|
Post by Fleck on Mar 5, 2014 22:58:32 GMT -8
The group style would only be 5 rounds (3 rounds of 3 in group, and then a 4-team, two round elimination bracket). And considering the last tourney went to six rounds (an extra round because of the fact that the winners/losers brackets are staggered), we're actually having a shorter tourney this way.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Mar 6, 2014 7:10:46 GMT -8
We could also do a point-system tournament at some point. I'm planning to use this format for any games we sponsor as a Game Club at my school. Idea being we have a set number of rounds (4-ish, perhaps) and keep pitting the highest win-counts against each other. So the first round (assuming 8 enter, not 9), we'll have 4 winners (1 point) and 4 losers (0 points). In the next round, we put all teams with 1 point into a random bracket and all teams with 0 into a bracket. Next round, of the four with 1 point, two will come out with 2 points and two will remain at 1. Of the losers in the 0 bracket, now two of them will have 1 point, while two stay at 0. Maybe three of these rounds happen, followed by a round of 4. Haven't done the scenarios to see how points will work, but the nice thing about the system is that teams of similar abilities play each other. If your team isn't top of the league, then you won't play with the top of the league, so all matches are fairly even.
Also, whenever possible, we can forgo the randomness and just put teams by different players against each other. So if I have two teams in the 1-point bracket and there are two other teams in the bracket, then we'll rig it so that my teams don't play each other. Not an entirely-avoided scenario, but more avoidable than normal, plus when it can't be avoided (both teams at top or bottom), it isn't going to change much anyway. If I've got the two best, then so be it. Resting my goalie would really only be an advantage against my top or bottom team, y'know?
Not saying this could/should replace Fleck's idea, but just another idea for the future.
|
|
|
Post by monsoonexe on Mar 6, 2014 17:04:01 GMT -8
If we're not going to do an elimination tournament, I would go for the point-base system.
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on Mar 6, 2014 19:18:11 GMT -8
Well, the thing about the point system is that it makes seeding from the league irrelevant. Right now, seeding doesn't do TOO much, but I would still like some carryover from the league to the tournament, rather than just have them be two separate things. It would also require us to keep one team out of the tournament (unless Rich adds a team so we can have an even 10).
Also, I would need a lot of 'splaining in order to understand the points. From what I can see, there's two ways to determine a winner. Either we can have a predetermined number of rounds and then the team with the highest score at the end is the winner, or we can have a predetermined finish line and say "the first team to reach X number of points wins." Here's my questions for both of those scenarios.
If we go with a set number of rounds, what happens if two or more teams end up with the same number of point at the end? Do we have tiebreaker games? What if three teams all tie?
If we go with a set number of points, I have two questions. Question 1 is the same as the above question: what to do in the event of a tie. But the second one is a little more tricky. What do we do if one team pulls ahead of the rest? At some point, an undefeated team will emerge, and everyone else, by default, will be one point or more down. So then how do we determine which team faces the top team? Obviously, we would go with second best, but wouldn't that mean that the same two teams keep butting heads, especially if they alternate wins? Say, for instance, we have two undefeated 3-0 teams. Team A wins and goes 4-0, and Team B is 3-1. Now there are no teams left that are 4-0, so Team A has to face the second best.... which is Team B again.
Well, you could say, "We can just stop the tournament at 4 games, so the 4-0 team wins the tournament." But that's just a single-elimination bracket, like we've been doing all along. The points are irrelevant and confusing in that case.
And then you have the problem, in both cases, about what to do about bottom teams. When do we say, "you are no longer in contention to win" and drop them from the tournament? Or do we let them play to the end, just to have the complete list?
The way I see it, the only advantage of the point system is that it is a nifty way to organize matchups between teams mid-tourney, but I don't think it really addresses any of the problems that we have.
|
|
|
Post by countlieberkuhn on Mar 6, 2014 20:22:16 GMT -8
Since I've been busy with university, y'all are gonna have to give me the concise run-down of your decisions once you've agreed on something! I'll just enter my 2 teams which I consider at this stage to be whipping boys, but somewhat threatening ones into the next league
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Mar 6, 2014 21:11:27 GMT -8
I need to think about the point system, but my thought was that we'd go maybe three or four rounds, then call it done. I like the point system because it organizes people by their skill. They used it at a Magic tournament, but that has more people than we do. It's generally a way to truly organize your teams and see where they fall in ranking. Basically, the point breakdowns will be as follows (in total wins):
Round 1: 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0 Round 2: 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0 Round 3: 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0 Round 4: (Varies)
At Round 4, you might have somebody emerge as the super victor numba one with 4 wins, but you also might end up with like, 3 3-win teams. Possibilities could include the top 2-4 teams being chosen when that many people have cleared that many wins, so maybe at Round 3, we say that the team with 3 wins has qualified, while the one with 0 is eliminated, then just keep repeating until 4 3-win teams are found, then a quick 2-round finale ftw.
The thing I like about points is that a loss right away doesn't mean failure (depending on the structure), but it definitely makes it harder. Plus, you're grouped by ability, not by random luck (initially we'd place by seeding, but probably swap around any same-player teams. Also, it has options so that if we have 4 1-win teams and two are mine, we can just say "nuh uh, they no play each other" (again, unless that's impossible, but that's unlikely).
I'm just tossing the idea out there. Not saying we have to go with it. I like ideas where everybody plays though. Poor Count has been out of the game for awhile, same with Wyvern, since they were eliminated. This way, they still stand a chance and play all the way up till the final four, which, like Fleck mentioned, is maybe a week.
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on Mar 6, 2014 22:47:26 GMT -8
Alright, I'll go for the point system. It seems to be a little more bookkeeping and, correct me if I'm wrong, but Challonge doesn't support this style of tournament, right? (My style, the group style, isn't supported either, so I'm not using this as a point against your system). But if you're okay with that, that's fine.
My last question before we seal the deal is this: what happens if Rich picks up a second team? We can't go in with 10 teams, because the second round will be 5 1-point teams and 5 0-point teams. Well, I mean, I guess we COULD do that.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Mar 6, 2014 22:54:28 GMT -8
We can adjust, it'll just mean a randomly picked team goes against a one-win team. We might just have the highest seeded 0-win team face the lowest seeded 1-win team or something like that.
And correct, no Challonge, which is a shame, but I'm thinking I might make a program to track wins and randomize placement (I'm planning to write the program for the Game Club anyway, so it's not a big deal).
But sure, if everybody's on board, we can do the point system. I wasn't meaning to steal attention away from the groups idea, since I liked that, too, but if people favor this, then that's cool by me.
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on Mar 6, 2014 23:40:05 GMT -8
I don't have strong feelings either way, so if you want to do points, that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by monsoonexe on Mar 10, 2014 7:36:48 GMT -8
I'm for the point system. The group-style, from the way I see it, is almost like doing two leagues just a little differently. The point system switches it up a little bit.
Also, I wasn't really planning on a second team just yet. I can wait another league if it will complicate things.
What other decisions need to be made before we start the next league?
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Mar 10, 2014 17:05:43 GMT -8
That's about it. Sorry, been meaning to do a "starting on X day" post, but haven't gotten to it. I'm thinking if all teams are ready by Sunday, we can have the first game then. So also prepare your game #1 line-ups. That means you'll play yourself round one (or the Goers in Rich's case).
|
|
|
Post by countlieberkuhn on Mar 11, 2014 23:25:23 GMT -8
SM7: Remade Balthier and Seifer.
MAG still pending potential changes!
|
|