The Dominating 12

[quote=Hoodlum]for the 1v1 games usually the luck advantage is going first, but one mistake can cost you the game! a skilled 1v1 player might be able to win from those non starts, and a lesser skilled 1v1 player can lose from a start. anyway, here's how the luck of the draw went. alex [b]started 4 times[/b] - won 6 times - 4 wins from a non start [color=red](won all his non starts)[/color] alphax [b]started 4 times[/b] - won 6 times - 2 wins from a non start [color=red](won all his starts)[/color] henris [b]started 2 times[/b] - won 5 times - 3 wins from a non start slack [b]started 4 times[/b] - won 4 times - 1 win from a non start hooboy [b]started 6 times[/b] - won 4 times - 1 win from a non start Problem [b]started 4 times[/b] - won - 1 win from a non start KOE_KittyKat [b]started 6 times[/b] - won 2 times - 0 wins from a non start dima [b]started 2 times[/b] - won 2 times - 1 win from a non start odg [b]started 2 times[/b] - won 2 times - 2 wins from a non start *note - the players that won the big games alphax/alex/slackbatter - are also in the top half of the 1v1 wins. [/quote] Interesting data, but a small sample size. I would love to see some huge data collected for this though! I agree that once all players adopt the logical, optimal strategy, 1v1 games boil down to who is the luckiest. The discussion on whether the dominator tournament is a fair measure of the best player on the site is also interesting. For me, the strongest measure of who is the best is whoever has the highest rating. But I still think it's nice to have the epic showdowns just to keep things exciting. When you see that Slack has been dominator four times you can see that overall the most skilful player has the greatest odds of success even in 9 player games. I also agree that separate ratings for 1v1 would result in a player's rating being more indicative of a player's skill.

[quote=Virtuosity98][quote=Hoodlum]for the 1v1 games usually the luck advantage is going first, but one mistake can cost you the game! a skilled 1v1 player might be able to win from those non starts, and a lesser skilled 1v1 player can lose from a start. anyway, here's how the luck of the draw went. alex [b]started 4 times[/b] - won 6 times - 4 wins from a non start [color=red](won all his non starts)[/color] alphax [b]started 4 times[/b] - won 6 times - 2 wins from a non start [color=red](won all his starts)[/color] henris [b]started 2 times[/b] - won 5 times - 3 wins from a non start slack [b]started 4 times[/b] - won 4 times - 1 win from a non start hooboy [b]started 6 times[/b] - won 4 times - 1 win from a non start Problem [b]started 4 times[/b] - won - 1 win from a non start KOE_KittyKat [b]started 6 times[/b] - won 2 times - 0 wins from a non start dima [b]started 2 times[/b] - won 2 times - 1 win from a non start odg [b]started 2 times[/b] - won 2 times - 2 wins from a non start *note - the players that won the big games alphax/alex/slackbatter - are also in the top half of the 1v1 wins. [/quote] Interesting data, but a small sample size. I would love to see some huge data collected for this though! I agree that once all players adopt the logical, optimal strategy, 1v1 games boil down to who is the luckiest. The discussion on whether the dominator tournament is a fair measure of the best player on the site is also interesting. For me, the strongest measure of who is the best is whoever has the highest rating. But I still think it's nice to have the epic showdowns just to keep things exciting. When you see that Slack has been dominator four times you can see that overall the most skilful player has the greatest odds of success even in 9 player games. I also agree that separate ratings for 1v1 would result in a player's rating being more indicative of a player's skill.[/quote] There's some bigger data in finished 1v1 tournament games

I liked the tournament setup (way better than just 1 game), As far as saying 1v1 are mostly luck based I think hooboy11 is a prime example that this cannot be true and there has to be a lot of skill involved because almost all of his games are 1v1 games against lower rank players and he wins consistently and holds a very high rank.

As far as Alex saying that 8 1v1 games bogs up non premium players long term slots I think most non premium players that play tournaments play them to get as many extra long term games as they can and 8 extra games is a positive for most. (I know that is the main reason I participate in tournaments)

Figured I'd comment on a lot of stuff from the last two pages; here goes (bear with me): [quote=Hoodlum]i like it because it keeps the 9 players active, at least playing 12 games between each tournament. it bugs me to see players playing minimal games (not dominating) qualifying for the dominators title.[/quote] In my head, you are actually giving arguments against your standpoint in there^ Adding more games to the D12 tournament, means that players have less of a need to play more ' risky ' games between D12 tournaments (need to play in 5 (or more) games in the last 30 days? or what was it to be eligible to be on the D12 list?). Being forced to play a few more, against other high rated players, ensures that you can get a few games in, in which you can only lose a small amount of rating, whereas also have a fair chance of winning a rather big deal. That said, perhaps the admission for D12 should be altered (if that's desired?) - up the 5 top 10/15? and/or even add a need of 5-10 live games? However... I'm sure there will still be 'loopholes' to find 'easy solutions' to whatever gets put forth. [quote=Hoodlum]there's a handful of live players that deserve to be there, but their short game activity equalizes their rating and will forever be a warrant officer[/quote] I partly agree with this. Yes, in general live games aren't the best way to increase rating/stay at a high rating - however, it's not a given. For one, I'm pretty sure it's rather doable to get >3000 rating while just playing a lot of live games (I think I made it to Major before I got more selective) for two, you can specialise yourself in a certain niche - TP completely dominates 6p (or bigger), unlimited fortification, increased cards, caps games and hobooy dominates 1v1 same time games (on a lot of the bigger maps). Playing gametypes that aren't all too common, will result in an even bigger skill gap between yourself and your opponent/s; in effect diminishing the factor of luck. You yourself are also a prime example of just playing any game you feel like and still reaching (and holding) for a high rating (at times; saw you as Lt. col. just a lil' while ago - totally qualified for D12) [quote=Hoodlum]it bugs me that to get there you need to play less, avoid small games, seek to play other high rankers and avoid playing new players.[/quote] I see where this is coming from.. but I'm not too sure how correct this is. IMO, it is relatively easy for anyone to get some 2500-3000 as stable base rating, provided they've played the game a bit and understand the basics - playing just any game/type they want against whoever they want - no selective stuff (this might be a bold statement, but this is what my thought is on it, for now). Now in the current state of dominating12, it appears to me that a rating of >3500 is an almost guarantee to be eligible to play in the D12 tournament. from 3000-3500 isn't that big of a gap - with some (carefully timed?) luck, a few big games can be won and the difference is cleared. Or, even just from normal fluctuations in having a bit of a lucky steak and winning a higher percentage of games than normally. That said... if I look at the list of people that played in this round of D12: https://dominating12.com/tournament/98/participants - the only players that might come across as selective are... just myself (i've lately (as of... June '19, after winning TPs live game contest: https://dominating12.com/forums/2/general-discussion/3098/spring-challenge ) been 'avoiding' loads of games); playing mostly just LT games with 6 or more people, often with a >2500rating restriction, team games and quick 1v1's against completely new players - giving them some guidance on the game mechanics here and trying to get them hooked to stick around. Unless you also want to write down those that do not play (too many) live games, then the list gets extended with: alpha, henris (doesn't play much at all - which is fine, not particularly selective, just other priorities), slack, Dima and ODG - live games can however be very hard to participate in, due to time restrictions (and availability of players in general). I'd say the others (PC, hooboy and Kitty) do play a good chunk of live games. [quote=Hoodlum]i'd like to see a separate ranking system for 1v1 games, or make them for tokens (gambling) or a no-points option, i think it would improve the rating system, and give active dominant players a chance. [/quote] sounds reasonable. [quote=slackbatter]It has never helped me to play less, seek other high rankers, or avoid new players (because I do none of those things). I have noticed other people do these things, but I'm not convinced it works (since I'm still ranked higher than them:P). Maybe it helps that I don't play 1v1, but that would only be true if luck is as big a factor in those games as I suspect (otherwise winning a lot would yield points).[/quote] You are the exception that confirms the general rule :p You will dominate in whatever field you play in, no matter what (provided the sample size is big enough). The statement of verifying your claim due to your own stats is a bit moot though imo :p as you've started 2019 on >5000 whereas others may have just started at a mere 1000. Takes a while to reach that number; furthermore, I know for a fact, there's been a few days that you weren't ranked highest, ghehe :p (but mostly just because it's again a sample size issue - need bigger numbers to put such a claim up). That said though, I also stand with my initial statement; you are simply really very good. I've looked through quite a number of your games when I came here, simply to see what kind of strategy you use. It's been rather hard to locate mistakes (yet, not impossible - however, this is of course also a subjective matter - others might not see mistakes where I saw, or see mistakes where I didnt /regardless). [quote=Virtuosity98]Interesting data, but a small sample size. I agree that once all players adopt the logical, optimal strategy, 1v1 games boil down to who is the luckiest.[/quote] #MeToo (once players have shown to have at least X amount of skill, they'll "know" "optimal strategy" and provided they apply it without (dumb) mistakes (which happen less and less likely), it'll boil down to luck, mostly). [quote=Virtuosity98]The discussion on whether the dominator tournament is a fair measure of the best player on the site is also interesting. For me, the strongest measure of who is the best is whoever has the highest rating. But I still think it's nice to have the epic showdowns just to keep things exciting. When you see that Slack has been dominator four times you can see that overall the most skillful player has the greatest odds of success even in 9 player games.[/quote] #MeThree (don't discount the mental effect though - respect has influence too). [quote=ProblemChild96]As far as saying 1v1 are mostly luck based I think hooboy11 is a prime example that this cannot be true and there has to be a lot of skill involved because almost all of his games are 1v1 games against lower rank players and he wins consistently and holds a very high rank. [/quote] I'll give you a 50:50 on that :p if skill wouldn't really be involved, it'd be fair to say that in 1v1s, both players win about 50% of the time. Now if hooboy has 3000 rating and his opponent just 1000, that would mean he'd lose 30 and gain 10 for each lost/won game (for more intel on those numbers: https://dominating12.com/forums/2/general-discussion/3078/inner-workings-of-the-game-engine/post/53771#post-53771 ). So with a 50:50 ratio, he'd be in trouble. However, if for every 4 games, he'd win 3 and lose just 1, he'd stay on a constant rating. This is not at all unthinkable against players with a significant skillgap. Especially due to him operating in a niche market (same time, large map). That said; looking at the 1v1s in the past tournament, I do not believe that hooboy lost many of his 1v1s due to his bad skill (relative to his oppoents) - I believe he lost most of them due to bad luck (in dice, cards and placement (his going first was actually favourable :p)). So yeah,,, I do still remain with the idea that luck has the biggest effect here (when skill isn't that tremendously far apart between competitors). So yes, skill is involved for sure. However when a certain threshold for skill is surpassed/achieved, it's influence diminishes rapidly. [quote=ProblemChild96]As far as Alex saying that 8 1v1 games bogs up non premium players long term slots I think most non premium players that play tournaments play them to get as many extra long term games as they can and 8 extra games is a positive for most. (I know that is the main reason I participate in tournaments) [/quote] I think you are probably right here. Nonetheless, I am currently trying to have not too many of my slots tied up for games other than the ones I pick myself. But I agree my point here is rather moot, as it's just me - I only expressed it, as it is me just typing for me :p not as a general thing for most (besides, those 1v1s can often be cleared real quick, if desired). All that said, I'd be totally fine to see this format (or any other) again as applied for the D12 tournament. Happy to see a lot of views/opinions here :) -Alex

here's another idea for the next tournament. keeping with the 12 thing. The dominating 12. 12 players. [b]1 x capital games - 4 players... points = 3 (1 point per opponent formula)[/b] [i](there will be 3 x 4player capitals games u will be in one of those)[/i] because capitals is seen as a more luck based game, then lesser points awarded for the format lesser opponents. 4 player games / 6 player games / are divisible by 12) [b]1 x assassination game - 6 players - points = 5 [/b] [i](there will be 2 x 6 player capitals games u will be in one of those)[/i] [b]2 x domination game - 8 players - points = 7[/b] [i](there will be 3 x 8 player domination games u will be in two of those)[/i] [b]2 x deathmatch game - 8 players - points = 7[/b] [i](there will be 3 x 8 player deathmatch games u will be in two of those)[/i] overall there would be 6 games.

new list https://dominating12.com/tutorial/thedominating12/30

[quote=Hoodlum]Here's another idea for the next tournament. Sticking with the 12 thing. [b]The dominating12 - 12 players.[/b] Because capitals is seen as a more luck based game, then lesser points awarded for the format lesser opponents (4 player games / 6 player games / are divisible by 12 & 8 by 24). [i]There will be THREE 4-player capital games everyone will be in ONE of those, TWO 6-player capitals games everyone will be in ONE of those, THREE 8-player domination games everyone will be in TWO of those, THREE 8-player deathmatch games everyone will be in TWO of those)[/i] - applying the 1 point per opponent formula for the winner 6 games in total for every participant: 1 x capital game - 4 players - 3 points for the winner 1 x assassination game - 6 players - 5 points for the winner 2 x domination game - 8 players - 7 points for the winner 2 x deathmatch game - 8 players - 7 points for the winner[/quote] I very much like this concept idea =) I'm not completely sure which of the game types should get the 4, 6 and 8p game (dom, caps, as) - perhaps this could even cycle? now in feb, as you presented it, in mar: 4/6/8 as dom/cap/as, then as/dom/cap in apr, etc? (up for discussion imo - i find it hard to distinguish luck involvement for those 3) what are your thoughts/suggestions with respect to fortification/cards/visibility?

will go with suggestions..for fog/sunny - fortification - maps etc example - if all players are available [spoiler=colour coded to follow][img]https://i.imgur.com/HsbwKJF.png[/img][/spoiler] [i]is a bit hard to try and even out the amount of matches beteen each player.[/i]

This is getting so complicated it makes me want to go back to a single game. But I'll play whatever, just let me know.

I agree with Slackbatter: it seems like a lot. Regardless I'll try it at least once so count me in

Seems like it but all U have to do is just play and dominate :) complicated stuff is up to me

Maybe the one game could be like the Super Bowl and the mini tourny could be like the Pro Bowl for those stars who want to play?

i'd like to experiment with the tournament set up at least one more try before maafi gets back :) always wanted to include 12 players as it was intentionally meant to be by the site creator. having 12 players in one game isn't coming anytime soon.

I like this setup, 11 games none of them 1v1 and actually includes 12 players instead of just 9