pjdonald wrote:As we wrap up, I'm interested in feedback. I definitely intend to do this again in some form.
1) Points system: was it fair? Should there be more emphasis on winning? less?
2) Scheduling: was it too compact? I'm leaning towards 10-14 days between sets instead of 7, since I think at one point I had 14 league games (of my own) going at once.
3) Matchups: in the next generation, I'm thinking to still emphasize divisional play, but also introduce some inter-divisional play as well.
4) Choice of settings: should I force people to pick 2 esc and 2 flat? or one esc, one flat, one no card, and one of their choice? I could manage the flow much better that way.
By the way, responses to #2 could be incorporated into the final round. I'll probably poll all 6 advancers on that point.
1: Seemed reasonable. haven't done any deep thinking on this yet, But I stayed reasonably close for most of the way with only one win near the end (to date, couple to go), just a number of respectable performances. Would suggest waiting until the tournament round is DONE, analyzing folks' performances and finishing positions, before making any changes.
2: either works. the longer delay is certainly appropriate after rounds that have no cards or several flat rate games, as those take longer. you could make the larger games 9with higher rewards0 flat or no cards, and the smaller games flat or esc. easier forts in the smaller games, to speed them along. Possibly make the larger games worth more, then. I am NOT a fan of 'no card' games in most tournament play, though. they tend to take too much longer, and disarrange the schedule, IMO.
3: cool, but that's looking more like a long-term league than a tournament. yes, I know leagues are tournaments.... but I think you get my meaning.
4: Hmmm, see my comments to #2.