DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
 Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 16:31 |
 
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | 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. |
Any team is capable of hiting a 'good tourney spot'.
The difference is, if a coach with 1 team freezes it for a tourney, he will be left with no team to play, unless he makes another.
It's exactly the same argument as coaches with more time are likely to be better prepared.
The idea is to find the fairest way of making sure that these teams get there the right way, and the format of [B] itself does that. |
|
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 17:22 |
|
As most people have noticed the main problem with tourneys in B is that when a team is ready for tourney it should be 'parked' so it won't get any matches before the tourney. Or in other words when activating a coach must have the option to select which teams to activate (I think this would be an improvement to B anyway).
When looking at the tournaments any KO tournament without any restrictions to entry other than TR and random seeding would be suitable to be run in B (sched smack/minors/FC-like-majors). As PC noted I wouldn't go into tourneys where only a certain race (like in XFL) or a certain type of team (like UI/GLT) could play as this goes against 'no picking' idea of B. Also quick start tourneys seem a bit pointless in B as basicly the single games are single game quick start tournaments, besides that those always have a little level of picking as the other coaches are known before joining.
I think all the R prizes for tournaments are suitable for B. They will not stick as long when you can't pick your opponent anyway. I am sure there are some purists that are against any prizes especially the ones that ranked majors have to offer. But I like the extra flavor they add to those teams that have accomplished a great feat like winning a major. |
|
|
ibambe
Joined: Jun 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 17:35 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | My own proposal about B tournaments:
-Select a tournament team.
-Divide groups by 20TR ranges.
-Each day, at a fixed hour, check if 16 participants are into your TR group.
-If yes, start the tournament, make the team unavailable for blackboxing.
-The winner get a medal on his team page, 100k, +1FF
Major effectively wouldn't work in Blackbox. A major goes through a teambuilding phase, out of the blackbox scope. |
I like this idea. It could be run like a scheduled smack. 100,000 seems like too much money though. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 19:28 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | 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. |
Tournaments could be based on teams entering, rather than coaches. It makes more sense, logically, as it feels more like a "real" tournament.
The problem that I see with that is that you then have left the Blackbox ethos behind. It's just a Ranked tournament with Blackbox teams. Namely, you cannot run the Blackbox generator to decide fair matchups for tournament rounds. You simply won't be able to match the teams past the first round.
A tournament with the Blackbox ethos (i.e. single game, win at all cost because the next game will be fair whatever happens) cannot be done with single team entry, at least not with standard team progression. It's especially bad (in the sense that it compounds a current complaint with Blackbox) in that it favours attritional teams. That is to say, a multi-clawed, piling on, DP'ed-to-the-max TS 200 Chaos team has as much chance of winning a match as a whimsical, leaping TS 200 Woodelf team. But what about the next round? In the 50% of the time that the woodies go through, how will their three remaining players fare against their next opponents? Versus the other 50% of the time that the Chaos go through completely unscathed? I know it works like that in other tournaments, but in a Blackbox-spirit tournament, either team should have an equal chance in their next match, whatever happens in the first match. That's one of the core fundamentals of the Blackbox.
So, if tournaments are team-based I would suggest that they are:
* Non-progressive. That is to say, you play all matches with your starting team (at the TS cap). No SPPs are earned, no injuries carry over. Yes, it's less fun not getting SPPs, yes it seems a bit artificial, but it is a way to allow individual teams to play through an entire tournament on a Blackbox footing.
Put simply: if you're worrying about the next match, it's not really Blackbox. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 20:06 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | DukeTyrion wrote: | | 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. |
Tournaments could be based on teams entering, rather than coaches. It makes more sense, logically, as it feels more like a "real" tournament.
The problem that I see with that is that you then have left the Blackbox ethos behind. It's just a Ranked tournament with Blackbox teams. Namely, you cannot run the Blackbox generator to decide fair matchups for tournament rounds. You simply won't be able to match the teams past the first round.
A tournament with the Blackbox ethos (i.e. single game, win at all cost because the next game will be fair whatever happens) cannot be done with single team entry, at least not with standard team progression. It's especially bad (in the sense that it compounds a current complaint with Blackbox) in that it favours attritional teams. That is to say, a multi-clawed, piling on, DP'ed-to-the-max TS 200 Chaos team has as much chance of winning a match as a whimsical, leaping TS 200 Woodelf team. But what about the next round? In the 50% of the time that the woodies go through, how will their three remaining players fare against their next opponents? Versus the other 50% of the time that the Chaos go through completely unscathed? I know it works like that in other tournaments, but in a Blackbox-spirit tournament, either team should have an equal chance in their next match, whatever happens in the first match. That's one of the core fundamentals of the Blackbox.
So, if tournaments are team-based I would suggest that they are:
* Non-progressive. That is to say, you play all matches with your starting team (at the TS cap). No SPPs are earned, no injuries carry over. Yes, it's less fun not getting SPPs, yes it seems a bit artificial, but it is a way to allow individual teams to play through an entire tournament on a Blackbox footing.
Put simply: if you're worrying about the next match, it's not really Blackbox. |
What is wrong with a tournament with Blackbox teams? It's the same as a normal tournament, but with teams having reached that point from an equal stance.
What you could look at, as pointed out by me previously, is a TR200 tournament, where the team has to be trimmed back to TR200 for every single round. Even if Elves lose a couple of players, they should still be competitive, as long as the Orcs & Dwarves are not climbing to 230-240 TR through the tournament.
Of course, your view of Blackbox is also slightly different to mine. I view Blackbox as very similar to Ranked, but with fair match-ups that are chosen for me. So in the same light, I do not see how Blackbox tournaments need to be dramatically different from Ranked ones. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 20:22 |
|
There isn't anything wrong at all with having that sort of tournament.
It just seems like a wasted opportunity, when instead of a usual tournament for teams that happen to play in Blackbox, we could have something different: a tournament where the mechanics are based on the Blackbox principles. Like random, but fair, matchups between teams (which is incompatible with a normal knockout-progression tournament for individual teams to enter).
Don't you think? After all, there already exists the "usual" sort of tournament, which anyone can take part in by making a team in the Ranked division.
***
The other concern with a "non-Blackbox" tournament is not the tournament itself, but the reintegration into the division of teams afterwards. If tournament rounds are not Blackbox-matched affairs, you will get teams coming out the other end that have had an abnormally hard or easy run of games. A permanent run of "fair" games for everybody is one of the things that ensures the fairness of future matches, it keeps some of the worst team-building monstrosities from developing. |
|
|
On1
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 20:24 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | | Major effectively wouldn't work in Blackbox. A major goes through a teambuilding phase, out of the blackbox scope. |
O_o What is the difference between team-building in blackbox and team-building in ranked? If you are talking about the random selection of team when you sign up, then i do understand you. Is this the case?
If this is the case, then imagine having more blackbox coaches. You could void the current way of signing up. Instead manually select the teams you wanted to sign up with. This would allow team-building true or false? |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 20:27 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | Don't you think? After all, there already exists the "usual" sort of tournament, which anyone can take part in by making a team in the Ranked division. |
But, i hardly play in Ranked anymore, yet I still wish to take part in tournaments. Being similar is not a bad thing, but it will be another event for my Blackbox teams, meaning even less reason for me to carry a Ranked team.
| Chingis wrote: |
The other concern with a "non-Blackbox" tournament is not the tournament itself, but the reintegration into the division of teams afterwards. If tournament rounds are not Blackbox-matched affairs, you will get teams coming out the other end that have had an abnormally hard or easy run of games. A permanent run of "fair" games for everybody is one of the things that ensures the fairness of future matches, it keeps some of the worst team-building monstrosities from developing. |
All teams get matched under a fair TS in the normal Blackbox enviroment. With people requesting only FF +Cash as rewards, then even if a team comes out with a slightly higher TS, it will only ever play a team at the same level in it's next game.
A killer team is the ones at 300-400TR, and I think you are becoming a little paranoid if you think a Blackbox tournament would do that. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 22:02 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | Chingis wrote: | | Don't you think? After all, there already exists the "usual" sort of tournament, which anyone can take part in by making a team in the Ranked division. |
But, i hardly play in Ranked anymore, yet I still wish to take part in tournaments. Being similar is not a bad thing, but it will be another event for my Blackbox teams, meaning even less reason for me to carry a Ranked team. |
i love the idea of B-tourneys for the same reason.
i think they could be run in a very similar fashion to R-tourneys.
i agree, that with open TR-limits, the bashers would be at a great advantage in the B-environment, but introducing a fixed cap at TS=200 or below should fix that.
i favor only a cap for 1st round, though (similar to R, no experiments  ) - afterall it should be encouraged to keep players and hiring stars should be something you have to pay for (in terms of spent TR for a single round and lost thereafter ).
i also favor some more fancy price than "just" FF+3 or cash (actually for a lot of teams this just means bloating TS / TR in the Box  ).
Fancy prices don't keep the Box "pure" in a lrb-oriented sense, but the lrb-rosters are so diverse anyways, that i don't see any drawback of giving the winner a free player of his choice or something like that as that player will be taken into account TS-wise for future match-ups (as long as that special player is alive, anyways ).
it would definetly add some flavor to the box.
i think "unfair" match-ups in tourneys due to diverging development (after round 1) would be tolerable as that's restricted to the tourney (pretty few / still random games), only. |
|
|
BiggieB
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 22:27 |
|
personally I think that letting the championship run in B and swiss majors are ideally suited for B. |
|
|
fly
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 22:56 |
|
announce the date and roughly the TS the tourney will be played at(like already mentioned). draw first round as usual, but second round will be drawn after first round is finished, so most TS-equal matches happen each round. a cap to which very successful teams will have to cut down to ensures a bit of balancing. let's say first round is tr 184 and below, let second round be 180 then (or 190, depending on the amount of bloodshed.). TS shaping is done after everyone has played their game of the round (i.e. buy all stuff after the first game done and then lock/freeze teams) - so the staff knows whether to raise or lower the TS for the upcoming round. i hope you got my point, else ask me to explain further. |
_________________
I play for fun. I play to win.
Do you play CPOMB 'cause you can't win otherwise?
No, that's a rhetorical question. |
|
BiggieB
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 23:01 |
|
| Astarael wrote: | 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. |
I like it! |
|
|
Rebholz
Joined: Jul 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 23:07 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | There isn't anything wrong at all with having that sort of tournament.
It just seems like a wasted opportunity, when instead of a usual tournament for teams that happen to play in Blackbox, we could have something different: a tournament where the mechanics are based on the Blackbox principles. Like random, but fair, matchups between teams (which is incompatible with a normal knockout-progression tournament for individual teams to enter).
Don't you think? After all, there already exists the "usual" sort of tournament, which anyone can take part in by making a team in the Ranked division.
***
The other concern with a "non-Blackbox" tournament is not the tournament itself, but the reintegration into the division of teams afterwards. If tournament rounds are not Blackbox-matched affairs, you will get teams coming out the other end that have had an abnormally hard or easy run of games. A permanent run of "fair" games for everybody is one of the things that ensures the fairness of future matches, it keeps some of the worst team-building monstrosities from developing. |
I totally agree. I haven't read every single post here so far, but has anyone suggested just having the first round of the tourney occur at a pre-determined time and then having it be exactly like a standard box draw? All 16 coaches would be putting all their box teams into the mix, and the matching algorithm (or whatever it is) would assign the games. It would progress like this through the finals.
Would this be too easy to manipulate? Maybe all participants would be required to have 2 or 3 active teams to prevent people from retiring all but their most gnarly teams.
As long as there is something fundamental to the tourney structure that makes it specific to box. If it's exactly like all the other majors, but just using teams that came up in the box, whats the point?
I personally don't care if teams come out overpowered. Let them be all buffed up, they won the first box tournament ever, they deserve it. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 23:36 |
|
| Rebholz wrote: | | If it's exactly like all the other majors, but just using teams that came up in the box, whats the point? |
The point is that [B] players don't tend to play [R] much any more, so if they want to play a major, or tournament, it needs to be recreated in the [B] enviroment. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 23:58 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | Rebholz wrote: | | If it's exactly like all the other majors, but just using teams that came up in the box, whats the point? |
The point is that [B] players don't tend to play [R] much any more, so if they want to play a major, or tournament, it needs to be recreated in the [B] enviroment. |
If that is the only point then let [B] teams play in [R] tournaments.
That gives a huge amount of choice without recreating the wheel.
Then [B] can have something completely different. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - Coming soon! ---- All Star Bowl XII - Teams of Stars - Sign up NOW! |
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
