This is in reference to the USA Supertournament
There have been some people who say the USA Supertournament results in too high a game load. I've always said, "Only join as many as you want to. There's no need to join them all." As for myself, I have only joined the tourneys on maps that I like and ignored the ones on maps I don't like. However, I admittedly don't expect to finish at the top. Having fun and ending up with a mediocre score is good enough for me. Having consideration for those who actually care and want to compete for the top, I suppose it's true that they have to join every one.
Various proposals have been made. Most, unfortunately, I can't accept. One proposal is to reduce the game load to one game per round. That, to me, reduces the statistical robustness of these tourneys too much. One game is just too much of a wild card. A second proposal is to extend the length of the tournament and only launch new tourneys every second week. That is also unacceptable to me. I'm doing a big 5-year project with the Great War. The whole point of the USA Super is that it is smaller and more compact and all the tourneys will be out in just a little over one year, with final results in probably 20 months or so. I've talked with bigWham on this and he agrees that extending it is unacceptable. There are too many events on the site taking forever -- the Championships took well over two years to wrap up, most TPA seasons take three years or more to finish, and the Great War is rolling for probably five. The USA Super is supposed to fill the gap as a shorter, more intense, mega-event. The third proposal, to eliminate players along the way, so that people who have no chance of winning are relieved of the need to play all the way through, is the only one I'm willing to entertain. Hence, this poll.
At present, the USA Supertournament tourneys have no eliminations. All 24 players play all the way to the end. This was my original conception: that there is always hope. Even if you have a horrible start, you can hope to overcome it before the end. I know some people like it that way, but I don't know how many. I'm willing to bend if there is a strong majority in favour of introducing elimination.
The proposed eliminations:
- All 24 players will play in the first three rounds.
- After round 3, the field will be cut in half. 12 players will play in rounds 4 and 5.
- After round 5, the field will be cut to the top eight. 8 players will play in rounds 6 and 7.
On the down side, this eliminates the faint hope of catching up if you have a rotten start.
On the positive side, this will reduce overall game loads, at least for the people eliminated, and perhaps enable them to focus more in the tourneys where they're doing well. It will also somewhat reduce (though not eliminate) the problem of deadbeats in the later stages.
This is my event and ultimately I'm responsible for making the decision. I am looking for the "will of the people" here, but if it's a really fractured vote, like 51-49, my default position is NO CHANGE. The basic rule of thumb for tourneys is to make as few changes as is possible while still solving the biggest problems. I'm hoping the community will speak loud and clear here and have the vote be 80-20 one way or the other, but I'm probably willing to make the change even if it's 55-45 in favour of change. Less than that is probably not enough.