patrickaa317 wrote:Lindax wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:patrickaa317 wrote: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:Night Strike wrote: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