Large-Team Tournaments & Director Changes

[patrickaa317]

What if I have a 12 player per team tourney and I just request that each team submit a roster for 3 quads games, 3 trips games, 3 dubs games, & 2 1v1 games per round? No minimum or maximum per player.

According your reply, any player may then play in all 11 of them thus my original post where this could end up with no players meeting the 33% comes back into play. Each player would average 2.41 out of 11 games and they would need to play in 3.66 games to qualify for the 33%.

the player who played in all 11 would qualify. there may be others. some will miss out.

TO's should be mindful of this and create tournaments where the victory is dependant on the majority of members the majority of times. this rule stops one or two people dominating a team effort with everyone still getting a medal.

I understand the purpose of this rule but I think it needs to be defined as to what comprises an "eligible" game and what doesn't. What you're saying is that verbiage of the tournament decides who qualifies and who doesn't.


Example assuming the same tourney used in prior post (12 player per team tourney; 3 quads games, 3 trips games, 3 dubs games, & 2 1v1 games per round)

If I said the max was 6 games per player and all 12 players play an exact number of games, they would all qualify for a medal (play an average of 2.41 games out of 6 per round, above 33%).

If I said there was no max games per player and all 12 players plan an exact number of games, they would NOT qualify for a medal (play an average of 2.41 games out of 11 per round, below 33%)

The game counts are the same, the tourney is the same, everything is the same other than me defining a maximium per round that is not reached in either example.



Where as my original understanding of Night Strike's reply being the assumption that all players would play an equal number of games, and in order to qualify you must play 33% of that assumed game load; that makes complete sense.

Maybe Night Strike can step in and define what "eligible" is defined as:
A.) Restrictions put in place by Tournament Organizer (I believe Greenoaks understanding)
B.) Assumed equal game count per all team members (patrickaa317's understanding from NS's last post)
C.) Something else?

[SirSebstar]

pat,

If I said there was no max games per player and all 12 players plan an exact number of games, they would NOT qualify for a medal (play an average of 2.41 games out of 11 per round, below 33%)

this is where you are wrong.
ity is overall games, not per round...
so they can play 2 games this round and 3 the next 2.. or something

[iamkoolerthanu]

What if I have a 12 player per team tourney and I just request that each team submit a roster for 3 quads games, 3 trips games, 3 dubs games, & 2 1v1 games per round? No minimum or maximum per player.

With this scenario, lets say there are 6 rounds. That means there are a total of 66 games each player can play in. In order to qualify, the player needs 1 win, 50 percent in rounds, and then the important part, 22 games(rounded up). You have a total of 174 total 'spots' available total for the whole tourney. If each player plays in EXACTLY the same number of games, they will play in only 14-15 games... Meaning only 2-4 players on the team would recieve the medal if games were distributed unevenly. (if 4 players receive the medal by playing 22 games, they took up more than half the number of available games, [88 games], and left the other 8 players with an average of 10.75 games each)

This method, IMO, with those particular round set-up that Pat mentioned, would actually cause MORE of a few players representing the entire team

Instead, to fix it, while still using the TD's new method, TO's should be forced to either accept that only a few players will recieve medals, OR change the set-up of their tourny. For instance, make it so that the max number of players on the team is 8 (using Pat's reference). Everyone will play 21.75 games on average, meaning if the games are evenly distributed, most players will recieve the medal.

OR since each tourny is submitted to the TD's before it is submitted to the public, maybe a separate system has to be made for each tourny? Lets say Pat did want to run a tourny like he mentioned, with 12 players on a team. Would it be fair to force him to either change or be dissasitsfied, when in reality, he could have had al 12 members of the winning team share an equal workload of games?

Maybe you have to take the number of players participating in mind when making the min number of games that a player has to be part of.. For instance, for Pat's tourny, if you made each of the 12 players be forced to play in at least 11, or 12 games, if each player plays the same amount of games, they will be playing an equal amount of games as the rest of their team, AND they would still recieve the medal. After all, isn't that what the TD's want? The whole reason is to keep a team of 12 getting the medal because 4 players played in 100 games while the other 8 played in 12?

Here is my thoughts on the number of games a player needs to play to get the medal

Number of 'spaces' available divided by the number of players on your team, minus 2.

So in Pats case, (174/12)-2= 12.5 games, rounded up is 13.

Lets look at another example:
8 large teams, each with 10 players. Each team has 4 home maps of quads, trips, dubs, and singles. Each round, you play against one other team, on your home maps and on theirs. Single elimination, so there is Four rounds total

Number of 'spots' available: [(4*4*2)+(4*3*2)+(4*2*2)+(4*1*2)]*4=320

(320/10)-2= 30. Each player, to get the medal, needs to play in 30 or more games, win one game, and play in 2 or more rounds.

Now, if 4 played played in lets say 38 games(a slight majority of the games, since the average number of games per player should be 32, and a majority of games played by a few people are what the TD's are trying to avoid), that leaves an average of games remaining for the rest of the players on their team 28 games on average. So only half them would be able to get the medals. If those four players played a bigger majority of 42 games, that leaves 25.3 games per player for the rest of the team. So the larger amount of games that a few people play in, the less of a shot the other players have for the medal


idk, I am not sure if I accounted for everything.. whatdo you think

[patrickaa317]

pat,

If I said there was no max games per player and all 12 players plan an exact number of games, they would NOT qualify for a medal (play an average of 2.41 games out of 11 per round, below 33%)

this is where you are wrong.
ity is overall games, not per round...
so they can play 2 games this round and 3 the next 2.. or something

Ok so assume 10 rounds overall. 110 total games (11 per round * 10 rounds). All players would have played 24.1 games. According to what I am understanding from greenoaks, you would need 36.66 games to qualify as the tournament organizer didn't restrict the games per round. The team captain completely balanced the number of games per player.

I think we wait for Night Strike to elaborate further on this part before we discuss any more:

Maybe Night Strike can step in and define what "eligible" is defined as:
A.) Restrictions put in place by Tournament Organizer (I believe Greenoaks understanding)
B.) Assumed equal game count per all team members (patrickaa317's understanding from NS's last post)
C.) Something else?

If NS does agree with letter A above, I can provide an example of a complete tourney tomorrow if this would help. Even a Game by Game breakdown if need be.

[Night Strike]

Where as my original understanding of Night Strike's reply being the assumption that all players would play an equal number of games, and in order to qualify you must play 33% of that assumed game load; that makes complete sense.

Maybe Night Strike can step in and define what "eligible" is defined as:
A.) Restrictions put in place by Tournament Organizer (I believe Greenoaks understanding)
B.) Assumed equal game count per all team members (patrickaa317's understanding from NS's last post)
C.) Something else?

My intention was A because I assumed tournaments would naturally cap the number of games a single player could play in so that one player wasn't dominating the team. B would be the default if there was no restriction in place by the organizer.

However, no one needs to even worry about B if they just go ahead and put a cap in place. If you know that each round you're going to have 12 games where some players will only play in 2 while others play in 3, just arbitrarily throw in a maximum games for 1 player of 6 games. And then the numbers work out while in reality you're changing absolutely nothing about the structure of the tournament.

[patrickaa317]

Where as my original understanding of Night Strike's reply being the assumption that all players would play an equal number of games, and in order to qualify you must play 33% of that assumed game load; that makes complete sense.

Maybe Night Strike can step in and define what "eligible" is defined as:
A.) Restrictions put in place by Tournament Organizer (I believe Greenoaks understanding)
B.) Assumed equal game count per all team members (patrickaa317's understanding from NS's last post)
C.) Something else?

My intention was A because I assumed tournaments would naturally cap the number of games a single player could play in so that one player wasn't dominating the team. B would be the default if there was no restriction in place by the organizer.

However, no one needs to even worry about B if they just go ahead and put a cap in place. If you know that each round you're going to have 12 games where some players will only play in 2 while others play in 3, just arbitrarily throw in a maximum games for 1 player of 6 games. And then the numbers work out while in reality you're changing absolutely nothing about the structure of the tournament.

Thanks for clarifying Night Strike. I'm cool with the changes now.

[IcePack]

Night strike: "including 1 standard-team tournament."

I can't find a definition for this, or policy covering it. Can you clarify? I don't want to create a team event that doesn't qualify as "standard".

[Lindax]

Night strike: "including 1 standard-team tournament."

I can't find a definition for this, or policy covering it. Can you clarify? I don't want to create a team event that doesn't qualify as "standard".

It means a team tournament that is not a Large-Team tournament. I guess it could simply say "including 1 team tournament".

Lx