Talk:Altador Cup II

Altador Cup II?

This year's competition seems to be called in official media Altador Cup II, not Altador Cup 2007... Propose move... --Macbeth 16:22, 10 Jun 2007 (UTC)

If we did that, would the Altador Cup 2006 article be called "Altador Cup I"? I named them this way to have readers quickly understand the difference between each years activities, and to have them seperate from the main game article, "Altador Cup". If we were to call this Altador Cup II, readers would perhaps think it was an update to the regular Altador Cup, rather than the installment of 2007. You are right in that Neopets mentions this current plot as "Altador Cup II", so perhaps mentioning the difference in the the trivia will suffice. --Jacob 18:43, 10 Jun 2007 (CDT)

It is an update on the regular Altador Cup... in that... It's the second one. The same numbering system is used in other real life sporting events, e.g. the Super Bowl... It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out :¬/. --Macbeth 18:13, 12 Jun 2007 (UTC)

Checked out the Super Bowl article, and it seems they do indeed label each individual bowl with a roman numeral. Hmmm...i suppose it could swing either way, but i think showing the year off the bat is quicker to identify than those with roman numerals. then again, we don't really how people will identify with each of the plots. If it's being presented in the roman numerals, then i'm all for it. can also be changed in the future if nessesary. :) --Jacob 01:01, 13 Jun 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see the matter. After all Altador Cup II redirects to this article. Independent of what the user searches for, he will find the article, anyway.--Demon 05:50, 13 Jun 2007 (UTC)

Quite, but we could have Altador Cup II and Altador Cup 2007 both redirecting to Hermit Hugglepumps Magical Adventures in a Strawberry Field, and while whichever someone searches they will get the article, it is hardly appropriate. :P.

For reference, it is referred to as Altador Cup II here, and in the Current Event section here... The Altador Cup II NeoBoard, of course, also bears this notation. Elsewhere, it is just called Altador Cup, a generic name... Sometimes second annual Altador Cup. I cannot find Altador Cup 2007 in any official media. --Macbeth 11:20, 13 Jun 2007 (UTC)

No fair making jokes. Didn't feel like smiling. :D Again, "Altador Cup 2006/2007" is a title I created for ease of use, which i believe was even before they called this plot "Altador Cup II". We can redirect to the properly titled articles as needed. If other users show complaints, we can always change it back. --Jacob 23:39, 13 Jun 2007 (UTC)

The Cup is known as Altador Cup 2007 on the Jellyneo Forums. Here.--UBracter 21:54, 2 Jul 2007 (UTC)

What users (you, me, and the people of the Jellyneo Forums) refer to a plot is different from what Neopets officially calls a plot. If the official title of plot is "Altador Cup II", then that is what the article will be named. Users may still refer to is as "Altador Cup 2007", but the official title remains. If TNT should discontinue the method in the following year (not "Altador Cup III"), then name changes can be made. --Jacob 17:41, 3 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe keeping it Altador Cup I and II is fine. However, don't you think that if the names are being changed, it is best to call the 2006 tournament something like: Y8 Altador Cup and then Y9 Altador Cup and Y10 Altador Cup, in Neopia - here is no such thing as 2006, 2007, 2008 in Neopia etc. -- User:ForbiddenRoze 19:17, 17 Apr 2008 (GMT)

I don't think many people use the year references of the Neopia. It tends to confuse a lot of people in terms of time....especially me. :S --Jacob 12:29, 21 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Which is exactly the reason why they are numbered. Thanks for changing it, whoever did it! --Freefalldreams 06:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ranking system

the ranking scores have been taken into affect as of today...or at least i finally got enough of a score to get level one. To help measure these scores (if it's even possible), here is what i currently got for level one...

Level 1

• Yooyuball
  • Goals Scored: a lot - 316
  • Number of Wins: 38 - 61
  • Number of Draws: 1
  • Number of Losses: 0
• Slushie Slinger
  • Games Played: 26 - 49
• Make Some Noise
  • Games Played: 52 - 97

if players are guaged by how well they play against other players and their contributions to the team vs. other users of the same team, then guaging this system will be next to impossible. :( *fingers crossed* --Jacob 03:25, 17 Jun 2007 (UTC)

To help guage the score (if it's possible), I added what i got from yesterday... --Jacob 02:35, 18 Jun 2007 (UTC)

Will continue to modify my score till i get a new rank... --Jacob 19:06, 18 Jun 2007 (UTC)

I feel compelled to put you out of your misery ;). I've found a ranking guide that appears to be quite reliable. For record's sake, I'll quote it here:

"ALTADOR CUP RANKING GUIDE!!

OK - this is my latest attempt at explaining how ranking works. It will not be 100% yet, but the shape of it works, just needs some fine tuning. As a few have asked, I am also happy for anyone to use this information, or even to further develop!

Remember there are no guarantees here - just a best estimate based on data seen to date! The breaks at the top ranks are still needing a lot of testing, as little data is avaialable here yet.

So what you need to do!

QUICK METHOD - Simply give yourself one point for each YYB win, one point for every three SS games played and one point for every 15 MSN games played. That is your total!

Or in full; you need to convert your activity in to a points total. Here is how.

For each YYB game you have won, give yourself 1 point (care, games played not goals). Give yourself 0.334 points (one third)for each drawn game.

For each SS game you have played, give yourself 0.334 (again multiply by one third) points.

For each MSN game you have played, give yourself 0.0667 points (care here, 6.667% not 66.67%)

Add them up. That is your 'points total'. One warning here - the small number of people whose scores do not match this chart have high numbers of SS games played. I increasingly believe there is a 'cut off' score, wherby below that it shows as a win on your record, but does not score for rank. If this is the case, it is to stop people playing loads of games getting very poor scores quickly.

The ranking for points then is;

Beginner - less than 49.99

Rank 1 - 50-99.99 points

Rank 2 - 100-149.99 points

Rank 3 - 150-199.99 points

Rank 4 - 200-274.99 points

Rank 5 - 275-349.99 points

Rank 6 - 350-424.99 points

Rank 7 - 425-499.99 points

Rank 8 - 500-599.99 points

Rank 9 - 600-699.99 points

Rank 10 - 700-799.99 points

Rank 11 - 800 -899.99 points

Rank 12 - 900-1024.99 points

Rank 13 - 1025-1149.99 points

Rank 14 - 1150-1274.99 points

Rank 15 - 1275-1399.99 points

Rank 16 - 1400-1549.99 points

Rank 17 - 1550-1699.99 points

Rank 18 - 1700-1849.99 points

Rank 19 - 1850-2000 points

Above that is currently unknown, although it is known there is a maximum of 20 ranks."

--Macbeth 01:43, 24 Jun 2007 (UTC)

This can show to be different. I am currently at Level 4 and I have less than 200 wins.--UBracter 21:51, 2 Jul 2007 (UTC)

As stated, the plot isn't finished, and hopefully the scoring system will be explained soon enough. ;)

Results by day

UBracter has recently edited out the results by day section, and i put them back in place, due to them being the best method to show how each team did on each day. How better to display it and what improvments to use is the purpose of this discussion. *is ready to hear ideas* --Jacob 20:30, 27 Jun 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking - Which is more important: Result by day or result for each matchup? Anyway, this is a weird idea of mine if result by day is still required... Lets see if everybody can figure it out: Result chart --SwordFire 15:37, 29 Jun 2007 (UTC)

It looks good, and i'm glad you put in the effort to make it. This allow the challenges to be viewed by each 8 matchups, allowing to show each part of the double round robin. Of course, i think it would be better to throw in Altador into the table, rather than have it be the match where the same team lines up. When that happens, just have the cross out symbol or something like other round robin tables do. I really do like this. If we can set it up just right (showing all teams, lining them up in a proper fasion, include the dates of matchups), it would be much better than what i currently have in the results section. --Jacob 01:13, 30 Jun 2007 (UTC)

I edited it out because it would take up to much space. Plus, since it only has the rusults for the first two days, it is completely pointless. If it had the rusults for the rest of the days, then it would take up more space than the page itself. Plus, if you want the rusults by day, you could simply see the schudle. There, all the teams like this, would be a team that won that match. The results by day section, in my point of view, is stupid. --UBracter 18:43, 30 Jun 2007 (UTC)

Only the 1st 2 days are shown because those were the only tables created thus far. and the tables would scroll down, not across, so you don't need to worry about it taking up too much space. and looking at the scedule, at the style it is right now, is "stupid", because it doesn't tell us who won the "Slushie Slinger" or "Make Some Noise" competitions, which we need. --Jacob 00:35, 1 Jul 2007 (UTC)

I actually stopped right after creating the 6 June result table. There are two reasons: One, the Neodex is complaining about the size of the page. Two, implementing all the days in the same format will definitely drag the page far too long (who wants to scroll down 30+ pages for information? Ouch...)

I've re-added Altador to the experimental table without breaking the line-up for each day. I've also extended the table just enough to fit two rounds of round-robin and still look logically correct for each day. The Neodex will still complain about the size, but at least the number of pages is reduced.

The only problem is it's not easy to add and modify the data within the table, but once we added all the data, we do not need to worry about modifying it. --SwordFire 01:32, 1 Jul 2007 (UTC)

But the scedule shows overall who won that coupling. --UBracter 17:04, 2 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Standings hierarchy

I've removed the following section,

The standings on this list is just a guess. But it seems to be greatly similar to the scoring system TNT uses. Thus, this may not be the right caluation, but is very similar. A win is 2 points, a draw is 1 point, and a loss is 0. Yooyuball is double the points (win=4, draw=2, loss=0).

{| class=wikitable

|- | Place | Team | Points |- | 1st | Darigan Citadel | 177pts |- | 2nd | Roo Island | 176pts |- | 3rd | Krawk Island | 168pts |- | 4th | Shenkuu | 167pts |- | ------ |- | 5th | Lost Desert | 162pts |- | 6th | Mystery Island | 149pts |- | 7th | Haunted Woods | 134pts |- | 8th | Maraqua | 109pts |- | 9th | Meridell | 107pts |- | 10th | Terror Mountain | 74pts |- | 11th | Brightvale | 63pts |- | 12th | Tyrannia | 52pts |- | 13th | Kiko Lake | 47pts |- | 14th | Altador | 42pts |- | 15th | Faerieland | 27pts |- | 16th | Virtupets | 10pts

|}

as it seems to be entirely speculative... --Macbeth 20:08, 1 Jul 2007 (UTC)

I put it there since it seems to be right. When TNT posted news of the top four after the first round of the double round robin was over, it matched what the formula I used said. UBracter 17:01, 2 Jul 2007 (UTC)

... o_o That doesn't mean it is correct, though. It is a guess, purely speculative - there are many different ways the figures can be manipulated to produce those four teams in that order... --Macbeth 18:46, 2 Jul 2007 (UTC)

I assume this data is part of this table, yes?

The wining team is calutaed by wins and draws in that coupling. A win in Yooyuball is worth 4 points. A draw in Yooyuball is 2 points. A win in Slushie Slinger and Make Some Noise is worth 2 points. A draw in Slushie Slinger and Make Some Noise is worth 1 point. The team with the most points in that coupling won. If both teams have the same number of points, then it is a draw.

If and when this data can be confirmed, it can be placed back on. --Jacob 02:10, 4 Jul 2007 (UTC)