Tournaments? Competitive vs Non-competitive Splitting

[mubo]

I like these ideas so much I'm going to use them a Euc Bowl 2010. I think I'll keep it simpler with just doing tier 1 & tier 2/3 as groups. If there are enough tier 2/3 it should mean they'll only play each other for the first two or three rounds

I like this. All you are doing is preferentially matching T1 with T1 and T3 with T3.
Agree that you to run swiss on simple W/L/D, then Tiers, then bonus points etc.

I really don't think it's a good idea to start assigning specific players a +1 for being good, giving them a tougher draw. I think team tiers should be sufficient.

Has the nice side effects of
-not requiring people to declare whether or not they are 'just there for fun'
-Favours (slightly) coaches who bring slightly lower tier teams, the overall winner should be the person who plays best with the team they bring.
-If a good player does turn up with a T3 team they will soon be playing T1 teams.

[Podfrey]

<Tim writing some excellent stuff....>
However, you need to explain to the coaches that you do a tweaked ranking rather than swiss to make sure they don't expect the usual first vs. second pairing. you could also choose to fade out the bonus through the rounds, so that the last games are seeded using pure swiss.

Tim, I really like it and, if the numbers crunch through OK, achieves the same thing that I was hoping to do with the competitive/fun thing.

Thank you!

<wanders off to talk to Leipziger....>

[Tim]

Glad you like the idea.

[Dave]

While I understand where the general idea comes from I certainly don't like it at all.

If the whole point is getting more prizes in for those not playing for top 3 there is a very easy solution; get some in for most snake eyes, tripple skulls, chalkline of death failures etc etc, that's easy.

For the rest, what happens to the 'powergamer' that loses his first match (this happens) and is amongst the ggroup that will not win the tournie (Woodie's idea of splitting) and then has a field day gainst some gobs, 'flings etc etc and runs off with top prize without 'real' competition? WHat about the guy who wants to prove that 'flings can win or the really good coach that wants a shot with gobs at tthe top prize?

A tournament that, even with a good idea like Tim's implemented, encourages splittings like this should not be NAF approved as I feel that those tournies need not to be discriminating in any way.

Another solution could be to allow only tier 1 teams, invitationals or ... dunno any other actually

[Glowworm]

I like things as they are, why are we trying to fix something thats not broken...? Or thats how it seems. I play at tournaments whenever i can and its great that I can play the "new guy" with Orcs who's at his first event, even if he beats me, all good to him, do better in the next round and play someone like Lycos or pippy ( a seasoned player so to speak) thats one of the attractions of BB for me, doesnt matter who or what you play given the right (or wrong) conditions you can win or lose any match.

Im NAF rated with 3 teams one of which is Lizardmen, I won a stunty cup with them but came about 40th in the main competition (Thrudball 09) so my ranking in low, how will you accomodate stunties in the serious/fun split? i know alot of stunty players who are serious about winning with little guys, you cannot just write them off as non-competetive because they chose a particular team.

I sorry if this offends but if someone is going to moan about havong to play a "Noob" at a tournament then maybe they should look at why we take part in the first place. For me its the fun of the game, meeting new people (and generally being beaten at BB by them)

Just my thoughts.....

[Leipziger]

I like things as they are, why are we trying to fix something thats not broken...?

I sorry if this offends but if someone is going to moan about havong to play a "Noob" at a tournament then maybe they should look at why we take part in the first place. For me its the fun of the game, meeting new people (and generally being beaten at BB by them)

Just my thoughts.....

Hi Glowworm, just to reiterate something from earlier in the thread: the genesis of this discussion was not that there was any massive problem with current tournaments or that anyone had a problem playing 'noobs' (one of the great things about BB is that people are generally always very welcoming to new players to the game ). Geoff was just wondering if there was a way to make things more fun for coaches who bring along the weaker teams. That was the sole motivation behind the discussion.

Admittedly, my original choice of title for the thread probably helped give the impression that the focus was improving the tournaments for the top teams

[Glowworm]

Geoff was just wondering if there was a way to make things more fun for coaches who bring along the weaker teams. That was the sole motivation behind the discussion.

Hope I didnt offend, Ive found that coaches tend to bring specific teams for specific reasons

1. To win (either the main event, or say stunty cup as I confess i have)

2. To enjoy/challenge (i believe sillysod used a CD team with no CD's only Hobgobs at GWGT this year)(I also used an undead team with only I mummy to prove the point that it is a viable team build)

3. To achieve certain objectives (Hudsons most Cas record over several tourneys)

the point Im making is that coaches can and often do make it more interesting all by themselves. To create a 2 tier system seems to disrupt the natural order, thats all.

[PeteW]

I am hosting a tourny in the Summer and currently working on the rulebook.

Two options present themselves. do you allow for the fact that some races are simply better than others and have a fixed skill system, eg 3 on first day, 3 on second. Or, do you attempt to compensate by allowing "weaker" teams greater numbers of skills, eg 3 for orcs, 5 for dark elves, 7 for necromatic and 9 for vampires?

It is an interesting question, and both styles have their attraction.

[Dave]

that is a really ineresting option, to allow tier 2 and tier 3 teams more skills ... hmmm

[Joemanji]

that is a really ineresting option, to allow tier 2 and tier 3 teams more skills ... hmmm

That is what Monkeybowl and Ironmanj are doing this year anyway.

[PeteW]

that is a really ineresting option, to allow tier 2 and tier 3 teams more skills ... hmmm

That is what Monkeybowl and Ironmanj are doing this year anyway.

Indeed. It is where I stole the idea from.

[Dave]

I may well steal it for next year's BUBBLE

[Pug]

I'm watching this thread for ideas theft for the Rocket Bowl.....MWA_HA-HA-HA-haaaa err...ha!

[Vigfus]

Wanted to reply to the thread too. I don't see the need for splitting up the tournament and would advise against it.
Over here in Belgium, I'd say there's fun players at both top and bottom half of the table. If I had to think of a couple of players I less like to play against, I see them divided across the whole range of games, both top, middle and bottom. The same goes for players I really like to play against. There's spoilers for good games on everywhere across the range.

And to say there is a different mentality at bottom and top tables? I wouldn't even dare say that. The thing is everyone defines bloodbowl and fun differently. If you'd go up that splitting road, it's the beginning of the end. I believe it's the responsability of the players to ensure that they both are enjoying the game. This is the simple reason we at Brassbowl ask each year that if a player is not enjoying him/herself, he/she'll notify the opponent. Because 95% of the community is not made up of jerks, the opponent generally take it into account.

Some of the ideas on here are well worth considering though.