|
Post by nawglan on Jun 14, 2009 19:07:24 GMT -5
exdeath: I was thinking of keeping the teams small. And ideally I'd like to have a draft. 8) One pool of players. Etc. Would be better if we had more players, I agree, but that is my dream one day.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jun 16, 2009 1:40:25 GMT -5
Sorry for late replies, folks, I've had a really busy weekend (
Succat ExDeath makes very valid points about weight classes and expected turnout. Also, while some players cannot expect to win the whole thing, they still can (and should) try and work for some score that would be 'good' for them, like getting 18 points in 4 rounds or something, so there is nothing wrong in participating in tourney...
Still, if majority thinks we should try dividing people into 2 'classes', or if we should try something like qualifiers (with auto-birth slots given to best ELO?)... Let's discuss!
ExDeath I appreciate your skills and I think that you'd be nearly perfect for an head judge position, but sorry, I just don't feel like working in the same team with you. I already wrote about that in your "challenge" thread a while ago, shouldn't be a big news to you.
Still, if you'd like to, you may just run the whole tourney/ask somebody else to help with pairings, and I'll be just a regular participant. I'd be totally fine with this.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Jun 16, 2009 13:06:19 GMT -5
ExDeathI appreciate your skills and I think that you'd be nearly perfect for an head judge position, but sorry, I just don't feel like working in the same team with you. I already wrote about that in your "challenge" thread a while ago, shouldn't be a big news to you. I don 't think I've read this, what are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by succat on Jun 16, 2009 13:37:23 GMT -5
What I didn't know until now is that the Amnesia spell can really affect you in real life, too. 2 Classes, 4 Classes... makes no difference to me. If people want just 1 Class, that's fine, too, but like I say, we kinda know who will win that so I think there should be a way to cut out a lot of games that don't matter. Meaningless games that pit a 1500 something warlock against a 1900 something warlock - that's just delaying the inevitable. If classes are really small, with just a handful of players in each, I think it makes for a better competition in that class. A class with myself, Bio, Toyo, xade, Vermont, and awall would be very interesting and every game would matter. But, I understand if underdog warlocks want to hang with the big boys just to see how far they can get... My main thought was just to figure a way to get rid of meaningless games and shorten the entire tourney somehow.
|
|
|
Post by vermont on Jun 16, 2009 13:57:28 GMT -5
A class with myself, Bio, Toyo, xade, Vermont, and awall would be very interesting and every game would matter. The thought of that 'class' scares me!
|
|
|
Post by vermont on Jun 16, 2009 14:05:46 GMT -5
Personally, I thought the system we used last year worked quite well and I would be happy with using it again.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Jun 16, 2009 14:46:42 GMT -5
It's important to remember that a lot of lower-rated players participate in the tournament so that they can try to beat the best; it would be wrong to deny them that possibility. That's why I suggested that if you do make two+ classes, people should be allowed to play above their rating (but not below).
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jun 16, 2009 14:55:40 GMT -5
Succat Dunno... I don't really see the point behind a "small tourney for ELO<1600". Suppose there were 6 participants in that class, and they've played and one person won. So what? She is "the best player below ELO 1600"? Is that cool?
|
|
|
Post by succat on Jun 16, 2009 16:30:19 GMT -5
Bio,
Is it cool that we have a 1500 Elo Class Champ? I don't know, that's what we're trying to figure out. Is it cool that a 1500 Elo Class warlock come in at 10th place in a regular Tourney instead? Maybe it makes no difference...
I have no problem with regular Tourney, really. I will be fine if everyone wants to do it like last year. I just thought perhaps it could go faster with less games (by getting rid of the games that don't really matter), and also might be more fun if everyone could get a chance to win in their own Class. Maybe that doesn't matter to players, I don't know.
The idea of having 2 classes is pretty good, too. You give the underdog warlock the chance to compete in his own Class or play in the Big League instead. Where would we draw the line? Those below 1700 Elo can choose to play in the Main Tourney with everyone or instead try to win in their own Class? That seems pretty fair, and might still give some underdogs a chance to win their own division. Whatever we do... I just think there should be a way to bypass having to play very many games against people that have a significant Elo disadvantage. Why play many of those kinds of games at all? Or at least, why not play less of those games? I understand some games can't be avoided, but surely there are some that can... and we can come to a conclusion sooner than the last Tourney, which seemed to drag on for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Jun 17, 2009 8:57:28 GMT -5
Could have a final battle between the winners of the classes. (MELEE). May the toughest nut win. *grin*
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jun 17, 2009 9:41:25 GMT -5
Succat 2008 tourney lasted 10 weeks. It is lightning fast compared to 2007 tourney =)
|
|
|
Post by saypin on Jun 18, 2009 3:41:12 GMT -5
Could have a final battle between the winners of the classes. (MELEE). May the toughest nut win. *grin* Hmm... that can be interesting... and most of all if your opening gestures are chosen randomly (F,D,S,W or P)
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jun 18, 2009 4:19:33 GMT -5
Could have a final battle between the winners of the classes. (MELEE). May the toughest nut win. *grin* Hmm... that can be interesting... and most of all if your opening gestures are chosen randomly (F,D,S,W or P) IMHO that's fun, but has nothing to do with 'competition' and 'skill'...
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Jun 18, 2009 8:24:29 GMT -5
IMHO that's fun, but has nothing to do with 'competition' and 'skill'... And a Tourney does, if you're not even close to the top players?
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jun 18, 2009 10:06:35 GMT -5
IMHO that's fun, but has nothing to do with 'competition' and 'skill'... And a Tourney does, if you're not even close to the top players? Yeah, IMHO it does. Tourney is about competition, not necessary about winning. Set yourself a goal you possibly can reach at your best, and do your best to reach it. Winning is optional =)
|
|