|
Post by tommynt on Jan 11, 2007 14:27:56 GMT -5
I have come up with this idea 3 times allready and this ll be my last try to promote it - but it s such a easy to implement thing with HUGE increase to fun THE NO 1. ROUND BYE IDEA - this is based on a event with <= 8 teams registered with more teams the possitive effect of implementing this idea ll be even bigger! situation: 6 teams registered for a ccc event seeding spots teamnr 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5 7 8 6
seedings are atm done into ramdom spots of the seeding rooster so teams 1 and 6 gotta wait untill 2 vs 3 and 4 vs 5 have finished playing - 2 teams from same event gotta wait instead just play! If seedings were less random but if specific spots would be filled 1. there would be less waiting for everyone and espacially no 1. round byes.
so it should be like that: spot team 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 6
all teams start play right away
as said this problem is even bigger with 9 or more clans registered but more hard to show - but u can have situations were 4 clans wait for other clans to finish 1. game
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Jan 11, 2007 17:10:33 GMT -5
I have come up with this idea 3 times allready and this ll be my last try to promote it - but it s such a easy to implement thing with HUGE increase to fun THE NO 1. ROUND BYE IDEA - this is based on a event with <= 8 teams registered with more teams the possitive effect of implementing this idea ll be even bigger! situation: 6 teams registered for a ccc event seeding spots teamnr 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5 7 8 6 seedings are atm done into ramdom spots of the seeding rooster so teams 1 and 6 gotta wait untill 2 vs 3 and 4 vs 5 have finished playing - 2 teams from same event gotta wait instead just play! If seedings were less random but if specific spots would be filled 1. there would be less waiting for everyone and espacially no 1. round byes. so it should be like that: spot team 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 6 all teams start play right away as said this problem is even bigger with 9 or more clans registered but more hard to show - but u can have situations were 4 clans wait for other clans to finish 1. game Tommy, I understand your point, but we can't change the Case's Tourney Software. Let's use CCC Event #1 (Singles Duel) as an example. If there are 8 (or 16) registrants there will be no byes. Otherwise, there will be byes. Case's decides how many and we really don't have control over this. In your example it might be tempting with six teams to start 3 games of 2 each, but then with 3 winners what do you do? You need an even number of teams in round2 not an odd number. This is why with six teams they will set up 4 teams to play a round 1 game and 2 teams to get a bye - so 4 teams (even #)enter the second round. You should sign up to be a TD and become familiar with the software we use to set up tourneys and perhaps you'll discover a better way of doing it. You also might want to send your suggestion to Case's staff. Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Jan 11, 2007 17:15:47 GMT -5
Tommy wrote: "seedings are atm done into ramdom spots of the seeding rooster"
That's not really right. Random seedings means that the person who is slotted into team1, or team2, or team3 is random. It's not done highest rank first. Or first to register plays first. The player names are shuffled.
This does not mean that the players are placed into random slots 1 thru 8. With six players, Case's will always take two players (randomly selected), give them byes - and place 1 at the top and 1 at the bottom of the standings chart. The four in the middle play Round1. The two others wait for Round2 to jump in. It will always look like that in the standings. You'll never see the two with byes in the middle or elsewhere .. always top and bottom. Understand now?
Best, SPM
|
|
Juni
Worker
Posts: 137
|
Post by Juni on Jan 11, 2007 19:27:48 GMT -5
Your idea is great Tommy Of course some teams would have to wait, there is no way to avoid it. But with your system, each team plays its first game as soon as possible. Once it is over, the winning team will surely have to wait for next turns, but the loosing team can just leave and go do something else, while in the current system, they have to wait long for finally loosing in first round... But as SPM said, the tournament software is owned by Case's ladder, so the only way to realize your idea is to contact them... good luck ;D
|
|
|
Post by cankaban on Jan 12, 2007 5:56:35 GMT -5
only if a noob team gets the 'bye' it will help them,tthey wont waste time for waiting for next round.but nothing ll change for winner team,they ll wait for normal semi final to finish.
|
|
Juni
Worker
Posts: 137
|
Post by Juni on Jan 12, 2007 7:21:47 GMT -5
See Tommy's example. In first case (what is used currently) team 1 and 6 wait until first round games ended.
With Tommy's idea, the two "bye" teams play each other. So only the winner will wait after that match. The total duration of the event would be the same, but as games are started ASAP, eliminated teams are known earlier, and so can return to real life ;D
|
|
|
Post by Levi on Jan 12, 2007 9:18:00 GMT -5
I don't think you guys understand how byes are supposed to be used. As you know, a bye moves whoever gets it into the second round of the event, as though they had beaten someone. In professional tournaments, the byes go to the highest ranked players, because it is assumed that they are going to win their first round against some much lower ranked player.
Unfortunately for us, Cases ladder alows us to seed tournaments in only three ways, by rank, rating or randomly. Most of us agree that seeding by Cases rank is a poor choice simply because rank is more an indicator of frequency of play. Rating is a pretty good ranking system, but I have never seen a tournament seeded by rating that gave the best players the byes. Of course, random seeding is absurd because it may give a noob a bye, and that is just not how byes are supposed to be used.
For the Cash tournament, I seed based on my subjective opinion of how good the players are. For instance, currently MrGameTheory is the 2006 top money earner, so he is top seed and NotaGoodName is the #2 cash earner for 2006 so he is second seed. Unfortunately, I do not have enough cash earners to make a well seeded event, so I am forced to do seeding based on who I think deserves the byes.
As an example of that, MGT and Tommynt are the first two players signed up for MGT's Ca$h Cla$$ic #2. MGT remains top seed, and I feel confident that if I give Tommynt the second seed spot, no one will complain.
I should explain some of the terms I have been using. When I say "top seed" I mean the bye at the top of the upper half of the bracket. "second seed" is the top seed in the lower half of the bracket. "third seed" is the bottom seed in the upper half of the bracket. "fourth seed" is the bottom seed in the lower half of the bracket.
The only way to do even remotely fair seedings is not to use cases ladder to run the event.
|
|
Juni
Worker
Posts: 137
|
Post by Juni on Jan 12, 2007 10:56:08 GMT -5
You're right of course about what byes are made for and how they shall work, but this way to manage non 2^x numbers of players is slightly unappropriate for random seeding. Case's progammers might have thought to this.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Jan 12, 2007 11:30:31 GMT -5
That's right we only have three seeding choices - rank, rating, or random.
To paraphrase a famous statement, random seeding is the worst possible seeding method, except for all the others.
In addition to assigning the byes, random seeding also "pairs" the opponents. Random should shuffle it around so that if in one event you play a killer clan in the next event you'll play a less skilled clan - it should average out over 12 events, is the idea.
Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by alice on Jan 12, 2007 16:33:09 GMT -5
i think we should seed based on rank, the ladders is a ranking system, we shouldnt fight that. the tournements should be seeded accordingly . it will add a little charm to the days preceding the ccc
|
|
|
Post by AngelOnEarth on Jan 13, 2007 11:41:58 GMT -5
iirc seeding by rank will only use the 1st regged player's skill to do the seeding, so teams will start to wait with registration until the very last second to have them signed by the player with the best suiting skill or teams will start withdrawing/rejoining with the appropriate 1st player.
and imho, if you want to win or score in a ccc event, you should be able to kill ANY team ... enough luck is involved in pairings, ask some players, they faced same teams/players in lots of events in 1st round.
|
|
|
Post by Speaker on Jan 14, 2007 13:45:23 GMT -5
Good post AoE. I seem to play MDR in the first or second round of every event. If I cant beat Charlie, Matth, and Romazi/Share, I don't deserve to win the event! Seeding by rank will only slow everything down more than it already is, for teh reasons you mention.
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Jan 16, 2007 15:36:04 GMT -5
I liked Gogf's idea of improved seeding. He thought for Day 1 it should be based on the previous CCC performance. Day 2 should be based on Day 1 results. And day 3 should be based on day 2 results. It's too bad Cases Ladder system doesn't offer better seeding systems.
|
|
|
Post by cryptococcus on Jan 16, 2007 17:51:28 GMT -5
Levi fourth seed should be top and third seed should be bottom I hope the Sherrif is throwing you some money for this Levi ;D
|
|