FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Rijssiej

Joined: Jan 04, 2005

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 17:17

TheCetusProject wrote:

Why must it be a knockout competition?

Because experience with other formats have shown that the knock out format is the best format for tourneys like this. The problem with other formats is that coaches that don't have a chance to win anymore have to play more games in the tourney which makes it no fun for them and makes it much more likely that they will either not play or just concede.

BooAhl

Joined: Sep 02, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 17:32

Rijssiej wrote:

...

It will be impossible to anticipate availability to play games as you can't play ahead in this format (matches will be scheduled after all games are played).
The teams must be frozen after the draw is made each round as not doing this would favor having cash and buying stars after the draw to imbalance the matchups. This means that one can't prepare their team vs a specific opponent (like getting a wiz vs dwarfs) unless one spends time checking all the teams and predict what the opponent might be and prepare for playing against that. This means that coaches that spend a lot of time checking all the teams and predicting the matchups get an advantage over coaches that don't. I don't think this should be part of playing in a tournament.

For this reasons I would prefer to use the tried and tested ranked way of scheduling the tournaments.

I think you are wrong there Rij (14 [B] games), To not be able to play forward and not be able to optimize with wizz or Zara is the charm of the Black Box. Of course it takes away some of the meta gaming, but it also makes it more fun.
The tourney will be more on focusing on your team instead of optimizing vs your next opponent.
This will be the difference between R and B tourneys.

My 2 cents.

BooAhl (24 [B] games)

DukeTyrion

Joined: Feb 18, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 17:54

I think I agree with Rij.

DukeT (265 [B] games) Razz

On1

Joined: Jul 12, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 18:04

DukeTyrion wrote:

I think I agree with Rij.

DukeT (265 [B] games) Razz

I think i agree with myself. 330 [B] games.

Loew

Joined: Feb 02, 2005

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 18:21

i still think it would give the most black-boxish feeling if the draws were made on a coach basis, not on a team basis:
a coach does not enter one team as the tournament team, instead he enters himself and states which of his teams should play in the tournament (i think we need a minimum limit here, let's say each coach must at least enter 3 teams). This teams may only play in the tournament, as long as the coach is in.

for scheduling and prizes take CS3 nice ideas (although I think that a big prize demands a big tournament - no good player as prize for a 16 man tournament)

DukeTyrion

Joined: Feb 18, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 18:25

Loew wrote:

i still think it would give the most black-boxish feeling if the draws were made on a coach basis, not on a team basis:
a coach does not enter one team as the tournament team, instead he enters himself and states which of his teams should play in the tournament (i think we need a minimum limit here, let's say each coach must at least enter 3 teams). This teams may only play in the tournament, as long as the coach is in.

for scheduling and prizes take CS3 nice ideas (although I think that a big prize demands a big tournament - no good player as prize for a 16 man tournament)

So you wish to exclude anyone with only 2 teams and create a tournament which would be a nightmare for the admin running it?

TheCetusProject

Joined: May 25, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 18:32

Rijssiej wrote:

TheCetusProject wrote:

Why must it be a knockout competition?

Because experience with other formats have shown that the knock out format is the best format for tourneys like this. The problem with other formats is that coaches that don't have a chance to win anymore have to play more games in the tourney which makes it no fun for them and makes it much more likely that they will either not play or just concede.

What losers.

CorporateSlave3

Joined: Feb 07, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 18:59

Rijssiej wrote:

Why try to come up with something new that is likely to not work as good when there are good formats available. Just to try out?

...um...YES.

No offense Rijssiej, but wow. Are you really saying that we should never try anything new simply because it might not work? Most things don't work that well the first time around, and have to be tweaked a bit. But you don't know until you try...

Frankly, I specifically steered clear of the Ranked format for scheduling precisely because it has been tried and tested...BlackBox is new, and I (and apparently, others as well, if the poll results and forum posts are to be believed) wanted to try a new kind of tournament made just for BlackBox. Why try something "new" if you're only repeating exactly what has come before? (Though in this case, trying to plug a format 'tried and tested' under a different system into a new system - where it again must be tried and tested...)

The whole idea is a tournament that takes full advantage of the 'flavor' of BlackBox, by actually using the BlackBox in the tournament. TR cap, limit the prizes, whatever is fine. But what is the harm in trying something new? It's not like someone's firstborn has to die if people decide after trying it that this format just doesn't work well.

I mean, there is a more-or-less general consensus that the Ranked style of play works pretty well, yes? I mean, it is by far the most popular division. So I take it you were against implementing the BlackBox division as well when it was being proposed? Why try this new system when you have one that works already? (yes, it had, and arguably still has, some bugs in it...but a lot of coaches really like playing in the division)

Besides, is there really any reason BlackBox could not host one of each type of tournament?

I do hear the argument that some admin actually has to run the thing. But guys, if the main reason you don't want to do a BlackBox tournament is that you don't have the time or inclination to put the effort into something new then fine, but how about just letting us know so we don't keep wasting our time thinking of ways to make something work that no-one intends to ever implement anyway?

DukeTyrion wrote:

So you wish to exclude anyone with only 2 teams and create a tournament which would be a nightmare for the admin running it?

Well, in Ranked tournaments you (effectively) exclude the coaches that didn't have time to pimp up their teams beforehand. Many have a lower TR cap...that excludes a bunch of coaches as well. Frankly, I don't even see it as a downside if a coach is excluded from a BlackBox tournament due to not having 3 teams. It just becomes the BlackBox version of not having your Ranked team developed enough for the Majors.

If I am understanding Loew correctly, I am not sure just how much of a 'nightmare' a coach based tournament would really be...isn't he just saying force a coach entering a tournament to select multiple teams, then use the one matched up by the scheduler to to play each round? Wouldn't this be relatively transparent from and admin point of view? The scheduler is doing the scheduling using the teams that the coach activates. Of course, I must admit that maybe there is something I am missing that a tournament admin has to do first, like manually activate teams to participate.

The coach based tournament is not exactly what I had in mind, but it is also an interesting concept.

It even makes me think that perhaps a nifty way to go would be to try out a variety of formats in BlackBox...one KO done like in Ranked, one using my system, a third using Loew's coach based draw, etc. Make each of the BlackBox 'Majors' entirely different from each other.

_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Loew

Joined: Feb 02, 2005

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 19:04

DukeTyrion wrote:

So you wish to exclude anyone with only 2 teams and create a tournament which would be a nightmare for the admin running it?

the numbers are just working examples...
of course it would need some tweaking

following that monster thread by On1 i got the impression that [B] coaches are the superior on this site, [B]is a division were not the team, but the coaching skills count...
so why copy [R]'s team-focus and don't go for a more coach/single-match-counts approach?

I don't know if it would be a nightmare for the admins, it would just run slightly different, maybe would need some programming - but I don't think it would be that much.

IMO it would be boring if the only difference between [B]and [R]tournaments would be that the teams were trained in [B] for the first and in [R] for the later.
btw. i see no difference between an orc team, that reached tr/ts 200+ with a bit of picking in 8/4/1 games and the orc team that reached the same hights simple by enduring through 4/5/30 games

(keep in mind that english is not my first language - parts of this may contain irony, but nothing is meant as rude)

Last edited by Loew on %b %11, %2009 - %19:%Jul; edited 1 time in total

CorporateSlave3

Joined: Feb 07, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 19:09

I thought a little more about what Rijssiej said, and while I realize that people don't usually try a new concept successfully without some prior consideration (planning, working on the design before building a prototype, etc.), I would like to point out that per the poll, there are at least 35 coaches willing to try a tournament using my format...which would lead to a decent sized KO tournament.

35 potential guinea pigs for a format that really only requires 16 or 32 for a reasonable alpha test.

Sure, make the prize for the first attempt a minor +1 FF and 50K winnings or something, cap the TR or TS at 180 or 200 or whatever. But since demand and participation seems to be a given, why not try it? Right now, the evidence seems to point to this not being a complete waste for the admins who would be giving their time towards working on the tournament...

_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

DukeTyrion

Joined: Feb 18, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 19:09

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

DukeTyrion wrote:

So you wish to exclude anyone with only 2 teams and create a tournament which would be a nightmare for the admin running it?

Well, in Ranked tournaments you (effectively) exclude the coaches that didn't have time to pimp up their teams beforehand. Many have a lower TR cap...that excludes a bunch of coaches as well. Frankly, I don't even see it as a downside if a coach is excluded from a BlackBox tournament due to not having 3 teams. It just becomes the BlackBox version of not having your Ranked team developed enough for the Majors.

I entered a Major with a non-pimped team, with no cash and got to a few round. As the great thing about majors, is many people should be able to enter.

Do you really think that every team that enters the majors is pimped?

DukeTyrion

Joined: Feb 18, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 19:11

Loew wrote:

[B]is a division were not the team, but the coaching skills count...

I do not agree, Blackbox is as much about the team as Ranked. The only difference between the two is that you cannot pick your opponent like in Ranked.

If it were about the coach, we would all be forced to have 21 teams, one of each race.

TheCetusProject

Joined: May 25, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 19:28

Just have three teams then. Since you can choose who you activate in normal play, there's no reason to only have one B team anymore.

CorporateSlave3

Joined: Feb 07, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 - 20:10

DukeTyrion wrote:

I entered a Major with a non-pimped team, with no cash and got to a few round. As the great thing about majors, is many people should be able to enter.

Do you really think that every team that enters the majors is pimped?

I think you mean many people should be eligible to apply. Every Major I hear about the coaches who are disappointed they didn't make the cut for some reason.

I've entered with 'non pimped teams' myself, so I know it can be done. Maybe a better word would have been 'developed' teams, since from what I recall, most if not all majors tend to have a lower TR limit to be eligible. My point is that it means some teams/coaches won't be eligible for a major for that reason in Ranked.

This is something of a tangent since it is a format that isn't what I had in mind, but t play the Devil's Advocate the way I would see it using Loew's idea is:

In Ranked if you want to enter a Major, develop a team in open play to TR 200 (or 180, or whatever the lower cutoff probably is - in some cases isn't it only determined by the TR of the teams that apply?).

In BlackBox if you want to enter the "random team" tournament, you need 3 teams to do it.

There would also theoretically be other tournaments where you didn't need 3 teams, using either my or another format.

_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

CorporateSlave3

Joined: Feb 07, 2004

Posted: Jul 12, 2009 - 02:53

One other thing, would it help if I said something to the tune of:

"If Fumbbl will use my basic tournament format*, I'll volunteer my time to run the bloody thing just to see if it works?"

*Tournament Names, Prizes, even TR caps open to negotiation if the Powers That Be feel any are too unbalanced. Just the basic use of the scheduler (each round) to seed a KO bracket is what I am talking about.

_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?