Tournaments? Competitive vs Non-competitive Splitting

[Duke Jan]

As a mid-table player I agree that splitting the tourney is a terrible idea. It has happened to me that I find myself on table 1, just as much as finding myself playing on the bottom tables. In both cases I've had enjoyable and less enjoyable games. True, I become more serious playing a serious opponent, but there is a limit to the fun you can have. For me the tournament spoilers are not the people who don't talk during a match, that's up to them. It's the people who will enforce every single rule of the game on you (including ones they made up themselves imported from WHFB/40k/chess) while taking liberties on the rules themselves, usually the time.

I do see a problem with not enforcing a turn limit, it creates an uneven playing field and boring match for the faster coach in these cases. Inexperience players may be slow, but that's OK to live with. It's when experienced coaches take 6 minutes that the game becomes boring. Still there is a difference between not enforcing and simply ignoring a rule. The latter is equal to cheating in my opinion. If you're really that good you should win by not exceeding the time limit.

If you're going to split the tournament, do it by enforcement of the rules, be more strict on the top-mid tables. I'm definitely not saying top tables alone, it's usually just below the top tables that you will find turn limits exceeded in an abusive way. Tourney organisers could keep an eye out for coaches systematically stealing their opponent's time as a means of gaining an advantage. Just check turn duration a couple of times and give warning.

Time limits are not necessarily a fun stopper, they can actually make the game more fun as well. The rule is there for a reason With our league we tried a one day tournament with a 2 minute limit on the turns and it was one of the most fun tourneys I've played in. Experienced coaches should be able to pull this off without a problem. The game becomes more fun when you think on your feet. In my first league we did enforce 4 mins and IP for turn markers, once people live by these rules you can relax on the enforcement but if they are not lived by at all it does take the fun out of the game.

[Pipey]

On the admittedly off-topic point about 4 min turn limit...

As a tourney organiser, I try to factor in enough time such that those who do take ages end up finishing their games but losing their break in between rounds.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I have never had to stop a game prematurely at Monkeybowl. This is because it is always dissatisfactory to have to do this. Nobody likes to lose knowing they were denied turns in which they could've equalised. And on the other side of the coin, to win in this manner is quite hollow.

Stop watches is a BAD idea IMO. It could only work if there was a third party refereeing the match. Otherwise, it will lead to arguments and ill-feeling. No doubt before too long a situation would arise when someone was about to score the winning TD only for his opponent to call turnover when the clock went to 4:01. That would be just silly.

Way I see it: some turns take 2 minutes (or less), some take 5 or 6 mins (or more); it depends on the match situation. It's down to the tourney organiser to keep an eye on the slow guys, include some leeway in the schedule and make sure all matches are finished in full.

I think those who are extremely slow do have a responsibility to speed up their games. TBH there are persistent culprits who are always the last to finish. I used to be very slow indeed. I've speeded up in the last couple of years and it is now very rare for me not to finish a game in time (even if I am still usually one of the last to finish!).

[DoubleSkulls]

There are a fair few slow coaches at aussie tournaments, so overrunning games is unfortunately quite common. So at Euc Bowl I've got a nice big projector so put up a count down timer so people can see exactly how long they have left. Its an amazing piece to help self-regulation. I know one game where they called time on themselves, but I didn't have to call time on anyone

[Leipziger]

I quite like that idea, Ian.

@Pippy - you're right that generally people's games don't need to be called. At the Waterbowl, I think it is only one/two games recently that have to be called and they were the last games to finish in round 6, so time was more pressing.

[Pipey]

My experience from Monkeybowl is that there tend to be two or three likely candidates who are the ones who have to be hurried along when everyone else has finished.

Hmmmm... Tritex? Polar Bear? Gegginz? to name just three

There's a joint responsibility between the coaches themselves and the tourney organiser. But ultimately I think the onus lies with the organiser to ensure the games are finished. Unfinished games are never good.

[Podfrey]

Hi all,

To clarify (as it seems to have got missed out in some cases) this idea was never compulsory, but something that people could opt in to or out of as they wished.

The thinking behind it was that sometimes it's not nice to sit across from a powerhungry monster team with your gobbos/halflings/ogres/underpants and just get drilled for 2 hours, and that playing against other teams of similar standing would be more enjoyable and offer a greater chance of actually being in the game.

I appreciate that Swiss does this, but I thought it would be nice to speed things up (i.e. 6 games of fun instead of only 4 or 5).

If people don't think it's a good idea then that's fine, but please please don't think it was ever thought of as a must do.

Cheers,

G

[Tim]

What you could try to do, is a manual tweak to the ranking used for swiss seeding that you remove when calculating the real standings.

So introduce bonus points for powergamer setups that you assign before the first draw, run the draw, enter results, remove the bonus from ranking formula, print ranking, reintroduce bonus, run swiss pairing, etc.

Bonuses could go as follows (examples)
+2 tier 1 team (list teams here)
+1 tier 2 team (list teams here)
+0 tier 3 team
+1 for NAF member with more than x tournaments played
+1 for NAF member with a team in the top x
+1 for a known powergaming coach

So Lucifer with Amazons starts with 5 points for the first swiss round draw, plays another coach of this category, loses and finds himself with 0 points at the end of the ranking. Next game he enters the swiss draw with 5 points again and either plays a midrage coach that has won his first game (assuming 3 points for a win) or another unlucky topnotch coach with a high powergamer ranking that lost his game.
A crazy Gobbo coach that wins against a drunken Halfling coach will only meet a loser/drawer with average powergamer rating next.

I haven't thought this completely through and numbers above are an example, but this system might have the desired effect and could be set up in Score! easily. 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.

[rodders]

My experience from Monkeybowl is that there tend to be two or three likely candidates who are the ones who have to be hurried along when everyone else has finished.

Hmmmm... Tritex? Polar Bear? Gegginz? to name just three

There's a joint responsibility between the coaches themselves and the tourney organiser. But ultimately I think the onus lies with the organiser to ensure the games are finished. Unfinished games are never good.

Besters vs Geggster when your pushed for time every T O's nightmare

[Grumbledook]

or make the tournament rules so that powerhungry teams are harder to make

[besters]

Besters vs Geggster when your pushed for time every T O's nightmare

I think we are gettng quicker, honestly!

[Hangus]

Or you could do a naf ranking seeding first round (tm pearly kings and queens)

[DoubleSkulls]

What you could try to do, is a manual tweak to the ranking used for swiss seeding that you remove when calculating the real standings.

So introduce bonus points for powergamer setups that you assign before the first draw, run the draw, enter results, remove the bonus from ranking formula, print ranking, reintroduce bonus, run swiss pairing, etc.

Bonuses could go as follows (examples)
+2 tier 1 team (list teams here)
+1 tier 2 team (list teams here)
+0 tier 3 team
+1 for NAF member with more than x tournaments played
+1 for NAF member with a team in the top x
+1 for a known powergaming coach

So Lucifer with Amazons starts with 5 points for the first swiss round draw, plays another coach of this category, loses and finds himself with 0 points at the end of the ranking. Next game he enters the swiss draw with 5 points again and either plays a midrage coach that has won his first game (assuming 3 points for a win) or another unlucky topnotch coach with a high powergamer ranking that lost his game.
A crazy Gobbo coach that wins against a drunken Halfling coach will only meet a loser/drawer with average powergamer rating next.

I haven't thought this completely through and numbers above are an example, but this system might have the desired effect and could be set up in Score! easily. 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.

This works - but only if you also have a relatively small range for the initial ranking. Say you had 3-1-0 for WDL - then you'd rank by those points first, then by your score, then by the tie break. Removing the "power" score from the final rankings is okay, but then there might be an argument to say you'd need a strength of schedule score too - so coaches with the same score are ranked by their opponent's scores as the first tie break to stop someone trying to abuse the system for advantage.

Funnily enough my tournament software can already do this

There are a couple of things I like about this.
1) It reduces the randomness of a the first round. Making it so that tier 3s play each other in the first round is a way to ensure that some tier 1 teams don't get an easy ride.
2) It makes it more likely that tier 3s will end up playing more tier 3s - so reducing the lottery of stunty king prizes
3) It makes it more likely that tier 3 games will be against worse tier 1 coaches by making the tier 3 vs tier 1 games later in the tournament.

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

[Deathwing]

I think there's some merit in this idea. The simple format that springs to mind is that followed by most rugby sevens ( and some soccer fives) tournaments;
First round standard random.
The winners of the first round go into the top half of the draw and play for the Cup.
The losers of the first round go into the second half of the draw and play for the Plate.

It effectively puts all those who lose the first round at a level playing field, they can still win a trophy and they should be playing against (generally) similarly 'weaker' opposition.
The only potential issue is the split for draws. You may have to randomise, after TDs scored/Cas difference/Cas scored you might still have some players level on points at that stage.
Both sides of the draw remain competitive.

It's a tried, tested and popular system that has been in use in sporting tournaments for many decades. It works and it's extremely simple.
For a larger tournament, why not?

Like the thinking Geoff.

[Joemanji]

I wouldn't like to turn up, lose my first game because of a harsh draw or bad luck and be out of contention for the rest of the weekend. And what about draws?

[Purplegoo]

Or you could do a naf ranking seeding first round (tm pearly kings and queens)

Whilst that's neat for a change, in this context, it doesn't cater for the eventuality of a) the good coach Vs. good coach round one winner/loser that plays the all Ogre / more fun minded coach showdown winner/loser (in which case you move the match you're looking to avoid here to round 2 - so not good, unless you carry a seeding, but then the Ogre winner has to play someone that won?), or b) the good coach that plays a new team, and thus starts back in the pack, Swiss wise. He's still good, ranking or nay!

Whilst I love Rugby sevens too, it seems harsh (as Joe suggests) copping a whooping game one then being consigned to not compete if that is your wish. In sevens, generally, there is a seeded (I think?) group stage at first, at least attempting to iron out the odd shock result and making sure everyone goes in the right sub-tournament. You'd have to make the split after two games in BB, minimum, and by then it's pointless since the Swiss will have settled anyway.

I suppose if enough people see this kind of thing as an issue, that percentage of people having their own Tourny on a weekend is an option, afterall, the most important thing is that we all have fun. I do think it would be a shame and we'd lose something. I don't know, since I'm always looking to try and compete whatever I'm using, but is it enough of a problem to do something about, and how many coaches would take the option? The same coaches taking the same tier 3 teams multiple times sort of indicates to me it's not?