Large-Team Tournaments & Director Changes

[Lindax]

IcePack, of course you can run your Large-Team Tournament. All you need to do is show us that you are serious about it. You're already running a few tournaments, so you shouldn't be that far away from meeting the requirements.

BTW: Can I ask you what happened to the "Epic Teams" tournament you were supposed to organize together with chapcrap?

Lx

[patrickaa317]

12 players on a team.

6 games per round = 6-24 spots for those games. (6 singles games to 6 quads games)


If each player has to play 2 games, that means 24 spots are required to maintain medal possibility if there are 12 players on a team, which would allow no room at all for non-quads games as they only way to maintain this is to have ALL quads games.



EDIT: Realized 12 spots per team a possibility, updated above post.

bump. Looking for a response from a TD.

[IcePack]

IcePack, of course you can run your Large-Team Tournament. All you need to do is show us that you are serious about it. You're already running a few tournaments, so you shouldn't be that far away from meeting the requirements.

BTW: Can I ask you what happened to the "Epic Teams" tournament you were supposed to organize together with chapcrap?

Lx

I'm more than willing to run it if I'm allowed, thank u for saying I can. Does that mean even if it doesn't meet every new requirement?

I have two ongoing tournaments, a 1 vs 1 clan war vs legion, and a tournament league in sign ups. It'll still be awhile before these "complete" seeing as they aren't tiny tournaments. I have no "team tournaments" as of yet. The 3 completed & 1 team means I'll still be months away from meeting even the capability to host it. I am serious about it, I've been here less then a year and I've been involved with a clan, tournaments, very active in forums, tournaments, and logged 1600 completed games. I'm here for the long haul. I've also done a "unofficial" tournament within KOA bcuz TD's said it couldn't be made a tournament due to 100% invites, and so they've all been private games.

I've updated my tournaments regularly and keep them moving. The tournament with chapcrap was always his tournament, I said I would help out. Unfortunately I had some personal problems, a unexpected move, and a surgery to deal with right when it was to start up. My job was to create games, which I could hav e done but I'd had delayed his start a bit so I stepped aside so that his tournament wouldnt be slowed down due to my issues. After those were sorted out I had my tourney nearly ready and healed the first week of surgery when I was posting it, but the new moratorium on large team games came into play.

I didn't like it, but it was suggested I should run some tournaments in the meantime as likely there would be a requirement for it. So even tho I only had interest in running one, I've started 3 others to show I was serious about it. It wasn't mentioned one would need to be a team tournament or I'd have started that so I would be "on the way" to started the only one I still really wanting to run.

Ive run similar ones at gaming conventions and other sites, I adjusted the set up to "fit" CC tournament games and set up. But I doubt I can fit it into the 12 man requirement, and it'll still be months away before I complete the 3 required tournaments.

The whole idea of my large team tournament was I couldn't do ANYTHING for two months after my surgery (couldn't walk) so id have all day and night in bed to run it. Now, ive healed up and am back to work so instead of giving 100% to it it'll actually slow the tournament down as summer is the busiest time of work for me. (summer). I could have gotten thru the first several rounds which would be the heaviest part of the work load, so that by summer it'd be less for me to handle. See, I HAD put a lot of thought into t and making sure it'd be successful.

Anyway, do whatever you like. I'll give my opinion and you can allow me or not, I'm just upset I wasted so much time preparing something for CC community that ultimately wasnt even able to get off the ground, and even if it is run t won't go as smoothly as it would have when I actually wanted to run it 2 months ago, and the stop to those tournaments actually preventing the very thing it was intended to ensure. Well run tournaments from people who would be actively pursuing it's timely completion.

If you have any other question about chaps tournament feel free to PM me, I won't give personal details here.

IcePack

[Lindax]

IcePack, of course you can run your Large-Team Tournament. All you need to do is show us that you are serious about it. You're already running a few tournaments, so you shouldn't be that far away from meeting the requirements.

BTW: Can I ask you what happened to the "Epic Teams" tournament you were supposed to organize together with chapcrap?

Lx

I'm more than willing to run it if I'm allowed, thank u for saying I can. Does that mean even if it doesn't meet every new requirement?

No, you'll have to meet every new requirement.

I have two ongoing tournaments, a 1 vs 1 clan war vs legion, and a tournament league in sign ups. It'll still be awhile before these "complete" seeing as they aren't tiny tournaments. I have no "team tournaments" as of yet. The 3 completed & 1 team means I'll still be months away from meeting even the capability to host it. I am serious about it, I've been here less then a year and I've been involved with a clan, tournaments, very active in forums, tournaments, and logged 1600 completed games. I'm here for the long haul. I've also done a "unofficial" tournament within KOA bcuz TD's said it couldn't be made a tournament due to 100% invites, and so they've all been private games.

If you're here for the long haul, why the hurry?

I've updated my tournaments regularly and keep them moving. The tournament with chapcrap was always his tournament, I said I would help out. Unfortunately I had some personal problems, a unexpected move, and a surgery to deal with right when it was to start up. My job was to create games, which I could hav e done but I'd had delayed his start a bit so I stepped aside so that his tournament wouldnt be slowed down due to my issues. After those were sorted out I had my tourney nearly ready and healed the first week of surgery when I was posting it, but the new moratorium on large team games came into play.

Sorry, but we can't really do anything about the "bad timing".

I didn't like it, but it was suggested I should run some tournaments in the meantime as likely there would be a requirement for it. So even tho I only had interest in running one, I've started 3 others to show I was serious about it. It wasn't mentioned one would need to be a team tournament or I'd have started that so I would be "on the way" to started the only one I still really wanting to run.

We didn't know the knew requirements at the time either. However, if you're here for the long haul it shouldn't matter that much.

Ive run similar ones at gaming conventions and other sites, I adjusted the set up to "fit" CC tournament games and set up. But I doubt I can fit it into the 12 man requirement, and it'll still be months away before I complete the 3 required tournaments.

Again, if you're here for the long haul it shouldn't matter. And that's exactly what we want to see, TOs being here for the long haul.

The whole idea of my large team tournament was I couldn't do ANYTHING for two months after my surgery (couldn't walk) so id have all day and night in bed to run it. Now, ive healed up and am back to work so instead of giving 100% to it it'll actually slow the tournament down as summer is the busiest time of work for me. (summer). I could have gotten thru the first several rounds which would be the heaviest part of the work load, so that by summer it'd be less for me to handle. See, I HAD put a lot of thought into t and making sure it'd be successful.

Trying to set up and run a Large-Team Tournament knowing you have 2 months with plenty of time on your hands is a bad idea. Usually the problems with this kind of tournaments start showing up after the first few months. You could have easily organized a bunch of short tournaments to get you through those two months.

Anyway, do whatever you like. I'll give my opinion and you can allow me or not, I'm just upset I wasted so much time preparing something for CC community that ultimately wasnt even able to get off the ground, and even if it is run t won't go as smoothly as it would have when I actually wanted to run it 2 months ago, and the stop to those tournaments actually preventing the very thing it was intended to ensure. Well run tournaments from people who would be actively pursuing it's timely completion.

This is not the first time you say "do whatever you like" or "I don't care". To me that doesn't seem like a TO who is convinced that he wants to really run a Large-Team Tournament.

If you have any other question about chaps tournament feel free to PM me, I won't give personal details here.

Thank you, but you more or less proved the point of our new policy already.


On a side note: I know I can sound arrogant and condescending sometimes, however, that is not my intention. What I'm trying to point out with my answers to you is that many of the points you bring up are exactly why we put this knew policy in place.

Lx

[Lindax]

12 players on a team.

6 games per round = 6-24 spots for those games. (6 singles games to 6 quads games)


If each player has to play 2 games, that means 24 spots are required to maintain medal possibility if there are 12 players on a team, which would allow no room at all for non-quads games as they only way to maintain this is to have ALL quads games.



EDIT: Realized 12 spots per team a possibility, updated above post.

bump. Looking for a response from a TD.

I'll give you a response if you give me a question.

Anyway, you can have any number of games per round and for a Large-Team Tournament 6 games per round doesn't sound like much. That said, even with 6 games per round all of the players could theoretically get a medal since you only need to play in 50% of the rounds.

Lx

[IcePack]

Well then again, the tournament won't meet wert requirement so clearly I cant run it as you suggested.
I never said I was in a hurry, I said it was annoying bcuz I had put all this work into it to avoid exactly what ur trying to avoid, and got screwed.
I did set up tournaments thru the 2 month break, that's already been brought up. The point was there was actually only one that I desired to run. Although with a lot of work done in the front side of things, I disagree there was much of a chance of it falling apart in a well run tournament.
Your kidding me right? Me saying I don't care doesn't I don't want to run my tournament, clearly I do. I've been trying to be allowed when you posted the break and the new policy! I'd have just given up if I "didn't care" about that. I don't care whether you do or not because you've already wasted my time, and I don't think you care about the time I've wasted trying to put on a CC tournament that was a lot of work. And therefore, as you've already so eloquently stated, won't budge on the policy and makes it unrunnavle anyway.

What you've done is confirmed my fear and what I voiced when the break was put in place, more than likely my tournament wouldn't e able to be run. And you've confirmed it with everything you've said. I don't see how what you've said or my points have "proved" anything about the new policy. But that's irrelevant and personal opinion.

IcePack

[Lindax]

and I don't think you care about the time I've wasted trying to put on a CC tournament that was a lot of work.

IcePack

This is where you are wrong IcePack. Do you really think that if I didn't care that I would spend several hours a day trying to make the tournament part of CC a better place for all of us?

I'm sorry for you that the timing of your tournament and us putting a new policy in place kind of screwed your plans, but don't ever tell me that I don't care.

Lx

[IcePack]

Ok, you may care - but you won't do anything about it. Policy is policy, duly noted.

I won't run the tournament, got the msg loud & clear.

[patrickaa317]

12 players on a team.

6 games per round = 6-24 spots for those games. (6 singles games to 6 quads games)


If each player has to play 2 games, that means 24 spots are required to maintain medal possibility if there are 12 players on a team, which would allow no room at all for non-quads games as they only way to maintain this is to have ALL quads games.



EDIT: Realized 12 spots per team a possibility, updated above post.

bump. Looking for a response from a TD.

I'll give you a response if you give me a question.

Anyway, you can have any number of games per round and for a Large-Team Tournament 6 games per round doesn't sound like much. That said, even with 6 games per round all of the players could theoretically get a medal since you only need to play in 50% of the rounds.

Lx

According to the original post:

4.- To be eligible for a Tournament Achievement Medal a member of the winning team must:

• Have played at least one-third (33%) of the tournament games he/she could have played.
  
  i.e. If a player could play in a max of 6 games per round, then they need to average at least 2 games per round over the course of the tournament.
• Have participated in at least half (50%) of all rounds or phases of the tournament.
• Have won 1 game in the tournament.

Note: This rule is in addition to the existing rules about Tournament Achievement Medals.

You have to play in 1/3 of the games you could play in to be eligible for a medal. With 12 players per team, the only way all players can qualify is if you all play only Quads games and every player is involved in an exact equal number of them. If you have 12 players per team, and there is one game that involves Triples, then at the very most only 11 players will be eligible for a medal. It is impossible for the 12th player to be able to meet the 1/3 minimum requirement at that point.

And the number of total games would have to be a multiple of 3 otherwise at least one player still wouldn't qualify. 100 games = 400 spots; each player has to play in 33.3 games to qualify. Since you can't play .3 of a game, you have to play 34 games to meet the minimum requirement. Players ABCD play games 1-34, Players EFGH play games 35-68, Players IJKL play games 69-100. Players IJKL only played 32 games and thus do not qualify for a team medal.

The math is the same whether it's 6 games per round or 600 games per round. And even though you only have to participate in half of the rounds, you still have to average 1/3 over the course of the tournament.

I understand the need for new requirements for Large Team tourneys but with this math it makes things tough to organize a tourney where all 12 players could all receive a medal.

Is that really what is desired? Where all 12 player Large Team tourneys are restricted to Quads only games? Perhaps there could be "medium sized" team tourneys (5-10 players) and then "large sized" team tourneys (11+ players).

And on a side note:
This new rule will completely eliminate tournaments like Tupence's 2012 Olympics which I have found to be very fun and a very unique layout. You could never have Singles games in large team tournaments unless you also incorporate 1 quads game for every 2 singles games to bring up the average game count; and that would restrict the maximum amount of players to 6 per team to ensure everyone is medal eligible.

[IcePack]

You also couldn't have regular eliminations, as anyone eliminated in the large team event early rounds wouldn't have played half the rounds minimum and therefore not receive a medal for help in the early rounds. Those eliminated in 1st round would be completely impossible, which I'm fine with they wouldn't get 1 win. But the next few rounds would eliminate several players as well, and if ur limited to 5-12 those teams will dry up pretty quickly. Most of the winning team might not even get the medal...

[Lindax]

12 players on a team.

6 games per round = 6-24 spots for those games. (6 singles games to 6 quads games)


If each player has to play 2 games, that means 24 spots are required to maintain medal possibility if there are 12 players on a team, which would allow no room at all for non-quads games as they only way to maintain this is to have ALL quads games.



EDIT: Realized 12 spots per team a possibility, updated above post.

bump. Looking for a response from a TD.

I'll give you a response if you give me a question.

Anyway, you can have any number of games per round and for a Large-Team Tournament 6 games per round doesn't sound like much. That said, even with 6 games per round all of the players could theoretically get a medal since you only need to play in 50% of the rounds.

Lx

According to the original post:

4.- To be eligible for a Tournament Achievement Medal a member of the winning team must:

• Have played at least one-third (33%) of the tournament games he/she could have played.
  
  i.e. If a player could play in a max of 6 games per round, then they need to average at least 2 games per round over the course of the tournament.
• Have participated in at least half (50%) of all rounds or phases of the tournament.
• Have won 1 game in the tournament.

Note: This rule is in addition to the existing rules about Tournament Achievement Medals.

You have to play in 1/3 of the games you could play in to be eligible for a medal. With 12 players per team, the only way all players can qualify is if you all play only Quads games and every player is involved in an exact equal number of them. If you have 12 players per team, and there is one game that involves Triples, then at the very most only 11 players will be eligible for a medal. It is impossible for the 12th player to be able to meet the 1/3 minimum requirement at that point.

And the number of total games would have to be a multiple of 3 otherwise at least one player still wouldn't qualify. 100 games = 400 spots; each player has to play in 33.3 games to qualify. Since you can't play .3 of a game, you have to play 34 games to meet the minimum requirement. Players ABCD play games 1-34, Players EFGH play games 35-68, Players IJKL play games 69-100. Players IJKL only played 32 games and thus do not qualify for a team medal.

The math is the same whether it's 6 games per round or 600 games per round. And even though you only have to participate in half of the rounds, you still have to average 1/3 over the course of the tournament.

I understand the need for new requirements for Large Team tourneys but with this math it makes things tough to organize a tourney where all 12 players could all receive a medal.

Is that really what is desired? Where all 12 player Large Team tourneys are restricted to Quads only games? Perhaps there could be "medium sized" team tourneys (5-10 players) and then "large sized" team tourneys (11+ players).

And on a side note:
This new rule will completely eliminate tournaments like Tupence's 2012 Olympics which I have found to be very fun and a very unique layout. You could never have Singles games in large team tournaments unless you also incorporate 1 quads game for every 2 singles games to bring up the average game count; and that would restrict the maximum amount of players to 6 per team to ensure everyone is medal eligible.

Mmmm.... I'm not a math person, maybe somebody else can jump in here as far as numbers are concerned.

I'm not sure I understand your problem. If you make sure you have enough games per round there should not be a problem with medal eligibility.... And what's the point of a Large-Team Tournament if all players cannot participate in each round?

Lx

[Lindax]

You also couldn't have regular eliminations, as anyone eliminated in the large team event early rounds wouldn't have played half the rounds minimum and therefore not receive a medal for help in the early rounds. Those eliminated in 1st round would be completely impossible, which I'm fine with they wouldn't get 1 win. But the next few rounds would eliminate several players as well, and if ur limited to 5-12 those teams will dry up pretty quickly. Most of the winning team might not even get the medal...

I'd really like to know what kind of tournament set-up you guys are talking about.

Lx

[IcePack]

You also couldn't have regular eliminations, as anyone eliminated in the large team event early rounds wouldn't have played half the rounds minimum and therefore not receive a medal for help in the early rounds. Those eliminated in 1st round would be completely impossible, which I'm fine with they wouldn't get 1 win. But the next few rounds would eliminate several players as well, and if ur limited to 5-12 those teams will dry up pretty quickly. Most of the winning team might not even get the medal...

I'd really like to know what kind of tournament set-up you guys are talking about.

Lx

I'll be happy to skype or any other msn yahoo aim type chat system when u are free.

[patrickaa317]

12 players on a team.

6 games per round = 6-24 spots for those games. (6 singles games to 6 quads games)


If each player has to play 2 games, that means 24 spots are required to maintain medal possibility if there are 12 players on a team, which would allow no room at all for non-quads games as they only way to maintain this is to have ALL quads games.



EDIT: Realized 12 spots per team a possibility, updated above post.

bump. Looking for a response from a TD.

I'll give you a response if you give me a question.

Anyway, you can have any number of games per round and for a Large-Team Tournament 6 games per round doesn't sound like much. That said, even with 6 games per round all of the players could theoretically get a medal since you only need to play in 50% of the rounds.

Lx

According to the original post:

4.- To be eligible for a Tournament Achievement Medal a member of the winning team must:

• Have played at least one-third (33%) of the tournament games he/she could have played.
  
  i.e. If a player could play in a max of 6 games per round, then they need to average at least 2 games per round over the course of the tournament.
• Have participated in at least half (50%) of all rounds or phases of the tournament.
• Have won 1 game in the tournament.

Note: This rule is in addition to the existing rules about Tournament Achievement Medals.

You have to play in 1/3 of the games you could play in to be eligible for a medal. With 12 players per team, the only way all players can qualify is if you all play only Quads games and every player is involved in an exact equal number of them. If you have 12 players per team, and there is one game that involves Triples, then at the very most only 11 players will be eligible for a medal. It is impossible for the 12th player to be able to meet the 1/3 minimum requirement at that point.

And the number of total games would have to be a multiple of 3 otherwise at least one player still wouldn't qualify. 100 games = 400 spots; each player has to play in 33.3 games to qualify. Since you can't play .3 of a game, you have to play 34 games to meet the minimum requirement. Players ABCD play games 1-34, Players EFGH play games 35-68, Players IJKL play games 69-100. Players IJKL only played 32 games and thus do not qualify for a team medal.

The math is the same whether it's 6 games per round or 600 games per round. And even though you only have to participate in half of the rounds, you still have to average 1/3 over the course of the tournament.

I understand the need for new requirements for Large Team tourneys but with this math it makes things tough to organize a tourney where all 12 players could all receive a medal.

Is that really what is desired? Where all 12 player Large Team tourneys are restricted to Quads only games? Perhaps there could be "medium sized" team tourneys (5-10 players) and then "large sized" team tourneys (11+ players).

And on a side note:
This new rule will completely eliminate tournaments like Tupence's 2012 Olympics which I have found to be very fun and a very unique layout. You could never have Singles games in large team tournaments unless you also incorporate 1 quads game for every 2 singles games to bring up the average game count; and that would restrict the maximum amount of players to 6 per team to ensure everyone is medal eligible.

Mmmm.... I'm not a math person, maybe somebody else can jump in here as far as numbers are concerned.

I'm not sure I understand your problem. If you make sure you have enough games per round there should not be a problem with medal eligibility.... And what's the point of a Large-Team Tournament if all players cannot participate in each round?

Lx

The number of games per round is irrelevant. It is based on percentage played. The more games you have per round, the more games it takes to earn a medal.

All players would & could participate each round. The issue is that if you have all doubles games for the large team tournament, any more than 7 players per large team and all members can not mathematically qualify for medals. If you have 12 players, you can only use quadruples to ensure medal eligibility.

What's the point of having large team tourneys if you can not utilize a large variety of settings? (i.e. Singles, dubs, trips, & quads)

[merch313]

Seems ok with me the new updates...Thanks guys...

merch

[patrickaa317]

You also couldn't have regular eliminations, as anyone eliminated in the large team event early rounds wouldn't have played half the rounds minimum and therefore not receive a medal for help in the early rounds. Those eliminated in 1st round would be completely impossible, which I'm fine with they wouldn't get 1 win. But the next few rounds would eliminate several players as well, and if ur limited to 5-12 those teams will dry up pretty quickly. Most of the winning team might not even get the medal...

I'd really like to know what kind of tournament set-up you guys are talking about. I'm running a Large-Team Tournament right now where pretty much everybody is eligible for the medal and we play three 1 v 1 games, 4 doubles, 2 trips and only 1 quad game, per round, per team.

Lx

I'm thinking completely different styles than IcePack.

Here's a quick, easy scenario.

8 teams. 12 players each (ABCDEFGHIJKL)

Simple standard best of 9 bracket each round. 3 quads, 3 trips, 3 dubs

Quads 1 = ABCD
Quads 2 = EFGH
Quads 3 = IJKL
Trips 1 = ABC
Trips 2 = DEF
Trips 3 = GHI
Dubs 1 = JK
Dubs 2 = LA
Dubs 3 = BC

9 games each player must play 3 to qualify for a team medal. Only players A, B, & C would qualify for a medal based on the first round.

Second round you could go:

Quads 1 = DEFG
Quads 2 = HIJK
Quads 3 = LABC
Trips 1 = DEF
Trips 2 = GHI
Trips 3 = JKL
Dubs 1 = AB
Dubs 2 = CD
Dubs 3 = EF

Now you must have played in 6 of the 18 games. And 0 players would qualify for a team medal after Round 2.

It only gets worse as you go through more and more rounds.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you change it to 5 Quads, 2 trips, & 2 dubs
Quads 1 = ABCD
Quads 2 = EFGH
Quads 3 = IJKL
Quads 4 = ABCD
Quads 5 = EFGH
Trips 1 = IJK
Trips 2 = LAB
Dubs 1 = CD
Dubs 2 = EF

Still must play 3 games to qualify. Only players A, B, C, D, E, & F would qualify.

Round 2:
Quads 1 = GHIJ
Quads 2 = KLAB
Quads 3 = CDEF
Quads 4 = GHIJ
Quads 5 = KLAB
Trips 1 = CDE
Trips 2 = FGH
Dubs 1 = IJ
Dubs 2 = KL

Must have played in 6 of 18 games to qualify. All players only have 5 games. Again, this only gets worse the more rounds you progress. And 0 players would qualify for a team medal after Round 2.

[Lindax]

Patrick: I think I get your point. Just can't get my mind around it at the moment, it's late and I should be in bed by now.

One thing: Rest assured that it's NOT our intention to have Large-Team Tournaments only of quad games.

Lx

[patrickaa317]

Patrick: I think I get your point. Just can't get my mind around it at the moment, it's late and I should be in bed by now.

One thing: Rest assured that it's NOT our intention to have Large-Team Tournaments only of quad games.

Lx

Understandable, I should be too. And I know you did this to avoid a lot of loose flimsy tournaments where it was way too easy to get medals but I think the numbers and minimums may need to vary based on whether it is 5 or 12 players and also the style (all trips and quads; or a variety of singles/dubs/trips/quads).

[greenoaks]

You also couldn't have regular eliminations, as anyone eliminated in the large team event early rounds wouldn't have played half the rounds minimum and therefore not receive a medal for help in the early rounds. Those eliminated in 1st round would be completely impossible, which I'm fine with they wouldn't get 1 win. But the next few rounds would eliminate several players as well, and if ur limited to 5-12 those teams will dry up pretty quickly. Most of the winning team might not even get the medal...

I'd really like to know what kind of tournament set-up you guys are talking about. I'm running a Large-Team Tournament right now where pretty much everybody is eligible for the medal and we play three 1 v 1 games, 4 doubles, 2 trips and only 1 quad game, per round, per team.

Lx

I'm thinking completely different styles than IcePack.

Here's a quick, easy scenario.

8 teams. 12 players each (ABCDEFGHIJKL)

Simple standard best of 9 bracket each round. 3 quads, 3 trips, 3 dubs

Quads 1 = ABCD
Quads 2 = EFGH
Quads 3 = IJKL
Trips 1 = ABC
Trips 2 = DEF
Trips 3 = GHI
Dubs 1 = JK
Dubs 2 = LA
Dubs 3 = BC

9 games each player must play 3 to qualify for a team medal. Only players A, B, & C would qualify for a medal based on the first round.

Second round you could go:

Quads 1 = DEFG
Quads 2 = HIJK
Quads 3 = LABC
Trips 1 = DEF
Trips 2 = GHI
Trips 3 = JKL
Dubs 1 = AB
Dubs 2 = CD
Dubs 3 = EF

Now you must have played in 6 of the 18 games. And 0 players would qualify for a team medal after Round 2.

It only gets worse as you go through more and more rounds.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you change it to 5 Quads, 2 trips, & 2 dubs
Quads 1 = ABCD
Quads 2 = EFGH
Quads 3 = IJKL
Quads 4 = ABCD
Quads 5 = EFGH
Trips 1 = IJK
Trips 2 = LAB
Dubs 1 = CD
Dubs 2 = EF

Still must play 3 games to qualify. Only players A, B, C, D, E, & F would qualify.

Round 2:
Quads 1 = GHIJ
Quads 2 = KLAB
Quads 3 = CDEF
Quads 4 = GHIJ
Quads 5 = KLAB
Trips 1 = CDE
Trips 2 = FGH
Dubs 1 = IJ
Dubs 2 = KL

Must have played in 6 of 18 games to qualify. All players only have 5 games. Again, this only gets worse the more rounds you progress. And 0 players would qualify for a team medal after Round 2.

i disagree. i don't question your math, just your interpretation of the rule.

Have played at least one-third (33%) of the tournament games he/she could have played.

it does not say they must play in a third of all games. for a tournament that requires the players to rotate it is not possible for a player to play in all of them so it is not a third of all games but a third of a lower number, determined by the format/rules of that tourney.

[greenoaks]

Here's a quick, easy scenario.

8 teams. 12 players each (ABCDEFGHIJKL)

Simple standard best of 9 bracket each round. 3 quads, 3 trips, 3 dubs

Quads 1 = ABCD
Quads 2 = EFGH
Quads 3 = IJKL
Trips 1 = ABC
Trips 2 = DEF
Trips 3 = GHI
Dubs 1 = JK
Dubs 2 = LA
Dubs 3 = BC

9 games each player must play 3 to qualify for a team medal. Only players A, B, & C would qualify for a medal based on the first round.

it is only possible for a player to play in 1 quads, 1 trips & 1 dubs - so 3 games.
A, B & C are in 3 so that is 100% of what they could have played in.
D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K & L are in 2 which is 66.6% of what they could have played in.

so far only A, B & C qualify for a medal but tournaments aren't decided by 1 round.

Second round you could go:

Quads 1 = DEFG
Quads 2 = HIJK
Quads 3 = LABC
Trips 1 = DEF
Trips 2 = GHI
Trips 3 = JKL
Dubs 1 = AB
Dubs 2 = CD
Dubs 3 = EF

Now you must have played in 6 of the 18 games. And 0 players would qualify for a team medal after Round 2.

It only gets worse as you go through more and more rounds.

once again the max. a player could have played in is 3 games, 1 quad, trip & dubs.

A, B & C are in 2 of the 3 + 3 from round 1 makes 5 of 6 they qualify*
D, E & F are in 3 of the 3 + 2 from round 1 makes 5 of 6 they qualify*
G, H, I, J, K & L are in 2 of the 3 + 2 from round 1 makes 4 of 6 they qualify*

*assuming they win one game

[Night Strike]

A lot of questions that I'm happy to answer, so here we go:

12 players on a team.

6 games per round = 6-24 spots for those games. (6 singles games to 6 quads games)


If each player has to play 2 games, that means 24 spots are required to maintain medal possibility if there are 12 players on a team, which would allow no room at all for non-quads games as they only way to maintain this is to have ALL quads games.



EDIT: Realized 12 spots per team a possibility, updated above post.

The 2 games out of 6 was ONLY an example. Players are required to play 1/3 (33%) of the games that are possible for them to play in. So someone could do a large-team tournament that consisted of 3 quads teams playing every round: meaning each player would have to average playing 1 game per round in order to meet the requirement.

Why does there need to be a limit on players? Well run tournaments, regardless of size, as long as they have appropriate sign ups and safeguards (ie reserve player policy) it should be able to be run. The line could very well be as long as they had a well designed format and allowed each players enough games etc.

The number 12 was chosen for a couple of reasons. The primary reason was that it allowed for 1 of each type of game play per round: 1 quads (4 spots), 1 triples (3), 1 doubles (2), 1 standard/terminator/assassin, and 1 1v1. That's actually 11 spots, so I just rounded it to the better number of 12. In my view, anything bigger than that starts getting into the clan war realm as probably nearly all clan wars consistent of teams of more than 12 players. And we want to be able to redraw the distinctions between tournaments and clan events.

The third - do you punish employees or using ur example, require truck drivers to had back up drivers before they've made a mistake? This is overkill. As long as the TO doesn't have a history of abandoning tournaments, why should they have to have an assistant? Den make a requimrent the sheets have to be emailed to a TD! Then u don't need an assistant and if it's abandoned they can email the sheets to the TO rescuing it.

Actually, one of the goals of having the co-organizer is as a type of mentoring program for organizers who are new to large-team tournaments (which is why they only need to have organized 1 tournament). This way the co-organizer can learn the ropes by being an assistant and then go out and post a new large-team tournament so that they can be an ever-expanding area.

I didn't like it, but it was suggested I should run some tournaments in the meantime as likely there would be a requirement for it. So even tho I only had interest in running one, I've started 3 others to show I was serious about it. It wasn't mentioned one would need to be a team tournament or I'd have started that so I would be "on the way" to started the only one I still really wanting to run.

When I told you that we would do a minimum tournament requirement, we hadn't even discussed having 1 of the tournaments be a team tournament. But after it was brought up, it only made sense to include it.

You have to play in 1/3 of the games you could play in to be eligible for a medal. With 12 players per team, the only way all players can qualify is if you all play only Quads games and every player is involved in an exact equal number of them. If you have 12 players per team, and there is one game that involves Triples, then at the very most only 11 players will be eligible for a medal. It is impossible for the 12th player to be able to meet the 1/3 minimum requirement at that point.

And the number of total games would have to be a multiple of 3 otherwise at least one player still wouldn't qualify. 100 games = 400 spots; each player has to play in 33.3 games to qualify. Since you can't play .3 of a game, you have to play 34 games to meet the minimum requirement. Players ABCD play games 1-34, Players EFGH play games 35-68, Players IJKL play games 69-100. Players IJKL only played 32 games and thus do not qualify for a team medal.

The math is the same whether it's 6 games per round or 600 games per round. And even though you only have to participate in half of the rounds, you still have to average 1/3 over the course of the tournament.

I understand the need for new requirements for Large Team tourneys but with this math it makes things tough to organize a tourney where all 12 players could all receive a medal.

Is that really what is desired? Where all 12 player Large Team tourneys are restricted to Quads only games? Perhaps there could be "medium sized" team tourneys (5-10 players) and then "large sized" team tourneys (11+ players).

And on a side note:
This new rule will completely eliminate tournaments like Tupence's 2012 Olympics which I have found to be very fun and a very unique layout. You could never have Singles games in large team tournaments unless you also incorporate 1 quads game for every 2 singles games to bring up the average game count; and that would restrict the maximum amount of players to 6 per team to ensure everyone is medal eligible.

The policy is worded that you have to average 33% of the possible games over the course of the tournament, which means in your hypothetical 99 game scenario, you could rotate which group of players get the 34 or 32 games each round. So in round 1, group 1 gets 34 games and group 3 gets 32 games. In round 2, group 1 gets 32 games and group 3 gets 34 games. That would rotate around to the 33%. Furthermore, the numbers were included to make sure that no player was just trying to ride the coattails of others to get a medal. I'm more than happy to tweak the exact percentages as they were developed based on intuition and not actual calculations.

You also couldn't have regular eliminations, as anyone eliminated in the large team event early rounds wouldn't have played half the rounds minimum and therefore not receive a medal for help in the early rounds. Those eliminated in 1st round would be completely impossible, which I'm fine with they wouldn't get 1 win. But the next few rounds would eliminate several players as well, and if ur limited to 5-12 those teams will dry up pretty quickly. Most of the winning team might not even get the medal...

If they are eliminated in the round, then they would have had to play in 1/3 of the possible games of the rounds they were actually eligible to play. So if every player played in 1 game per round, as long as the player played that game every round but then got eliminated in round 2 (example), they would still be eligible for the medal if their team wins.

The number of games per round is irrelevant. It is based on percentage played. The more games you have per round, the more games it takes to earn a medal.

All players would & could participate each round. The issue is that if you have all doubles games for the large team tournament, any more than 7 players per large team and all members can not mathematically qualify for medals. If you have 12 players, you can only use quadruples to ensure medal eligibility.

What's the point of having large team tourneys if you can not utilize a large variety of settings? (i.e. Singles, dubs, trips, & quads)

It's 1/3 of eligible games, not 1/3 of all games. If you have 12 players and want to do 6 doubles pairings, that would be perfectly acceptable. In that scenario, it is understood that each player would take up 1 spot each round, so as long as they play in half the rounds, that would be fine (b/c the 50% rule would trump the 33% one in this case).

Put differently, the organizer sets up a scenario where there are 9 games per round of some mixture of settings, and each player can only play a maximum of 6 games. Therefore their eligible number of games per round is 6 but the number of all games per round is 9. So they would only have to average 2 games per round and not the 3 games per round as they are only eligible to play in 6 games, not 9 games.


I'm not quoting his posts, but it appears that greenoaks understands the situation.

[patrickaa317]

It's 1/3 of eligible games, not 1/3 of all games. If you have 12 players and want to do 6 doubles pairings, that would be perfectly acceptable. In that scenario, it is understood that each player would take up 1 spot each round, so as long as they play in half the rounds, that would be fine (b/c the 50% rule would trump the 33% one in this case).

Put differently, the organizer sets up a scenario where there are 9 games per round of some mixture of settings, and each player can only play a maximum of 6 games. Therefore their eligible number of games per round is 6 but the number of all games per round is 9. So they would only have to average 2 games per round and not the 3 games per round as they are only eligible to play in 6 games, not 9 games.

That makes more sense. So you could look at the calculation methodology as:

Total number of spots per team divided by number of players per team divided by 3.

Calculation 1:
100 quads games * 4 spots = 400
400 / 12 players = 33.333333 eligible games per player
33 / 3 = 11 games each player must participate in to be medal eligible.


Calculation 2:
20 Quads games, 20 triples games, 20 doubles games, 20 singles games
20 * 4 + 20 * 3 + 20 * 2 + 20 * 1
80 + 60 + 40 + 20 = 200 total spots
200 / 12 players = 16.666 eligible games (Change to 17)
17 / 3 = 5.66 games each player must participate in to be medal eligible.

Then, it'd just have to be to verify that they participated in 50% of the rounds and that at least 1 game was won.

Obviously with IcePack's scenario of players being eliminated, this calculation methodology would have to be applied per round.

[SirSebstar]

patrickaa317, I concur, that it is a truly tight squeeze, but it is just, but only just, doable. let me explain..
Lindax, lets take the TLO 2010 as an example.
Each round consists of 3 singles games (1v1), 4 doubles games, 2 triples games and 1 quad game.
A team is 4 to 6 players. Lets assume 6 players.
There are 10 games a round. You must participate in 4 to qualify for the 1/3th. rule.
this is 6x4 spots= 28 spots filled right of the bat, without any room for less games per player.
those 10 games have a total of (3+8+6+4=)21 spots.
ergo, if you feature a TLO team with 6 players, you cannot all get a medal, even if you win every single game on the tournament.

it specifically mentions games, but lets assume it is truly calculated over the course of the tournament( as mentioned in the example).

Have played at least one-third (33%) of the tournament games he/she could have played.

I can assume it is only over the course of the tournament, but lets make it 3 rounds. that is a total of 30 games, and a total of 63 availiable spots. This would fit just... there are 3 spots so a single triple game where the team can make a choice. in every other game, you just have to fill it with every single player....

1/3 of the availiable games is then (30/3)= 10. So each player needs to play 10 games, with 6 players that is 60 spots covered, and 3 spots left to fill in by choice.
----------------------
patrickaa317's point is that if you keep a different format without teamgames you run into a problem.

The least teamgames you can do is something like, e.g. 1 quad, 2 triples 3 double and 4 singles, the same match does work out with a 6 player team.
Available spots per round; 20, with 10 available games a round. Assume 3 rounds, 60 total spots and 30 games. Each player should play at least 10 games, there is no choise, you must place as best as you can, there cannot be a reserve player batting only a few games, or he does not get a medal.
----------
Other concepts also work
A forced serie best of X is going well as well. at least with singles or doubles and in some cases even trips...
-
Say the team has to do a best of 3 in every category, with each series having the same team, singles doubs trips and quads. Say you have 6 players.
4x3 games = 12 games., but the available playable spots are only 10. (since each player will face off the same opponent 3 times)
12 games dictate 4 games per round, but some will only play 3.
If you run into multiple rounds, say 3 again. then there are 36 games. so each player should play 12 games. This means each player should play in 4 series. There are 30 series of best of 3 so 26 serie are automatically and equally devided over the 6 players, with 4 games being unequally distributed.
This could work.

Conclusion,
Because the explanation talks about the duration of the tournament, this might just work. However the teamcaptain would have to work out how many games there can be played in total and plan accordingly and in advance, he has no room or not much to account for things like opponents and holidays. Missing even a single game may make a player become illegible for a medal.

That is truly heavy.

A concept where people get eliminated out of the team, or where a mid tournament replacement is done means no medals for those players. even if you did win 20 games in a row, or something...

A well a line has to be drawn somehwere.
patrickaa317, it can work, but remember the phrase over the duration of the tournament, that should give enough space to make it work. When in doubt, talk to the TD and TO.

[greenoaks]

patrickaa317, I concur, that it is a truly tight squeeze, but it is just, but only just, doable. let me explain..
Lindax, lets take the TLO 2010 as an example.
Each round consists of 3 singles games (1v1), 4 doubles games, 2 triples games and 1 quad game.
A team is 4 to 6 players. Lets assume 6 players.
There are 10 games a round. You must participate in 4 to qualify for the 1/3th. rule.
this is 6x4 spots= 28 spots filled right of the bat, without any room for less games per player.
those 10 games have a total of (3+8+6+4=)21 spots.
ergo, if you feature a TLO team with 6 players, you cannot all get a medal, even if you win every single game on the tournament.

your understanding is incorrect Sir Sebster.

The same player cannot play more than 1 singles match, 2 doubles matches, 2 triples matches and the quad match.

that is a maximum of 6 games, therefore a player only needs to be in a third of that ie. 2 a round on average.

[IcePack]

Night Strike wrote:
The number 12 was chosen for a couple of reasons. The primary reason was that it allowed for 1 of each type of game play per round: 1 quads (4 spots), 1 triples (3), 1 doubles (2), 1 standard/terminator/assassin, and 1 1v1. That's actually 11 spots, so I just rounded it to the better number of 12. In my view, anything bigger than that starts getting into the clan war realm as probably nearly all clan wars consistent of teams of more than 12 players. And we want to be able to redraw the distinctions between tournaments and clan events.

----------------------------

So a group of friends from different clans, larger then 12 - have no way of playing in a team tournament together anymore. Clans are separate, by definition LARGE team tournaments are large. Why is there a restrictive top end window?

I see the reason for a minimum less than 5 it's no longer large. I see the need to ensure people play in x % of games etc. But what's the difference between a 10 player team tournament that's well run, and a group of 15 or 20 people playing against another group of players in a well defined, thought out tournament format?

Clans are groups who REGULARLY play together vs other regular pards. But if you hVe a group of friends from 2 or 3 clans - or not in any clans - who want to occasionally kick ass you cant.

It can't be a # of players issue, if your worried about attrition. Because I can just have 16 teams of 12. That's the same # of players as 8 teams of 24, but ones in the rules and one isn't. You'll have the same overall level of attrition.