Here's how I would do it, if I were organizing the thing:
I. A pre-tournament round or "season" used to determine seeding of the bracket. This could be done a couple ways. (As Lucifer suggested, a "played game" could either be a single match or a best of three matches. I'd recommend a best of three.)
a) A basic round robin style. Every team plays every other team once.
b) "Conference play" style. Every team plays every other team twice.
II. Seeding. Whichever pre-tournament thing you choose, seeding is determined simply by number of games won. Best record gets the 1 seed; worst record gets the [last] seed.
Any ties should be broken by each team's record against the higher-ranked team(s). For example, if two teams are tied for the 3rd and 4th seeds, and Team A has more wins than Team B against the 1 and 2 seeds, then Team A gets the 3 seed. If somehow there is a tie in that respect, then it should be broken by greatest total margin of victory in all games won.
III. The Tournament. Right now it looks like you have 6 teams. This means that you should have a three round bracket with a first round opening, or "Wild Card," round in which the 1 and 2 seeds get a bye (making the "season" games more important), and the lower four seeds "play in" to the semi-finals. In the second, semi-final round, the 1 seed would get the lowest-seeded Wild Card winner. The bracket would look like this (note, the 1 does not necessarily play the winner of the 4/5 game):
<snip>
(If you end up having more or fewer teams, I can work one up for those situations as well. Eight teams wouldn't need a Wild Card round.)
I can't tell whether youse have decided to use a single server or several, and if several, whether to normalize the settings. But, consider this for added incentive and element: In the tourney, higher seeds get "home field/court advantage," which in this case means the choice of server. This could also apply to regular season play if you chose option (b), where each pair of games is split between each team's home server.
I saw officiating mentioned. I'm not sure exactly for what purpose you'd need refs, but if you do, gimme a holler. I might—might—be interested.
win the Tronic Spoon!
Moderator: Light
Well, Oscilloscope, that's basically the same thing i suggested, but better organized, so thanks 
In the end, no need to reinvent the wheel, just take organizing methods from established sports leagues, hehe.
I would throw conference style play out, just make this way too complicated.
I'm not sure what referees would be for yet, but whatever.
I think we've all already agreed that Z-Man's CVS Fortress will be the norm as far as the server settings go.
Something lucifer said about a finals week made me think up this thing that really shouldn't be implemented, at least not yet, and that's a "crunch" week. In this last week, losses would count as -1 instead of 0 points, and wins would count for 2 pts as opposed to 1 point. Neat thing would be, if a team is EXTREMELY self confident, they could gamble, try and put all their games in this one week, and maybe make a huge run to the top, even overtaking a more convservative team that played regular games.
As far as length of this tournament, it will definitely not be played in one day. I just don't have that time in one day, and I don't think anyone does. I'm a fan of stretching it out to a month, which gives enough time for, well everything. The dates for the playoffs don't even need to be set in stone, we could just start them as soon as the round-robin season is over.
The problem with regular times for the games and a short schedule is the irregular schedule of the players on the teams. Naturally, most of us would have time on weekends to play, but you heard Fonkay, she doesn't. So we would have to choose all sorts of times, that might not coincide with another team, except maybe the next week they would and blah blah blah.
It's just too complicated to try and block it all into a certain time, or at least a relatively small time, like a day (shudder) or a week. A month, on the other hand is more than long enough. We just need to make use of the Bot in the irc channels. I'm going to draw you a list of things that bot should be able to do, lucifer
next post, that is.
In the end, no need to reinvent the wheel, just take organizing methods from established sports leagues, hehe. I would throw conference style play out, just make this way too complicated.
I'm not sure what referees would be for yet, but whatever.
I think we've all already agreed that Z-Man's CVS Fortress will be the norm as far as the server settings go.
Something lucifer said about a finals week made me think up this thing that really shouldn't be implemented, at least not yet, and that's a "crunch" week. In this last week, losses would count as -1 instead of 0 points, and wins would count for 2 pts as opposed to 1 point. Neat thing would be, if a team is EXTREMELY self confident, they could gamble, try and put all their games in this one week, and maybe make a huge run to the top, even overtaking a more convservative team that played regular games.
As far as length of this tournament, it will definitely not be played in one day. I just don't have that time in one day, and I don't think anyone does. I'm a fan of stretching it out to a month, which gives enough time for, well everything. The dates for the playoffs don't even need to be set in stone, we could just start them as soon as the round-robin season is over.
The problem with regular times for the games and a short schedule is the irregular schedule of the players on the teams. Naturally, most of us would have time on weekends to play, but you heard Fonkay, she doesn't. So we would have to choose all sorts of times, that might not coincide with another team, except maybe the next week they would and blah blah blah.
It's just too complicated to try and block it all into a certain time, or at least a relatively small time, like a day (shudder) or a week. A month, on the other hand is more than long enough. We just need to make use of the Bot in the irc channels. I'm going to draw you a list of things that bot should be able to do, lucifer
next post, that is.
-
2020
- Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
- Location: the present, finally
ho hum
This is my last call to try to promote the self-organise-on-the-day-card because it is already looking a little top-heavy and to tell you the truth I don't quite understand why it has to be so complicated.
Image we are organising a football tournament, 1,000 teams with 1,000 football fields. The team-captains (though I don't quite like this term, I will use for the purposes of this note) gather together. They know of each other, they've played together, even on the same teams some of them. They pair off, get their respective teams to meet on an empty pitch. That's 500 games in the first round. Everybody done that, the remaining 500 team-captains get together and arrange another game.
The beautiful thing is, there is no seeding, no admin, no hassle, only the arrangements and agreement of the captains to play. Of course, some captains will want to play another team they think they are going to easily beat, they may wish to hold off playing against a team they hate but respect... all these kinds of decisions can be quite exciting. Of course, a team may be beaten, and then expected play-offs may not occur. Then again, for all those teams that lose, there are plenty of available pitches, so losing teams can reorganise to play "friendlies" on the day while the winners continue arranging matches.
I think the major difference is, there is no set initial positions on a seeded tree. We just turn up, and who-ever turns up, self-organise their games, and a tree is formed, until two teams end up in the finals...
One last comment which I would like to address. Some people have suggested we should use existing systems that work in sports. Yes... we could... Indeed the Football World Cup takes 4 years to organise by FIFA, and the finals themselves take a month. But this is limited by players playing in national leagues, the physical availability of teams, the physical resources required to house them and stadia to host the games. Well, since Armagetron is virtual, and the only thing we have to arrange really is a time, perhaps it is possible to do things a lot faster and more efficiently...
That's my two-bits worth, and I hope you like the fact I am writing in a "normal" style so everyone has an opportunity to see how it could work... and of course present objections...
Image we are organising a football tournament, 1,000 teams with 1,000 football fields. The team-captains (though I don't quite like this term, I will use for the purposes of this note) gather together. They know of each other, they've played together, even on the same teams some of them. They pair off, get their respective teams to meet on an empty pitch. That's 500 games in the first round. Everybody done that, the remaining 500 team-captains get together and arrange another game.
The beautiful thing is, there is no seeding, no admin, no hassle, only the arrangements and agreement of the captains to play. Of course, some captains will want to play another team they think they are going to easily beat, they may wish to hold off playing against a team they hate but respect... all these kinds of decisions can be quite exciting. Of course, a team may be beaten, and then expected play-offs may not occur. Then again, for all those teams that lose, there are plenty of available pitches, so losing teams can reorganise to play "friendlies" on the day while the winners continue arranging matches.
I think the major difference is, there is no set initial positions on a seeded tree. We just turn up, and who-ever turns up, self-organise their games, and a tree is formed, until two teams end up in the finals...
One last comment which I would like to address. Some people have suggested we should use existing systems that work in sports. Yes... we could... Indeed the Football World Cup takes 4 years to organise by FIFA, and the finals themselves take a month. But this is limited by players playing in national leagues, the physical availability of teams, the physical resources required to house them and stadia to host the games. Well, since Armagetron is virtual, and the only thing we have to arrange really is a time, perhaps it is possible to do things a lot faster and more efficiently...
That's my two-bits worth, and I hope you like the fact I am writing in a "normal" style so everyone has an opportunity to see how it could work... and of course present objections...
hold the line
-
2020
- Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
- Location: the present, finally
ok one more thing...
since i won't be checking over the next few days
i just wanted to add an idea i had
which seemed relevant when playing dr joe tron tonight:
http://wiki.armagetronad.net/index.php/ ... in_one_day
there is also an additional related idea
though since it is not directly related to the thread
i placed it here:
http://wiki.armagetronad.net/index.php/Ruminations
i would love to hear what others have to say about the ideas
since we have a few active participants here
and i am thinking we are nearing a point to go for a poll...?
i just wanted to add an idea i had
which seemed relevant when playing dr joe tron tonight:
http://wiki.armagetronad.net/index.php/ ... in_one_day
there is also an additional related idea
though since it is not directly related to the thread
i placed it here:
http://wiki.armagetronad.net/index.php/Ruminations
i would love to hear what others have to say about the ideas
since we have a few active participants here
and i am thinking we are nearing a point to go for a poll...?
hold the line
-
Lucifer
- Project Developer
- Posts: 8645
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: Republic of Texas
- Contact:
Well, hang, my team is closed except for personal invites. So you can consider this a personal invite, but...
I closed it because I didn't want to wind up with a team so big that everybody shows up to play, and we have to decide which 5 get to play (because the other team only showed up with 5) and which 8 have to sit it out. Also, there may be a team or two left that still need players, and I don't want to horde all the players. So you should look at which teams need players.
Last I saw, team somethingsomething was coming along nicely, but might be able to use another player or two. fe still hasn't reached the minimum to enter the tournament (assuming we've all agreed with a minimum of 5, which seems to be the case). Of course, they're a clan team (with some of us suggesting they should change their clan name if they can't even show up. Not that they have to win, just that they have to show up. Hard to be elite when you're called on the floor to show how good you are and you don't bother to come). The Lobster guys were big enough, but might still be short a player or two.
@2020: I think where the one-day event idea falls down, as far as I can see, is that you're still expecting everyone to show up at a specific time, and at the same time. Um, having seen previous attempts to organize tournaments, and taking part in doing so myself, I'm going to have to say that's the weakest link. All the rest isn't fundamentally different than the stuff we've talked about so far. But take it literally when I say 25 people sign up but only 5 show up, and only 2 of those are on time. When eggcozy ran his dbind tourney, I think only 3 people showed up on time, and I played just because they didn't have much of a tournament going. (I didn't consider myself representative of dbinders at the time, I was still pretty new) I don't remember how many people signed up for it, though.
So, that's the weakest part, but it's the part your just kinda assuming works out. The solution I came up with is here in this thread and most of what I've been talking about. So, ummm, you're going to have to come up with a solution to that problem, or someone else is, because if I had another solution, I'd gladly share it. (not that my solutions always work out, either, because many of them don't)
Back to hang3r. Also, in general, we could probably use some more teams. If you'd like to put your name as on my team and put "tentative, depending on team <this>" and then go start team <this>, I'm cool with it. That way, if you don't manage to get a team together, you can still play the tourney on my team. If the fe guys show up, and you start another team, then we'll have 8 teams. (We have 6 now)
@KamP: the idea behind having arbitrarily large teams is in part to compensate for individual schedules. So maybe your team can schedule games at any time, but you personally can only play at certain times. This brings up something else we should consider. Should we set the games at a hard number of players? i.e. "Both teams must have 5 and only 5 players for the duration of the match?" I like your alternate idea, I'd like to see it work. That way if we have 8 people show up, we can put 3 as alternates and just rotate them in and out as needed. It would be better than sending 3 players home because the other team onlly showed up with 5 players.
I closed it because I didn't want to wind up with a team so big that everybody shows up to play, and we have to decide which 5 get to play (because the other team only showed up with 5) and which 8 have to sit it out. Also, there may be a team or two left that still need players, and I don't want to horde all the players. So you should look at which teams need players.
Last I saw, team somethingsomething was coming along nicely, but might be able to use another player or two. fe still hasn't reached the minimum to enter the tournament (assuming we've all agreed with a minimum of 5, which seems to be the case). Of course, they're a clan team (with some of us suggesting they should change their clan name if they can't even show up. Not that they have to win, just that they have to show up. Hard to be elite when you're called on the floor to show how good you are and you don't bother to come). The Lobster guys were big enough, but might still be short a player or two.
@2020: I think where the one-day event idea falls down, as far as I can see, is that you're still expecting everyone to show up at a specific time, and at the same time. Um, having seen previous attempts to organize tournaments, and taking part in doing so myself, I'm going to have to say that's the weakest link. All the rest isn't fundamentally different than the stuff we've talked about so far. But take it literally when I say 25 people sign up but only 5 show up, and only 2 of those are on time. When eggcozy ran his dbind tourney, I think only 3 people showed up on time, and I played just because they didn't have much of a tournament going. (I didn't consider myself representative of dbinders at the time, I was still pretty new) I don't remember how many people signed up for it, though.
So, that's the weakest part, but it's the part your just kinda assuming works out. The solution I came up with is here in this thread and most of what I've been talking about. So, ummm, you're going to have to come up with a solution to that problem, or someone else is, because if I had another solution, I'd gladly share it. (not that my solutions always work out, either, because many of them don't)
Back to hang3r. Also, in general, we could probably use some more teams.
If you'd like to put your name as on my team and put "tentative, depending on team <this>" and then go start team <this>, I'm cool with it. That way, if you don't manage to get a team together, you can still play the tourney on my team. If the fe guys show up, and you start another team, then we'll have 8 teams. (We have 6 now)@KamP: the idea behind having arbitrarily large teams is in part to compensate for individual schedules.
So maybe your team can schedule games at any time, but you personally can only play at certain times. This brings up something else we should consider. Should we set the games at a hard number of players? i.e. "Both teams must have 5 and only 5 players for the duration of the match?" I like your alternate idea, I'd like to see it work. That way if we have 8 people show up, we can put 3 as alternates and just rotate them in and out as needed. It would be better than sending 3 players home because the other team onlly showed up with 5 players.Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
-
Lucifer
- Project Developer
- Posts: 8645
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: Republic of Texas
- Contact:
Ok, so I've been reading up on round-robin on the wikipedia, and here's what I've got. We have two choices, we can play for Championship, or we can play for ranking. When you play for championship, then you stop playing when you lose. So if you lose the first game of the playoffs, you're out. No final rankings are determined.
But, umm, we have a bunch of players that play to the last man, even if it's 5 v 1. I don't think just playing for championship is going to work.
So here's what I come up with for brackets, assuming we get 8 teams.
So, to be 1st place Champions you have to win all 3 games. Second place has to win twice then lose once. Third place wins, loses, wins. Fourth place Wins, loses, loses. Fifth place loses, wins, wins, etc. The problem here is that the number of wins by itself doesn't say anything about how good the team is, it's only the number of wins vs certain teams. I don't have a problem with that, really, but I understand there's serious critiques of this system.
Two more things:
We seem settled on minimum of 5 players to play a game and games are 2 out of 3 matches. I assume that's where a match is 10 rounds or 100 points, whichever comes first. Can we anchor it at 5 players per team per game, and any extras are alternates that sit in spectator mode? There are some technical problems with that, but those are solved by IM/irc, provided everyone has a notification thing. (the problem is that spectators can't chat)
Separating them: I think a team should be able to play with however many they show up with. But anything over 5 must be alternates, so you pick your 5 starters and go. Then alternate as needed, or as your team prefers. But if a team only shows up with, say, 2 players, and they insist on playing the game, then the other team should be obligated to play, but they get to play with 5 players + alternates. The team with fewer players can choose to forfeit instead, which they probably should do if they don't have at least 3 players. If the team with fewer players wants to play but the team with enough players chooses not to, and the team with fewer players has at least 3, then the other team forfeits. If the team with fewer players has only 1 or 2, then the larger team (that has 5 players) can choose not to play without forfeiting. If both teams show up with too few players, they have to reschedule.
Rules: It's pretty clear, I think, but we should just run CVS Test settings. Best 2 of 3 matches, I think, with a 10 minute break between matches required if anyone on any team asks. Basically it should take unanimous agreement to lift the break. That gives time for pee breaks, snacks, cigarettes (for those that don't smoke at their computers), etc. It also gives each team time to determine what they'll do for the next match without being under pressure with the next match starting. So it compensates for not having a time out.
If, in switching alternates mid-game you wind up in a round where because one person left too early and another left too late, you only have 4 players, the round stands. You need to be better organized. If you wind up with 6 players, then 1 player is required to kill themself immediately. If not, then the round should be forfeited somehow. This is the only area where there might be problems, I think. I suspect it would be simpler to just play an extra match than to try to correct for the server. Should be up to the opposing team to call it, though. Because what if they win the round at 5 v 6? I'd want the round to stand rather than replay it and risk losing the replay.
Finally, both teams for each game need to certify results. They'll do that by going to the wiki and marking the final scores for each round, and the round count, and uploading a recording. So someone from both teams should play in recording mode and stay for the whole game, or else you just need to make sure there's enough players recording that you have the whole game recorded. Ideally server admins would do the recording, we'll see. But players should record anyway, if only to keep the other teams honest. So, they certify by giving a recording and marking their names on the wiki. I think only one person from each team should be required to certify if there are no problems.
Since the key here is flexibility, I think it should take the other team to call a penalty on numplayers, and also both teams would just agree to start up again when the break is over. Maybe they don't need a full 10 minutes, maybe the player they're waiting on is just sitting out the next match anyway, whatever. So both teams should just be cool and not be all anal, and make sure they're trying to win by being good, and not because the rules penalize this guy or that guy.
For conflict resolution, y'all should keep logs. If you do your scheduling and mustering in an armabotted irc channel, then logs are kept. Do your recording. Then, if there's a problem certifying the game, you'll need to get players from the other teams to help you deal with it. They'll look over your recordings and logs and listen to the arguments, and then decide. This could take a long time! So I think they should just decide whether or not the game is certified completed. If not, then the two teams have to replay, and if there's a second conflict over the game, and the game can't be certified, then both teams forfeit and it counts as a loss to both teams (because it is, if they can't work out their problems).
Is all this something that we can/should do, or should we forget I brought it up?
But, umm, we have a bunch of players that play to the last man, even if it's 5 v 1. I don't think just playing for championship is going to work.
So here's what I come up with for brackets, assuming we get 8 teams.
Code: Select all
Ranking from season is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
First round: (1) 1 v 8, (2) 2 v 7, (3) 3 v 6, (4) 4 v 5 Determines if you're in the top 4 or bottom 4
Second round Winners: (2.1) 1 v 4, (2.2) 2 v 3 Determines if you're in the top 2, or the second 2.
Second round Losers: (2.3) 1 v 4, (2.4) 2 v 3 Determines if you're in the bottom 2 or the second-to-bottom 2
Final round: Winners from 2.1 and 2.2 - Championship and 2 place
Losers from 2.1 and 2.2 - 3rd and 4th place
Winners from 2.3 and 2.4 - 5th and 6th place
Losers from 2.3 and 2.4 - 7th and 8th place
Two more things:
We seem settled on minimum of 5 players to play a game and games are 2 out of 3 matches. I assume that's where a match is 10 rounds or 100 points, whichever comes first. Can we anchor it at 5 players per team per game, and any extras are alternates that sit in spectator mode? There are some technical problems with that, but those are solved by IM/irc, provided everyone has a notification thing. (the problem is that spectators can't chat)
Separating them: I think a team should be able to play with however many they show up with. But anything over 5 must be alternates, so you pick your 5 starters and go. Then alternate as needed, or as your team prefers. But if a team only shows up with, say, 2 players, and they insist on playing the game, then the other team should be obligated to play, but they get to play with 5 players + alternates. The team with fewer players can choose to forfeit instead, which they probably should do if they don't have at least 3 players. If the team with fewer players wants to play but the team with enough players chooses not to, and the team with fewer players has at least 3, then the other team forfeits. If the team with fewer players has only 1 or 2, then the larger team (that has 5 players) can choose not to play without forfeiting. If both teams show up with too few players, they have to reschedule.
Rules: It's pretty clear, I think, but we should just run CVS Test settings. Best 2 of 3 matches, I think, with a 10 minute break between matches required if anyone on any team asks. Basically it should take unanimous agreement to lift the break. That gives time for pee breaks, snacks, cigarettes (for those that don't smoke at their computers), etc. It also gives each team time to determine what they'll do for the next match without being under pressure with the next match starting. So it compensates for not having a time out.
If, in switching alternates mid-game you wind up in a round where because one person left too early and another left too late, you only have 4 players, the round stands. You need to be better organized.
If you wind up with 6 players, then 1 player is required to kill themself immediately. If not, then the round should be forfeited somehow. This is the only area where there might be problems, I think. I suspect it would be simpler to just play an extra match than to try to correct for the server. Should be up to the opposing team to call it, though. Because what if they win the round at 5 v 6? I'd want the round to stand rather than replay it and risk losing the replay.Finally, both teams for each game need to certify results. They'll do that by going to the wiki and marking the final scores for each round, and the round count, and uploading a recording. So someone from both teams should play in recording mode and stay for the whole game, or else you just need to make sure there's enough players recording that you have the whole game recorded. Ideally server admins would do the recording, we'll see. But players should record anyway, if only to keep the other teams honest. So, they certify by giving a recording and marking their names on the wiki. I think only one person from each team should be required to certify if there are no problems.
Since the key here is flexibility, I think it should take the other team to call a penalty on numplayers, and also both teams would just agree to start up again when the break is over. Maybe they don't need a full 10 minutes, maybe the player they're waiting on is just sitting out the next match anyway, whatever. So both teams should just be cool and not be all anal, and make sure they're trying to win by being good, and not because the rules penalize this guy or that guy.
For conflict resolution, y'all should keep logs. If you do your scheduling and mustering in an armabotted irc channel, then logs are kept. Do your recording. Then, if there's a problem certifying the game, you'll need to get players from the other teams to help you deal with it. They'll look over your recordings and logs and listen to the arguments, and then decide. This could take a long time! So I think they should just decide whether or not the game is certified completed. If not, then the two teams have to replay, and if there's a second conflict over the game, and the game can't be certified, then both teams forfeit and it counts as a loss to both teams (because it is, if they can't work out their problems).
Is all this something that we can/should do, or should we forget I brought it up?
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
I will play if I have time ... should find out in a day or two.
I would vote for the idea to play for places as Lucifer pointed out. That will have the benefit of making it easier to determine who play who in future tournaments.
I wouldn't vote for 5 fixed. Granted, you could just limit the players for the server to 10 ... but having an extra 6th person kill him/herself would be a bit too annoying and confusing. I'd say just make it 8 and if a team doesn't have that many ... so be it. I would play on 5 vs. 8 if the other 4 were good.
I would vote for the idea to play for places as Lucifer pointed out. That will have the benefit of making it easier to determine who play who in future tournaments.
I wouldn't vote for 5 fixed. Granted, you could just limit the players for the server to 10 ... but having an extra 6th person kill him/herself would be a bit too annoying and confusing. I'd say just make it 8 and if a team doesn't have that many ... so be it. I would play on 5 vs. 8 if the other 4 were good.
-
Phytotron
- Formerly Oscilloscope
- Posts: 5041
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
- Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
- Contact:
Do it like certain fouls in football. The foul is committed, but the play (in this case, the round) is allowed to continue. Once the play has ended, the team that didn't commit the foul gets to decide whether to accept or decline the penalty. If they accept it, then the play is wiped, the penalty enforced, and the down (round) is repeated. If they decline, the result of the play stands and the penalty is not enforced. A team would decline penalization of a foul if they preferred the result of the play over whatever benefit the penalty would have given them.Lucifer wrote:... If not, then the round should be forfeited somehow. This is the only area where there might be problems, I think. I suspect it would be simpler to just play an extra match than to try to correct for the server. Should be up to the opposing team to call it, though. Because what if they win the round at 5 v 6? I'd want the round to stand rather than replay it and risk losing the replay.
You think you'll get 8 teams? Then first have the "season" where every team plays every other team once (scheduling to be determined by each pair of teams—easier if you all just have a somewhat open-ended time frame), then whenever that's done use the win-loss records to determine seeding, then have a standard 8 team tourney. Simple. You can still do best of three in the tourney, if, again, a "game" is defined as "best of three matches." The bracket would lok like thus:
<snip>
Last edited by Phytotron on Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
2020
- Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
- Location: the present, finally
none of it is fundamentally differentLucifer wrote:@2020: I think where the one-day event idea falls down, as far as I can see, is that you're still expecting everyone to show up at a specific time, and at the same time. Um, having seen previous attempts to organize tournaments, and taking part in doing so myself, I'm going to have to say that's the weakest link. All the rest isn't fundamentally different than the stuff we've talked about so far.
the weakest link is common to both our structures:
people turning up on time
my suspicions are...
when you organise a bunch of kids for a game
if it is normal run-of-the-mill practice kind of game
hardly anyone turns up
but
set up an important game
with enough fanfare and excitement and
yup
you guessed it
everyone turns up
i hold to the possibility
the people will go out of their way to turn up to an unusual event
rather than the fractured trying-to-arrange-sometime multiple events...
i think people have shown enough interest already...
and remember
this is just a kind of test-bed:
if it is easy and it works
then we can try the next step
if it is hard and cumbersome
then the next step is bound to be harder and more cumbersome
my question to you:
how many matches need to be set up
for the first round using the round-robin system?
hold the line
2020, nothing personel, It seems to me that you're still trying to invent the wheel with using a square. While The rest of us tried it and moved on to using an oval(:D), You're still sitting around going "nah man, the square will work, it just needs support! The oval is a stupid idea." Yeah the ovalwheel is flawed, but it moves, compareed to a square wheel.
I've said this once, and I'm going to say this again.
Look, This is not an original Idea. We have already tried doing tourneys all in one day. They turned out just as terrible. The one day thing is terrible. TIME ZONES, TIME ZONES, TIME ZONES, TIME ZONES! 95% of the people who play this game do not understand how time zones work. This needs to be done spread out. You want to start this at 11.pm GMT? You're snuffing out alot of players running it then. This is NOT going to work. It hasn't before. I know you just WANT to see this for yourself. But quite frankly theres nothing to see, because no one will be there cccept for 3 people. Im sorry if it seems like Im badgering you and I'm sorry in advance.
Look, the best way for ths to work, You can't have this done in one day. This has to be spread out over like 2 weeks. One day will not work and cannot work. No one has one day at extremely bizzare hours to play this game. Unless they're sleep deprived. Then they will play at any hour. But I doubt they would be doing anything thats that really competitive.
I don't know why you are so hell bent on making this a one day event. It's not going to work man.
I've said this once, and I'm going to say this again.
Look, This is not an original Idea. We have already tried doing tourneys all in one day. They turned out just as terrible. The one day thing is terrible. TIME ZONES, TIME ZONES, TIME ZONES, TIME ZONES! 95% of the people who play this game do not understand how time zones work. This needs to be done spread out. You want to start this at 11.pm GMT? You're snuffing out alot of players running it then. This is NOT going to work. It hasn't before. I know you just WANT to see this for yourself. But quite frankly theres nothing to see, because no one will be there cccept for 3 people. Im sorry if it seems like Im badgering you and I'm sorry in advance.
Look, the best way for ths to work, You can't have this done in one day. This has to be spread out over like 2 weeks. One day will not work and cannot work. No one has one day at extremely bizzare hours to play this game. Unless they're sleep deprived. Then they will play at any hour. But I doubt they would be doing anything thats that really competitive.
I don't know why you are so hell bent on making this a one day event. It's not going to work man.
-
2020
- Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
- Location: the present, finally
....
ok ok
you win
i have my experiences
you have yours
i was just trying to create a new between the lot of us...
i will gladly take part in any game arranged
and i look forward going head-to-head with you on the grid
you win
i have my experiences
you have yours
i was just trying to create a new between the lot of us...
i will gladly take part in any game arranged
and i look forward going head-to-head with you on the grid
hold the line
is a timescale strictly needed at all?
A silly sounding question, sure, but still I ask.
Consider -
A round robin style tourney, with all teams playing each other one time. grids are neutral, so home/away is not important, and no need for 2 rounds.
with 8 teams, this means 7 matches per team. so each team can arrange a mtach with an opponent at any suitable time for both teams non involved teams need not be involved at all.
so maybe a situation emerges where some teams have played all games, others just 1 or 2. those stragglers will be hassled by the teams they haven't played who only have 1 or 2 games left. maybe they are losing and just dont want to play again, or the team has vaporised, so what? all this teams results are voided and the league adjusted to reflect this.
I see such a design working out at probably 2-3 weeks, max.
Alternatively, similar model with a knockout tournament. All teams (presumably) would be keen to arrange the early games. victorious teams equally keen for the next round to start, so I think that this would play out in around a week, but would need some pre-planning to set up the structure of the tourney and the matches involved.
Both of the above are entirely self organising (aside form the actual admin of setting brackets/leagues and keeping scores) so why not?
If it fails, this is because nobody really wants a tourney, which is also fine, why not arrange ad-hoc matches between clans as/when they feel like it?
A silly sounding question, sure, but still I ask.
Consider -
A round robin style tourney, with all teams playing each other one time. grids are neutral, so home/away is not important, and no need for 2 rounds.
with 8 teams, this means 7 matches per team. so each team can arrange a mtach with an opponent at any suitable time for both teams non involved teams need not be involved at all.
so maybe a situation emerges where some teams have played all games, others just 1 or 2. those stragglers will be hassled by the teams they haven't played who only have 1 or 2 games left. maybe they are losing and just dont want to play again, or the team has vaporised, so what? all this teams results are voided and the league adjusted to reflect this.
I see such a design working out at probably 2-3 weeks, max.
Alternatively, similar model with a knockout tournament. All teams (presumably) would be keen to arrange the early games. victorious teams equally keen for the next round to start, so I think that this would play out in around a week, but would need some pre-planning to set up the structure of the tourney and the matches involved.
Both of the above are entirely self organising (aside form the actual admin of setting brackets/leagues and keeping scores) so why not?
If it fails, this is because nobody really wants a tourney, which is also fine, why not arrange ad-hoc matches between clans as/when they feel like it?