Sign in to follow this  
halifax

Possible new selection process for teams for Ko94

Recommended Posts

What is the Goalie MEta change?

And only Boston's defense is the best. The Bourque / Sweeney combo is nasty.

Moog got a power spike when they people realized he had good goalie stats despite the low overall.

2nd power spike was the weight (lol) put on weight and agility. He's IMO a top 10 goalie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the procedure when there are 3 left? Is it random then?

Oh no. SCII format is Best of 3 so all 3 are used.

So basically the same concept but with bans going up to 2 in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple things:

1) I think players adapted to last years team selection as the tournament went on.

2) I think previous participants will have more and different strategies this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback fellas.

One rule I'm not fond of is the "no longer calling the same matchup for the rest of the tournament". It's extremely difficult to oversee that it is enforced. As it was pointed out in another thread, mikail actually picked montreal vs NYR twice. I don't feel he intentionally tried to circumvent the rules, it was just so late in the day, that I'm sure he genuinely forgot who he picked earlier.

Cory picked the same match up twice in the saskatoon tournament. He thought it was fine as he thought it was because he played someone else the second time, so again it was missed.

There have been a couple suggestions of putting it back on the players to be responsible in following that rule correctly, but I'd like to have something in place where that is not the case.

So my point here is, let's get rid of it.

I still want to see different matchups through the tournament(and not give someone the option to pick the same matchup every time). But how do you do that? Thus the suggestion was posted. Based on feedback, I can appreciate not wanting to go through a process of elimination (perhaps in my mind I only saw this to take about 20 seconds of time to complete.) but nonetheless it is an extra layer that's likely not necessary.

Having said that, I do feel that tiering the teams and using a format similar to what tecmo has done makes sense to me (see my second post in this thread). It still provides plenty of opportunities for different matchups and it's still simple to follow.

Flip a coin, roll a dice, pick a match up, pick a team and be home, the other is away and you play.

Raph and Tickenest have already broken down matchups for each system. I feel like we can use those matchups and come up with groups that can reflect those choices from last tournament, that make sense for each system (SNES with their own and Sega with their own).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should vote on what the tiers should be, because there is a lot of variation in where people think each team stands in terms of strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in any case any player should be able to elect to play a lower tier team than the matchup.

agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the original selection process, with the tweak that was made for the King of 94 West (Saskatoon).

Loser of coin flip has to pick the two teams.

Winner then picks which team he wants, and gets home ice.

Boom! Game, set, match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loser of coin flip has to pick the two teams.

Winner then picks which team he wants, and gets home ice.

I think this is the best bet, maybe combined with having the 2nd round be a best of 3 so that the winner has home ice in games 1 and 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and eliminate the rule against picking the same matchup twice.

Reasons why:

- You are only in control of the matchups roughly 50% of the time. (To successfully compete, you still need to be good with any teams thrown your way).

- Even if you always pick the same two teams, your opponent (the coin toss winner) gets to select which he prefers AND gets home ice. So there would be very little advantage (if any) to always picking the same two teams.

- Difficult to track - No one was really tracking it at Ko94. It was more of an honour system. The rule was broken with no consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm still salty about that rule given I couldn't keep track of which matchups I'd picked and I ended up rushing into a bad matchup. That's on me though. I'd be fine getting rid of that stipulation going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting rid of the rule about tracking your teams could have one problem: You can practice up on 2 particular obscure teams and use them the entire time. HFD-NJ (use CB check to your advantage if you're good at it). ANH-OTT (slow plodding game, use GC to your advantage if you're good at it). Plus whenever you win the right to choose the teams, you have more and more practice with those teams/that style on that day. So I recommend keeping the rule.

It really is a hassle to try to remember your teams, but I think we can add a little table on the back of the name cards and people fill them out each time they play. It'd be a requirement for starting the game, can't start unless the guy has written his matchup down.

--

I like what BobK mentioned, the coin loser has to pick the teams (it just feels better that way).

--

An issue that could come up later is that people might get very good at picking the teams and it could become a real advantage. I did the numbers on the Toronto tourney and it was pretty much 50/50 (I also excluded the opening rounds of each bracket because those were predictable except for the Gens finals). And that's with most people not being good at picking matchups, not knowing home/away advantages, and just giving away a win by offering up an easy choice... It could end up being a 55/45 advantage (not horribly unbalanced, but still a bit of an issue). I think only a few people had a good handle on creating team matchups, but that will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An issue that could come up later is that people might get very good at picking the teams and it could become a real advantage. I did the numbers on the Toronto tourney and it was pretty much 50/50. And that's with most people not being good at picking matchups, not knowing home/away advantages, and just giving away a win by offering up an easy choice... It could end up being a 55/45 advantage (not horribly unbalanced, but still a bit of an issue). I think only a few people had a good handle on creating team matchups, but that will change.

Picking a mismatch in team strength was a HUGE advantage. I wrote about this in my KO94 stats post. 2-3 tier difference resulted in a record of 22-5.

  • The 4 games played with a 3 tier difference (3 of them Pittsburgh, poor guys), the higher team tiers went 4-0. Not surprising!
  • Of the 23 games played with a 2 tier difference, the higher tier teams went 18-5. Again, as expected.
  • The 78 games played with a 1 tier difference resulted in higher tier teams going 38-40. Basically even.

I still think we should keep it as is (winner/loser picking the teams doesn't make a difference). Tracking previously used matchups adds an administrative burden, but can be done. And in reality, an honor system would be fine if we asked people to write down/remember their selections. Picking the same matchups will not give someone THAT much more of advantage...particularly against anyone reading this thread. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either two solutions:

Enforce a game loss if discovered (puts a player burden, but i bet people will make more efforts to remember). Or just have a thing added to your entry player card where you have to write down your matchups and present it to your opponents before games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about pre-determined match-ups printed in a little booklet, coin-flip winner rips out a match-up, loser picks home team and score is written in and dropped off to score-keeper?

Maybe some pages at the back to keep track of your own scores - a tournament log.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unlikely we will look at best of 3s at any point. The tournament already runs late enough. Perhaps I'm a bit selfish, but I'd like to have it finish earlier this year so I can actually enjoy some of the after time hanging out with the buds. I missed out on some of the camaraderie during the tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point we should probably adopt a format like MTG or Tennis.

Guys who are at the top of this site in GENS or SNES shouldn't have to play group stages. For some of the guys in the tourney they're virtually useless as they're not even a remote possibility of losing.

IMO for Gens there'd be at least 8 justifiable byes:

3X GDL champs since it runs 3 a year(Or runner up if there's a repeat) (
2X ''A'' Classic Champs (Spring and Fall)
1X Most runner-up

1X Most wins in GDL/Classic last year

1X Highest win %

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about pre-determined match-ups printed in a little booklet, coin-flip winner rips out a match-up, loser picks home team and score is written in and dropped off to score-keeper?

Maybe some pages at the back to keep track of your own scores - a tournament log.

This is kind of neat. I can't remember if we reset the matchups after the qualifying round, though, in which case we'd need extra books for finalists.

However, I think writing it on the back of your namecard is quite a bit easier, and not that difficult to enforce (there will likely be a few witnesses at each table in order to keep people honest about writing down their chosen matchups).

Side note, Jer, we may eliminate the possibility (or greatly reduce the odds) of being eliminated by losing 3 times to the same person in the qualifying stage (there would be some cross-over between groups)

It's unlikely we will look at best of 3s at any point. The tournament already runs late enough. Perhaps I'm a bit selfish, but I'd like to have it finish earlier this year so I can actually enjoy some of the after time hanging out with the buds. I missed out on some of the camaraderie during the tournament.

I agree, the only time I could see best-of-3s would be like AJ said, right at the end. But because we have triple elimination, we have some redundancy already, so you do get multiple chances to make your way to the finals, and it should be noted that in both SNES and Gens, the finals were effectively Best-of-5 (1st and 2nd both played each other 5 times because they never lost to anyone else and they played the max number of games in the final). The 3rd place players also lost multiple games to the top 2 players. So I'm not really sure it's necessary to have Best-of-3s, although i can understand that getting eliminated for 3rd/4th/5th in a single game feels like it's largely random (bad refs, bad bounce..), but if we turn those games into Best-of-3, it more than doubles the length of the last part of the tourney.

Say we do add a few Bo3 games at the end in the triple elim format.... there could be some weirdness like, the finals starts with the 1st seed with 0 losses and the 2nd seed with 2 losses to the other player... do they play just one game, or do they play Best-of-3 for each game (2nd seed needs to win three Best-of-3s to win the tourney...).... what if 1 of those 2 losses is to someone else... do we say their 3-game series is 0-1 so far?

Also, Best-of-3s could kill the schedule. At King of 94 West, Halifax used a schedule with games pre-assigned to certain tables at certain times, and it worked pretty much perfectly, things ran right on schedule (except for a few people taking smoke breaks and a few games being delayed by setting up cameras to record high-profile games for the documentary), but best-of-3s would make the schedule unpredictable (unless we scheduled 30 minutes for every game, which then doubles the time of the tourney...).

post-253-0-05955200-1464789551_thumb.png

The next tourney will run a lot smoother. I think that if we find it runs *really* well, then maybe we'd take a more serious / in depth look at adding some Best-of-3s in the 2017 tourney, or trial it at a smaller tourney.

Although actually... the plan so far is that if you make it to the last 16 players, you enter the "extra life" phase of the tournament, and you actually aren't eliminated until you have your 4th loss of the tourney (the bracket doesn't reset for the last 16, it's one giant bracket, so any losses during qualification carry over)

At some point we should probably adopt a format like MTG or Tennis.

Guys who are at the top of this site in GENS or SNES shouldn't have to play group stages. For some of the guys in the tourney they're virtually useless as they're not even a remote possibility of losing.

IMO for Gens there'd be at least 8 justifiable byes:

3X GDL champs since it runs 3 a year(Or runner up if there's a repeat) (

2X ''A'' Classic Champs (Spring and Fall)

1X Most runner-up

1X Most wins in GDL/Classic last year

1X Highest win %

I have put together a bracket where 1 out of every 5 players get byes for 2 games, so as a veteran your first game is against a noob who won his first 2 games (the best of 4 noobs).

Byes will only be assigned to tournament veterans, so new players can get a hang of the tourney feel, even if they are league champs online.

We don't want to insert anyone right into the finals because then you start cold, and you don't get to play as many games despite possibly travelling really far to get there.

This means the next tourney will probably have 80 people per console (16 byes, 64 other players)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this