Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
 Posted:
Jul 10, 2009 - 19:36 |
 
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | I would prefer, if a coach had to submit three or more teams to the tourney and then the coaches would play in a KO style tourney and their teams would be scheduled by the bot.
So each round all teams would be submitted and the best matchups would be played. Whoever loses, gets knocked out. Next round all remaining coaches are again paired up new.
For the final, teams are matched that they are as close as possible. If there are multiple equally good matchups, then the finalist that had a tougher schedule (TS difference wise) can pick. |
also a good idea, but for the sake of expedience, simplicity, and presenting a unified front, I propose we get behind CS' proposed tourney.
After all, once we have one tourney, it will be much, much easier to get two. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2009 - 19:39 |
|
I still think we should begin with TR capped tournaments and move forwards from there. |
|
|
Molt
Joined: Aug 04, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2009 - 19:47 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | CorporateSlave3 wrote: |
The initial draw will be made using by feeding all teams into the black box scheduler, which will make the best TR/TS matches it can.
Every round thereafter will be determined after the round before it is completed by again entering all teams that remain into the black box scheduler, as opposed to proceeding down a traditional KO tournament bracket.
Standard timeframes of 1 week per round to play scheduled matches will apply.
Only the final will be arranged without use of the black box.
|
I think that is a great idea on how to run a Box tourney.
Back to my orginal post related to the first post.
IF Purple Chest is going to put the effort into making a tourney I say go with this idea on the format.
1)It sticks to the concept behind the box
2)It is a weekly format
3)There is finally a Box Tourney.
|
I agree this is a great format
| PainState wrote: |
Now I see some problems that could arise but Iam not going to go on and on about them because in the end it is about getting the first tourney up and running and then start knocking the kinks out of the system once they start to show up, as they will.
|
The only tweek that i see is to ensure low TR/TS teams are not entered. They will be matched against each other ensuring one of them progresses. This process will continue resulting in a final between a less skilled vs a vastly more skilled team. That makes it a non-event. TR/TS limits are required. |
|
|
CorporateSlave3
Joined: Feb 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 00:06 |
|
| Molt wrote: | | The only tweek that i see is to ensure low TR/TS teams are not entered. They will be matched against each other ensuring one of them progresses. This process will continue resulting in a final between a less skilled vs a vastly more skilled team. That makes it a non-event. TR/TS limits are required. |
This process might continue resulting in a final between two disparate TR/TS teams. However, after perusing the results of Ranked Major Finals, I no longer really think of the potential for this to happen as a major problem.
Even a vast disparity in skill (TR/TS) levels of a team doesn't make a Major Tournament Final match a non-event:
Smaller team wins 2-1
Larger team wins 4-3
Smaller team wins 2-1
Larger team wins 1-0
Smaller team humiliates vastly larger team 4-1
Easy to jump to the conclusion I guess, but the match evidence from existing tournaments really doesn't support it too well... |
_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot? |
|
pingus
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 01:13 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | I still think we should begin with TR capped tournaments and move forwards from there. |
Agree. TBH I can't agree a tournament where do you apply with 3 or more teams. It's like running 3 different football teams by one nation in World Cup - makes no sense to me. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 01:39 |
|
KISS 
TR capped events for now. If you want it to feel really blackboxy (rather than just less cheesy) then we could seed the tournaments according to TS - highest at the top and lowest at the bottom. Ideally we could have an uncapped blackbox major and it wouldnt just be orcs. Sadly we will have to wait for LRB5 for that. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
CorporateSlave3
Joined: Feb 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 02:50 |
|
I still rather like the 'no TR cap' entry...but beware that teams will be cut equally from the top AND the bottom (in order to make an even number for a KO bracket).
For example...25 teams apply, so we do a 16 team bracket, leaving (unfortunately, but try again next tournament - even in R some don't make the cut) 9 teams out. We cut the top 5 and bottom 4 (or the other way around, depending on what makes sense based on the actual TR/TS of teams entered), and use the BlackBox scheduler to match up the qualifying teams.
This puts the responsibility on the coach to realize that entering their rookie (or near rookie) team likely won't result in qualification, nor will their 300 TR powerhouse most likely be allowed to compete. (imho, the building of TR 300+ powerhouses for tourneys belongs in Ranked, not BlackBox...)
I think this will help us to use the blackbox scheduler and yet keep the matchups from being too out of whack near the final (though see my post above...I'm not sure that is the 800 lb Gorilla so many people seem to think it is)
There is also one factor I think is going under considered...at worst, even those 300 TR monsters would almost certainly have to face some other 200+ TR DP laden khemri or something...which might very well whittle them down a bit as the tourney progresses. Likewise the lower TR teams will be more likely to skill up a bit with less brutal competition. Of course the dice can do anything, but a lot of certainty regarding problems with high TR teams utterly dominating seems to be going around, rather bereft of any hard proof.... |
_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot? |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 07:07 |
|
| pingus wrote: | | DukeTyrion wrote: | | I still think we should begin with TR capped tournaments and move forwards from there. |
Agree. TBH I can't agree a tournament where do you apply with 3 or more teams. It's like running 3 different football teams by one nation in World Cup - makes no sense to me. |
Actually, it's nothing like that. But you are free to think whatever you like. And it shows a fairly poor understanding of what Blackbox is. Despite what DukeTyrion wants it to be. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 10:24 |
|
To me Box is only a division where you can't pick and meet mostly people who rarely get moody about casualties or dicing.
Where it's taken from there is open path in my opinion.
I like the idea that you apply with multiple teams of which one should be taken in and teams applied get knocked of the top and bottom to start the tourney with the minimum TR difference.
There should be also the no-cap-kill-all- tourney for those that have managed to overbuild their teams. This'd also be a good way of bringing them down a little bit. I liked the idea that you'd have play some minimium amount of games just before the tourney and it could be expanded with a minimum of games between tourneys. Team building is an a vital and fun part for many in Blood Bowl, even for those playing in the box(no, they won't go do that in Ranked, thank you) |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 12:40 |
|
| CorporateSlave3 wrote: | | For example...25 teams apply, so we do a 16 team bracket, leaving (unfortunately, but try again next tournament - even in R some don't make the cut) 9 teams out. We cut the top 5 and bottom 4 (or the other way around, depending on what makes sense based on the actual TR/TS of teams entered), and use the BlackBox scheduler to match up the qualifying teams. |
It will leave alot of people out with no obvious way for them secure qualification. There is no target TR or TS which might confuse people about what sort of team they're supposed to enter with. These factors will put people off.
Using the blackbox scheduler to seed teams isnt going to work either. It wont be terribly fair and it might not even work 
- worst case scenario is that the blackbox scheduler will find 7 match ups from the 16 teams. This is not a reasonable possibility.
- how are you going to trim the top/bottom TR/TS exactly? You need a very clear rule here because this is going to be much harder to decide fairly than you might imagine.
- are you going to be using the scheduler every round? I'm assuming not but if you are then it will slow play down horribly as well as creating more likelyhood of the scheduler leaving teams out.
- if you just use it at the start then you have horrible balance issues:
-> teams could hoarde cash but still get placed at the easy end of the tournament
-> the seeding shouldnt be taking racial disparity into account because that will disapear after the first round
-> do handicaps make any of this any better?
You've still got to sort out some of the basic logistics to make it actually work. These are likely to add additional disadvantages to the format. Unfortunately its not clear that its going to be all that fair a system even when you have got it all figured out.
Please present us with a vigorous, clear, and watertight explanation of how you intend this to work. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
CorporateSlave3
Joined: Feb 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 17:34 |
|
SillySod, thank you for some helpful criticism! (this is not supposed to be sarcasm, they are valuable thinking points.) 
| SillySod wrote: |
It will leave alot of people out with no obvious way for them secure qualification. There is no target TR or TS which might confuse people about what sort of team they're supposed to enter with. |
This does make a good point, perhaps DukeTyrion's idea of a TR/TS is going to be needed, just to make it more clear to coaches what they can expect to qualify with. Maybe a lower and upper TR/TS limit for the first attempt? Nothing below TS 150, or above TS 250 (or whatever, very open to opinions regarding a good TS range).
| SillySod wrote: |
Using the blackbox scheduler to seed teams isnt going to work either. It wont be terribly fair and it might not even work
- worst case scenario is that the blackbox scheduler will find 7 match ups from the 16 teams. This is not a reasonable possibility. |
I still would like to try out the BlackBox scheduler for the tournament format, despite some possible glitches. When you say "This is not a reasonable possibility", I assume you mean that while it is very possible, it is not an acceptable result?
Frankly, I think that BlackBox coaches are sort of used to "9 coaches found, 4 matches scheduled, not scheduled:...*dang*" This isn't particularly fair either, yet we deal with it. However, as you say, clearly only 7 matches scheduled when 8 are needed won't very well work, will it?
Maybe something more like feeding 18 teams into the scheduler rather than 16 (for example), and taking the best 8 matches (best meaning, closest match up rating (or whatever that 3-digit number is called). Granted, this is another chance for people to grumble about getting booted for "no real reason," but hey, this isn't Ranked, it is BlackBox and you knew the risks.
If you're the type that would be really, really bent out of shape about this, maybe you should go back to Ranked where things are more...predictable.
This would be BlackBox, where you throw yourself on the mercy of Nuffle (the 'box) and swallow what he deals you, be it damaged elves, brutal dwarves, or no match at all this time around.
Also, it does encourage teams to stick to the middle of any TR/TS range in order to increase chances of a match, just as activating more teams is supposed to do the same in regular BlackBox play...(which suddenly gives me the idea to allow (but not require) coaches to submit multiple teams (though only one gets to play) in order to increase their chances.
| SillySod wrote: |
- how are you going to trim the top/bottom TR/TS exactly? You need a very clear rule here because this is going to be much harder to decide fairly than you might imagine. |
Well if a TR/TS range cap is used, this might not be necessary after all. If it would be done though, the key would be not allowing coaches to know what TR/TS have all been submitted. Sure, you cold hoard cash and keep your TS low trying for the bottom end...but maybe that puts you too far at the bottom and you don't get seeded after all.
| SillySod wrote: |
- are you going to be using the scheduler every round? I'm assuming not but if you are then it will slow play down horribly as well as creating more likelyhood of the scheduler leaving teams out. |
I would like to try using it every round. If the TR/TS are all relatively close due to an upper and lower TR/TS limit, then this scenario is probably rather unlikely, as the scheduler will have a narrow range to work with.
| SillySod wrote: |
Unfortunately its not clear that its going to be all that fair a system even when you have got it all figured out. |
No matter how tweaked any system is, never will everyone form a harmonious chorus gloriously declaring how fair and balanced it all is. Most people by nature will eventually find some exploit. Agreed that we should try to work out as many kinks as we can before running a tournament, but to not run one simply because it isn't 100% perfect is a pretty poor excuse if you ask me.
| SillySod wrote: |
Please present us with a vigorous, clear, and watertight explanation of how you intend this to work. |
I'll work on writing up a more detailed version soon. However, asking for a watertight explanation is rather unreasonable...even Ranked tournaments aren't held to this standard...
Problem: Some coaches will feel unfairly excluded - also happens in Ranked tournaments. I've heard plenty of complaining to this end in IRC.
Problem: Matches particularly the final, have the potential to be unbalanced - also happens in Ranked tournaments. I've noted some examples in previous posts of Ranked Major Finals.
Problem: Some coaches won't enter because they feel the qualification system is 'not fair' - also happens in Ranked tournaments (count the forum threads whining about Dark vs. Light Ulthuan Qualifiers, for example...).
Right now, BlackBox is a sort of 'fringe division,' admittedly in an alpha test phase. However, many coaches feel it deserves a chance.
Adding tournaments can give it much more potential.
If a poorly attended division wants to add some tournaments which will also be sort of 'alpha testing,' and volunteers can be found to run them (as I have done), why are some so stubbornly sticking to the idea that they have to be flawless in order to be feasible?
I've said it before...we aren't talking about the end of the world here if a BlackBox tournament or two somehow ends up not working out as perfectly as we'd like. Nobody has to die if it fails. There are no sweeping dire consequences to behold. We say, hmm, that didn't work, and try another reworking. We can even include a disclaimer about how the tournament itself is in alpha test phase, just like how the whole BlackBox division does...
And if this means the mega CR, Major winning coaches from Ranked disdain such a tournament, I say who cares? Let them watch from the sidelines shaking their heads at our tomfoolery until either a) we work the bugs out, or b) we give up and BlackBox eventually peters out like poor Ladder did.
The poll I made shows over 30 coaches want to try out the system I've put forth. I've volunteered to run it. How about letting us try, that way if it doesn't work you can feel twice as righteous when waving your fingers and telling me "I told you so!" |
_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot? |
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
I'd like to thank everyone for their input on this thread. It has been very informative and reasonble and has greatly helped in refining and defining what [B] tournaments should look and feel like. While any casual glance through it will reveal a total lack of concensus and a lot of disparate '1 man army' ideas, there is also some useful insights here.
Feel free to keep refining and suggesting formats, as it is entirely possible that, if proved sustainable, workable and understandable to the average fumbbler, they might at some future point be used. There really is a clean sheet here, and especially after the introduction of LRB5, we may well see some massive changes in how Tourneys are run, in all divisions.
But the realities of life have also had a huge say in what is, for now, possible within the [B] Division.
An Announcement as to the shape and format of [B] Tournaments is imminent. Your patience will not be tested too much further. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2009 - 14:03 |
|
I would like to throw an idea out there, to see what kind of reception it gets. I have already made the suggestion to PurpleChest and I am sure he will consider it along with a whole host of other options, but he also suggested posted the idea here.
We will hopefully have a few Blackbox majors each year, and due to the style of the box, these will almost certainly mainly involve the bashier teams, so I have come up with an idea which might promote more agile teams to enter, which is;
No Overtime.
The idea being, that if the 2 teams playing are level at the end of the game, the lower TS team progresses.
It might seem a little harsh for the team who is only a couple of TS higher, but this will force the higher TS side to go for the win, rather than taking the 1-1 draw while demolishing the other side, only to take an easy victory in overtime.
It would also add to the team management side, as teams try to work out the benefits in taking a star or wizard, which whilst improving their chance to win the game, may also increase their TS so much that they have to play for the win.
I think that this will help the more fragile and indeed less developed sides enjoy a tournament which otherwise they might not consider entering. It would also make for some interesting finishes, as the big teams battle to ensure they win within normal time.
Let me know what you think. It will not be the only idea PurpleChest has under review for next year, but it would certanily make for a unique major. |
|
|
Shraaaag
Joined: Feb 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2009 - 14:36 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | I would like to throw an idea out there, to see what kind of reception it gets. I have already made the suggestion to PurpleChest and I am sure he will consider it along with a whole host of other options, but he also suggested posted the idea here.
We will hopefully have a few Blackbox majors each year, and due to the style of the box, these will almost certainly mainly involve the bashier teams, so I have come up with an idea which might promote more agile teams to enter, which is;
No Overtime.
The idea being, that if the 2 teams playing are level at the end of the game, the lower TS team progresses.
It might seem a little harsh for the team who is only a couple of TS higher, but this will force the higher TS side to go for the win, rather than taking the 1-1 draw while demolishing the other side, only to take an easy victory in overtime.
It would also add to the team management side, as teams try to work out the benefits in taking a star or wizard, which whilst improving their chance to win the game, may also increase their TS so much that they have to play for the win.
I think that this will help the more fragile and indeed less developed sides enjoy a tournament which otherwise they might not consider entering. It would also make for some interesting finishes, as the big teams battle to ensure they win within normal time.
Let me know what you think. It will not be the only idea PurpleChest has under review for next year, but it would certanily make for a unique major. |
Just a question. I'm assuming if draw, it's the website that will figure out who'll advance (like with cointoss). Are you thinking of using the TS pre-game or post-game? |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2009 - 14:40 |
|
| Shraaaag wrote: | | Just a question. I'm assuming if draw, it's the website that will figure out who'll advance (like with cointoss). Are you thinking of using the TS pre-game or post-game? |
Pre-Game ... i.e. from the match report. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Secret Stunty Cup - ...
Search
