|
Post by Dubber on Aug 14, 2008 9:03:47 GMT -5
...two drawbacks in these scheme: 1) It is hard to maintain concentration during 2+ months of tournament playing 4 games simultaneously all the time. I have no pity for the mentally weak (myself included), this issue is not a problem and will demonstrate tenacity and skill-over-time. All the more reason to do it this way. 2) Should we somehow get more then 20 people, this will take 6 rounds only to finish round robin... 6*2 weeks=3 months... Hella long. Again, this is merely another measure of players' "toughness" - the player who can keep their $#|+ together for the full tourney is hella good I just hope the battles don't get boring by over-use of a particular repetitive tactic Also, an arbitrary two week completion deadline could be used or maybe a requirement that each move be "dated" in the comment field.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Aug 14, 2008 11:01:09 GMT -5
Thanks, now I understand. My experience tell me that there are two drawbacks in these scheme: 1) It is hard to maintain concentration during 2+ months of tournament playing 4 games simultaneously all the time. 2) Should we somehow get more then 20 people, this will take 6 rounds only to finish round robin... 6*2 weeks=3 months... Hella long. Of course, this system is the most representative one (since everyone plays versus everyone), but does is worth invested time? Keeping what you had in mind as the drawbacks of the round-robin system... why not compromise and split the pool of, say, 16 Warlocks into random groups of 8 each? Like A-pool and B-pool?
|
|
|
Post by xade on Aug 14, 2008 18:58:10 GMT -5
The last tourney was a huge headache for me when it came to having to make judgment calls. Although I am satisfied that everything was done fairly, it did leave some hurt feelings in its wake. pfffft. Feelings. They weren't hurt. Suckhole! Seriously though, make me the judge. I *totally* won't be biased in *any* situation... *rubs hands* *giggles manically*
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Aug 14, 2008 22:08:31 GMT -5
Getting less than 20 players is entirely possible. The ONLY reason my 2 tourneys had > 30 players was because I mercilessly spammed the active player list with RBW messages. I also advertised on RB's mailing list, on these forums of course, and in a few cases I emailed old players to tempt them back, like Yaron. A large chunk of those 32 or 35 players were always -- no offense to them -- lower caliber players who would not have been likely to enter without my spam.
I like swiss very much. If hard and fast, SHORT round deadlines are used, swiss is a great option. I avoided it because I was using longer, more flexible round deadlines, which make swiss slow in comparison to single elim.
Round robin is a bit of a neat idea, and if the numbers are low enough I'd vote for it. I say leave the format undecided till you see how many people join.
The pods I used last year are, I should add, a big headache for the organizer. So much to randomize, so much to keep track of, so much to add...
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 17, 2008 8:46:22 GMT -5
I like swiss very much. If hard and fast, SHORT round deadlines are used, swiss is a great option. I avoided it because I was using longer, more flexible round deadlines, which make swiss slow in comparison to single elim. Round robin is a bit of a neat idea, and if the numbers are low enough I'd vote for it. I say leave the format undecided till you see how many people join. Agreed. Should we end up with ~16 players, we're staying with round robin. Should we have 20 or more participants, we use swiss (4-5 swiss rounds+top 4 single elimination). And I'm going to advertise this tourney, ofc. Spamming via ravenblack included. Don't have masters emails to write to, though =)
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Aug 17, 2008 15:19:49 GMT -5
Would it be possible to double-pair each round of swiss, so everyone plays two games at once? Then they can play 8 opponents instead of 4 in the same time frame.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Aug 17, 2008 22:05:08 GMT -5
interesting concept -- I like it.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 17, 2008 23:20:13 GMT -5
Argh! I was going to post exactly the same idea )))
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 20, 2008 5:25:28 GMT -5
And now RavenBlack has pretty good reason to ban my account for spamming like 100+ other accounts with info on this tourney.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Aug 20, 2008 19:21:48 GMT -5
woohoo! That's the way to do it.
|
|