Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Fon Revedhort
XMX Corp Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 21:30:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 14/09/2009 21:33:04
Swiss System tournament
Seriously, why not a 5 or 6 round tournament of that sort?
It will still allow a reliable definition of the winner, I'd even say in a more precise way than the current system. Also teams won't get kicked off cause of one single loss. (like we IAC did, lol). You still can recover keeping playing with opponents of your rank right to the end. 2 top teams will never have a chance of eliminating each other right in the first very final round and so on.
I can't spot any cons, there're just pros
And in case you're that eager to keep that superfinal match... well, you can just make an additional round featuring two top scorers.
Any thoughts?
---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Kil2
Club Bear
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 21:38:00 -
[2]
i think the big drawback is trying to make a tournament with more than a couple rounds happen with all the limitations on ccp staff time and coverage.
with 6 rounds it would take months of matches which are very difficult to organize and sanction for ccp (read expensive). and also the public would either be bored or unable to follow such a drawn out production. not to mention making time for something like this on a volunteer basis would be insane.
otherwise it would be awesome =)
|
Fon Revedhort
XMX Corp Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 21:46:00 -
[3]
They can always adjust number of rounds so that it matches their internal criteria.
For instance, 3-4 rounds and then a round of top 4 teams with 4x3=12 additional games in total.
I personally just think the double elimination (or whatever is the proper name for the current tournament system) is somewhat random. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Faife
Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 22:26:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Faife on 14/09/2009 22:26:27
Originally by: Fon Revedhort They can always adjust number of rounds so that it matches their internal criteria.
For instance, 3-4 rounds and then a round of top 4 teams with 4x3=12 additional games in total.
I personally just think the double elimination (or whatever is the proper name for the current tournament system) is somewhat random.
your alliance is 40th out of 64. sorry, better luck next time, and for now you should probably move on. no reason to dwell on the past and what could have been -- Check out my EVE cartoons |
Fon Revedhort
XMX Corp Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 23:12:00 -
[5]
You're kind of missing the point here - my alliance's doing just fine, I'm getting back to Monks of War (Banzai Boyz) in few days.
That's just a proposal for future tournaments.
I don't think I should have posted it with some alt, as most people tend to do nowadays. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:42:00 -
[6]
What is it, 16 teams till the final weekend or 32?
Is IAC going to give up the fitting of game two or it that locked in the vault? Should I even be thankful it's not made public?
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Johnatan
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 08:28:00 -
[7]
Quote: Why not a Swiss system?
Because this is CCP!.. They are icelandic company and they do crazy unlogical things to get some heat or they will die. You play this game long enough to get used to it. ---- start cut here ---- Evil Thug`s alt. ----- end cut here ----- |
Necronus
Amarr Monks of War Banzai Boyz
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 08:46:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Necronus on 15/09/2009 08:46:53 Edited by: Necronus on 15/09/2009 08:46:29 Edited by: Necronus on 15/09/2009 08:46:04 My guess :
With current ammount of people who wants to participate in AT it would take too much effort to organize such tournament. I understand that double elimination is more fail-proof system, but i guess you just have to do your best at every fight.
CCP mentioned in Fanfest that organizing tourney with some video streaming etc is pretty much expensive and the current system is what they found optimal in cost/efficiency ratio to keep alliance tournaments going on each year/half-a-year which is awesome.
|
Johnathan Roark
Caldari Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 08:47:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Johnatan
Quote: Why not a Swiss system?
Because this is CCP!.. They are icelandic company and they do crazy unlogical things to get some heat or they will die. You play this game long enough to get used to it.
According to that article, EVE Online uses that system? I personally would like to see more qualifying rounds. Problem with the current system, is if you do poorly on one match, you don't have much room to compensate for it. We do not do this very often, so why not give everyone a match to blow? I like how the current system does the next rounds pairing, i just want to see one more round to refine the rankings.
Quantum Industries is recruiting! |
VSlash
VVS Corporition Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 09:39:00 -
[10]
Well, most of the world knows such thing as preliminaries.
Why not go this way and get everybody (yes, everybody) into X groups with 8 teams (or w/e number suitable) each. And hold a weekend pew-pew before the main part which can be 32 SE or 16DE bracket. So in the end you'll get much more evenly distributed SKILLED teams throughout the bracket. Ok, group A leader might kick group B leaded with 0 points scored, but still, it's better than seeing interesting matchups disappear as strong or possibly interesting to watch teams get kicked on by another just before the final stage.
Of course CCP gets what it wants - they get a show. And considering AT a show - this stuff is ok, cuz it attracts attention anyway.
But from players' POV 'show' attitude sucks and there should be more 'competition'.
With 7th tourney to go and a lot more interest don't you think it's time to lean towards 'competition' a bit more?
Of course everything said is irrelevant if you don't want to increase efforts.
|
|
Stickletodd
Amarr Industrial Mining and Construction
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 12:24:00 -
[11]
There is a way. Instead of 1 tournament, you have 4. Each quarter you have smaller tournaments restricting the size to 20 teams. Full elimination in the first round with a semi-final and final in the second round. All done over one weekend. You have three of these. Then you have the final tournament with the top 5 from each of the three previous tournaments with 5 wildcard spots. That is the basic principle, but there would have to be other issues sorted out.
|
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 12:35:00 -
[12]
The current qualifying system is essentially a 2 round swiss system - with the addition of ship kill points to help with working out rankings. Its purpose is to define the top 32 teams in tournament, and then seed the single elimination finals. It was put in place to help move the tournament from 40 teams up to 64 teams without moving to something like single elimination.
This 2 round, 64 team qualifying provides you with the opportunity to recover from a loss, providing it wasn't an utterly horrible loss where you got utterly destroyed. The lowest qualifying team this year only scored 10 points in the match they lost (in Tournament VI the lowest was 24 points).
You can see the original thread about this format choice from Tourney VI here -- |
|
Red Thunder
tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:00:00 -
[13]
but with the current system, if say the two best alliances come against each other, its pretty much guaranteed that one of them will be kicked out of the tourney from that single loss, even if both of them are good enough to reach the finals.... (atlas, tri, star fraction etc)
Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines |
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 15:32:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Red Thunder but with the current system, if say the two best alliances come against each other, its pretty much guaranteed that one of them will be kicked out of the tourney from that single loss, even if both of them are good enough to reach the finals.... (atlas, tri, star fraction etc)
I disagree. If two really good teams fight each other then there should be absolute fireworks, and not a slaughter. Getting completely wiped out for no kills during qualifying is pretty much the only way to ensure that you do not reach the finals.
-- |
|
Migone
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 16:30:00 -
[15]
In Wimbledon Tennis Tim Henman came up against Andre Agassi in early matches a couple of times. Epic games, battled out in early stages. It happens often in any seeding system. I don't think it makes it unfair, just some fantastic matches can happen early instead of traditionally at the finals.
|
XFreedomX
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 17:15:00 -
[16]
Edited by: XFreedomX on 16/09/2009 17:26:02 The current system does the following, eliminates teams who loses with zero points.
The good: - Gives teams with aggressive (high dps) setup a better chance to advance then a tanky (low dps) setup. - Matches are interesting even if the winner is determined early as every point matters.
The bad: - first 8 matches of day 3 is for pride only. - Teams with wins in round 1 will/should field setup geared to get enough to advance instead of win. (not enough incentive to win for teams to risk exposing their good setup or using setup which has a chance to lose with zero kills)
Please consider what I propose or some alternate method where by, teams which for all intent and purpose have been elimnated in round one, do not have to fight again.
|
Certel
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 17:19:00 -
[17]
Originally by: XFreedomX The current system does the following, eliminates teams who loses with zero points.
The good: - Gives teams with agressive (high dps) setup a better chance to advance then a tanky (low dps) setup. - Matches are interesting even if the winner is determined early as every point matters.
The bad: - first 8 matches of day 3 is for pride only. - Teams with wins in round 1 will/should field setup geared to get enough to advance instead of win. (the incentive to win is to low for teams to risk their exposing their good setup or a setup which has a chance to lose with zero kills)
Please consider what I propose or some alternate method where by, teams which for all intent and purpose have been elimnated in round one, do not have to fight again.
Like #1 GS eliminates #33 Razor.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |