4 players race logics in a cup

Category dedicated to the ESWC: news, tracks selection...

Moderators: ESWC-Sylvain, TM-Patrol

Post Reply
Posts: 1594
Joined: 09 Aug 2005 14:07

4 players race logics in a cup

Post by Florent » 14 Feb 2009 11:29

ESWC decided to go from two players race competition to four players format.

Everybody agreed on it. No feeling or logics was really raised against. And it is a good reason to believe that it is quite a good decision.

But I really think that if the race went from 2 to 4 players, it still means that there is just 1 winner. In fact, to present it simply, it went from 0 real winner to 1 real winner.

For the discussion, let's name the reason why it went from 2 players to 4, under the name of "real victory" With 2 players, there were too rarely "real victory" and with 4 players, there is enough "real victory"

The #1 of 4 is meaningful because there are enough chances that he won a "real victory" against the #2

To say that #2 position should be awarded would mean that there are chances enough that he wins a "real victory" If it was the case, it would mean that #3 offers regular enough challenge to #2. If you look at probabilities, if the #3 of 4 offers a regular challenge, a #2 of 3 should offer it as well. It would mean that a 3 players race is enough. But the decision was to go with 4 players.

To say it quickly: if the decision was taken to bring it to 4 players, it is likely because the #2 of 2 was too rarely giving real challenge, and that #2 of 3 would be similar. So, it is probably to have a #2 that gives a real challenge to #1 that the decision was taken to make a 4 players race.

Some people can argue that he did the job to give a challenge to #1, even if he won no "real victory" If #3 and #4 crashed and that #2 finish at 0.1 second behind the #1, he still won nothing, so it is not a "real victory" You can argue that the #1 can be in that situation as well, but if it was too often the case, I think the competition would raise the number of people in a race. And since they are not suggesting it, it means that #1 is often enough in the situation to win a "real victory"

To put it simply:
If 2 players races are bad, then #3 should not win something in a race of 4
If 3 players races are bad, then #2 should not win something in a race of 4
If 3 players races are good, then give points only to #1 and #2 or make 3 players races and give point to #1

At least, if #1 of 2 is not a winner. I think it is easy to say that #3 of 4 is not a winner as well.

It is statistically meaningful to give points to everybody if you run 25 rounds. In fact, it would be meaningful also to make big 32 players time attacks average on 5 maps. In the same spirit, it could also meaningful to give 10 points to #1, 8 points to #2 and 6 points to #3 etc. on 50 rounds competition with 16 players. But I think this for championships. But I doubt it would be a "real victory" for a cup.

I really doubt that some players can say "I am convinced" But I wanted to present the logic I see behind this particular question. They may at least see that our difference are based on real things and that, for example, the finalist 1vs3 thing is that we expect for a cup champion to win a "real victory" Be sure that I am convinced that a championship is different and that it is logical to give points to many players in a championship. But it is not the question here, in the Electronic Sport World Cup section.

Post Reply