WBO Organized Play Random Thoughts
![[Image: beybase-signature-is-beyblade-a-sport-Article.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/VLksgt2k/beybase-signature-is-beyblade-a-sport-Article.jpg)
I never have.
Hey while we're sort of on this topic do wins in Plastics/HMS count toward the Faces as victories in official WBO events?
Yeah, the only thing it doesn't count towards is beypoints.
Hey, we should probably get Beypoints for Plastics! >:0
How else would I get any points xD I'm awful at any other kind of blading..
How else would I get any points xD I'm awful at any other kind of blading..
![[Image: 8mgpgcv.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/8mgpgcv.jpeg)
[/font]
(Jul. 21, 2014 2:33 AM)*Ginga* Wrote: I never have.
You received them for:
14 Juli 2013 HMS Silver Spring, MD: Heated Metal Plastic-y Madness!
14 Juli 2013 PLA Silver Spring, MD: Heated Metal Plastic-y Madness!
23 Februari 2014 PLA Silver Spring, MD: Better Late Than Never!
08 Juni 2014 HMS Silver Spring, MD: A Prehistoric Venture
*Ginga*.. you're drunk bro... go home..
Uggh, maybe you are right.
(Jul. 21, 2014 4:25 AM)Neo Wrote: Hey, we should probably get Beypoints for Plastics! >:0
Not only saying this because I placed 3rd at HMS' NOT DEAD 3, but I do think processing the Plastics and HMS events should be thought on for now. I found it to be that the tournament we had in Toronto yesterday was more of a thrown out draw, meaning that anybody would be able to have a fair chance at placing. Consider that Pyrus10000, a member who doesn't have the highest of ranks was able to beat Kei, a member who is the top ranked user in North America, and of course, was the most competitive in HMS among all the nine attendees we had that event.
Trust me, I'm not trying to start an argument whatsoever, as it was already decided: I was just simply stating my opinion on what happened yesterday in a Toronto event. I mean, this probably could have been the exact opposite for different regions that took part in these events, haha.
(Jul. 21, 2014 1:37 PM)~Midnight~ Wrote:Are you suggesting Plastics and HMS be separated from MFB and Zero-G? In terms of Pointage; that is.(Jul. 21, 2014 4:25 AM)Neo Wrote: Hey, we should probably get Beypoints for Plastics! >:0
Not only saying this because I placed 3rd at HMS' NOT DEAD 3, but I do think processing the Plastics and HMS events should be thought on for now. I found it to be that the tournament we had in Toronto yesterday was more of a thrown out draw, meaning that anybody would be able to have a fair chance at placing. Consider that Pyrus10000, a member who doesn't have the highest of ranks was able to beat Kei, a member who is the top ranked user in North America, and of course, was the most competitive in HMS among all the nine attendees we had that event.
Trust me, I'm not trying to start an argument whatsoever, as it was already decided: I was just simply stating my opinion on what happened yesterday in a Toronto event. I mean, this probably could have been the exact opposite for different regions that took part in these events, haha.
Hey guys, I'm going to try donate a $10 Amazone Gift Card to fund a prize/prizes for a tournament.
If you'd like it, can you please PM me the currency you use ? You will also have to PM me the receipt of purchase.
This may tKe 1-2 months, but it's good to know in advance.
If you'd like it, can you please PM me the currency you use ? You will also have to PM me the receipt of purchase.
This may tKe 1-2 months, but it's good to know in advance.
Just took in the fact that I'll be hosting a Plastics tournament this coming Sunday. I most certainly feel like I'm ready to become an official organizer. I'm going to put my heart into making the event as successful as possible, as well.
Does anybody else feel like the tournament size multiplier in the Beypoints formula might be a little bit unfair?
I mean, it kind of gives a crazy advantage to people who attend large events. I think it's kind of evident that that's why London bladers who haven't played in over a year are still lightyears ahead of many active players from other regions who have been competing constantly ever since they stopped (not that I'm mad at the London players for the great community they once had, but it does seem a little weighted IMO). It also gives a crazy advantage to people who compete at Anime North every year.
IDK, I don't really see a point for the size multiplier anyway. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss, regardless of how many people happen to be in the room when it happens.
Anyone else think so?
I mean, it kind of gives a crazy advantage to people who attend large events. I think it's kind of evident that that's why London bladers who haven't played in over a year are still lightyears ahead of many active players from other regions who have been competing constantly ever since they stopped (not that I'm mad at the London players for the great community they once had, but it does seem a little weighted IMO). It also gives a crazy advantage to people who compete at Anime North every year.
IDK, I don't really see a point for the size multiplier anyway. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss, regardless of how many people happen to be in the room when it happens.
Anyone else think so?
![[Image: 68vfxj.jpg]](https://oi57.tinypic.com/68vfxj.jpg)
(Aug. 07, 2014 6:20 PM)TʜᴇBʟᴀᴄᴋDʀᴀɢá´É´ Wrote: Does anybody else feel like the tournament size multiplier in the Beypoints formula might be a little bit unfair?
I mean, it kind of gives a crazy advantage to people who attend large events. I think it's kind of evident that that's why London bladers who haven't played in over a year are still lightyears ahead of many active players from other regions who have been competing constantly ever since they stopped (not that I'm mad at the London players for the great community they once had, but it does seem a little weighted IMO). It also gives a crazy advantage to people who compete at Anime North every year.
IDK, I don't really see a point for the size multiplier anyway. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss, regardless of how many people happen to be in the room when it happens.
Anyone else think so?
Winning a lot in a small tournament against few people is not the same as winning a lot against various Bladers in a big event. I do not know how you can basically say that winning an Anime North tournament is just the same as winning a local event. The stakes are higher, there are more people, the stress is higher, you do not know most of the people you fight, and sometimes you are not even in the same country. The multiplier is also meant to reflect the format used, hence why we are so strict on which format can be applied with x players. If you are in a big tournament, you are supposed to use Double Elimination, or Swiss, and that gives you a lot less chances to get to the top than a simple Round Robin does.
While there is indeed a small issue with the tournament size multiplier, it is not the one you are highlighting.
(Aug. 07, 2014 6:20 PM)TʜᴇBʟᴀᴄᴋDʀᴀɢá´É´ Wrote: Does anybody else feel like the tournament size multiplier in the Beypoints formula might be a little bit unfair?
I mean, it kind of gives a crazy advantage to people who attend large events. I think it's kind of evident that that's why London bladers who haven't played in over a year are still lightyears ahead of many active players from other regions who have been competing constantly ever since they stopped (not that I'm mad at the London players for the great community they once had, but it does seem a little weighted IMO). It also gives a crazy advantage to people who compete at Anime North every year.
IDK, I don't really see a point for the size multiplier anyway. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss, regardless of how many people happen to be in the room when it happens.
Anyone else think so?
I say it's a small problem, but you have to look at how big UK events used to be. Instead if complaining lets use it as motivation to make events bigger.
![[Image: AqKPC.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/AqKPC.jpg)
Kai-V Wrote:Winning a lot in a small tournament against few people is not the same as winning a lot against various Bladers in a big event.
Why isn't it the same? If I win the same number of times against people of the same level in two different places, what's the difference? I went into a stalling clause, selected a custom, and won against them. If I was successfully able to take them down, what does it matter that the tournament we're playing in is particularly large/small? It has no bearing on the odds of who wins the match.
I realize large tournaments can be stressful, and you don't know the players you're competing with. The problem with that, however, is that the handicaps go both ways. You don't know the blading style of your opponent, but your opponent doesn't know your blading style either, and they're just as stressed out as you are, so the odds are still exactly the same as if you were playing in a small event.
I don't think a size multiplier is necessary to compensate for a large number of people. If there are more people, you play more people, and you gain more points in a single event. It plays out naturally.
But, with the size multiplier, if I beat geetster99 at Anime North, and beat him again in a local MD tournament, I get less points the second time. Why is that? Our match wasn't effected by the number of participants in the tournament. The odds were the same both times, and yet I come out with more or less points depending on a variable hat has no effect on whether or not I will win against geester99.
I just don't get exactly why it's there or what it's compensating for. If you play against more people of higher level, because of the higher number of matches played and the higher number of beypoints your opponents have, there are more points at steak anyway, even without the multiplier. It evens out naturally.
I just don't like the idea that the number of people in a given tournament will effect the amount of points a blader will get for wining a match. What kind of problems will that cause for low-attendance regions? Advancing in the rankings is so much more difficult without an active community, and a lot of points are gained due to the number of participants in a given event, rather than due to the skill of the players in the event.
That's my take on it. I just wanted to know what everybody else thought (thanks for responding BTW; I especially wanted to hear from you, Kei and Uwik).
(Aug. 07, 2014 6:51 PM)Dark_Mousy Wrote: I say it's a small problem, but you have to look at how big UK events used to be. Instead if complaining lets use it as motivation to make events bigger.
I'd say that's a bad motivation. Gaining an advantage in the rankings over other players shouldn't be why we do what we do as organizers IMO (not to throw a punch at you or anything, haha, but I think we should focus on other rewards for building a large community).
Also, it's more difficult for a lot of people to gather participants than it is for others. Making an effort to stimulate your community is definitely not a bad thing by any stretch, but the fact that it puts your fellow Bladers at a disadvantage against you is, if you as me personally.
You have not addressed the fact of the format used, which does vary and change a lot of things. Furthermore, you are basically guaranteed to face geetster99 in a small tournament and have a certain chance of defeating him, whereas you just might battle against him in a bigger event, so there is a luck factor that has to be taken in consideration with the size multipler as well.
It doesn't matter, though. In any tournament, the number of points at steak depends on who I play against. If I play against weaker people, then the steaks are different. I don't think I should receive more points for beating whoever I face just because I might not have played them.
I don't get how that relates to the multiplier. You're saying that I should receive more points for beating somebody because of how unlikely it was that I would've played against that person? That doesn't make much sense.
Plus, again, any disadvantage goes both ways. My opponent has to deal with the influence of the format as well. Therefore, the odds are still exactly the same any way you look at it.
But that chance is exactly the same chance you would have if you were the only two people in the room. No matter what you do, unless you specifically and unfairly handicap one player and not the other, the odds of each winning will never change.
It's no more difficult to take your opponent out in a large tournament than it is in a small one. You and your opponent are both in the same situation. If you attend a large tournament and play more matches against better people, great. The process will play itself out, and if you do well, you'll receive more points than normal, but you still have to win more matches against more skilled players, so the amount of work and skill required from you and your opponents is also increased. That way, you can still gain more points faster than the average person, but you certainly don't get them for free (which I believe is how it should be).
Now, if points were awarded based on whether you placed first, second or third, I would definitely agree with you. However, points are awarded based on individual matches, and I believe that changing the number of points awarded in a match between the same two people based on what format the tournament they are playing in is running on or the number of people in the room when the match went down is moving the focus too far away from the ability of one player to defeat another (which is really what the whole point system revolves around).
Sorry if that post was a little confusing. I tried to word it clearly, but looking at it it may be kind of difficult to understand.
I don't get how that relates to the multiplier. You're saying that I should receive more points for beating somebody because of how unlikely it was that I would've played against that person? That doesn't make much sense.
Plus, again, any disadvantage goes both ways. My opponent has to deal with the influence of the format as well. Therefore, the odds are still exactly the same any way you look at it.
Kai-V Wrote:you... have a certain chance of defeating him
But that chance is exactly the same chance you would have if you were the only two people in the room. No matter what you do, unless you specifically and unfairly handicap one player and not the other, the odds of each winning will never change.
It's no more difficult to take your opponent out in a large tournament than it is in a small one. You and your opponent are both in the same situation. If you attend a large tournament and play more matches against better people, great. The process will play itself out, and if you do well, you'll receive more points than normal, but you still have to win more matches against more skilled players, so the amount of work and skill required from you and your opponents is also increased. That way, you can still gain more points faster than the average person, but you certainly don't get them for free (which I believe is how it should be).
Now, if points were awarded based on whether you placed first, second or third, I would definitely agree with you. However, points are awarded based on individual matches, and I believe that changing the number of points awarded in a match between the same two people based on what format the tournament they are playing in is running on or the number of people in the room when the match went down is moving the focus too far away from the ability of one player to defeat another (which is really what the whole point system revolves around).
Sorry if that post was a little confusing. I tried to word it clearly, but looking at it it may be kind of difficult to understand.
I'm not sure if you've competed in a 50+ participants event, but I can assure you that the atmosphere is different, the hectic atmosphere increases the margin of error. Before my WBO days, I hosted an event for my nephew's birthday, where he invited his school mates. We ended up with 86 people. This was during the peak of beyblade season. It was total madness. Plus the Single Elimination format is not forgiving. There's no second chances. You lose one match, you're eliminated.
Another important reason why the Size Multiplier was implemented was because of the ongoing trend of Island Scenario that players took advantage of. One prominent player in an isolated area competed in a 'controlled' small sized event bimonthly to grind his/her Beypoints up the rank. Events like 'closed' or private or family events, or events where basically you're the only blader who knows whats up, while the rest just show up to have a good time and shoot some beys, not knowing what combos are. The Size Multiplier prevents exactly just that, I might add that the current system actually does an excellent job at preventing such scenarios.
Personally, I was also disadvantaged with the implementation of the Size Multiplier. I was ranked #3 prior to the update. I was bumped down to rank #20-30 ish afterward. It's all good though, it is more fair.
Arupaeo and I actually had long conversations regarding this, and we tried out all possible scenarios before we proposed it to the rest of the Committees, along with the tweak in the BeyPoints algorithm.
Granted, the higher number spectrum for the Size Multiplier needs a minor update to reduce some of the insanely large events in the past (ie: UK), and we are currently in discussions regarding that. Naijalak is still in the process of familiarizing the MyBB Code for the BeyPoints system. If all goes well, we will definitely release an even better BeyPoints update. Hopefully in the near future.
Going back to the Size Multiplier content: It is needed. That much is certain. Alsof I might add, WBBA Japan also grades their events similar to us; in terms of size; G1, G2, G3, G4 etc.
Another important reason why the Size Multiplier was implemented was because of the ongoing trend of Island Scenario that players took advantage of. One prominent player in an isolated area competed in a 'controlled' small sized event bimonthly to grind his/her Beypoints up the rank. Events like 'closed' or private or family events, or events where basically you're the only blader who knows whats up, while the rest just show up to have a good time and shoot some beys, not knowing what combos are. The Size Multiplier prevents exactly just that, I might add that the current system actually does an excellent job at preventing such scenarios.
Personally, I was also disadvantaged with the implementation of the Size Multiplier. I was ranked #3 prior to the update. I was bumped down to rank #20-30 ish afterward. It's all good though, it is more fair.
Arupaeo and I actually had long conversations regarding this, and we tried out all possible scenarios before we proposed it to the rest of the Committees, along with the tweak in the BeyPoints algorithm.
Granted, the higher number spectrum for the Size Multiplier needs a minor update to reduce some of the insanely large events in the past (ie: UK), and we are currently in discussions regarding that. Naijalak is still in the process of familiarizing the MyBB Code for the BeyPoints system. If all goes well, we will definitely release an even better BeyPoints update. Hopefully in the near future.
Going back to the Size Multiplier content: It is needed. That much is certain. Alsof I might add, WBBA Japan also grades their events similar to us; in terms of size; G1, G2, G3, G4 etc.
I participated in a 57 person tournament (my second WBO tournament ever, though I don't think it ended up counting) and it was definitely hectic. In small, round robin tournaments you can afford to lose a couple of times, but in big tournaments such as ones using double elimination, two losses and you're out. So every win means more.
I don't have the tournament experience that other members have, so I might be blabbering here, but that's just my take on it.
I don't have the tournament experience that other members have, so I might be blabbering here, but that's just my take on it.
Uwik: But isn't the "hectic atmoshpere" being imposed on every player? Are the odds not still the same?
3 < 4
If you subtract 2 from both, we get:
1 < 2
The statement is still true in its original form. No matter what disadvantages you impose on both players, the weaker one will never gain an advantage over the stronger one, because the disadvantages are common between them. That's my take on "hectic-ness."
As for "every win means more," I also disagree. Sure, in double elimination, you lose twice, and you're out. In round robin, that isn't the case... or is it?
In a competitive atmosphere, 2 losses in a Round Robin tournament could mean elimination. Pus, I'm not talking about making it into the top three here. That does not pertain in any way to how many points you gain from winning a match. Yes, as far as placing goes, in large tournaments, there is more at steak. But as far as points go, there really isn't. Elimination from the tournament won't effect the points you gained from the matches you've already played.
That's my take on that. I'm not insisting you're wrong or anything, but I personally disagree.
Huh... really?
I must say I was definitely not aware that a problem like this existed. That is definitely a viable reason if it was ever a real issue. Granted, even with this benefit, I think the multiplier is cranked up way too high (I appreciate the discussion on the matter, BTW - good to know somebody in blue is thinking/talking about this stuff), but I can understand why you'd implement something like this to fix the problem. I take you've already explored alternative options?
3 < 4
If you subtract 2 from both, we get:
1 < 2
The statement is still true in its original form. No matter what disadvantages you impose on both players, the weaker one will never gain an advantage over the stronger one, because the disadvantages are common between them. That's my take on "hectic-ness."
As for "every win means more," I also disagree. Sure, in double elimination, you lose twice, and you're out. In round robin, that isn't the case... or is it?
In a competitive atmosphere, 2 losses in a Round Robin tournament could mean elimination. Pus, I'm not talking about making it into the top three here. That does not pertain in any way to how many points you gain from winning a match. Yes, as far as placing goes, in large tournaments, there is more at steak. But as far as points go, there really isn't. Elimination from the tournament won't effect the points you gained from the matches you've already played.
TheBlackDragon Wrote:Now, if points were awarded based on whether you placed first, second or third, I would definitely agree with you. However, points are awarded based on individual matches, and I believe that changing the number of points awarded in a match between the same two people based on what format the tournament they are playing in is running on or the number of people in the room when the match went down is moving the focus too far away from the ability of one player to defeat another (which is really what the whole point system revolves around).
That's my take on that. I'm not insisting you're wrong or anything, but I personally disagree.
Uwik Wrote:Another important reason why the Size Multiplier was implemented was because of the ongoing trend of Island Scenario that players took advantage of. One prominent player in an isolated area competed in a 'controlled' small sized event bimonthly to grind his/her Beypoints up the rank. Events like 'closed' or private or family events, or events where basically you're the only blader who knows whats up, while the rest just show up to have a good time and shoot some beys, not knowing what combos are. The Size Multiplier prevents exactly just that, I might add that the current system actually does an excellent job at preventing such scenarios.
Huh... really?
I must say I was definitely not aware that a problem like this existed. That is definitely a viable reason if it was ever a real issue. Granted, even with this benefit, I think the multiplier is cranked up way too high (I appreciate the discussion on the matter, BTW - good to know somebody in blue is thinking/talking about this stuff), but I can understand why you'd implement something like this to fix the problem. I take you've already explored alternative options?
Yes, the odds are the same for every players in one event, be it large or small. But we are not comparing the players within the same event, we are comparing the events themselves.
In a small 8 player event, each player gets 7 matches excluding the finals, while in the larger event with Double Elimination format, they get typically 4 matches. If they are to amount the same in the end, those 7 matches should more or less weigh the same as the 4 matches. That is where the Size Multiplier comes in. Hence, it is also important to stick with the format regulation, as Kai-V stated. Finding the 'perfect' algorithm is difficult. Ideally, if a player battles another with the same Beypoints, that player will walk out of the small event having gained/lost roughly the same Beypoints as he would playing in the DE format with more players. That is the only case where we can see the BP difference caused by the Size Multiplier. In reality though, that is hardly the case. Example: Kei with 6W-2L in a 8-player event walked out with only +1 Beypoint gain. That is not the Size Multiplier's fault. That is the BP algorithm at play. He was battling players with the average of 200 BPs lower than him. IIRC, the Size Multiplier difference from 8-30 is not that much, perhaps less than 20%.
Currently, what needs tweaking is the upper spectrum of the Size Multiplier. That is what we are focusing on right now. Older UK events had 60+ players that ran Round Robin format. These few outlier events threw off a perfectly good algorithm. Thankfully, we now have an in-house programmer, Naijalak. No promises, but if all goes well, there will be an update patch *fingers crossed*, along with few nice surprises.
Anyway, mathematics aside, winning a singing contest in American Idol is infinitely more difficult than winning it in a school contest, no?
In a small 8 player event, each player gets 7 matches excluding the finals, while in the larger event with Double Elimination format, they get typically 4 matches. If they are to amount the same in the end, those 7 matches should more or less weigh the same as the 4 matches. That is where the Size Multiplier comes in. Hence, it is also important to stick with the format regulation, as Kai-V stated. Finding the 'perfect' algorithm is difficult. Ideally, if a player battles another with the same Beypoints, that player will walk out of the small event having gained/lost roughly the same Beypoints as he would playing in the DE format with more players. That is the only case where we can see the BP difference caused by the Size Multiplier. In reality though, that is hardly the case. Example: Kei with 6W-2L in a 8-player event walked out with only +1 Beypoint gain. That is not the Size Multiplier's fault. That is the BP algorithm at play. He was battling players with the average of 200 BPs lower than him. IIRC, the Size Multiplier difference from 8-30 is not that much, perhaps less than 20%.
Currently, what needs tweaking is the upper spectrum of the Size Multiplier. That is what we are focusing on right now. Older UK events had 60+ players that ran Round Robin format. These few outlier events threw off a perfectly good algorithm. Thankfully, we now have an in-house programmer, Naijalak. No promises, but if all goes well, there will be an update patch *fingers crossed*, along with few nice surprises.
Anyway, mathematics aside, winning a singing contest in American Idol is infinitely more difficult than winning it in a school contest, no?
Sorry I didn't reply sooner - I was away for a few days.
So a point of the multiplier is to make sure that, regardless of the number of matches in a tournament, the same amount of point are exchanged between players as would have been exchanged had the tournament involved more matches?
I can see that working very well for a tournament of, say, 8, vs. a tournament of 12 (which is the example it looks like you gave), but what about 8 vs. 24? The traditional number of blocks for a block RR tournament is 3, although technically the number of participants in a block can't surpass 7, so we'll say there are 4 blocks of 6. That's 5 matches per player, plus an extra match for finalists, soooo... that comes out to 8 matches for the 24-player event vs. 10 matches in the 8-person event (we're looking at the maximum total, so checking from the viewpoint of a finalist).
2 matches isn't that much of a difference if you think about it. On top of that, the difference can be further compressed to 1 match in the case of 8 vs. 28, the absolute maximum number of players for a Block RR event. I'd imagine the size multiplier would overshoot the mark by a mile in that case.
Now, in a Double elimination tournament of, eh, like 32, someone could play as many as 9 matches as well, which could cause an even bigger gap.
Not only that, but if we're trying to use this to fix the problem of match frequency between tournaments, think of this. In the double elimination tournament I just mentioned, somebody could play up to 9 matches, but they could also play as few as 2 matches, or anything in between depending on how the event plays out. In the same way, if they participate in a 17 person Block RR tournament, someone could play as many as 7 matches or as few as 3 matches, and if there are tiebreakers, one could end up playing even more than 7! People will play more or fewer matches than others whatever we try to do to change it. IDK if using a function that may give some players an unfair advantage is a good way to deal with that.
As for your question, yes, of course it is.
But let's look at it this way. Beating Kei is gonna be more difficult than beating Ddog (the "worst" player on the WBO), right?
Now, I'm rank #22, and I've got nearly twice as many points as Ddog. What do I gain if I beat him? Nothing! I might gain... I don't know, less than 1 point, but if I were to beat Kei, heck, I might get 20.
The system evens everything out on its own. If I beat some random kid with a trash-heap combination that he pulled together from a pile of five year-old, worn out junk, (win a school singing competition) I'm not gonna grab many points, but if I beat someone who really knows what they're doing, (win American Idol) I'll grab a truckload. We don't need a size multiplier to make that happen.
And before you point out that being eliminated is much easier in a large tournament (or rather that advancing to the finals is more difficult), let me remind you that, again, we are not ranked by who makes it to the finals in a tournament. We're ranked by individual matches. Tournament format and the number of matches played in a tournament have absolutely 0, and I mean literally 0 bearing on those individual matches.
I go, I choose a combination, and we play. Gameplay is not different. The outcome is not effected by the size of the tournament, which means that the method by which we obtain points is not effected by the size of the tournament, which means that the number of points we gain should not be affected by the size of the tournament.
Now, before this is mentioned again, I'd like to say that yes, certain people may not get to play certain people in a larger tournament. It's just a problem that everybody has to deal with in a large event. But the size multiplier does not and cannot do anything to help with that problem. Increasing the number of points that everyone gets does not make things fair for the players who get matched up with weaker opponents.
We are ranked by individual matches. Tournament size has no effect on the outcome of those individual matches. Therefore, tournament size should not be a factor in determining the number of points gained or lost in those individual matches.
Now, I have a question: Is winning a match against a specific person more difficult in a large tournament? If so, why?
Last part: Really? Well, that's great! I hope he is successful.
EDIT: Oh, I just saw your question a few posts back; yes, I have participated in a 50+ person event (actually, I think there were actually 49, but whatever). I played in Beyblade Colloseum (I played like an idiot, but I was there, haha).
So a point of the multiplier is to make sure that, regardless of the number of matches in a tournament, the same amount of point are exchanged between players as would have been exchanged had the tournament involved more matches?
I can see that working very well for a tournament of, say, 8, vs. a tournament of 12 (which is the example it looks like you gave), but what about 8 vs. 24? The traditional number of blocks for a block RR tournament is 3, although technically the number of participants in a block can't surpass 7, so we'll say there are 4 blocks of 6. That's 5 matches per player, plus an extra match for finalists, soooo... that comes out to 8 matches for the 24-player event vs. 10 matches in the 8-person event (we're looking at the maximum total, so checking from the viewpoint of a finalist).
2 matches isn't that much of a difference if you think about it. On top of that, the difference can be further compressed to 1 match in the case of 8 vs. 28, the absolute maximum number of players for a Block RR event. I'd imagine the size multiplier would overshoot the mark by a mile in that case.
Now, in a Double elimination tournament of, eh, like 32, someone could play as many as 9 matches as well, which could cause an even bigger gap.
Not only that, but if we're trying to use this to fix the problem of match frequency between tournaments, think of this. In the double elimination tournament I just mentioned, somebody could play up to 9 matches, but they could also play as few as 2 matches, or anything in between depending on how the event plays out. In the same way, if they participate in a 17 person Block RR tournament, someone could play as many as 7 matches or as few as 3 matches, and if there are tiebreakers, one could end up playing even more than 7! People will play more or fewer matches than others whatever we try to do to change it. IDK if using a function that may give some players an unfair advantage is a good way to deal with that.
As for your question, yes, of course it is.
But let's look at it this way. Beating Kei is gonna be more difficult than beating Ddog (the "worst" player on the WBO), right?
Now, I'm rank #22, and I've got nearly twice as many points as Ddog. What do I gain if I beat him? Nothing! I might gain... I don't know, less than 1 point, but if I were to beat Kei, heck, I might get 20.
The system evens everything out on its own. If I beat some random kid with a trash-heap combination that he pulled together from a pile of five year-old, worn out junk, (win a school singing competition) I'm not gonna grab many points, but if I beat someone who really knows what they're doing, (win American Idol) I'll grab a truckload. We don't need a size multiplier to make that happen.
And before you point out that being eliminated is much easier in a large tournament (or rather that advancing to the finals is more difficult), let me remind you that, again, we are not ranked by who makes it to the finals in a tournament. We're ranked by individual matches. Tournament format and the number of matches played in a tournament have absolutely 0, and I mean literally 0 bearing on those individual matches.
I go, I choose a combination, and we play. Gameplay is not different. The outcome is not effected by the size of the tournament, which means that the method by which we obtain points is not effected by the size of the tournament, which means that the number of points we gain should not be affected by the size of the tournament.
Now, before this is mentioned again, I'd like to say that yes, certain people may not get to play certain people in a larger tournament. It's just a problem that everybody has to deal with in a large event. But the size multiplier does not and cannot do anything to help with that problem. Increasing the number of points that everyone gets does not make things fair for the players who get matched up with weaker opponents.
We are ranked by individual matches. Tournament size has no effect on the outcome of those individual matches. Therefore, tournament size should not be a factor in determining the number of points gained or lost in those individual matches.
Now, I have a question: Is winning a match against a specific person more difficult in a large tournament? If so, why?
Last part: Really? Well, that's great! I hope he is successful.
EDIT: Oh, I just saw your question a few posts back; yes, I have participated in a 50+ person event (actually, I think there were actually 49, but whatever). I played in Beyblade Colloseum (I played like an idiot, but I was there, haha).
For your last question TBD, the pressure is clearly higher ...