H2H6 / H2H6 Standings (Playoff Teams Set)

Currently, the scores of round 4 are:

revoLLutionists: 0
Hurricanes: 15
finished

Flying Germans: 2
Heaven's Kitchen: 28
in progress for another 7 hours


Reservoir Dogs: 20
The Replacements: 0
in progress for about 4 days.

as of this post.

I just wanted to point out that total votes each team has garnered wouldn't be a very fair way to break a tie and decide who goes to the playoffs. By default, LL will get much fewer votes since much fewer people play the game. For instance, the Replacements got 64 for Sea of Sagas, while no more than 20 or so people on this site still own LL, so by default the Replacements would have 3x as many votes as us, even if we had a blowout like that.

I agree with that as well as the fact that round 1 was highly attended while following rounds were not. The winning parks for first round has 65, 54, and 25 votes, while winning parks for week 3 has 32, 30, 13. Thus, winning in the first week was far more profitable than a win in a later week, simply by nature of less voters.

That being said, I can't say any other way to determine ties, so hopefully it doesn't come down to that.

FK

That being said, I can't say any other way to determine ties, so hopefully it doesn't come down to that.

FK

Could there be like a round in between to decide the tie-break?

I thought is was based on Vote % Not total votes.
Example

100 Total votes casted
50 Votes for the parks
50%

30 Totals votes casted
15 Votes for the parks
50%

It just matters on the % of votes earned.

I thought is was based on Vote % Not total votes.
Example

100 Total votes casted
50 Votes for the parks
50%

30 Totals votes casted
15 Votes for the parks
50%

It just matters on the % of votes earned.

Well Round one had a much higher total # of votes, and losing a lot of those votes will lower the percentage of a team even if they won every subsequent round due to the lower # of votes all around. Eg. Heaven's Kitchen. So there's no way we can make up that 54-4 loss in week 1 (54 votes against us is huge).

Although not ideal, I belive this has been the tiebreaking rule from the beginning

Advancing to Play-Offs

When the round robin has come to an end, all teams will be ranked primarily on their win/loss record, and secondly on their average relative vote percentage. The Top 4 teams advance to the playoffs.

I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just raising the point that the rule might not be the most fair when considering the circumstances. If the admins want to continue running the contest that way then that's okay; I was just bringing up the issue. Although I'd rather our team not be at a disadvantage, it would have been wise to have brought it up before we got so far in the season anyway, so it's not the end of the world if nothing is changed.

But with way, everyone participating in H2H should vote for every match they are allowed. It's rude to expect others to carefully vote on ur work, then not even vote on there's (LL issues aside, seeing as the lowest voter output is always on LL matchups)
FK

BTW I COMPLETELY agree with this rule. It takes no longer than 10 minutes minimum to look at both parks in game and cast a vote. All the hard work put into this H2H and half of the teams don't even bother voting for others' parks... There should be some rule enforcing voting to even out the # of votes in later rounds. It's not a terribly huge commitment to make.

Even if votes were enforced, though, the "fewer players being able to vote on LL matches" issue would rear its ugly head when considering votes/vote percentages for the tiebreakers.

Not if it's by percentage; the LL voting pool will always be smaller, but if everyone in that pool votes throughout each round, the percentages would be as RCTNW described. The problem lies in a large voting pool in early rounds and a much smaller voting pool in late rounds: this skews the data towards winning parks in the early rounds vs. later rounds. If the voting pool stays consistent then there isn't a problem.

Gwazi, i completely agree with you on that, LL will always be a problem in this contest. That being said, on all RCT2 matches numbers have still dipped way below amount of players in the contest. I mean, La Reve vs the Classic only had 33 votes, and i'd venture to say at least 5-10 of those were from players not drafted...

I don't think there is a way to enforce this sort of thing, but it's just a matter of courtesy. It is what it is, i can handle it.

FK

Gwazi I think it's worth reinforcing that your argument has a lot of problems. First off, as AvarineCommuter and RCTNW said, you are not at a disadvantage with a voting system based off of percentages, not raw votes. Your point that less people use LL is a valid one but all that means is that the results can be more easily skewed in either direction due to a lower sample size. You are assuming that the direction of skewing or "bias" is always negative... which is not true. In fact, there are definitely some people on the site that prefer LL. Consider why you are part of a team made of entirely LL players? That is an example of bias.

Say you even forget that issue. If you think a little bit about how the matchups turned out, the results of each week in my opinion are entirely to do with the quality of the parks that you were matched up against. Sure, quality is subjective but there definitely are some objective characteristics. For one, making a park that is completed allows the viewer to understand every little aspect of the park in the context it was meant to be built in. Europa was obviously far from being completed. Cars Land was a good park, yet still incomplete. Even then, it was just two votes away. So despite its completedness and the fact that it was kind of barren in spots...it still was close, as reflected in the voting percentages. Don't see how you all got screwed there. Concrete Jungle vs. Copper creek was LL vs LL so there goes that argument. Finally, Lost Samarai was a solid park but in my opinion there was an objective drop in quality down from the more inspired and less monochromatic Monstrocity. There you go.

Side note, you were just throwing a bunch of stats out of your you know what there in your first post, i.e. "20 or so" people on this site own LL?" No way you can substantiate that. You can comment on the people who vote, sure, but what you say there is a whole different matter.

Finally, you said it yourself in one of your more recent posts. The rules are the rules. Like em or hate them, they were there from the beginning and stated very clearly. As far as being a part of a team that is LL, I really do hear what you are saying--less people play LL and maybe the game gets less recognition--but this is something that you should have thought about before this. To make a statement by building an all LL team can definitely leave its mark on the community, but this goal is in no way connected with winning a contest based off of voter response.

In short: stop taking the easy way out by making excuses for building parks that did not fare as well largely because of an objective drop in quality.

Yeah, we should just kill ourselves.

EDIT: Please don't take this post as me being rude. I'm just a little put off by your comment given its contents and the context of the contest, so I'm making sure that I'm overly clear about myself since I've had people not get what I was saying when I thought I was being clear many times before. Nothing I say is meant to be taken in an aggressive, rude, or offensive way, so please don't.

I'm rather upset by the fact that you are making accusations about me or my motives when you haven't even read through all my posts for the season first. It's okay since you couldn't have known that earlier posts would have explained all this, but you should never be so quick to jump to judgmental conclusions without doing research. As such I am going to expect you to read all of what I wrote below, and reconsider what you are saying.

You have me entirely wrong, CoasterForce. I'm not making excuses at all. Of our four parks so far, we have one rushed one, one unfinished one, and one completely unfinished one. You think I'm saying that we deserve to make it past the Round Robin and that we are getting screwed? No. I'm just pointing out something I had just noticed that could be a bit of a flaw in a tie breaker. It's entirely hypothetical.

As far as voting percentages go. I did imply that voting percentages would affect LL parks negatively. That was wording error on my part; I had typed out voting and clumped percentages in without thinking, so I apologize. I understand that voting percentages won't be affected since only people with LL are allowed to vote. (That brings up another point though that some people might vote anyway and just not admit that they don't own LL, but let's not assume that members of our community would do that.) A smaller sample size could affect the voting percentage, in actuality--for instance, see the scenario below this paragraph--but that wouldn't be a big enough deal to worry about here though.

SCENARIO: LL match. Let's pretend 20 people can and do vote in an LL match. Doesn't matter which game the other park is for, because an LL park automatically limits the sample size. Suppose the match ends up being 4-16. In this case, the losing park would have garnered 20% of the vote. Now suppose that the match was RCT2 only, thus allowing, say, 60 total people to vote. The losing team still only garners 20% of the vote. However, that means they would still have gotten 12 votes, three times as many votes as the losing team in the first scenario. You may be thinking "Why does that matter if the park still had the same vote percentages?" Well, it matters because the sample size in the second scenario was much larger just by the nature of the game. Had there been 60 people who own LL and thus could vote on matches, then it's likely that a number of those extra people would have liked the losing park more and would have voted for it. A larger sample size provides a more accurate representation of the population's opinions--a general rule of statistics--and as such one could argue that LL matches are naturally at a potential disadvantage. THAT SAID, I don't think that would come into play here, especially considering the nature of the parks we have provided so far. I am arguing exclusively from a hypothetical standpoint, making a general point about H2H theory and rules based on something I had just thought about today. NOTE: I am not asking for mercy, making an excuse, etc for LL. I know you don't come here often, CoasterForce, but I (as well as my teammates) have posted many times about how we are not worried about winning. The reason we opted to form an all-LL team was to show that LL is still fresh and there are still many things people can do with LL. Basically, our goal was to promote the game to the young community and show them why we love LL so much. I'd say despite our somewhat disappointing performance, we have done a good job overall.

As for LL bias going both ways. Yes it can go both ways. However, LL has largely died out and the number of people on this site who play the game regularly are very, very few. Not much larger than the revoLLutionists themselves, in fact. The amount of people who know and appreciate the game are a bit larger, but I would go so far as to argue that our young community is so heavily RCT2-based that they don't even understand the game. Several members themselves have admitted it, which is perfectly fine. As I argued, that's part of the reason we formed our team this season. As far as H2H6 goes, you could say that a lot of the players who have a bias in favor of LL are on our team, and thus cannot vote in the LL matches anyway. That's no excuse though, especially given our goals. If we want to expose the community and entice them to appreciate LL, then we have to break any possible bias against our game. I just wanted to make that note since you were aiming your "LL bias goes both ways" comment towards H2H6. I repeat, I am not making excuses. None of my team is. We have stated this over and over again.

As for you bashing our parks specifically. That is entirely opinion based, as you say. However, NONE of this matters. Do you honestly think that with two unfinished parks and a rushed park on our matches list, I'm actually going to try to argue that we deserve a playoff spot over other teams that have played fantastically? I'm simply making projections and theory based on a rule I just noticed. My team has not performed well enough to deserve a spot in the semi-finals. As I stated, we have only delivered one un-rushed finished product, and only one other product that was finished at all. I'm not making up excuses. (Cars Land was complete by the way, not sure why you are saying it wasn't.)

As for me "throwing stats out there." Yeah, I did. Did you not get that I was just estimating? I never tried to make a definite claim that only 20 people own LL. I never tried to back it up with evidence or anything. It was pretty clear that I was just throwing a ballpark number out there. Like when you are in a theater and you say "wow there must be a hundred people in here!" or you are at a stadium and you estimate that maybe 30,000 people are in attendance. When someone does that, do you call them out and demand that they find the factual data to back it up? If so, I'm slightly concerned.

You're right, I did say rules are rules. I also said they should be followed. So why are you saying that I want them changed when you are even commenting that I said I don't want them changed? That makes absolutely no sense. I said they are the rules and should remain as such for the remainder of the H2H season. That's kind of exactly what I meant. I do have to point out, though, that rules have been changed, with good reason, during the season, so just because a rule was there at the start doesn't mean that it can't be changed fairly/legitimately. Again, don't take that for me saying I want them changed! Take that for me being hypothetical and theoretical, like I have been the entire damn time I've been posting in this topic. I will repeat once more, I'm not making excuses or complaining. I noticed an aspect of the rules that could have been an issue, and casually brought it up. Had I known that I would have caused this I would have just refrained.

Don't worry, I thought very hard about what I was getting into when I signed up to play LL for the all-LL team. I spoke with Louis! heavily beforehand about what the team was about. We went into the contest knowing that we were fighting an uphill battle from the start and that our goals were not centered around winning, but rather making LL more appealing and pushing its limits. As such, I am satisfied with our season and I'm not making excuses or complaining.

If you were here from the start (can't blame you for not being though, just happens), you would have read my team's other posts that explained all this well ahead of time, and virtually your entire post wouldn't have been needed, and neither would this Great Wall of Text.

-----

In short (tl;dr): my argument doesn't have problems because the problems you are citing have non-existent foundations. I'm not taking the easy way out (and nobody better dare think so) and making excuses. If you were too lazy to read the above you should probably catch up on other posts because the only people I blame for my team's poor performance is my team, myself included. I put up a poor performance on Lost Samurai, and my team didn't manage to finish two parks in a row. Shit happens. So please don't even for a second think I'm complaining or making excuses when my argument is entirely based on theory and the hypothetical. Just a casual conversation on a potential issue with the contest which has overall been run absolutely fantastically.

I'm going to say one more time, this isn't about me. It's about making a great contest even better, for future reference or whatever. It doesn't matter for my benefit, because I probably won't be here for the next contest anyway. It matters for the benefit of the site as a whole, and as such I feel it's worth discussing.

Through all that, we still haven't gotten to the point about how a lack of participation in later rounds leads to the teams who won early being more heavily favored by voting percentages, though, funnily enough.

There's nothing to spread verbosity over. If you like we can specify the quoted rule to say we'll go by relative vote percentages in case of a ranking tie.

Not meaning to be a dick about this Gwazi, but have you brought this up because you've realised that if you win in W5 against us, then you still probably wouldn't go through because of our w1 park? (If going by the number of votes/percentage of votes)

EDIT: Please don't take this post as me being rude. I'm just a little put off by your comment given its contents and the context of the contest, so I'm making sure that I'm overly clear about myself since I've had people not get what I was saying when I thought I was being clear many times before. Nothing I say is meant to be taken in an aggressive, rude, or offensive way, so please don't.

I'm rather upset by the fact that you are making accusations about me or my motives when you haven't even read through all my posts for the season first. It's okay since you couldn't have known that earlier posts would have explained all this, but you should never be so quick to jump to judgmental conclusions without doing research. As such I am going to expect you to read all of what I wrote below, and reconsider what you are saying.

You have me entirely wrong, CoasterForce. I'm not making excuses at all. Of our four parks so far, we have one rushed one, one unfinished one, and one completely unfinished one. You think I'm saying that we deserve to make it past the Round Robin and that we are getting screwed? No. I'm just pointing out something I had just noticed that could be a bit of a flaw in a tie breaker. It's entirely hypothetical.

As far as voting percentages go. I did imply that voting percentages would affect LL parks negatively. That was wording error on my part; I had typed out voting and clumped percentages in without thinking, so I apologize. I understand that voting percentages won't be affected since only people with LL are allowed to vote. (That brings up another point though that some people might vote anyway and just not admit that they don't own LL, but let's not assume that members of our community would do that.) A smaller sample size could affect the voting percentage, in actuality--for instance, see the scenario below this paragraph--but that wouldn't be a big enough deal to worry about here though.

SCENARIO: LL match. Let's pretend 20 people can and do vote in an LL match. Doesn't matter which game the other park is for, because an LL park automatically limits the sample size. Suppose the match ends up being 4-16. In this case, the losing park would have garnered 20% of the vote. Now suppose that the match was RCT2 only, thus allowing, say, 60 total people to vote. The losing team still only garners 20% of the vote. However, that means they would still have gotten 12 votes, three times as many votes as the losing team in the first scenario. You may be thinking "Why does that matter if the park still had the same vote percentages?" Well, it matters because the sample size in the second scenario was much larger just by the nature of the game. Had there been 60 people who own LL and thus could vote on matches, then it's likely that a number of those extra people would have liked the losing park more and would have voted for it. A larger sample size provides a more accurate representation of the population's opinions--a general rule of statistics--and as such one could argue that LL matches are naturally at a potential disadvantage. THAT SAID, I don't think that would come into play here, especially considering the nature of the parks we have provided so far. I am arguing exclusively from a hypothetical standpoint, making a general point about H2H theory and rules based on something I had just thought about today. NOTE: I am not asking for mercy, making an excuse, etc for LL. I know you don't come here often, CoasterForce, but I (as well as my teammates) have posted many times about how we are not worried about winning. The reason we opted to form an all-LL team was to show that LL is still fresh and there are still many things people can do with LL. Basically, our goal was to promote the game to the young community and show them why we love LL so much. I'd say despite our somewhat disappointing performance, we have done a good job overall.

As for LL bias going both ways. Yes it can go both ways. However, LL has largely died out and the number of people on this site who play the game regularly are very, very few. Not much larger than the revoLLutionists themselves, in fact. The amount of people who know and appreciate the game are a bit larger, but I would go so far as to argue that our young community is so heavily RCT2-based that they don't even understand the game. Several members themselves have admitted it, which is perfectly fine. As I argued, that's part of the reason we formed our team this season. As far as H2H6 goes, you could say that a lot of the players who have a bias in favor of LL are on our team, and thus cannot vote in the LL matches anyway. That's no excuse though, especially given our goals. If we want to expose the community and entice them to appreciate LL, then we have to break any possible bias against our game. I just wanted to make that note since you were aiming your "LL bias goes both ways" comment towards H2H6. I repeat, I am not making excuses. None of my team is. We have stated this over and over again.

As for you bashing our parks specifically. That is entirely opinion based, as you say. However, NONE of this matters. Do you honestly think that with two unfinished parks and a rushed park on our matches list, I'm actually going to try to argue that we deserve a playoff spot over other teams that have played fantastically? I'm simply making projections and theory based on a rule I just noticed. My team has not performed well enough to deserve a spot in the semi-finals. As I stated, we have only delivered one un-rushed finished product, and only one other product that was finished at all. I'm not making up excuses. (Cars Land was complete by the way, not sure why you are saying it wasn't.)

As for me "throwing stats out there." Yeah, I did. Did you not get that I was just estimating? I never tried to make a definite claim that only 20 people own LL. I never tried to back it up with evidence or anything. It was pretty clear that I was just throwing a ballpark number out there. Like when you are in a theater and you say "wow there must be a hundred people in here!" or you are at a stadium and you estimate that maybe 30,000 people are in attendance. When someone does that, do you call them out and demand that they find the factual data to back it up? If so, I'm slightly concerned.

You're right, I did say rules are rules. I also said they should be followed. So why are you saying that I want them changed when you are even commenting that I said I don't want them changed? That makes absolutely no sense. I said they are the rules and should remain as such for the remainder of the H2H season. That's kind of exactly what I meant. I do have to point out, though, that rules have been changed, with good reason, during the season, so just because a rule was there at the start doesn't mean that it can't be changed fairly/legitimately. Again, don't take that for me saying I want them changed! Take that for me being hypothetical and theoretical, like I have been the entire damn time I've been posting in this topic. I will repeat once more, I'm not making excuses or complaining. I noticed an aspect of the rules that could have been an issue, and casually brought it up. Had I known that I would have caused this I would have just refrained.

Don't worry, I thought very hard about what I was getting into when I signed up to play LL for the all-LL team. I spoke with Louis! heavily beforehand about what the team was about. We went into the contest knowing that we were fighting an uphill battle from the start and that our goals were not centered around winning, but rather making LL more appealing and pushing its limits. As such, I am satisfied with our season and I'm not making excuses or complaining.

If you were here from the start (can't blame you for not being though, just happens), you would have read my team's other posts that explained all this well ahead of time, and virtually your entire post wouldn't have been needed, and neither would this Great Wall of Text.

-----

In short (tl;dr): my argument doesn't have problems because the problems you are citing have non-existent foundations. I'm not taking the easy way out (and nobody better dare think so) and making excuses. If you were too lazy to read the above you should probably catch up on other posts because the only people I blame for my team's poor performance is my team, myself included. I put up a poor performance on Lost Samurai, and my team didn't manage to finish two parks in a row. Shit happens. So please don't even for a second think I'm complaining or making excuses when my argument is entirely based on theory and the hypothetical. Just a casual conversation on a potential issue with the contest which has overall been run absolutely fantastically.

I'm going to say one more time, this isn't about me. It's about making a great contest even better, for future reference or whatever. It doesn't matter for my benefit, because I probably won't be here for the next contest anyway. It matters for the benefit of the site as a whole, and as such I feel it's worth discussing.

Through all that, we still haven't gotten to the point about how a lack of participation in later rounds leads to the teams who won early being more heavily favored by voting percentages, though, funnily enough.

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying in a non argumentative way.

Argh too many words. I just love good parks. I do think though next H2h we need to enforce the fact that if you take part in the competition you have the decency to fucking vote on a matchup. It can be construed as 'RL' issues and not that much time, or the fact people are just in this for their own benefit and they just care about the match they take part in.

The first round was such a buzz, I want to see discussion and more conversation about RCT. We'll only complain when H2h is over when some of us haven't fully applied ourselves to such a great contest.

Not meaning to be a dick about this Gwazi, but have you brought this up because you've realised that if you win in W5 against us, then you still probably wouldn't go through because of our w1 park? (If going by the number of votes/percentage of votes)

We also called your team a bunch of dumb heads in our team forum.


Ok, I understand everyone talking about people on other teams should vote out of common courtesy are talking about the general trend... but being one of those people that hasn't voted in a while I just have to say that you have no understanding of the various situations. It's summer. People are outside more. I personally was working a job where there's no internet for weeks at a time. You just can't know the whole story. If that means any of my votes should be thrown out throughout the season because it's not consistent so be it.