sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
 Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 14:58 |
 
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | I have always thought, that [B] tourneys should more be about the coaches than the teams. The 'win-first' attitude is for me the core of the box.
So why don`t we let the coaches enter, then at a fixed time, the scheduled coaches meet. Via a chat-command, they activate the scheduler to schedule a match between two of their teams. If the scheduler can make a match with a high enough suitability (Threshold to be determined - but why no 800 points as first guess?), then both coaches play this matchup and the winner advances. If the scheduler cannot make a match, then both coaches can try again at a later time. At each challenge, the number of teams with more than 4 games played are recorded for each coach. If both coaches cannot be matched over the whole time, each coach rolls a d6, adds the sum of the recorded number and the one with the higher result advances.
This encourages having enough teams, so that the scheduler can make a decent choice. |
Well, it could work but I don't think it would be loved because:
>The suspension of disbelief: it's not chess, it's a kind of a football game. A tournament is played by a team not a coach. Personnaly I'd like my "Order of the Leaf" to be the first pro-elf winner of a tournament.
>I would be very displeased to be eliminated because my funny flings (for exemple) just were picked instead of my stronger teams. Such tournaments would just requiere a coach to have the best set of teams possible, which is counterproductive IMO. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 15:06 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | DukeTyrion wrote: | | One approach which may work well is the smack enviroment, on a much much larger basis. Where perhaps the majoys could be run at up to 200TR and 150TR (at least at first). People could then trim (or climb) to the required TR ready to enter the major. It would perhaps not have the same draw as the [R] majors, but people would be aware that the path taken to prepare the team was not a chosen one. |
I so do not get what you mean with this paragraph. Can you explain in detail, how stuff would work? |
The first major would (perhaps) be a TR200 tournament (similar to a Ranked Scheduled Smack). Each [B] coach would 'freeze' their tournament team, then apply for the majors group. The only rule for the applying team would be that it's TR could not be over the TR cap, which in this case is 200TR.
Once all of the applications have been received, the (32 or 64 team) KO tournament would kick off, as a straight knock out through to the final.
The only question is, should the TR200 limit be to start the tournament, or should it be a 200TR cap throughout every round of the tournament? The latter could provide for some interesting team management along the way. |
|
|
On1
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 15:09 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | What exactly do you guys think will change, when LRB5 is implemented in the box?
You will still have the same structural problems that you have now. |
Well lrb5 introduces a lot of new rock/paper/scissor skills. All i hope for is that this will encourage even more picking in ranked. So that people will open their eyes and see that blackbox is the only real way to play this. Put together a team that can face any team on the pitch.
More coaches in blackbox would make it easier to put something together that resembles what we have in ranked now.
I get no kick at all from playing in ranked. Since i know i always have the choice of finding an easier match. Patience is the key to build a strong team. I dislike it. I know there are coaches out there that play against almost anything and probably beat them up. But they still have this infamous choice.  to enable easy mode.
I know there are lots of coaches that does not share this opinion with me. But seriously i think they fail  Would be so many interesting matches to spec when it's randomized. And you can't turn down a team you fear... it's cool. I don't mind being the fling playing against and overpowered killer team... It's all fun and games. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 15:09 |
|
| xcver wrote: | Dunno if it has been written as an idea before:
Tournament is entered on a coach basis.
a) Coach needs to have minimum of 3 Blackbox Teams.
b) These teams should lie within certain TS boundaries like 1 being 0>125 and 1 being 126>175 and 1 being 176+
c) To add even more diversity restrictions on the teams could be used, like 1 from Tier1 (dwarves, dark elves...) Tier2 (undead, human...) and Tier3 (Ogre, Halfling...)
For each round scheduler puts all competing coaches against another and determines the matchups for that round this way. Next round with the remaining coaches and so on.
The pro would be a very diverse tournament every round. Con is probably the administrative effort and do-ability
Have not that many [B] games but I think that this would be fun |
That's alot of restrictions for a Major. I always thought the idea of a major was to open it up to as many as possible. |
|
|
Ullakkomorko
Joined: Aug 10, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 15:15 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | One interesting new concept was floated my way: To have a date only for [B] Tournaments, then prior to that date coaches declare their availability and willingness to play in it. On the draw date a TR cap is randomly determined, and we accept the nearest team of any coach that applied. So it the random TR generated in 186, we then accpet the teams from participating coaches that are nearet to, while not exceeding, that number.
I have no idea how much programming need that would generate, and am also aware Christer is likely VERY busy with LRB5 client integration issues, so i doubt we can expect much beyond simple fixes. I don't know.
|
I think that's a great idea. Although it could be changed to be a bit less within the Blackbox ethos. Say that one week before the entry it's announced that the draw will be somewhere in the range between 140-180, so that people know when the draw will be made and know when to expect it. Then the draw is made and it comes up as, say, 164. This means that only teams below that number can enter. Then coaches can put forward teams (perhaps after firing players) that fit the criteria and they're scheduled for the tournament and unable to play in normal Blackbox. If the range was low enough, then there'd be less need to play just one team in the box to ensure games for preparation.
This would lessen the need for any programming as it would only require that a B team could indeed be frozen and unable to play in the normal Blackbox.
I haven't played in any Ranked majors so I don't know whether it's important that the teams are truly massive and TS 200+ to generate interest. Lower TS ranges would place more emphasis on a coach's playing ability instead of his perseverance in looking for easy games in preparation for a tournament and that would fit Blackbox. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 15:19 |
|
I think that Blackbox tournaments are a neat idea. But "Blackbox tournaments" are not the same as "tournaments with a Blackbox team." As CircularLogic said, Blackbox is coach-based, not team-based.
Personally, I would suggest something along these lines:
* Every player enters three teams for a tournament round.
* The Blackbox scheduler runs with these teams, but with the slight tweak that it tries to prioritise the number of possible matchups within the hard TS limit, rather than the suitability score as it currently does (in other words, try to get everyone a match, even if the matchups are slightly worse).
* Obviously, you'd need some kind of tie-break in the rare cases where matchups are not possible at all. There are lots of possibilities, personally I'd suggest a Reikland Reiver versus Gouged Eye showdown (i.e. the human/orc box teams), with sides randomly allocated!
* None of the teams entered can be below 100 TS (Just to stop people being silly and trying to metagame the thing by selling all the players on one or more of their teams. Sad, I know, but you can bet someone would do it!).
The beauty of the above idea (IMHO anyway) is that it doesn't stop you playing your teams between rounds, even the ones in the tournament, and it also doesn't leave teams coming out the other end of a tournament that have had an abnormally tough/easy run of games. All the matches are effectively standard Blackbox matches, between theoretically equally powerful teams. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 15:19 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | The first major would (perhaps) be a TR200 tournament (similar to a Ranked Scheduled Smack). Each [B] coach would 'freeze' their tournament team, then apply for the majors group. The only rule for the applying team would be that it's TR could not be over the TR cap, which in this case is 200TR.
Once all of the applications have been received, the (32 or 64 team) KO tournament would kick off, as a straight knock out through to the final.
The only question is, should the TR200 limit be to start the tournament, or should it be a 200TR cap throughout every round of the tournament? The latter could provide for some interesting team management along the way. |
Which would be exactly the same as in [R], just that 'picking' is not a way of speeding up the building process, but you have to carefully wait until your team hits the TR limit just right and then freeze. So basically such a tourney would be a TR200 Minor with only a subset of coaches - I think I rather play the original. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 15:20 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | The big crux around this whole thing though, is the ability to 'rest' a team, which I think would also help [B] as a whole, and not just on the major tournament scale. If each coach were allowed to have one [B] 'sleeping' at any one point in time, then not anly would it remove some of the frustration with being forced to play the same team alot, but it would also allow people to freeze their [B] team before the major. |
\o/ Great idea IMO.
One of the tournaments should be uncapped even if I don't see many elf teams in the top 50.
Caps at 200 and 150 sound good. Maybe 175 or 225 too.
Simple Fumbbl Cup style KO would suit me. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - Coming soon! ---- All Star Bowl XII - Teams of Stars - Sign up NOW! |
|
Ullakkomorko
Joined: Aug 10, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 15:22 |
|
| xcver wrote: | | b) These teams should lie within certain TS boundaries like 1 being 0>125 and 1 being 126>175 and 1 being 176+ |
I think this would be hard in practice. My High Elf and Chaos team both hit TS 170 mark at around the same time. I missed a few draws and made a skaven team. Then I played them for 6 consecutive games until they got to TS 145. Then I got to play a game with my High elves. And personally I think that 3 teams are enough for Blackbox for myself. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 15:23 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | "Blackbox tournaments" are not the same as "tournaments with a Blackbox team."
Blackbox is coach-based, not team-based. |
I think this is a core issue that stands at the base of each tourney design and should be decided on first. |
|
|
On1
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 15:24 |
|
I like the idea with random TS tournaments. Nice for small tournaments in the box. with small prizes |
|
|
Astarael
Joined: Aug 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 15:45 |
|
Another idea:
Coaches get points for games you play as long as both teams have played 4+ games. A points system would have to be worked out, but there's plenty of good systems in some [L]eagues.
Have a maximum amount of games that can count for points so people with a lot of time arn't rewarded. After you've played the maximum there's NO switching if you get a better score.
Have a time limit. Say 1 month.
Winner and runner ups gets championship points. After 10months the top x amount of coaches in the championship go into a small tournament to work out an overall champ (seeded by points, 1st vs last) who gets a funky prize. Runner ups get coach medals.
This would run off the coach and not the teams.
Essentially this would turn [B] into a series of monthly tournaments to compete for points to get into the main draw at the end of the year to win the grand prize.
Downside is this would probably require a fair amount of coding. |
_________________
Oh my. |
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 15:51 |
|
I'd love to see Tourneys in B. Even though my skaven usually dont stay at a high TR for long periods of time. One solution for Team based tourneys would be that that the teams which enter a tourney, would either be locked, or maybe even better moved to a "temporary" blackbox tourney division. Where they will remain until they finish the tourney and they could only play their scheduled games (i dont like the idea of having recovery games during the tourney, even though I only play AV7). I'm suggestign this temporary division thingy, since that would prolly require less coding than actually freezing the B teams in the B div. After the tourney the teams will return to B Div. This would actually force people to create atleast a second B team, they could play while one of their teams is stuck in the tourney.
The other option would be, as many have suggested, to have the tourney run based on the individual coach, with multiple teams. And I dont have any idea how to do that  |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 16:02 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Chingis wrote: | "Blackbox tournaments" are not the same as "tournaments with a Blackbox team."
Blackbox is coach-based, not team-based. |
I think this is a core issue that stands at the base of each tourney design and should be decided on first. |
Well, I am firmly with Sk8bcn on this one.
Ranked tournaments are played with a chosen team, and I think Blackbox tournaments should be too.
The coach 'Blackbox Tournament' already exists as an ongoing BWR in the rankings. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 16:18 |
|
Though such a format would greatly favor those with just one team. This team sees more games and is thus more likely to hit a good tourney spot. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Why did GW nerf guar...
Search
