H2H4 / H2H4 Schedule & Rules and Regulations

Seems a little ironic that the internet park won't open, doesn't it? I'll comment more when we get the real topic.

first open another park.
than open this park with load.

probally something wont load good (maybe a custom ride or something like that).

I don't if anything like this has been suggested before.

But for matchups that are very close, meaning within a few votes, why not implement a rule that declares a tie unless one park leads by a certain amount of votes at the end of the 5 days? That way, both teams come out of it with a tie instead of a win/loss on their record and the votes just go towards their totals. To me, its kind of unfair to say a team deserves a "win" when the park really only won by very a narrow margin. In my opinion, that margin should be significant enough (like at least 3-5 votes) to consider it a true victory.

Any thoughts?

I concur. I'd say when the number of votes is above 100, make it a necessary lead by 5 votes. Below that, maybe 3 votes.

EDIT: Better idea. Using the percentages would be easier.

That'd be pretty arbitrary though. How big should the margin of victory be? Sure it's tough on both teams, but just think about the Cajamarca/GCC match-up, or the Atomkraftwerk/Miami 2040 one. Someone has to lose.

I'd say 3 votes for every match. It's small enough that not too many matches will be a tie. Like mantis said, someone has to lose. And it's great seeing two undefeated teams fight for a victory.

Edited by OLE, 03 August 2006 - 12:38 PM.

I think that's a good rule. And really, looking back, it should have been in effect for the H2H3 finals where a third "tie breaker" match would have been better than having the Flying Germans win it all by a total of two votes.

There's really only one round where a tie wouldn't make sense. Playoffs round 1 which is single elimination. Well, and the last Final match too obviously.

Or how about, first to a certain number? We almost always reach 40-50 on at least one side, no?

But then it becomes a matter of timing. And it'd be detrimental to the whole "vote total" thing, if that tiebreaker ever needs to be called.

Personally, if I were to change anything, it'd simply be to change the five day rule to a four or three day rule, since people tend to get bored after a few days. Although again, if someone hasn't been online for a few days and arrives after voting finishes (say a teammate goes on vacation), then what?

*shrug*

You can't change rules in the middle of the season, but hopefully iris can give it some thought for H2H5.

^ Unless one is autistically rigid, you can change everyting (forwards of course, not backwards) as long as it does not affect rules that people are counting on and have reckoned on when making their parks (and you cannot convince me that anyone -unless great cheaters of course - can count on the voters to force a tie or whatever)

Why not make the rule that, when around 100 votes it still is not clear which park deserves the win, a park stays up for 2 days, or 3, or whatever, (but a fixed time), and if within that fixed time at the deadline the difference is not larger than 3 votes (or.....votes) it will be called a tie?

Would seem very fair to me. For when the difference is so small, in a voters-system, it just means that both parks were considered equally good/bad. The so small difference in votes would probably just be due to random circumstances like people being on vacation, being sick, having computer/internet-problems, etc.......and this so small difference imo could never be a good grading-measure for a real "win or loss". (although of course every rule/border will cause "sour" feelings, like "one more vote and it would have been a tie while now it is a loss", but things can never be perfect.....)

I agree with Kumba about not introducing this type of rule, though, because introducing ties would affect the team records unfairly between what's already happened and what may happen in future weeks. If you were applying the new rule from now onwards then any park that won by 1 vote next week would only get a tie rather than a win. If you applied the rule retrospectively as well, then teams that had previously thought they had a win would find themselves with a tie instead.

I have a question. Is it systematic or random when matches are called, because if two teams in a division have the same record come end of season, and their total numbers of votes are close, then that could be important. What if one team's match some week is called at 55-41 while another's some other week is called at 49-36, and then the total vote difference between the teams is five votes?

^^ yep Mantis, I agree
Think you are right on that.

Something (or a better variation) like this then maybe for a next H2H?.
For how it goes now it seems a bit silly to me (not trying to offend anyone, but....errm...just these ridiculous small and non-convincing differences between some parks which give one park a win over another while it seems sooooo arbitrary......there must be a more convincin margin I guess...?)

Personally I don't agree with the automatic tie thing, although I appreciate the intention behind it. There are few faster ways to make an H2H season kinda lame than when we do actually get a close match between two teams, hopefully two good parks (which is good for sparking some excitement and some good discussion), just having neither park win. You'd basically know what the outcome was going to be after about day 3, so the rest of the time, instead of wondering who was going to pull ahead if either, would just be wasting away the hours waiting for it to be called a tie.
It sounds like of like the United Nations, NE style: they don't want to upset anyone so they're not decisive on anything at all.

Yeah, I suppose you do have a point. Maybe we could impliment some kind of tiebreaker system just for the finals though to prevent what happened in H2H3. Although that was pretty thrilling. Maybe it's for the best then just to leave things as they are.

I think it should stay the way it is because the user voting is what makes H2H what it is. In a matchup, if one park is obviously the better, it will get more votes and win, no differant than what Iris/Corky does with the spotlights/designs. If the two parks are very close, then thats where the user voting really shines and makes it better than having the parks judged by one person like the spotlights/designs. Everyone has a chance to vote and the park with the more votes should win. If on the first Tuesday of Novemeber 2000, I was terribly sick and couldnt leave home or I was away on vacation, should the Bush/Gore election have been called a tie and have them share the presidency?

I appreciate the offer...but I really don't like the idea personally. In real sports, if it's a really good, close game (whether the teams/parks are both good OR bad)...it's not like they just call it and say 'eh both were even it seemed'. The team that pulled out just enough to win gets the win, and the same goes for H2H.

i agree with iris. a win is a win even if it's by a single vote.

we should time them carefully though, but that is already happening with the 5 days. It only gets called sooner when the outcome is clear, sooner, right?

Correct.

Week 5 would have been posted last night, but I had an all day hike yesterday, and when I came home, I had some personal issues to deal with, so it'll be posted tonight. Apologies for the delay, and while most of you probably don't care, I figure I'd let the few of you who do know what's up.