| Poll |
| Who can take part in a Major? |
| All, current rules |
|
77% |
[ 124 ] |
| Only teams with a minor victory |
|
18% |
[ 30 ] |
| Only coaches with, for example, 3 minor victorys |
|
3% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 159 |
|
Flix
Joined: Oct 26, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 16:35 |
 
|
well i think it is perhaps an interesting idea.
just wanna know what people think about that.
So give me some feedback of pros and contras |
|
|
blizzt95
Joined: Apr 12, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 16:41 |
|
I'd like to see it be those that win a minor. Would make the minors much more important and have people scrambling to get in them. SMACKs, SFC, other minors, whatever. If there was a requirement, there'd be a lot more minors going. |
|
|
Cloggy
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 16:44 |
|
I would just promote more shameless powergaming in minors and reduce the racial diversity in those tournaments because even more than now coaches will play undead or dorfs in low TR brackets just to get the win.
If instead of coaches that won a minor you only allow teams that win a minor it gets even worse, because then you reduce the racial diversity of the majors even further than is already the case.
Needless to say I voted to keep the current system  |
_________________
Proud owner of three completed Ranked grids, sadly lacking in having a life. |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 16:45 |
|
Uhm.
First thing that comes to mind is that Majors are THE event on Fumbbl, and as much as it would be nice to have quality prerequisites to enter them, I think it is much nicer to let virtually anybody in.
If Majors become the happening of a Fumbbl Elite, the casual gamer is taken away a great chance to have fun.
Of course, me being forced by RL to turn myself into casual gamer has nothing to do with my current opinion on the matter... 
I would probably support a mixed system, where (say) 30% of the available seats are reserved for Minors Winners, and the rest is available through another system (first comes first served, TS, CR, TR, whatever... All of them make sense and all of them have their flaws).
I quite liked the Qualifying method used in Fumbbl Cup IV: some Quick Start Tournaments, Some Long Lived Teams Tournaments, Some sorted by highest TR, some sorted by highest CR.
With low numbers it's too complicate to be of any use, but in the Majors with 128+ available spots, I think it's the best way, and also makes some of the Qualifiers games a great bb experience in itself. I remember how meeting Weapon Masters and Razghul Judgement in the Long Lived Teams Qualifiers was great, and felt like a true Major in itself.
Just my two pence. |
_________________
 |
|
JB
Joined: Jul 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 16:56 |
|
I thought minors are quite popular - okay there are certain times you get a smack going easier than others but in general there are people trying to organise something almost every day.
And yes I think Cloggy is right - it wouldnt really enforce racial diversity ...
Furthermore: is it really that important that you win a rookie smack or something to participate in a major? Chances are that half your team isnt anyhow like "back in your teams days of rookie glory" by the time it plays in a major. |
|
|
nin
Joined: May 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 17:00 |
|
I was thinking about it too (the ideas are there, with the tour points or SillySod's thread about points for all the minors)
We have a big tournament with many teams, the Fumbbl Cup.
And four tournaments with qualifiers and a week of rest. All much the same, only the prices change.
I was thinking that one of the majors, probably GLT (because of fluf), may be for teams that have took part in TR caped minors while developing (preference given to succesfull teams like winneres, and to the winners of the more prestigious minors).
That would make it really different, as some lower TR teams would get into such a tournament (the idea of only taking into consideration TR caped tournaments and not Legend Smaks is limiting the uberteams of other tournaments)
...and whatever is done, I really think that FC should remain oppen to all the coaches. |
|
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 17:07 |
|
I've just started doign the Tourney thing, but I'm really enjoying it. Being obligated to anger my wife to participate in future tourney's doesn't appeal much. |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
JB
Joined: Jul 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 17:18 |
|
UI is different because of the qualifying system - this years WO was/is different as well since teams were divided into "low" and "high" TR (btw something I dont really like) ... and probably we see some changes for LC and GLT too.
Anyways I dont really see why winning minors would increase the chances of low TR teams participating that much - if you know about the qualification process you will try to win low TR minors and then build up a team to whatever TR you like/are able to. The reason why some teams with low TR dont make the cut for a major is not only because coaches dont cherrypick or something - often these teams simply havent played enough. So whats the point in making the whole preperation process even more time intense for those coaches by forcing them to play minors.
I am all for the tour and capped TR tournaments but this thing just sounds like more work and effort for every coach to get his prefered team in a major which will most likely result in even less race diversity.
Make a "Fumbblers Cup" parallel to the FC with capped TR ... let each and every coach decide themself which one is the more "important" trophy and everybody is happy ... or not |
|
|
Flix
Joined: Oct 26, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 17:44 |
|
some pros for the minor victory modus:
- majors will get a higher level
- less classical bash only teams
- more interresting games
- perhaps less cherrypicked teams |
|
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 17:52 |
|
Really gonna need to explain the reasonoing behind those "pros", Flix. |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
Chewie
Joined: Dec 13, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 17:54 |
|
Sure, take the majors away from those that don't want to play an undead or dorf team in SMACKs... great idea. |
|
|
Falesh
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 17:59 |
|
My favourite major, and the only one I've entered as yet, was the Fumbbl Cup. The reason it was so good was the diversity of people who entered and the upsets caused by famous teams getting knocked out by less hardcore ones. Anything that would stop that happening again is something I would vote against. |
|
|
Andrelas
Joined: Aug 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 18:05 |
|
I think this is more one bad idea, look to the professional Tennis and tell me how many players that play in a grand slam had win a minor tournament! |
|
|
Panda_
Joined: Jul 14, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 18:20 |
|
| JB wrote: | UI is different because of the qualifying system - this years WO was/is different as well since teams were divided into "low" and "high" TR (btw something I dont really like) ... and probably we see some changes for LC and GLT too.
|
WO Qualifiers difference this year is mainly because 150 teams grows too high during the Fumbbl Birthday. |
_________________
"Rien ne sert de partir a point, il vaut mieux courir." |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2008 - 18:32 |
|
I'm pretty against the idea since the key advantage of majors is bringing the community together for some shared hype and general violence. I don't think that the majors would get nearly so much attention if people couldn't buy into them like they can now, that would mean less attention and less cool stuff like the massive numbers of spectators.
| Flix wrote: | some pros for the minor victory modus:
- majors will get a higher level
- less classical bash only teams
- more interresting games
- perhaps less cherrypicked teams |
Sorry but I don't see that any of these things follow:
- majors will lose coaches, many of whom are excellent. They won't gain any "higher level" coaches, just lose them.
- more elves, more bash, I can't see that unusual or diverse teams like gobbos and vampires are going to be increased in showing.
- since I don't agree with the first two I don't think this follows either. In fact I think the whole thing will be easier to guess the outcome from the start, therefore less excitement, therefore less interesting
- Powergamed teams win minors more frequently than any other kind (I think) |
_________________
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." |
|
|
|
| |
What To Do In My Tur...
Search
