Grum's Eurobowl Suggestion

Valen · Post by **Valen** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:19 am

I really like that idea

Topper · Post by **Topper** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:18 pm

Okay I can see both for and against.
Personally I am pretty much on line with Pippy though - it ain´t broken as it is, but a change might be fun. However fun doesn´t always equal even teams.

However I think that if you wanted to have a wider variety of races to chose between, the weaker teams could get a skill or two extra.
At the official Danish Chamionsships we use that idea.
Everyone finds it fair and we have many different teams - all competitive. We have divided the races into three piers:
Pier one teams get no skills, pier two teams get one skill and pier three teams two skills.
All regular skills and all chosen at team creation.

Anyway (if) and however the race thing is implemented makes some interesting considerations:

1) You will play a lot more diversity of teams.
2) There will be more tactical thoughts on who plays what race, as a weaker team, might need a stronger coach..
3) If extra skills are involved, strategical thoughts on how the team should develop, will be even more influential.
4) As there are more teams to play against, the teams will have to be able to deal with a wider variety of teams.
5) If it is not swiss draw between the races, there will be even more games against same races than before.
6) Unless implemented correctly, the luck draw factor, can become even more vital than it allready is - and thus more broken.
7) Is it cool for the coaches who play with teams that have less chances of winning than those with higher chances? (the skill system more or less removes this point)

If using batches of only three teams, I think you will narrow down the chosen teams even more. Larger batches makes more variety in chosen teams (IMO).
9) Important thing to look at is if batches makes meetings between directly "favoured" opponents more or less likely.
Fx. atm. Amazons are a very strong team, but if they are unlucky and meet Dwarves and/or CD they are likely to be in for a whooping.
So if this new system changes the odds of these matchups, in one direction or another, it will make either that team unusable or much stronger.

Finally if it was changed I would probably play DE, which at the moment just needs those 10% compared to other (high powered) races - but by far is my chosen race.

My thoughts and arguments for and against.

PubBowler · Post by **PubBowler** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:24 pm

ianwilliams wrote:I like this idea enough I'm going to try and copy it. What do you think about the following 6 buckets:

A: Wood Elves, Norse, Amazons, Elves
B: Undead, Necromantic, Chaos Dwarves, Khemri
C: Slann, High Elves, Dark Elves, Skaven
D: Dwarves, Nurgle's Rotters, Orc, Lizardmen
E: Humans, Chaos, Chaos Pact, Vampires
F: Ogres, Goblins, Halflings, Underworld

I've tried to balance flair/bash as well as performance.

Not looked at other tiering schemes but I think Elves should be swapped with Skaven.
Better matches of tournie ability.

I also have issues with Necromantic being in the same group as Undead and Chaos Dwarfs (too much better tournie teams) but don't see an easy fix.

Bevan · Post by **Bevan** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:47 pm

ianwilliams wrote:I like this idea enough I'm going to try and copy it. What do you think about the following 6 buckets:

A: Wood Elves, Norse, Amazons, Elves
B: Undead, Necromantic, Chaos Dwarves, Khemri
C: Slann, High Elves, Dark Elves, Skaven
D: Dwarves, Nurgle's Rotters, Orc, Lizardmen
E: Humans, Chaos, Chaos Pact, Vampires
F: Ogres, Goblins, Halflings, Underworld

This system may not get more variety of races, which is the aim of making a change. Most teams might decide to take Wood Elves from the first group, Undead from the next, Ogres from the last etc. Then you end up with still having only 6-10 races represented.

But now, depending how the matches are paired up (Swiss pairings or random), you have either a lot of Wood Elf vs Wood Elf and Ogre vs Ogre or instead you have a lot of mismatched games, so all the Wood Elves win all their games and all the Ogres lose all theirs.

Pipey · Post by **Pipey** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:39 pm

I think more sensible tiers for a 110 tourney (assuming a standard skill progression) would be:

1. Undead, Wood Elf, Dwarf

2. Amazon, Orc, Chaos Dwarf

3. Norse, Skaven, Lizardmen

4. Dark Elf, Necromantic, Khemri

5. Human, High Elf, Pro Elf

6. Slann, Nurgle, Chaos Pact

7. Vampire, Underworld, Chaos

8. Halfling, Goblin, Ogre

Teams of 8 would pick one from each tier e.g.

Undead, Amazon, Skaven, Khemri, Human, Pact, Chaos, Ogre

or

Wood Elf, Chaos Dwarf, Orc, Dark Elf, Pro Elf, Nurgle, Vamps, Goblins

Tiers 6, 7 and 8 may need a bit of work.

Would make an interesting team tourney, but as Topper points out there are a huge amount of unknown factors. Not sure EB is the best forum for experimentation. But then our Italian cousins will ultimately decide

kewan · Post by **kewan** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:55 am

I traslade it to ST guys

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:28 pm

Pippy I like your break down for 8. One thing I did, which you haven't is to to compel teams to take a mix of flair & bash which I don't think yours does as much. I should have said my ranking was based on Australian performances rather than world wide ones. So the order is a little different.

So your line up could have, for instance:

Dwarf, Orc, Lizardmen, Khemri, Human, Nurgle, Chaos, Ogre

That would be a good contender for most cas!

Or

Wood Elf, Amazon, Skaven, Dark Elf, Pro Elf, Slann, Vampire, Goblin

which would be a good contender for most TDs!

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:31 pm

One other idea I had on the same vein was to have 3~4 larger groups and let teams pick up to 2 from each group.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:26 am

being as the eurobowl was an experiment in the first place, I suggest it is the best place to try new things

oh and pippy, I like your example where you picked two teams from the same group and none from another ;]

Ian, did toy with the idea of larger groups, though I think that wouldn't lead to as much variation between nations.

Is the bash/flair thing something we should be concerned about, what do ppl think??

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:30 am

Pippy wrote:Not sure EB is the best forum for experimentation.

If not the EB, then where? Is there another tournament with the same format?

Pipey · Post by **Pipey** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:28 am

Well spotted Grum

OK - Wood Elf, Chaos Dwarf, Norse, Dark Elf, Pro Elf, Nurgle, Vamps, Goblins

Doubleskulls - interesting idea to mix bash and agility. I do think though that in order to make the choices tough, you need to group the teams purely by their relative strength / win potential. With your groups, 90% of teams would pick Woodies, Undead, Skaven, Dwarfs from the first four.

Like I say, this is an interesting idea. I'd be happy with it how it was in 2008. But I'd be equally happy if a well thought out, evenly balanced system was introduced. This has potential but we would need to think things through very carefully before committing to it.

haktar · Post by **haktar** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:11 am

As far as i'm concerned, i liked the rules of last eurobowl.

I think, The Grumbledook idea is not good.

First, as you can see nobody is agree about the roster groups.

Secondly, some players will be force to play a team among (for example) hafling, ogre and Vampire, during the whole we and pay for it...

Third, i think that each nation will still have merely the same rosters (the better of each group).

4Th, I think that the individual competition is a part important in the tournament, so if you make random confrontation, it will be not fair. In addition, i think the swiss system is interesting because we play against players of our level. But, if you do not random, the player playing the last roster group will be allways play togheter.

The solution to get more skills for weaker rosters, is better, but it will be not easy to agree about which rosters and how many skills...

Post by **Dave** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:39 pm

haktar wrote: Secondly, some players will be force to play a team among (for example) hafling, ogre and Vampire, during the whole we and pay for it...

but as each team has one of those races the team that has a good coach with either of them as an edge. Besides, isn't it the best of fun to laugh about that single coach that lost to halflings in the tournament??

haktar · Post by **haktar** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:56 pm

Dave wrote:
haktar wrote: Secondly, some players will be force to play a team among (for example) hafling, ogre and Vampire, during the whole we and pay for it...
but as each team has one of those races the team that has a good coach with either of them as an edge. Besides, isn't it the best of fun to laugh about that single coach that lost to halflings in the tournament??

Hum for a game it can be fun to play, but the whole tournament...

May be we can change each round the roster play by the team member.

For example :
1st round
Player 1 - roster 1
Player 2 - roster 2
Player 3 - roster 3
Player 4 - roster 4
Player 5 - roster 5
Player 6 - roster 6
Player 7 - roster 7
Player 8 - roster 8

2nd round
Player 1 - roster 2
Player 2 - roster 3
Player 3 - roster 4
Player 4 - roster 5
Player 5 - roster 6
Player 6 - roster 7
Player 7 - roster 8
Player 8 - roster 1

Third round
Player 1 - roster 3
Player 2 - roster 4
Player 3 - roster 5
Player 4 - roster 6
Player 5 - roster 7
Player 6 - roster 8
Player 7 - roster 1
Player 8 - roster 2

etc...

The best if the number of the match equal the number of the team member, so each player can play each roster...

Post by **Dave** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:01 pm

haktar wrote: Hum for a game it can be fun to play, but the whole tournament...

I've played Ogres at a tournie once and had a lot of fun for two days.

For your other suggestion; that'd be a nightmare for NAF