pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
 Posted:
Mar 13, 2008 - 11:39 |
 
|
Just giving this thread another kick. I will do a round-up of points made soon. |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2008 - 14:26 |
|
Okay, in summary (please note that the following is just a compilation of opinions) ...
On the positive side, Ranked tournaments:
* Are on a site-wide scale - lots of participants, lots of spectators, lots of discussion
* Can be played by ongoing teams - a favourite team can join a tournament and carry on when it's over
* Offer prizes which people are attracted to compete for (even if they think their actual chances are small)
On the downside, they:
* Are only accessible to dedicated coaches (particularly in the case of Majors)
* May have been undermined in terms of competitiveness by the power of features such as the birthday bonuses and previous Major prizes (by no means everyone is concerned by this, however)
* May also be undermined by the extent coaches are able to build up their teams in 'soft' and/or cherry-picked matches in Ranked
* Lack variety and 'spice' in the Minors
* Are, for the most part, the only ones to offer 'instants'
* Have only a limited number of staff who can start Smacks (for example), who are not always available to do so
* Have a limited range of formats
League tournaments offer some possibilities in terms of alternatives. They could:
* Have a far larger number of staff members (but there would need to be standards staff signed up to and a method of checking for abuses)
* Run on an instant basis (but is there a large enough pool of teams to support this?)
* Address the problem of soft and picked build-up games (but this would require a large amount of staff oversight work, assuming a generally open group)
* Run in a much wider range of formats, limited only by effort staff are prepared to put in (eg, restricting hires or money at start of tournament, radically different tournament structures)
* Can make use of SeraphimRed's group directory
(Minor) site changes which would be a great help include:
* Restoration of [R] -> [L] division transfer (really, why isn't this allowed? I see why no 'impure' to 'pure' environment movement - eg, [L] -> [U] - but Ranked to League is needed, especially given the present state of Unranked) (division transfers could be noted on the team page in a similar way to pre-reform Stunty teams)
* Some new avenue for user-made group advertising, although this will clearly never reach Ranked's saturation levels (perhaps some degree could be achieved by requiring/requesting that group members/staff advertise the group in their sigs/IRC quit messages (the latter may be an underused option))
I remain in great doubt as to whether it's possible to successfully establish mass-participation events in [L]. However, the (far from comprehensive) list above suggests that there are a lot of opportunities, not all of which are being currently exploited, to appeal in areas which Ranked does not or cannot.
As a starting point, I would suggest that:
* A generic [L] group be established for non-specific tournaments which required no permanent commitment
* Anyone could, and hopefully very many people would, become a staff member of this group by applying and agreeing to certain commitments (most importantly, to start tournaments when requested)
* The group would offer a few standard 'Smackesque' formats, to run on demand, but staff could also run (virtually) anything they could devise within the framework of the group
* As (if) membership and popularity grew, larger-scale events could be undertaken
It should be noted that the above plan assumes an otherwise open system for pick-up games, which therefore does not wholly address the question of 'soft' preparation and picking. Any attempt to do so would, as far as I can see, require a lot of oversight and/or a closed system.
Also note that, since only one person, the founder, can modify a group's info, that person would have to be prepared to do quite a lot of coordination work to ensure that everything being worked on by staff was satisfactorily covered (even if this just consisted of links to more detailed sub-pages owned by someone else).
Naturally, some systems (eg, the OCCS, the SWL Fringe) somewhat like this already exist. The main difference envisioned here is the openness with which anyone willing to make the commitments could go in and create tournaments for a pre-existing audience. |
|
|
Chewie
Joined: Dec 13, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2008 - 14:36 |
|
/me seconds what pac has said. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2008 - 14:44 |
|
Me too, although the bit I agree most with is the bit about pac remaining in great doubt whether a mass participation group in [L] is an achievable goal. Clearly, there are upsides here [R] can't give, but pulling the masses over from [R] is such a huge task. I though, of course, would chuck a few teams in and run some tournaments. Reviving some of the old formats lost to the mists of time like some of Sk8's fantastic NL cups would be sweet to see with ongoing teams. Founding isn't for me though, I've enough on my plate atm.
Whilst I'm here, the only time I've ever seen BigC comment on the close of division transfer was to say that [R] isn't a breeding ground for teams intended to run in other division tournaments. With the new Minor climate, I see zero difference between a coach starting and building a team for a TR175 [L] Cup and one making one for a [R] Minor. This argument seems totally unfounded now, and I think those of us that like an [L] tournament would appreciate it if the staff could take another look at this. |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 21, 2008 - 16:07 |
|
Following another abortive (due to lack of staff) attempt to start a Smack, it seemed appropriate to bump this thread.
Whether a giant effort to set up duplicate structures in [L] is really feasible or worth it I really doubt, but something clearly needs to change. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
Well the Tour and the Minors are both very new, and i would expect a review of them and their progress/popularity maybe after a year, not 2.5 months.
Scheduled Smacks do seem to be in trouble, with people able to hold teams back for the minors instead, i personally question their need.
SFC seems to be an increasingly niche format. But there is sometimes demand.
Smacks do seem to be FAR harder to get started these days. but that seems a small and easy to rectify issue. If it is ever adressed.
Majors are dominated by POimped up uber teams. But they always were. here i think Angie (tand the shoulders she stands upon) do a great job achieving different feels to the tourneys and did add a 5th at the communities request. So what exactly is the issue beyond disgruntlment at the birthday pimping.
The only problem i see is kill scheduled smacks and get some new smack admins. Then review at the end of 2008. Thats my 2 pennies anyways. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 21, 2008 - 17:04 |
|
Re: Making [L] tourneys more visible ... (and yes this would require staff work, but ...) - there's that wonderful but, I think, underused feature of the page - the calendar. How about allowing [L] tourneys to register league dates in that application. It wouldn't swamp the news, it'd only be visible to those already looking for tournament infos (as it is, so far, only used to mark the [R] events) and it'd provide a chance for spectators to get to know about what is happening without browsing tourney specific forum threads.
-Mnemon |
|
|
somertown
Joined: Aug 26, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 21, 2008 - 18:01 |
|
Why do smacks have to be reliant on an admin with the relevant authorisation being present the whole time? Could it not all be automated? (Questions posed by someone who has minimal IT skills, throwing out suggestions with no possibility of undertaking any resultant work necessary to implement the idea.)
Time spent advertising the event could be reduced if there was an automatic counter with number of teams currently entered (no need to reveal coaches' names). And just like gamefinder deletes your teams once you start a game, so an automated smack system could remove a coach who is willing and able to smack at a variety of TR levels once said coach starts a smack/game or logs off. Once the event starts, presumably we could whine in fummbl admin just like we can whine there if any of our other [R] games encounter problems such as players going walkabout. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
