challenge. The ANOVA was to show that SOS itself does not change in shape or distribution based on player count, which is a claim that was actually made and if true would be very relevant. All the ANOVA was used to show is that SOS across the groups are interchangeable assuming everything it is calculated by remains the same, which must be true in order to inherit tournament points fairly as well. You didn't even read the second paragraph of my post, which is really quite disappointing.
  4. Of course, no tiebreaker is ever going to accurately rank people, it's all approximation once you get to evaluating the better of two people who never played. But, I also have a hard time accepting that 2 rounds of SOS is going to be more accurate than 8 rounds would be on average. So, barring some yet unspoken argument that sinks the ability to inherit SOS across days but doesn't sink the ability to inherit tournament points across days, would 8 rounds of SOS not be better than 2?
  5. We're not even on topic any more, honestly. We went so far down the rabbit hole that we lost ourselves. The topic at hand is what's the fairest way to handle a tournament with three flights of 6 rounds each with a graduated cut into a 2 round flight which cuts into a Top 16 (+7) single elimination bracket. And on that topic I have not seen an argument against keeping SOS that doesn't fall down. Everything else put forward involves either changing the schedule of the tournament to allow more rounds in day 2 or can be shown to not be accurate. In a perfect world, sure, it'd be better to have Saturday be 6 rounds of swiss starting from scratch, leading into a 25+7 single elimination bracket on Sunday, but that's not what happened. Maybe next year will be better. If someone has a better way, I'd like to hear it, and hear why.
  6. Your leading question does not change the fact that 94ish percent of the field is actually seeded randomly from the same population. And it even more woefully fails to create an argument that SOS should be wiped but tournament points should be kept.
  7. That doesn't prove nearly as much as you think it would. If you take a random sampling of L5R players out of the general population you're still going to get a different distribution of clans each sample. In fact, that's almost exactly what happened to create these distributions, if you ignore Hatamotos who make up a pretty small chunk of the total players.
  8. Sure, but the assumption of equal skill has already been made. It's already inherent in how this tournament is being run. We can challenge that, fine, and maybe it even should be challenged - but doing so leaves us even worse off than before because there are only two rounds in day 2 and that's insufficient to do any kind of sorting. The ANOVA was very specifically to counter the claim that SOS would be higher, lower, or somehow vaguely 'different' in one flight as opposed to another. That claim, if true, would actually be a reason to wipe SOS but keep tournament points. But it wasn't true, and that's what was shown. Unfortunately I didn't make that entirely clear as honestly I thought I'd shown quite cleanly that an argument based on skill difference doesn't have any weight as a reason to support FFG's decisions.
  9. They are, yes. This is true. But the problem is that if your argument is that skill is what is differing then SOS isn't what needs to be dropped but rather tournament points -- which are instead kept. If skill is (approximately) the same, then both can be kept. if it isn't, then neither can be kept. Here, we've got a situation where we're keeping one but tossing the other and there's absolutely no good reason for it. My ANOVA test was to disprove @TheItsyBitsySpider's claim that SOS values would differ between the two days by virtue of population count and therefore give an advantage to one of the days. That claim is what was shown to be (probably) false.
  10. And statistics doesn't work any differently. Thinking doesn't have to do with it. The math does it for you; all you have to do is interpret it. @TheItsyBitsySpider, I'm honestly getting embarrassed for you. If you want to make the argument that because of Hatamotos the two aren't comparable then guess what - that also means that tournament points need to go. At which point we have a two round tournament with 100 people in it and we're determining the top cut by rolling the dice. In order for your argument to hold any water at all you need to come up with an argument that supports the claim that tournament points can be kept but SOS can't. Your one attempt at doing that was making the claim that a day with a different quantity of players would result in an unfair SOS advantage to people in one pod. This was tested and it was shown that that is not the case. You will not get more, or less, or different SOS distributions because of player count. You need to come up with an argument that supports keeping tournament points but doesn't support keeping SOS and so far you have utterly failed to do so. Every argument you've put forward either is more applicable to tournament points than it is to SOS, or doesn't shake out statistically. And until you can come up with something with merit I'm done responding to this inane train of thought.
  11. Population has a different meaning statistically. Several groups of data can be said to be from the same population if they are indistinguishable from the overall group. If the barriers are merely arbitrary then they are from the same population.
  12. I'm sorry man, but you need to give it up. It's over. The claim has been tested. The distributions are identical to distributions derived from the same grand population. There's really nothing left to argue, short of you digging up more tournament data and doing further analysis yourself. You're welcome to do so, but I doubt it'll change anything. At this point you're just tilting at windmills.
  13. How about we put our money where our mouth is, then? This claim of yours, that they are different populations, it's a testable claim. We can investigate this. We can use statistics to test whether or not it's a true statement. So, I did. I ran the SOS of 4-2 players through an ANOVA test to determine how likely these two samples come from the same population. Here are the results: What does all this mean? In layman's terms, an ANOVA test functions by first making the assumption that the samples being tested are from the same population, and then it determines how often samples of this size that are created from the same population would be less similar to each other than the given samples are. Basically, if you create random samples from a normal distribution and you put them into buckets these two buckets will not actually be identical - there's going to be a measurable difference between the buckets each time. Similarly, there is a measurable difference between the buckets in our actual sample. So ANOVA compares the actual difference and asks how often will a random distribution create more difference than this. This is recorded as the P-value of the test. In our case, 89.9% of the time a pair of samples of this size created from the same population would be less similar to each other than these two samples are. Meaning that even if these were the same population these samples are actually absurdly close to one another, batting well above average. For comparison, a reasonable first glance value for saying that two samples are not from the same population is a P-value of 5% or less. And people still get pretty queasy about that because it's still possible that that's just random variation. 89.9% utterly blows that out of the water. So, no. We can soundly keep the null hypothesis that the two SOS samples are from the same population.
  14. If you're going to hold a blatantly hypocritical position then I'm going to call that position hypocritical. You don't get to claim that they're different populations but then argue to keep the most important data point while simultaneously tossing a significantly less important data point. You are straight out trying to have your cake and eat it too and it does not add up. Additionally, This statement is just flat out false and is full of misconceptions. For one, the rate of pair-downs is not a function of size but rather a matter of how close the tournament is to an exponent of 2; at a perfect exponent of 2 there will be zero pair-downs, and at a distance in between pair-downs are maximized. For two, pair-downs do not have a net effect on the mean SOS. Pair-downs have a zero-sum effect; they hurt one player and help another. On the whole they completely wash out. They do increase the variance slightly, but that's it. Finally, and most importantly, the effect that you describe here is not even in the same order of magnitude as the one I describe in the OP. If the goal is to create the fairest and least biased tournament possible then this doesn't even hold a candle to the realization that your SOS on day 2 is entirely determined by a single game that you are not a part of. It's not an aggregate of games, your first tiebreaker is actually just a coinflip. If you want to compare that to one day have a slightly higher variance on their SOS then fine, go ahead, but don't expect to get any traction from me.
×
×
  • Create New...