| Poll |
| Do you want major/ minor tourneys in [B]lack Box? |
| Yes |
|
68% |
[ 134 ] |
| No |
|
31% |
[ 61 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 195 |
|
WardenUSA
Joined: Jan 24, 2008
|
 Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 09:23 |
 
|
I know I would love to play in tournys. We would need to come up with fair ways to set it up, but there is no reason there should not be tourneys. I know I WOULD gladly help |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 14:42 |
|
I think that a version of Snappys proposal would suit Blackbox the best. I'd offer people places based on their BR or implement team BR.
However, it would be great if you could make some sort of competitive provision for coaches who arent ever going to reach that top 32 (or who know they arent going to make it this time round). I'm guessing that this might take the form of a TR200 capped tournament or some sort of similar deal so everyone could get a piece of the action. Or perhaps it could look like this...
- massive KO tournament where everyone can enter
- each round a scheduler figures out the best matches between coaches and schedules the best looking match (perhaps in the final both coaches could use any team they like)
- players can keep playing between rounds but wont be matched up with the team they are currently using
That would mean everyone would be able to enter at least one tournament. Mind you, the BR exclusive tournament would still be intended to hold equal prestige, just getting the entry ticket would be huge in itself. |
_________________
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." |
|
cstar
Joined: Jul 10, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 15:15 |
|
| Quote: |
And tournaments in B might be fun... but I really don't see the point personally. Every game is like another tournament game anyway. What's the point?
|
The prizes are cool and it adds some extra excitement. Would also bring some more people to [b]. I know christer doesn't want to work on any majors but i wonder if he would be opposed to someone else doing it. Either just a copy of the existing majors with a [b] in front of them ( [B]Warpstone Open etc) Hopefully these start to run soon because they would be a more competitive medium and I think its needed. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 15:22 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | Or perhaps it could look like this...
- massive KO tournament where everyone can enter
- each round a scheduler figures out the best matches between coaches and schedules the best looking match (perhaps in the final both coaches could use any team they like)
- players can keep playing between rounds but wont be matched up with the team they are currently using
|
I was thinking something along the lines of a TS based KO tournmaent... but how do you deal with someone who doesn't get matched in a round, though? Are you out of the tournament? |
_________________
\x/es |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 15:37 |
|
Obviously the algorithm would have to be adapted, you'd program it such that it wont leave anyone out. In larger rounds this shouldnt be a problem but you would have to have a contingency plan for smaller tournaments. |
_________________
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." |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 17:25 |
|
That's a good point about increasing participation, Sillysod.
What if there were, say, 3 brackets? Like the top 32 coaches go in to one bracket, then next 32 the next one, and the next 32 the bottom one. That gives the top 96 coaches a shot at some silverware (and still conveniently leaves a good portion of the coaches who don't belong there on the outside). However you want to slice it, I feel that one should 'earn' their way in to any [B] tourney. It is the most competitive division, after all.
This would add another dimension to "regular" play as well, as teams on the bubbles try to improve their BR (or whatever) enough to get in, and teams just on the inside try to stay in. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
Nextflux
Joined: Jan 22, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 01:21 |
|
what if you don't want to enter a tourney ?
I think its better to keep it simple, apply for the tournament, and make it impossible for the team who applied to get games in the blackbox....
Having a coach based tourney instead of a team based is a bad idea, because it would be boring.. since the same coaches will just play eachother each tournament, if its 96 coaches it might help a little.. but still.. it needs lots of more thinking to make it a coach based tourney, maybe too much..
What is wrong with simple anyway ? |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 01:40 |
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: | That's a good point about increasing participation, Sillysod.
What if there were, say, 3 brackets? Like the top 32 coaches go in to one bracket, then next 32 the next one, and the next 32 the bottom one. That gives the top 96 coaches a shot at some silverware (and still conveniently leaves a good portion of the coaches who don't belong there on the outside). However you want to slice it, I feel that one should 'earn' their way in to any [B] tourney. It is the most competitive division, after all.
This would add another dimension to "regular" play as well, as teams on the bubbles try to improve their BR (or whatever) enough to get in, and teams just on the inside try to stay in. |
Nah, have two tournaments. One is your big kudos elite tourney and the other(s) are there to give everyone something to compete in. One of the things people say they dont like about Blackbox is that there is currently no apparent aim or goal to strive to, if you create a goal but put it too far out of reach for the majority of the site then you probably havent solved that problem. |
_________________
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." |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 02:45 |
|
frankly, if you can't make it in to the top 100 coaches (or 96, or whatever), you don't really have any business being in a "major".
That's one of the flaws of the "give everyone a chance with the ball" mentality. You see it in Ranked all the time. At least a fifth of the teams in a given major have no business being in a major.
There seems to be a vocal group who want very much to make Black box in to Ranked 2.0. if that's the will of the people, then whatever, but I have to think that we can do a little better than that.
A couple side points: 96 was just a number. If we want to break it down differently, that's easy enough to do. Just make the brackets bigger, or have more of them (or less, whatever).
As for team entry vs coach entry, what I'm trying to work around is that one team that had the luck of rolling 14 +STs on 20 rolls coming in and steam rolling opponents not through superior skill, but through superior skill rolls. Make it about the coach, not some freak team with 3 ST 5 CW and 4 Claw/RSC Beastmen.
As for who does/does not want to enter a tourney, easy fix. There's a cut off date, say, 1 week before the scheduled start. On that day, PMs go out to the top 32 teams (or 64, or 1032, or....). The coaches have 5 days to msg back they want in. If they don't, their places get passed to the next ones down in line (If the tourneys start simultaneously, then you just bump the required number up), and invites go out to the people on the bottom looking in, who have a day to respond. If they don't, then the next people get an invite.
This is just off the top of my head, mind you, but I'd say it's a pretty elegant solution. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
Nextflux
Joined: Jan 22, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 03:04 |
|
Hmm, I see your point in keeping blackbox different than ranked, so if it is possible to come up with a good solution to this it will be to everyones benefit.
maybe not everyone has anything to do in a major, but still, it is fun to participiate,
getting among the top 100 is still a big problem for most of us, just take a look at ranked and see that there is many super players who are not among the top 100..
sometime in the future it might be the same in blackbox..(extreamly hard to become one of the top 100... maybe too ahrd so it will reduce the "competive enviroment" you want to create.
I still think coach entry is bad, I like the idea but is it really possible to still have fun both watching and playing ? how to do this?
you enter with all your blackbox teams ? what is the point in having rookie teams in blackbox then, they would just be useless so you would delete them
and keep that power team only with 14+ST and 4 claw/rcs beastmen anyway. |
|
|
Espionage
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 04:11 |
|
My only worry about having the tourney based on br is that this will discourage coaches from playing with any of the weaker races, further increasing the number of orc and dwarf teams, and making [b] boring. perhaps if you could nominate 3 or 4 teams that counted for br, and which would be entered in the tourney? |
Last edited by Espionage on %b %14, %2009 - %05:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 04:15 |
|
I think you misunderstand me. A rookie team would be matched by bowlbot to another rookie team (ideally). The point is to not simply have one good team, and be good with that team, but to be a good coach at all levels.
And I think you're fixating too much on the numbers. If we decide that the top half, or top third, or top 5% is who we want in, we can adjust the numbers accordingly (that part was right off the top of my head).
whatever the criteria, you should have to earn your way in to a major. Not simply show up to give an easy win to your opponent. What this does is make the day to day play more important, not less. Because every game you play moves you closer or further away from a tourney (or if you're good, a better tourney), you can't afford to sit and build your team, avoiding injuries, planning for the long term. You have to win. I'm sorry, but a coach with a [B] record of say 5/14/88 has no business being in a major, no matter how many doubles he's rolled on skills.
And I would be hesitant to use Ranked to make a point about "ranking", as there are many coaches who don't belong in the top 100 who are, and vice versa. Because it's an open environment, it is very possible to have a very impressive CR, without ever playing any worthy opponents (before you Ranked Fans get your panties in a twist, yes, many of you earned your CR. But there's also more than a few of you who didn't). |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 04:52 |
|
Added point: That is a good point, Espionage. But if everyone played Dwarfs, the coach who played Elves and won (even if there was a turnover of a new elf team every 8 games) would be way ahead in BR. My winningest team in [B] atm is my goblins. So it isn't as simple as more dwarfs if you make the league competitive, because team building matters less than getting the win. Now, this will mean less Vampires and Halflings. But be serious, how many Vampires and halflings are there in [B]? |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
Nextflux
Joined: Jan 22, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 05:41 |
|
ok, if a system is designed to pick one of your teams vs one of the opponent teams within the same restrictions that exist in blackbox in a toruney,
then it is a good way of solving this, and still keep the difference between ranked and blackbox.
actually very good.
Still it doesnt remove the possibility of someone suddenly deleting all their teams except their power team, both during the tourney and prior the tourney
Though it might not be a big problem, rather just something you can do..
someone might call it cheating others might call it strategy ?
I suppose it is possible to restrict this though, making it a minimum team entry (without the possibility to delete the teams)
another minor issue is: are you allowed to play your other teams while you wait for your opponent in the tourney to show?
if you enter with all your teams, will you not be able to play blackbox? or rather it is free play all the way..
free play should work I think ??
I still think it is easier to apply to the tourney, instead of sending pm to top coaches, mostly because of the administration time it will take.
what about this suggestion:(dont know if it has been suggested)
Qualifying rounds will be played at a time, example : every 6 hour on the hour. (or every 12th hour, what not)
Then all who applies at that time participiates in the qualifier until you have a certain tourney number (like 64, or 32)
the ones who fail to qualify will not be scheduled on another Qualifier, while the ones who qualified await a normal draw (like in ranked)
(though.. any of their teams can be drawn to play within the same criteria as blackbox)
left over places in the qualifier (if there is 10 coaches and only to seats left in the tourney) could just be solved randomly among the winners of the last round,
this might push people to apply to qualifier sooner rather than later.) |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2009 - 07:45 |
|
ah, but then they only have one team, and if it gets damaged (mng, Rips, whatever), the coach has no option but to play on with it. Whereas the other coach who has, say 6 teams, has a good chance of having a fresh team each round (fresher). So there is a little strategy to it.
As for the mechanics, well, I'd say it's a little premature to get bogged down in that. Let's get a consensus as to what a [B] major should look like (in the broad strokes), then we can quibble over the details. I have a couple different ideas about what the tourney will look like, what with locking teams up and so on, but I haven't thought it through enough yet (I'm supposed to be studying for the LSAT, so not much time until Feb for such things) |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
