SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
 Posted:
Oct 18, 2007 - 14:53 |
 
|
You couldn't have the single game now option AND the two games option SMACKs running at the same time, the single game option would monopolise it, simply because you'd want to start your SMACK now, rather than waiting another 30mins. However, I'm sure this dosent mean that the single game option is automatically the best, it might just serve to annoy some of the current SMACK players by tying their teams up. |
_________________
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." |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 18, 2007 - 14:56 |
|
Well SillySod, that sounds great. Good work from the staff, and I look forward to the implementation of new tourneys for all to enjoy.
But back to SMACKs, if they weren't thinking about changing the format, they wouldn't have started a poll. Nice of Qaz to speak up on behalf of the silentish majority. I dunno if running both 2 game and 1 game instant starts would work all that well, I have images of disagreements in the channel and a watering down of coaches as they are split across the two formats. Kinda like we have with L and U. It might have to be one or the other.  |
|
|
Unstoffe
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 18, 2007 - 17:23 |
|
Not sure why the single game option would monopolise things - the argument is, there'd be new people trying to start the single-game-then-schedule style, and the current smack players would join those rather than wait? I suspect enough of them prefer the current format to hold out, judging from the poll.
But - how about restricting the single-game minor to a single or small set of TR groupings? Maybe cycle through the various groupings on a weekly basis... |
_________________
British or thereabouts? Check out the White Isle League |
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
I voted keep them the same.
had there been an option to say 'keep them the same and also introduce scheduled RRR style tourneys' i would have voted for that.
But there wasnt.
I accept there is a desire for scheduled tourneys RRR style at different TR's and i think they are a good idea. im not sure they should be called smacks though.
I also see that some cant play 2 games back to back. But i think they could be catered for by scheduled games in a RRR style tournament.
I think smacks should remain as they are because the best thing about them is the low level of drop outs as the tournamnet is, more or less, played then and there, and also the low hassle factor of not hanving to Pm and compare schedules etc etc to find a window to play the games prior to the final.
Were they scheduled then all three rounds would be waiting on people to arrange the game and then play it. they would fall apart as often as L tournaments do.
1 instant game smacks would also see the likely death of 2 instant game smacks as when the deciding factor is people to start it, one person can easily hold the others to ransom saying 'i only have the time for one round' and hence i think 2 instant game smacks would be history.
What would be missed by this is the momentum, ease of game arrangement (bar the final, which has its own incentive to keep people wanting to make it happen) and importantly the atmosphere and spectacle created by 4 games going off at once in the games page, with the specs attracted knowing they can more or less watch the tournament unfold, develop favorites and villains and see teams go head to head having watched both conquer in round one.
i would guess that this non smack playing, but smack appreciating spectator vote has led to the result on the font page poll.
That said im not convinced 50% will be enough to scare off the forces of change, and i expect other forms of smack will come. I am, as usual i suppose, slightly pessimistic as to what these changes may mean. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Secret League Americ...
Search
