BooAhl
Joined: Sep 02, 2004
|
 Posted:
Aug 10, 2009 - 14:44 |
 
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | I would like to throw an idea out there, to see what kind of reception it gets. I have already made the suggestion to PurpleChest and I am sure he will consider it along with a whole host of other options, but he also suggested posted the idea here.
We will hopefully have a few Blackbox majors each year, and due to the style of the box, these will almost certainly mainly involve the bashier teams, so I have come up with an idea which might promote more agile teams to enter, which is;
No Overtime.
The idea being, that if the 2 teams playing are level at the end of the game, the lower TS team progresses.
It might seem a little harsh for the team who is only a couple of TS higher, but this will force the higher TS side to go for the win, rather than taking the 1-1 draw while demolishing the other side, only to take an easy victory in overtime.
It would also add to the team management side, as teams try to work out the benefits in taking a star or wizard, which whilst improving their chance to win the game, may also increase their TS so much that they have to play for the win.
I think that this will help the more fragile and indeed less developed sides enjoy a tournament which otherwise they might not consider entering. It would also make for some interesting finishes, as the big teams battle to ensure they win within normal time.
Let me know what you think. It will not be the only idea PurpleChest has under review for next year, but it would certanily make for a unique major. |
I like!
It is fair, more fun to watch for the fans and also an extra tweak from [ R ] tounreys.
Of course it will be harder for high TR bashers to win but certainly not harder than it is for AV-weak teams now. Even Stunties will now get the chance with the TTM for 2-2.
Go for it I say! |
|
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2009 - 15:02 |
|
I like that idea, but I suppose I'm biased since I play skaven  |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2009 - 15:27 |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2009 - 21:48 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | (...)
No Overtime.
The idea being, that if the 2 teams playing are level at the end of the game, the lower TS team progresses.
(...) |
i like the direction which the idea is headed, but i'd like to suggest a modification to make it less drastic
(especially for small differences in TS):
instead of making it a 50/50 - cointoss who gets the win, make it 1d100 + TS1 vs. 1d100 + TS2 at the end of the
game - whoever scores lower gets the win.
thus:
1. equal TS: 50/50 - chance
2. 10 TS difference: 55% chance for lower TS-team to win.
3. 20 TS difference: 60% chance for lower TS-team to win.
4. 30 TS difference: 65% chance for lower TS-team to win.
...
5. 100TS difference: lower TS-team wins for sure (100%)
(if it's tied, the dice just need to get re-rolled)
That way, i think, we could avoid teams getting pimped the other way (i.e. coaches might try to cut
their team to just -1 TS vs. oppo...) |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2009 - 22:04 |
|
| treborius wrote: | i think, we could avoid teams getting pimped the other way (i.e. coaches might try to cut
their team to just -1 TS vs. oppo...) |
But if coaches try to drop players to get the lower TS, they are damaging themselves for the overall tourney, thus the simple rule brings in a new level of team management |
|
|
Qaz
Joined: Apr 28, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2009 - 22:06 |
|
At the moment thou there is no way of implimenting that the lower TS team wins on a tie. So again we are out where we need C to code and I for one am reluctant to ask the verry buissy C to code any thing with so much that needs coding around here. |
_________________
Superstition brings bad luck.
"he who has relied least on fortune is established
the strongest"
Niccolo Machiavelli |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2009 - 22:51 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | treborius wrote: | i think, we could avoid teams getting pimped the other way (i.e. coaches might try to cut
their team to just -1 TS vs. oppo...) |
But if coaches try to drop players to get the lower TS, they are damaging themselves for the overall tourney, thus the simple rule brings in a new level of team management |
...while it might be true what you're saying for a lot of cases, there're certainly those where it's not (especially in the final)
...and as i said, i'm not against the idea - i think it's good, but it just needs to be softened a little 
i think a TS-difference of only 10 TS (or even less) shouldn't have such a drastic impact. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 10, 2009 - 23:22 |
|
| Qaz wrote: | | At the moment thou there is no way of implimenting that the lower TS team wins on a tie. So again we are out where we need C to code and I for one am reluctant to ask the verry buissy C to code any thing with so much that needs coding around here. |
I am aware of that Qaz, which is one reason I know this will not even be considered until next year, at the very earliest.
Although, it might be possible to set the tournaments to no overtime, but tthe admins would then need to make sure the lower TS team had progressed on a tie, replacing the progressing team if needed. |
|
|
Qaz
Joined: Apr 28, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 11, 2009 - 00:10 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | Qaz wrote: | | At the moment thou there is no way of implimenting that the lower TS team wins on a tie. So again we are out where we need C to code and I for one am reluctant to ask the verry buissy C to code any thing with so much that needs coding around here. |
I am aware of that Qaz, which is one reason I know this will not even be considered until next year, at the very earliest.
Although, it might be possible to set the tournaments to no overtime, but tthe admins would then need to make sure the lower TS team had progressed on a tie, replacing the progressing team if needed. |
It is a way to do it. there is no problem in setting a tournament to no over time. But the replacing oppoenent would requier quite some work. first you would have to look for any ties after that you would need to get a hold of the guy who should have moved on the the next round but did not and you need to get him to reapply to the group again and then swap him in. Is posibble but a lot of work and is a potential big risk of causing delays. Mind you I am not against the idea as such actually find it apealing and an intrinsting way of making B different. But I am a realist and want the tournaments to run smoothly. |
_________________
Superstition brings bad luck.
"he who has relied least on fortune is established
the strongest"
Niccolo Machiavelli |
|
Rawlf
Joined: Jul 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 11, 2009 - 10:30 |
|
Wouldn't this directly lead to favoring low-TS orcs over high-TS blodge teams in an equal TR tournament? |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 11, 2009 - 10:44 |
|
| Rawlf wrote: | | Wouldn't this directly lead to favoring low-TS orcs over high-TS blodge teams in an equal TR tournament? |
This is not for a TR capped tournament. This is an ideal for one of the non-capped Majors, where Elves and the likes struggle to get to the same TR as seen by Orcs, Dwarves and the likes. |
|
|
clarkin
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:32 |
|
Question: do B tournaments have the same increased k-value for working out BWR as you'd see in ranked tournaments (and CR)? I ask because smashak just won a major and isn't in the top-10 BWR list. Just thought he might be after the win. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:42 |
|
I think now, that the first tournament is done, I think it`s a great time to talk about formats, prizes etc.
Should all [B] majors be the same like the current? |
|
|
anisdrin
Joined: Apr 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:47 |
|
I like the idea of no overtime and draws favoring lower TS.
Now between the 60 highest TR/TS teams in Box there are only 1 skaven, 3 elves and 1 human. So in a no-TR cap tournament the presence of soft races will be very low. And they will have a much more difficult time surviving the attrition of a tournament.
Maybe this kind of measure can have the seconday effect of improving the presence of diffetent races in the box. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2009 - 12:51 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | Qaz wrote: | | At the moment thou there is no way of implimenting that the lower TS team wins on a tie. So again we are out where we need C to code and I for one am reluctant to ask the verry buissy C to code any thing with so much that needs coding around here. |
I am aware of that Qaz, which is one reason I know this will not even be considered until next year, at the very earliest.
Although, it might be possible to set the tournaments to no overtime, but tthe admins would then need to make sure the lower TS team had progressed on a tie, replacing the progressing team if needed. |
There is a very easy way of implementing a rule where the lower TS team wins.... but its a little messy.
Set the tournaments to overtime but state that games end after two halves. If overtime is invoked by a tie then the higher TS team is compelled to setup in such a way that the lower TS team can walk in a single touchdown. Obviously this might cause the odd peculiar situation so you'd have to specify a few more rules:
- a single touchdown must be scored, no more and no fewer. Reload if necessary.
- neither coach can perferm potentially SPP generating actions or foul actions other than the single touchdown scored to decide the game
- any players killed by rocks must be resurrected via reloading
This approach should work but has a few disadvantages:
- some utter tard is bound to screw it up
- you will get someone who deliberately does not comply with the rules. In serious this would have to be handled by them completing the game in single player mode and having admins push the result, not ideal but hopefully rare.
- the odd game replay will be corrupted
- three extra SPP are being handed out, shock, horror, imba!
- some utter tard is bound to screw it up, it really really shouldnt happen but it will |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
|
|
| |
Vamps win another ma...
Search
