Tournaments? Competitive vs Non-competitive Splitting

[Grumbledook]

One thing I'd like to see would be a change in focus from bigger prizes for a few to smaller gifts for everyone for taking part. You don't really need a big prize as players would compete for the challenge and winning of Tournaments with or without them. I remember being made up at the Dungeonbowl when we all got some pro made 50K inducement cards - a really nice touch for all.

I've been banging that drum for ages, so happy to do it again ;]

I agree with the others that splitting tournaments up like this isn't a good idea, buying Geoffrey comedy wigs to wear each game though, I'm sure that has some legs.

[mubo]

One thing I'd like to see would be a change in focus from bigger prizes for a few to smaller gifts for everyone for taking part. You don't really need a big prize as players would compete for the challenge and winning of Tournaments with or without them. I remember being made up at the Dungeonbowl when we all got some pro made 50K inducement cards - a really nice touch for all.

Definitely agree with this.

_
I think Swiss does the job nicely. Although I did feel a bit dirty when I played Wilbur's ogres with a S4 wardancer.
It would remove some of the fun for sure, lots of people won't be sure what group they fall into. A decent/new player might be put off entering the powerfest as they don't want to lose 6 games, which would be a shame.

This could be a good idea in large 1 day tourneys (or the GT!) where maybe you don't get enough games to get a clear leader using swiss. Also not a bad idea when the scoring system rewards big wins/ plenty of cas, but I guess this is a flaw of the scoring system not the pairing.

[Wightlord]

I'm sure that has some legs.

Unlike yourself

[shaniepoo]

I would hate to be split from the main compertition in a tourni just because i play with a low tier team. There is nothing better than seeing the look on a powergamers face when you manage to pull off a move that in all rights shouldnt be possible to stop then from scoring (sacking the ball carryer with a direct hit from a throw snotling on the touchline) or score yourself (making a 5+ dodge... picking up the ball... making both GFL's... with your AG2 Ogre) or kill their star player (blocking their S4 Wardancer with a Snotling and rolling 3 POW, Double 6, Double 6).

I play Bloodbowl because i enjoy it, if i win then thats great, if i dont then that doesnt bother me as long as i have had fun playing the game. One thing that i have noticed in tournaments is the whole game play attitude the higher up the ranks you get. Some high ranked players wownt talk at all when playing a game and for me this is boring for me. If being a good player means i will play people who are just out to win and wownt talk or have a laugh with me then i will continue to play with lower tier teams. All you have to do is stand back and look at the 2 ends of the room and see the difference. Use 'crap' player still have a competitive side but we like to laugh when playing our games, we dont go out to lose our games intentionally.

Take the less competitive people out of the main tourni and putting us in a 'you cant play coz you wownt win and dont play like a powergamer' section will just end up with a huge rift. How am i ment to learn how to play against high tier teams in a tourni if im not aloud to play against them?

What you want to do is clamp down on turn time. Me, Matt and Ken were talking about this at the weekend and think that if you were to fully enforce the time restriction of 4min a turn on people you would see a different group of people in higher possitions. Matt gave a good point saying that time is a resourse the same as your FF and Re-rolls. If someone is taking 6 minutes to take their turn then the other person feels rushed and so to finish the game will rush and only use 2 minutes for their turn. This means that a powergamer would be using 75% of the game time to the 'non-competitive' players 25%. Ive seen the top tables take 30min extra to finish a game than the alocated time given. Enforce the 4 minute rule and you will find that the ranks will prob start to shift a little and the 'non-competitive' players wil start to rise from the ashes.

[Grumbledook]

I agree about the 4 min rule points you made

course you get players like gavin who take about 20 second a turn and still manage to seem to win ;]

[Purplegoo]

I think enforcing the four minute rule is a slippery slope I'd rather not see weekends begin to fall down. Next it would be IP, then some other horrid non-fun line, and the whole thing would become far less of a good time than it is now. Plus, no-one up top is ever there because they're slow. I'd accept good, jammy, powergaming or ugly, but no-one ever wins games for being slow! There was one single game called this weekend, and that's only because you had the slowest two players going clash. If it's a choice between a game on a top table going 20 minutes over and both players playing to their own pace and a real result happening, or someone getting screwed for going over time in a big turn, I know what I’d prefer! Labelling time a resource I think is pushing it too far.

Agreed on the prize front.

Off topic happened quickly!

[Pug]

I'd like to see a separation from the bunch of Rankers and the normal people at the bottom tables!

I agree on the point with Shanie about how the Ranker types just don't get the fun aspect of the game.

Also I agree something has to be done with the players that just don't get a wriggle on. Not only does it slow up the tournament, but everyone else has to sit around umming and arring till there done.
I'll be introducing a -1pt from round points for every 5 mins past the alloted round end time, to "encourage" players to play a bit faster.

[Sizzler]

One of the greatest things about Blood Bowl is the community. Dividing it would only be a bad thing.

If we start this, then surely it would effectively be two seperate tournaments, so why not just have two seperate tournaments? I'm a big fan of people who run daft rosters, and it's always heartwarming to hear about them doing well, and it's good to watch them go up against the 'top' players in the first round draw.

Maybe some of the top players could take a leaf out of their book and try a team that's not great, just as a bit of a challenge?

And Pgoo is 100% spot on about the 4min rule.

[Purplegoo]

Weird. I spent some time down the bottom when I had some Nurgle action, and also during a monster-stop-the-game-to-throw-up hangover, and I couldn't spot the difference. Honestly.

At the end of the day, sure some people like to win more than others do, but everybody is there for fun first. Surely? I'm bollocksed if I'm spending three figures (or thereabouts) on a weekend away just to crunch numbers.

I've never played someone that wasn't at least a little bit fun. Some of the loudest, silliest, most mental stuff I've come across has come from good players, some of the moaniest have been crap - and pace has never been split along good/bad lines that I've seen. Have I just lived a charmed, coincidental life?!

[Leipziger]

Thanks for the feedback so far guys. V interesting.

@Shaniepoo - just to mention that Geoff's idea was speculative and based on the idea of making a tourny weekend more fun for all and also that he wasn't suggesting enforced separation ie coaches would choose the tourny entered. I'm not trying to counter the comments against the idea, just ensure you know Geoff was coming in with a good intention.

@wightlord - agree re: prizes, although some things eg dice cups, cards can be expensive to get sorted. Good spread of prizes across the board (ie not just the top positions) goes someway towards that.

@pgoo and others who've mentioned the 4 min rule. I agree that there are some players who take a lot longer over each turn than others and that taking a long time doesn't neccesarily make you better at the game. However, many of us would make less mistakes if we took twice as long over each turn as we do now. This won't change though. Bringing in chess clocks would be too much imo, and if you are strict about game limits, the slower player will always take more time. Plus, there aren't that many coaches out there who are super slow.

@Pug, I don't think taking X points off per minute(s) elapsed over the time is viable. Sometimes, there is good reason a game goes over (extra turns, complex rules calls etc). All you can do is give a bit of extra time and then call the game when you have to move on.

[Leipziger]

@pgoo just saw your new post. Your last point is spot on. Fun is the key and there are very few games where your opponent isn't good to play.

[Grumbledook]

tbh as long as I'm not sat near some right smelly git, I don't mind what table i'm on

[thechosengobbo]

As someone who takes very fast turns, I would welcome an enforcing of the 4 minute turn rule

I'd absolutely love to see if that DOES bring a different group of players nearer the top tables. But that's purely because I'm a curious bugger, and this sort of thing interests me.



In regards to the original topic. You're still going to get awkward people like me who take gobbos and sign up to the competitive half. I love the fact that I could cause an upset win (I haven't yet, but there's time). Mixing them together makes for more fun, and doesn't lead to a more secular tournament experience.

[DoubleSkulls]

Its pretty easy to do with my program to encourage tiers to play each other, you'd just need to give every player a score to represent their racial band then put it into the rankings, so that should players be even on score they'll be ordered by tier.

You need a lot of coaches on the same score to make it work (so no bonus points in the main score) - so in round two winners will still play winners all you'd be doing is ensuring that tier 3s with the same record are more likely to play other tier 3 or tier 2 teams. Winning 'fling coaches would still end up playing tier 1 teams but it wouldn't be as strong as currently.

[Wightlord]

I think enforcing the four minute rule is a slippery slope I'd rather not see weekends begin to fall down. Next it would be IP, then some other horrid non-fun line, and the whole thing would become far less of a good time than it is now. Plus, no-one up top is ever there because they're slow. I'd accept good, jammy, powergaming or ugly, but no-one ever wins games for being slow! There was one single game called this weekend, and that's only because you had the slowest two players going clash. Labelling time a resource I think is pushing it too far.

Having a timer doesn't have to lead to IP horridness, everyone would still want to have fun so would it just be timed games. I really do think time is a resource in the game like any other. If you have two coaches of equal ability with 2 hours of game time and one takes 75 mins to the others 45 mins then that is a real advantage (spending extra time working out ways to minimise risk and reroll usage etc), and if overall game times had been enforced this weekend then plenty of games would have been called. Having the ability to examine every move like a chess game is a big bonus and coaches can unintentionally deprive their opponent of time by doing this.

Timed turns would shake things up a little and provide for a few more "shock" results in power v's fun player clashes - which would be good for the game.