There were a few things that came up as thoughts during this tournament, some mentioned by me in this thread, some tossed in or nodded gleefully at by players, and some I've kept under my hat. In future versions of this tournament, i'd expect some or all of these changes to appear in some form.
1> Noting who is "home" in each match description: ADDED in this tournament, after I accidentally swapped two sets of settings in a round *blush*. Air division overwhelmingly decided to just let the error lie, since it obviously hadn't disturbed anyone... since no one had noticed until *I* saw it, recording scores. Still, I changed the way in which I made and labeled games at that point.
2> EXCEL record keeping: again, Added. Now, I'm not sure how I survived without it. For a "shuffle" format(see below), it will require SUBSTANTIAL modification... and be freaking HUGE!
3> Map Limitations? : There have been a few comments in various games about maps, and I've been pondering the matter as well. The problems seem to fall into a few distinct areas.
a> Obscure maps. Sorry, I can't see doing anything about this one, unless the map falls into one of the other problem categories. Mastering a 'rare' map is a neat trick for tournaments that allow home settings. Also, learning a new map, even the hard way, is fun!
b> Duplicated maps. With over a hundred maps, and 25 players, what would any of you think about a 'first come, first sever' restriction on maps in the tournament? No more than one player on a map? I've seen this in some "sports league" tourneys, the purpose is much the same... variety. We only have one case of duplicated maps within a division, but could have 9still could) end up with as many as 3 of a map in the finals, or a couple of pairs.
c> LARGE maps. This was actually brought up in game chat by the player who PICKED the map.
Perhaps a simple list of a few maps that cannot be selected?
4> scoring. Modify to place slightly greater emphasis on coming in FIRST in a game.
3 players: 0, 2, 5 still 30 games, 18 per player, 90 points possible per player
4 players: 0, 1, 3, 6 still 20 games, 16 per player, 96 points possible per player
5 players: 2, 5, 9, 14, 20 cut to 5 games. 100 points possible per player
There are a few other possibilities, but the attempt to keep the TYPES of games FAIRLY equal in overall value is central to the tournament concept. This is actually easier to do with some half-point values, but that I believe that would get unnecessarily baroque.
4> SHUFFLE. Some folks commented on (and I've seen it firsthand in other tournaments) playing the same folks OVER AND OVER. That's part and parcel of some "league" formats, but i do see the concern. I'm just worried the solution may be worse than the disease... at least, for the organizer.
Format would still be 5x5... sort of.
- Code: Select all
a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
b1 b2 b3 b4 b5
c1 c2 c3 c4 c5
d1 d2 d3 d4 d5
e1 e2 e3 e4 e5
Here's your basic grid for week 1. this would be a highly-compressed format, 5 weeks instead of 10. It COULD be run as 10, I suppose (muses)... The big change: while a1 is PLAYING b1, c1, d1 and e1... they are COMPETING against a2, a3, a4, a5. only one of the "a" players will advance, one "b" and so on.
THE REASON:
- Code: Select all
a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
b5 b1 b2 b3 b4
c4 c5 c1 c2 c3
d3 d4 d5 d1 d2
e2 e3 e4 e5 e1
Here's the week 2 competition grid. The divisions shuffle each round. By the end of 5 rounds, each "a" player will have played ALL TWENTY b, c, d, and e players, one week each. So now, rather than advancing people based on their performance against EACH OTHER, we'd be advancing people based on their performance against a pool of TWENTY OTHER IDENTICAL PLAYERS.
- Code: Select all
a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
b4 b5 b1 b2 b3 b3 b4 b5 b1 b2 b2 b3 b4 b5 b1
c2 c3 c4 c5 c1 c5 c1 c2 c3 c4 c3 c4 c5 c1 c2
d5 d1 d2 d3 d4 d2 d3 d4 d5 d1 d4 d5 d1 d2 d3
e3 e4 e5 e1 e2 e4 e5 e1 e2 e3 e5 e1 e2 e3 e4
Here's the other 3 rounds, as proof the shuffle works from the standpoint of all divisions, and no one duplicates an opponent. (c2, for example, plays: a2, b2, d2, e2; a4, b3, d1, e5; a1, b4, d5, e3; a3, b5, d4, e1; a5, b1, d3, e4. It checks)
Problems with the shuffle: the schedule will need to be fully noted in advance, needing just random.org to slot the players in. The score sheet will need all 25 players listed on the same page (possibly a page for each week, although cumulative score then have to forward from sheet to sheet), and detailed notes on exactly WHO belongs in EACH game.
Feedback on any of these would be appreciated, as well as on this tournament in general. I know the most-mentioned problem seemed to be in the format of keeping score. I'd appreciate any advice along those lines, while keeping everything obsessively organized and neat. Screenshotted/graphical score charts, perhaps?
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:23 pm
It's not likely, but hope springs eternal, and all that jazz.