Tournament Setups

[mubo]

Sure, in general I agree with that. It's a complex problem.

Depending on the use of the data, I do think the distinction discussed above is potentially important. If a team has a high ceiling, but a low floor- then we decide they are middle. For most purposes that's fine, agreed.

However, if someone wants to pick the 8 best races for a competitive team tournament, or design a tournament where races are on an even footing, (or even rebalance the game for an upcoming release...*) then it matters.

* I hope I am joking here.

[Pipey]

I'd be very careful about presenting any tiering system as standard. It's highly subjective, and the stats can be interpreted / debunked in 101 ways to suit your position. Depends on the TR too - 105 with few skills is vastly different to 120+ with loads of development.

I'd say a guideline doc introducing people to tournaments would be best just saying something like "some tournaments give bonuses to weaker races, sometimes organised into a number of tiers with stunty teams near the bottom and Undead and Wood Elves near the top".

[sann0638]

I'd be very careful about presenting any tiering system as standard. It's highly subjective, and the stats can be interpreted / debunked in 101 ways to suit your position. Depends on the TR too - 105 with few skills is vastly different to 120+ with loads of development.

I'd say a guideline doc introducing people to tournaments would be best just saying something like "some tournaments give bonuses to weaker races, sometimes organised into a number of tiers with stunty teams near the bottom and Undead and Wood Elves near the top".

Sure, there is a balance between being general enough to not be disagreed with, and being too general to not be useful or interesting. And then people can disagree about that balance

[RoterSternHochdahl]

Maybe this could be achieved a little easier if you emphasize the decisions an unexperienced tournament organizer needs to make before the event - the solutions you present may then be understood as one choice out of many rather than "don't even look left or right here"

[Joemanji]

As I always said to prospective TOs, the rules are the easy part. They should be worrying more about venue, amenities, food, accommodation etc.

[sann0638]

Agree - this post was focusing on the rules and regs. Lots of other things are more important! If others want to write stuff, very happy to publish (aware that things have been written already, of course, but the more the merrier!)

[PercyTheTroll]

I'd be very careful about presenting any tiering system as standard. It's highly subjective, and the stats can be interpreted / debunked in 101 ways to suit your position. Depends on the TR too - 105 with few skills is vastly different to 120+ with loads of development.

I'd say a guideline doc introducing people to tournaments would be best just saying something like "some tournaments give bonuses to weaker races, sometimes organised into a number of tiers with stunty teams near the bottom and Undead and Wood Elves near the top".

Sure, there is a balance between being general enough to not be disagreed with, and being too general to not be useful or interesting. And then people can disagree about that balance

Possibly you could point to the tiers set out by the BBRC and mention that other tiering arrangements are used on occasion?

[Shteve0]

I'd be very careful about presenting any tiering system as standard. It's highly subjective, and the stats can be interpreted / debunked in 101 ways to suit your position. Depends on the TR too - 105 with few skills is vastly different to 120+ with loads of development.

I'd say a guideline doc introducing people to tournaments would be best just saying something like "some tournaments give bonuses to weaker races, sometimes organised into a number of tiers with stunty teams near the bottom and Undead and Wood Elves near the top".

I totally agree. Locally we change the tiers every year based on a combination of factors, and there are of course differences between tiers as calculated by different people with different data sets. Better to explain the concept of tiers as a handicapping construct and offer simpler examples (eg that Wood Elves will be in a higher "tier" than, say, Vampires).

[Gaixo]

Also agree. We polled national-level staffers prior to setting the World Cup tiers, and the responses varied considerably. Locally we have Amazons in the 2nd tier because they (inexplicably) perform so poorly. As with the other items on this list, I think it's sufficient to make people aware that there are options they can explore.

[babass]

concerning Amazon, it's depend a lot from the metagame.
results of amazons might be very different depending of popularity of dwarves-rosters in the local coachs

[dode74]

As with the other items on this list, I think it's sufficient to make people aware that there are options they can explore.

Absolutely. My earlier post of Wulfyn's analysis wasn't intended as some sort of "this is how it is" post, it was merely more information for the mill.

[sann0638]

Hopefully the latest iteration is clear enough?
---
It is becoming more common for different teams to be treated differently. This is an example, and it depends on the Team Value and the Tournament Organiser’s opinion, as well as other people’s (i.e. it’s not a strict interpretation, and there are sometimes 4 tiers, or tier 1.5 etc, but you get the idea).

Tier 1: Chaos Dwarf, Dwarf, Wood Elves, Skaven, Norse, Lizardmen, Orc, Undead, Amazon, Dark Elves

Tier 2: Chaos, Human, Khemri, Pact, Slann, High Elves, Nurgle, Necromantic, Pro Elves

Tier 3: Halflings, Gobbos, Vamps, Ogres, Underworld

The lower tier teams are often given more skills, to encourage people to take a variety of teams.
---

[Shteve0]

Why put teams in tiers? You're surely aware that some will read this as an official NAF tier list, particularly if they're not ordinarily an english speaker (and will therefore miss the subtleties of the clauses, which should really clarify that the list is *your* opinion).

[sann0638]

That's a fair point. This was meant to be uncontroversial

Tier 1: Teams that are seen as "the best" for a particular skill set
Tier 2: Those not in the other tiers
Tier 3: Stunty teams, sometimes others as well