2nd FFA, Signups open!!! March 23 (sun)

[delinquent]

Perhaps, then, the answer is not autonomy, but a limit on how many times a captain may pick the same player. For example:

DGM picks Fipp, Fofo, Sine, Panther and Monkey for his team in FFA3. Come FFA4, regardless of their success in FFA3, DGM cannot pick any of these five players for a minimum of two tournaments.

Better?

[takburger]

Good luck implementing those conditions into picking without confusion.

[Monkey]

I'll give my opinions on all of this.

1) I actually agree with delinquent in that I like the idea of randomised teams. Here are my reasons why:

a) It's simpler and much less hassle. No need for discussions about how many times a player has played for a captain previously. No need for bot programming. No confusion.
b) Some captains don't even properly know the standard of the players they are picking while others do.
c) The idea of FFA is to bring new players to fortress. If we are achieving this then the captains will know even less about the players that they are picking.
d) Some captains are still picking players from their clans or players that they know well, just because they know them well.
e) So what if the teams aren't exactly even, randomisation will still produce much fairer teams than what we have for the Ladle anyway and no tournament that I know of in real life has exactly equal teams.

2) I think that one month is plenty of time to signup for this. In fact, I think we could reduce the signup period even more; to possibly two weeks?

3) Most importantly, I don't believe that we are attracting enough new players. We need to get this tournament advertised on as many servers as possible at least a couple of weeks before it happens. I know of some people that would have played in this that are fairly new to fort, but still good enough to play in it, who didn't know about it.

[Cadillac_]

Just saying, that makes no sencs.(I have no clue how to spell that .-.)
It's not like this tourney happens that often, if he can't have them for two tourneys, that's going to be at least a year. This would barely fix any problems at all. This would make picking a nightmare, and it's not like this tournament is going to bring a noticeable amount of new players.
I'd write more, but my phone keyboard is to small.

[takburger]

I'll give my opinions on all of this.

1) I actually agree with delinquent in that I like the idea of randomised teams. Here are my reasons why:

a) It's simpler and much less hassle. No need for discussions about how many times a player has played for a captain previously. No need for bot programming. No confusion.
b) Some captains don't even properly know the standard of the players they are picking while others do.
c) The idea of FFA is to bring new players to fortress. If we are achieving this then the captains will know even less about the players that they are picking.
d) Some captains are still picking players from their clans or players that they know well, just because they know them well.
e) So what if the teams aren't exactly even, randomisation will still produce much fairer teams than what we have for the Ladle anyway and no tournament that I know of in real life has exactly equal teams.

2) I think that one month is plenty of time to signup for this. In fact, I think we could reduce the signup period even more; to possibly two weeks?

3) Most importantly, I don't believe that we are attracting enough new players. We need to get this tournament advertised on as many servers as possible at least a couple of weeks before it happens. I know of some people that would have played in this that are fairly new to fort, but still good enough to play in it, who didn't know about it.

Why would you captain if you do not know the players. It is utterly stupid. #yoloswag i'm gonna captain!!!

Just try to randomize last FFA and see if the teams look better than what they were.

[sinewav]

Tak, I'm sorry I wasn't clear, but I quoted you in agreement. Yes, it seems like this event makes it so pros carry noobs to the finals, but that's not really what happens. What actually happens is the teams become, as a whole, more or less average.

Also, after thinking about it more, I can see how partial or full randomization would be good too. The downside of that is the chance you wind up on a team with a bunch of people you can't stand to play with, haha.

So yeah, I guess I don't really care one way or another. The most important thing is to create a working system so we don't lose players due to frustration in the picking process.

Looking forward to FFA3.

[Monkey]

Why would you captain if you do not know the players. It is utterly stupid.

No, it's not utterly stupid at all. The point of having captains is for much more than just picking players. Captains have to organise and lead their teams from beginning to end, however long or short that process may be. This includes educating less experienced players on many issues, sorting out team formation, applying tactics, starting matches when players are ready, etc....the list goes on.

By randomising teams we take away the requirement that captains must know all of the players in the list, which if all goes well could be a long list.

Just try to randomize last FFA and see if the teams look better than what they were.

Even though the teams were well balanced in terms of skill, some teams (including mine) had some players that were picked because the captain knew them well. Randomisation would lessen the likelyhood of this happening and therefore make for a more interesting and varied tournament. Also, I really do think that randomisation would produce teams that are fairly well balanced in terms of skill. Who cares if they aren't 100% perfectly balanced...the pros of randomisation outweight the cons.

[Titanoboa]

say Captain A and Player X can't get along at all. If on the same team, it'd become a horrible experience for the two of them, as well as the other poor sobs on that team. Captain B and Player Y have a similar relationship. A and Y are buddies though, and so are B and X.

Captain A would never pick Player X, ever. Captain B wouldn't pick Player Y. But with randomization?

The point of having captains is for much more than just picking players. Captains have to organise and lead their teams from beginning to end, however long or short that process may be. This includes educating less experienced players on many issues, sorting out team formation, applying tactics, starting matches when players are ready, etc....the list goes on.

This is a great argument against randomized teams. Any captain would prefer – and do their job better with – a team that they picked themselves.

[takburger]

say Captain A and Player X can't get along at all. If on the same team, it'd become a horrible experience for the two of them, as well as the other poor sobs on that team. Captain B and Player Y have a similar relationship. A and Y are buddies though, and so are B and X.

Captain A would never pick Player X, ever. Captain B wouldn't pick Player Y. But with randomization?

The point of having captains is for much more than just picking players. Captains have to organise and lead their teams from beginning to end, however long or short that process may be. This includes educating less experienced players on many issues, sorting out team formation, applying tactics, starting matches when players are ready, etc....the list goes on.

This is a great argument against randomized teams. Any captain would prefer – and do their job better with – a team that they picked themselves.

I totally agree. Yet Jericho and me do not get along well at all and I got picked we won tho

[Titanoboa]

perhaps a google spreadsheet would work better than this?

Perhaps this is a great idea. So I made one for you guys to check out and evaluate.

Anyone with the link can edit: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

How To:
List the captains on the B column. Use their number from the A column and place it to the left of a player's name. All 1's should automatically turn red, all 5's green etc, for an easy overview. That player's name is also automatically added to the "Team members" list. Unfortunately, in the order they're listed; not in the picking order. The number of players on your team is in the D column, so you don't have to count the names on the list to see if someone missed a pick or picked twice.

It currently has room for 20 captains, 80 players and 20 substitutes. Making room for more players doesn't take more than a little while, so don't worry about that.

One downside, or so I thought, with a spreadsheet rather than !adding on irc, is having to manually add all the player names. It took me less than 3 minutes at a lazy pace, so really not an issue.


Check it out. What is it missing?

I think it will make it easy for the captains, and anyone can watch it updating live while they're picking.

I guess there's 2 ways to use it: Either all captains are given access to edit the thing themselves, or they pick on irc while watching the spreadsheet and an "admin" updates the spreadsheet.

[delinquent]

OK, before we get onto the organisational aspects of the tournament, I think we should have a poll as to how the distribution method will proceed. I'd rather have a poll than decide on the merits of four or five people's arguments, primarily as I'm not sure how many people are actually watching this thread.

-----------------

The poll is here.

[Cadillac_]

say Captain A and Player X can't get along at all. If on the same team, it'd become a horrible experience for the two of them, as well as the other poor sobs on that team. Captain B and Player Y have a similar relationship. A and Y are buddies though, and so are B and X.

Captain A would never pick Player X, ever. Captain B wouldn't pick Player Y. But with randomization?

Aramalgebra II
I wonder if I can get college credit?

[takburger]

say Captain A and Player X can't get along at all. If on the same team, it'd become a horrible experience for the two of them, as well as the other poor sobs on that team. Captain B and Player Y have a similar relationship. A and Y are buddies though, and so are B and X.

Captain A would never pick Player X, ever. Captain B wouldn't pick Player Y. But with randomization?

Aramalgebra II
I wonder if I can get college credit?

I just came into that on a class I gave today. For France it is for first year in high school (16 years old student). This problem is rather easy if you have data, here you have no data to deal with, so it is just a representation you can do in your mind.

So Captain A would never pick Player X --> probability of picking is 0. (unless he is the last to pick and so the captain is ******) <-- cannot do better calculation (unless thesis level in maths) because captains do not have a random pick ofc
Captain B would not pick player Y --> probability of picking is 0. (unless he is the last ......) <-- cannot do better calculation (unless thesis level in maths) because captains do not have a random pick ofc

With randomization: probability of picking is different of 0 by definition. And logically higher than the probability of the player to be last pick (unless there is only 1 pick to do in which case both probabilities are equal and equal to 1.)

[newbie]

I believe the FFA is a reaction the impossibility of new players having any real success in Ladle due to the extreme gap in skill (...)

IMO for new players one could make a MiniLadle tournament, one week before the Ladle. Only players without any ladle wins would be allowed to play.

[-*inS*-]

Single elimination is completely at odds with an event designed to bring new players into fortress.