Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
 Posted:
May 02, 2012 - 22:46 |
 
|
Hi, with the CFC3 coming closer to conclusion I'm once again looking for ways to improve the format.
For those of you who don't know what the CFC is, it is a format where two groups compete in challenges against each other and the losing group has to vote members off until only one coach is left.
I'd really like some feedback from some former contestants, although I'm genereally interested in other peoples opinion. So here goes:
One of the biggest issues so far has been to provide an equal amount of games to everyone and offer different challenges every round at the same time. For this reason I had EXTRA games introduced in the first and second CFC. However in the second the coaches decided not to use them. I'm not a 100% sure why, but after that I decided not to use them anymore.
The issue with soft games and the chance of cheating may have been a reason why people took a disliking in the concept so I abandoned it.
In the CFC3 we have teams that only have 1 game after 7 rounds wich is partly because the more your team gets shredderd the less opportunity appears to be able to play again. So I want to bring EXTRA GAMES back but revamp them a bit. Give them a new image to make them more appealing.
Here is what I am thinking about:
1. $16 Controll Games
(1)A coach who doesn't get to play in a round recieves a controll game chip.
(2)Two people with a controll game chip from either group can play each other when they are not sceduled into a match up.
(3) A coach who wins a controll game gets the right to once use his controll over the other coach who lost. To do that when there has to be made a vote on something during the tournament, the winner may write a PM to the admin stating that he wants to use the other coaches vote right and alter his vote decision to his liking.
(4) If a coach scores 4 or more touchdowns in a controll game, the other coach becomes his vassal and loses his voting rights entirely to the scorer. The scorer can then alter all his votes in the future. The other coach doesn't get to play any more controll games. This rule also applies if both coaches score 4 or more touchdowns in the same game.
2. Non Voting
Another issue that is really bothering me that I don't seem to be able to fix because I completely don't understand it is the voting behavior.
To describe an extreme case there was one voting involing 7 people. 6 checked the message but only one actually answerd and made a vote.
From the CFC1 I know that this isn't a time issue because I can give people a week and they will not react and rather be bored that the league doesn't continue.
Now I believe some of the main goals when designing a game is to make it balanced, appealing and easy to understand.
Because I have never actually played a CFC myself, I of course don't know exactly what issues might be related to that.
I usually use fat writing within my messages when people have to vote on something. I used to write them pms that they have to vote and that was actually pretty successfull, but I feel very silly about it. It's not like they have to vote if they don't want to. But it seems a bit silly to go through all the trouble of a challenge just to miss out then on the most important part of the tournament.
But as a tournament admin I shouldn't tell people how to strategise, right?
So I'm thinking it's some kind of communication issue. I just have no answer for that, so any inishgt is appreciated.
3. Group Names
And last but not least:
Every CFC requires two groups compete against each other. In the CFC1 we had Pirates and Ninjas. In the CFC2 Bees and Frogs and in the CFC3 we had Zombies and Ambassdors.
For the CFC4 I'm open to suggestions. What two groups should compete in a battle next?
I'd really like to make a poll about this once I have a couple of suggestions. Thanks.  |
|
|
Savdog
Joined: Jul 08, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2012 - 23:39 |
|
Playing in the cfc3 the main issue I have is it is all way too complicated. Don’t know if that is the point of the tourney or not?
One example was that in the ‘score the most tds’ round my opponent didn’t realise that was the point of the match until midway through the second half. I like the idea of goals like the team that scores the most touchdowns, gets the most cas, the most passing yards etc winning the round. I think the nominations round don’t work as well as you pointed out that it means some coaches play less games.
If all the rounds were goal orientated i.e most fouls, tds, cas passing yards rushing yards etc wins the round, everyone would get the same number of games. Moreover, it would give clear stats etc which could result in a greater percentage of participants actually casting votes as they could see who was performing well or not. The simpler format may also encourage voting. |
|
|
Gritter
Joined: Jun 29, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2012 - 23:51 |
|
I found CFC different and kinda fun- but yes it is confusing which I guess is due to the deliberate randomness of the rounds. There are also big gaps between games at times and I guess people are more likely to just pick up a game in Box or R rather than try to find a league opponent who also has a free game in between rounds. That is my feeling anyway.
So I think there should be less individual matches deciding rounds and more general play if possible.
Happy to join in another one anyway  |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 06, 2012 - 21:34 |
|
1. Special-Goal-Challenges
Well the problem I see with special goal oriented rounds is that I don't think there are that many that really make sense. Originally the CFC only had challenges that modified the way teams were scheduled. The other challenges were added because I thought they are great fun. But as you pointed out, some people have issues with understanding that they have to score TDs rather than win the game.
The concept of making the most cas I simply dislike because it creates an unbalance between races in favor of the bashier ones, wich already have all the advantages. I believe in incentives and rather would give people incentives to play soft teams than bashy ones.
There are probably some things that could be done. Passing yards could be certainly an interesting one but some races are so crappy at it (Lizzies for example) that it would be a huge unblancer in the other direction. Elves might have a bit too much of an edge there. Generally I’m always interested in suggestions for new challenges but be aware that I only will take those I think are really doable and also interesting for the strategical part of the game.
2. What changed so far
What you also should consider is this: Because the CFC3 didn’t have extra games. I revamped the challenges so that 50% would be group challenges, while it had been only two in the CFC1.
Now lets have a look at what happened here:
3. The-Pick-Your-Opponent-Challenge
The second challenge was basically an introduction to the game. Everyone should get to play and you should be able to evaluate others. (This challenge was supposed to be the first challenge but I was afraid about my reputation if I lost to one of your teams, so pulled the admin challenge ahead– won’t do that again ).
4. Why having a Group Challenge doesn't mean Everyone gets to Play
What happened here was like the worst stomping of a group I have ever seen. The zombies lost all straight through the bench and so it happened that two coaches out of the 7 ambassadors didn’t get to play. With the next group challenge two more zombies were down and defacto only 3 were left. So there was your group challenge but only 3 out of 7 could play. So it didn’t help that there was a group challenge. In fact, if there would have been more of this kind the gap between certain teams would have been even bigger, because once one team doesn’t get games or gets shredder, there is not really a point for the group to ever put it up again for play.
5. Balanced teams VS Intrigue and Cooperation
Now I could fix this by evening the groups out in numbers like I did before. The idea behind keeping people in the same groups was to create a stronger bond between them and to focus more on the strategy part. You have to see that the CFC is more of a social game with elements of bloodbowl in between and less of just a blood bowl tourney with social components.
At least that’s how it looks to me from the outside. The games are more like an insignificant interlude, the votes are where the real game starts.
6. The idea behind the challenges
Every single challenge I placed in the tournament with the thought in mind to have two groups competing against each other with coaches where every single one actually wants to win the tournament and not just the next game. The most exemplary example of such a play stile I saw from JimmyFantastic in the CFC1 who would openly exploit weaknesses in the rules to avoid elimination games. He did use his votes to get rathe more games too, but that wasn't that essential to him and he worked probably the hardest to reach the end of the tournament and won it very deservingly. However it is not for me to question the strategies other people use. I’d rather adapt the game to their mindset than insisting on having it run in a way that doesn’t seem to work.
7. Quick Challenges (Vote people off quickly and move on)
Challenges like the anarchy challenge have the main advantage that they are very quick. The idea is to resolve them in a days time and to move on. It’s basically about kicking coaches off very quickly and to move on. So this kind of challenges I really like to have in the mix.
8. Understanding who is my friend
The representative challenge is a very interesting one for those who play the tournament seriously and actually try to win it, because it shows a lot of different patterns in voting behavior than you would see from unanimous votes to get rid of group members.
I’m absolutely willing to try something different and maybe pick up that suggestion to bring in even more group challenges. I think I will keep the quick challenges like anarchy challenge. I’ll keep the admin c hallenge probably put it later in schedule. The second best challenge isn’t really necessary. The random challenge we could probably get rid of in it’s current form a replace it by a challenge involving the whole group.
9. Conclusion
So I would still need ideas for 3 more challenges, potentially one from the list of challenges for the surprise challenge listed on the group page.
10. Ideas for Group Names
But even more important and the main reason why I made this thread: I really need some suggestions for some names of two groups competing against each other.
Could be anything like:
Skyscrapers VS Clouds
Communists VS Aliens
American Republicans VS Monarchists
Strawberry VS Earthworms
Fumbblers VS Cyanide |
|
|
Gritter
Joined: Jun 29, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 06, 2012 - 21:57 |
|
Ninjas v Pirates ! |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 06, 2012 - 22:28 |
|
I really liked the idea of the CFC and the voting, it was a shame that a lot of ppl didn't really seem to get involved with the strategy.
Don't know how you can encourage it tbh. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 06, 2012 - 22:51 |
|
This is a great league.
I really enjoyed the silliness & the voting.
In my experience with open leagues, people seldom have the motivation to arrange unscheduled games, or here, use the tokens.
I would suggest working in a system that matches them more.
I think part of the problem is that people devote different amounts of time to fumbbl, and people are playing from different time zones.
If you make the game mandatory, they are more likely to get played.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Thanks for the Challenges, Wreckage. This was one of the most unique, and fun leagues I have participated in. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Claw/MB
Search
