roadkiehl wrote:Committees rarely do anyone any good.

r10t-- wrote:That ranking system sounds a lot better! I would be on board with that! As for the 'official' thing I think that he meant he's happy you didn't name it 'official' committee but you always write STOC with 'O' meaning Official, so it should be STC. He doesn't want it to say official because it wasn't created by the devs of the game but the players and I agree with him, STC would be more appropriate.

We should take the suggestion to move to a private message or create a google doc where we can collect ideas for this and we should also (create another forum?) getting a list of people interested and be adding them to our conversations outside the forum.

So if you are interested, myself (or another person interested enough) will create a google doc and post the link to the doc so everyone can see what is going on in the formation process for transparency

topkilla wrote:Subterfuge isn't even remotely related to chess. If this were Stratego, then you could compare it to Chess.

Titles devalue it because everyone is going to be a "master". But the titles in no way relate to the actual skill of the given player. But because these players are going to be deemed a "master", theres going to be elitism and discrimination by "master" players and "non-master" players.

ELO comes about because you are comparing subterfuge to Chess. ELO is used in chess to determine the ranking of a player. But ELO is a non-factor in Tournaments.

A simple number ranking system is "first place gets first, second gets second, third gets third, and so on."

tw2000 wrote:When did I ever say that you had to be a part of this?

tw2000 wrote:What do you guys think? And would any of the moderators and previous tournament hosters (Topkilla, thunder) who would be interested in becoming part of this committee?

stefan wrote:

tw2000 wrote:When did I ever say that you had to be a part of this?

You asked him in your very first post:

roadkiehl wrote:I'm sorry, I just don't see the point in this.
1. The devs said they're working on an official tournament game type which they'll include later. The tournaments we have now are mostly just to tide us over until that happens.
2. I like the casual atmosphere of the tournaments we have now. Sure, you have flukes like the 4-man game in TopKilla's tournament, but I don't think a committee would do much about that.
3. The ranking system is too complicated. Maybe it seems intuitive for someone who plays chess competitively, but most people don't.
4. I don't know if this is true elsewhere, but in architecture, we have a saying. When a building is scattered and has no focus, when it seems to be just a bunch of parts stuck together, and basically when it's a bad building, we say that it was "designed by committee." Committees rarely do anyone any good. I'm sorry if you love committees, but I have yet to see a counterpoint.

tw2000 wrote:

topkilla wrote:Subterfuge isn't even remotely related to chess. If this were Stratego, then you could compare it to Chess.

Yeah but whats more related to chess, subterfuge or minecraft? I mean sure, just because its more related than minecraft doesn't mean its actually related, but this is surely a game of strategy, and so is chess.

tw2000 wrote:

Titles devalue it because everyone is going to be a "master". But the titles in no way relate to the actual skill of the given player. But because these players are going to be deemed a "master", theres going to be elitism and discrimination by "master" players and "non-master" players.

ELO comes about because you are comparing subterfuge to Chess. ELO is used in chess to determine the ranking of a player. But ELO is a non-factor in Tournaments.

A simple number ranking system is "first place gets first, second gets second, third gets third, and so on."

Did you even read the criteria? If you had understood what the message was it would be that only 3% of the players are any sort of master AT ANY TIME. And we can even make this 1% or some other % if we think it needs to be changed. And of course there is a way to relate the actual skill of a player to their title. Beating or getting the same place to more people obviously means that you're better than someone who beats less poeple. And that would be reflected accurately because they'd have to play at least 3 tournaments before they get evaluated and have an actual seed in the leaderboard. And there isn't any discrimination in any other game between people who are good at it and people who aren't. I won't even use chess as an example. People who play e-sports competitively know that people who represent their country are probably better than them, and probably deserve a title of some kind, but they are still respected and there's no discrimination.

Actually ELO is a factor in tournaments. In fact, if I understand what you mean, chess tournaments are practically the only way to change your ELO for chess. But I do understand that subterfuge is a multi-player game with many people in each round. But that isn't my point. My point is that you get rated based on how well you do in tournaments. And you are given a percentile which you will be ranked accordingly with. Percentiles are not hard to calculate, and they aren't ELO's either. They only reflect how good of a player you are by using your percentile to compare against others. And just in case you haven't realised, the Devs have already created an ELO leaderboard on the subterfuge leaderboards. But I admit that its not very accurate because of the diplomacy involved in Subterfuge.