Jump to content


Photo

Proposal Log Discussion 2 - Tournament Over-Saturation


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
35 replies to this topic

#1 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,852 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 March 2018 - 10:40 AM

malcom.jansen has proposed that TC make changes to the Tournament Schedule, on the basis that the community is over-saturated with tournaments, and that the current schedule is incohesive, uninteresting and too complicated.

 

You can see his proposal here:

 

http://forum.strateg...c-proposal-log/

 

malcom.jansen - Are you able to elaborate on the points you have made?

 

(Forum Members are invited to join in this discussion)



#2 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 18 March 2018 - 06:20 PM

I would like to acknowledge that I was involved in the design of the Pyramid League rules and that overall I believe the Tournament Committee does a good job.

My critiques are as follows:

1. Qualification for the PL is too complicated.

2. Players can qualify for a higher division in the PL from other tournaments, this diminishes the significance of PL results.

3. The ProSeries is a bad idea. It is an attempt to do something new, but it barely differs from the Swiss or Knockout tournament. Not all tournament ideas are good, the NASF Regular Season that I organized was a flop as well. The TC should acknowledge this and not run the ProSeries going forward.

4. The TC runs too many tournaments. To my understanding, there will be four Pro Series events, Champions League, Pyramid League and a Double Elimination tournament in the next year. Combined with, the OWC, team and federation tournaments, this is too much. This will lead to decreased turnout and lower quality tournaments.

5. The TC only runs 1 tournament a year in which the median finishing player is guaranteed to plays more than 5 games. This likely discourages lower ranked players from registering.

I recommend the following alternative schedule to address these concerns:

Pyramid League 1 (Weeks 36 - 50)
Winter Tournament (Weeks 1 - 11)
Pyramid League 2 (Weeks 8 - 22)
Champions League (Weeks 24 - 36)

I recommend the following rule changes:

Promotion between PL divisions occurs based only on PL results.

Any player who was offered a PL spot above Base, who does not accept it for the next PL will be placed in Base going forward. If said player is particularly talented, then they can earn promotion to the top division in a year.

The PL divisions have a 12 player cap, add more divisions as necessary.

The initial CL groups should have 4 players. The number of players who can participate in the CL should be a multiple of 16. The TC should use qualifying matches and PL results to eliminate players before the tournament begins. This will make the CL be a special experience. Theoretically, the TC could run a concurrent Euro League tournament.

Edited by malcom.jansen, 19 March 2018 - 02:13 AM.

  • texaspete09 likes this
69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#3 Master Mind

Master Mind

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,087 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 22 March 2018 - 07:22 AM

Here are some of my thoughts.

 

>Qualification for the PL is too complicated

 

I can imagine some players do not understand how this works, as it is indeed quite complicated, but everything is clearly written down in the rules (in my opinion) and players can always ask questions if they do not understand something. So I don't think any changes are needed.

 

>Players can qualify for a higher division in the PL from other tournaments, this diminishes the significance of PL results

 

I don't see it like this. Without certain qualification from other tournaments, there should be a qualification system with ELO or Kleier, which is not favourable in my opinion. In chess, there are a lot of qualificational tournaments for another tournament as well, for example the Candidates Tournament.

 

>The ProSeries is a bad idea. It is an attempt to do something new, but it barely differs from the Swiss or Knockout tournament. Not all tournament ideas are good, the NASF Regular Season that I organized was a flop as well. The TC should acknowledge this and not run the ProSeries going forward

 

Again, I really don't agree with this statement. In my opinion, the PRO Series is working pretty smoothly so far. malcolm.jansen mentions it barely differs from knock-out tournaments, but actually the PRO tournaments aren't knock-out tournaments at all. Although having a 'normal' Swiss Perfect tournament (PRO Perfect) the PRO Ladder and especially PRO Random differ quite a lot from Swiss Perfect. I suggest we will run an evaluation form/survey afterwards (like WCO does), and evaluate within TC as well. (Note I do not think like this because I helped setting up the PRO Series, but I'm enjoying it the way it goes now). 

 

>The TC runs too many tournaments. To my understanding, there will be four Pro Series events, Champions League, Pyramid League and a Double Elimination tournament in the next year. Combined with, the OWC, team and federation tournaments, this is too much. This will lead to decreased turnout and lower quality tournaments.
 

I don't think TC runs too many tournaments, because:

1. People have a choice which tournament they will register for
2. There has been even requests for more tournaments

3. The organisers provide the 'quality' of the tournaments (in this case TC)

4. There are quite a lot of different tournament types/structures

 

>The TC only runs 1 tournament a year in which the median finishing player is guaranteed to plays more than 5 games. This likely discourages lower ranked players from registering

 

I do not understand what you mean here. PRO Series as well as the Pyramid League are non-elimination tournaments (as well as WCO), where players can play the whole tournament (>5 games)



#4 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 22 March 2018 - 09:28 PM

My view on Malcoms suggestions:

1 and 2: you have a point there.

3. I like the Pro-series. I think its different. Only I was hoping that in the current pro (ladder?) I was hoping on the rule of the high piece that wins with draws. It would give a new dynamic. Also the Pro Random is a nice new idea I believe.

4. Good point again.

5. I do not get this either. Why would this discourage the weak player from signup? 


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#5 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 23 March 2018 - 04:02 PM

My view on Malcoms suggestions:
1 and 2: you have a point there.
3. I like the Pro-series. I think its different. Only I was hoping that in the current pro (ladder?) I was hoping on the rule of the high piece that wins with draws. It would give a new dynamic. Also the Pro Random is a nice new idea I believe.
4. Good point again.
5. I do not get this either. Why would this discourage the weak player from signup?


3. If you agree with 4, then we need to cut tournaments. The ProSeries is the weakest, in my mind, and the obvious choice.

5. I imagine it isn't fun to be a gold player getting annihilated in the first two rounds and then having the tournament be over. If this happens in 75 percent of tournaments, they will probably stop playing.
69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#6 Master Mind

Master Mind

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,087 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 23 March 2018 - 04:38 PM

5. I imagine it isn't fun to be a gold player getting annihilated in the first two rounds and then having the tournament be over. If this happens in 75 percent of tournaments, they will probably stop playing.

 

Can you please explain how you come to 75% of the tournaments being over after only 2 games for some players? Within TC, PRO Ladder, PRO Perfect, Backstabbers and Pyramid League guarantee 5 games or more for everyone signing up. PRO Random guarantees 4 games for everyone signing up. Champions League guarantees at least 3 games for everyone signing up. Only the Winter Tournament cannot guarantee more than 2 games. Additionally, WCO is a non-elimination tournament with 10 games.

 

Therefore, I don't get your statement.


  • Don_Homer and roeczak like this

#7 roeczak

roeczak

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 791 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 23 March 2018 - 04:39 PM

Edit: i said the exact same thing with MM.
If you enjoy stratego you might want to subscribe to Roeczak. Member of Stratego Captains Club. Actively trying to promote the game and would like to help in any activity towards that goal. Highest Rating : 898 (Platinum Marshal)

#8 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 23 March 2018 - 05:13 PM

Here are some of my thoughts.

 

>Qualification for the PL is too complicated

 

I can imagine some players do not understand how this works, as it is indeed quite complicated, but everything is clearly written down in the rules (in my opinion) and players can always ask questions if they do not understand something. So I don't think any changes are needed.

 

>Players can qualify for a higher division in the PL from other tournaments, this diminishes the significance of PL results

 

I don't see it like this. Without certain qualification from other tournaments, there should be a qualification system with ELO or Kleier, which is not favourable in my opinion. In chess, there are a lot of qualificational tournaments for another tournament as well, for example the Candidates Tournament.

 

>The ProSeries is a bad idea. It is an attempt to do something new, but it barely differs from the Swiss or Knockout tournament. Not all tournament ideas are good, the NASF Regular Season that I organized was a flop as well. The TC should acknowledge this and not run the ProSeries going forward

 

Again, I really don't agree with this statement. In my opinion, the PRO Series is working pretty smoothly so far. malcolm.jansen mentions it barely differs from knock-out tournaments, but actually the PRO tournaments aren't knock-out tournaments at all. Although having a 'normal' Swiss Perfect tournament (PRO Perfect) the PRO Ladder and especially PRO Random differ quite a lot from Swiss Perfect. I suggest we will run an evaluation form/survey afterwards (like WCO does), and evaluate within TC as well. (Note I do not think like this because I helped setting up the PRO Series, but I'm enjoying it the way it goes now). 

 

>The TC runs too many tournaments. To my understanding, there will be four Pro Series events, Champions League, Pyramid League and a Double Elimination tournament in the next year. Combined with, the OWC, team and federation tournaments, this is too much. This will lead to decreased turnout and lower quality tournaments.
 

I don't think TC runs too many tournaments, because:

1. People have a choice which tournament they will register for
2. There has been even requests for more tournaments

3. The organisers provide the 'quality' of the tournaments (in this case TC)

4. There are quite a lot of different tournament types/structures

 

>The TC only runs 1 tournament a year in which the median finishing player is guaranteed to plays more than 5 games. This likely discourages lower ranked players from registering

 

I do not understand what you mean here. PRO Series as well as the Pyramid League are non-elimination tournaments (as well as WCO), where players can play the whole tournament (>5 games)

 

 

Can you please explain how you come to 75% of the tournaments being over after only 2 games for some players? Within TC, PRO Ladder, PRO Perfect, Backstabbers and Pyramid League guarantee 5 games or more for everyone signing up. PRO Random guarantees 4 games for everyone signing up. Champions League guarantees at least 3 games for everyone signing up. Only the Winter Tournament cannot guarantee more than 2 games. Additionally, WCO is a non-elimination tournament with 10 games.

 

Therefore, I don't get your statement.

 

I comprehend the PL promotion rules. My problem is that there are too many qualification scenarios. By your own admission, they are "quite complicated."

 

Players should be judged based on demonstrated performance, and not on theoretical ability. If a player wants to play in a high PL division then they need to sign up for the PL. It is not fair to the players in the PL to let players qualify for a higher division from other tournaments because you are implying that  non-PL results are just as meaningful from a PL perspective.

 

The ProSeries is a bad idea. I believe it was your idea and I am not criticizing you as a tournament manager, I have run bad tournament ideas too. The TC tries way too hard to be novel: masters divisions and TRPs were scrapped for the PL, the CL format was changed, the ProSeries had tiebreakers rules involving the number of pieces, the TC adds a new format every year, etc. There is no tradition within the TC. Part of the reason the OWC is popular is that they have a format and stick to it. Now I am not saying you guys should never try anything new, but the TC makes changes too frequently.

 

With the ProSeries added to the schedule I can play in the following tournaments over the next year: CL, PL, WT, 4 ProSeries Events, Backstabbers, 3 NASF events, OWC, and the World Team Tournament. That is 12 tournaments. I play as much Stratego as about anyone on here, but there is no way I have the time to play 12 events. I am going to have to pick and choose. Other people will too, which will lead to lower participation. Ultimately, having a robust player pool makes a good tournament, not the organizers. I would like to point out that only 34 players register for the ProSeries, so turnout is already down.

 

The median finishing player played 5 games in Backstabbers. ProSeries Perfect has 5 games. I am proposing scrapping the other ProSeries events so that leaves only the PL.


69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#9 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 23 March 2018 - 05:54 PM

3. If you agree with 4, then we need to cut tournaments. The ProSeries is the weakest, in my mind, and the obvious choice.

5. I imagine it isn't fun to be a gold player getting annihilated in the first two rounds and then having the tournament be over. If this happens in 75 percent of tournaments, they will probably stop playing.

You could cut tournaments. But I am afraid the ''real addictive players'' disagree with us. 

 

On 5. I agree with Master mind. Additionally I have heard the complaint sometimes at Swiss perfect tournaments (like wco) that some players dont want to play 10 rounds if they lost first 3 rounds or something. So I would suggest to offer both knock out tournaments as Swiss perfect or other tournaments where everyone plays multiple games.

 

And what is wrong with pick and choose? We should not prevent pick and choose. Its far better than wanting to play but nothing is provided.


Edited by Don_Homer, 23 March 2018 - 05:56 PM.

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#10 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 23 March 2018 - 05:59 PM

You could cut tournaments. But I am afraid the ''real addictive players'' disagree with us. 
 
On 5. I agree with Master mind. Additionally I have heard the complaint sometimes at Swiss perfect tournaments (like wco) that some players dont want to play 10 rounds if they lost first 3 rounds or something. So I would suggest to offer both knock out tournaments as Swiss perfect or other tournaments where everyone plays multiple games.
 
And what is wrong with pick and choose? We should not prevent pick and choose. Its far better than wanting to play but nothing is provided.


If every player picks and chooses between 10 tournaments, then average tournament participation will decrease. This is already happening.
69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#11 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 23 March 2018 - 06:14 PM

If every player picks and chooses between 10 tournaments, then average tournament participation will decrease. This is already happening.

 

Yes and it will Always happen. Its a good thing if its not too extreme. I pick and choose tournaments since I play stratego. I know in Live Stratego just one player who does not pick an choose but plays all. Its Kees Kaboom the Fox.


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#12 Master Mind

Master Mind

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,087 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 23 March 2018 - 06:50 PM

@malcom.jansen

 

>I comprehend the PL promotion rules. My problem is that there are too many qualification scenarios. By your own admission, they are "quite complicated."

 

I indeed said that the Pyramid League qualification is 'quite complicated', but I don't say it is 'too complicated', because in my opinion it isn't. Like I already said, the qualification is written down clearly into the rules, what should make it able for everyone to understand, maybe by asking TC a question.

 

>Players should be judged based on demonstrated performance, and not on theoretical ability. If a player wants to play in a high PL division then they need to sign up for the PL. It is not fair to the players in the PL to let players qualify for a higher division from other tournaments because you are implying that  non-PL results are just as meaningful from a PL perspective.

 

By the Pyramid League qualification process people are actually judged on what you call 'demonstrated performance'. Only players with one or more good results will be able to join a higher Pyramid. For the first Pyramid League (2017) we used a lot of older tournaments for the qualification, but for the upcoming Pyramid League(s), we will only use the results from the past year, what comes really close to your 'demonstrated performance'. Secondly, the Pyramid League wouldn't be the Pyramid League if you could just sign up for it (that would make it a 'random-group-round-robin' tournament). By adding all these qualification rules, we are able to make a few different groups, so you will play people around the same level you are. Your statement 'non-PL results are just as meaningful from a PL perspective' is true in a certain way in this context, but if you do not use other tournaments as qualifiers and you don't want to use the ranking it is quite difficult to fill in the different Pyramids purely by last year's Pyramid League's results. 

 

>The ProSeries is a bad idea. I believe it was your idea and I am not criticizing you as a tournament manager, I have run bad tournament ideas too. The TC tries way too hard to be novel: masters divisions and TRPs were scrapped for the PL, the CL format was changed, the ProSeries had tiebreakers rules involving the number of pieces, the TC adds a new format every year, etc. There is no tradition within the TC. Part of the reason the OWC is popular is that they have a format and stick to it. Now I am not saying you guys should never try anything new, but the TC makes changes too frequently.

 

Like I said, I indeed took part in setting up the whole PRO Series, but I do not see it as a bad idea. Also, what is wrong with new ideas? TC will never change something if there isn't a good reason for that change. Again, I don't understand why you want to be 'traditional' if something can be improved or renewed. Then, there are quite some 'fixed' items at the TC Schedule.

 

>With the ProSeries added to the schedule I can play in the following tournaments over the next year: CL, PL, WT, 4 ProSeries Events, Backstabbers, 3 NASF events, OWC, and the World Team Tournament. That is 12 tournaments. I play as much Stratego as about anyone on here, but there is no way I have the time to play 12 events. I am going to have to pick and choose. Other people will too, which will lead to lower participation. Ultimately, having a robust player pool makes a good tournament, not the organizers. I would like to point out that only 34 players register for the ProSeries, so turnout is already down.

 

I do not get the point you are making that 'you should be able to play in every tournament'. Some people will only play in one tournament a year, others will play in every tournament hold. That will remain the same, regardless of the amount of tournaments you have. Actually, I was really happy to get 32 players for PRO Ladder, I was surprised about the amount, expecting maybe 20 participants. You should understand the Stratego community isn't yet big enough to have only tournaments with more than 50 participants. Indeed people might be picking and choosing their tournaments of preference, but that will still be the case if there are only 8 tournaments for example. I completely agree with Don_Homer's saying here 'And what is wrong with pick and choose? We should not prevent pick and choose. Its far better than wanting to play but nothing is provided.'

 

>The median finishing player played 5 games in Backstabbers. ProSeries Perfect has 5 games. I am proposing scrapping the other ProSeries events so that leaves only the PL.

 

What's wrong with this smaller tournaments? You indeed scrap 4 events in name by scrapping PRO Series, but together they take equal time as the whole Pyramid League. Actually you are proposing to have 2 Pyramid Leagues a year, what gives no net change to the 'tournament weeks' or 'tournament games'.


  • Don_Homer likes this

#13 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,852 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 March 2018 - 06:57 PM

If every player picks and chooses between 10 tournaments, then average tournament participation will decrease. This is already happening.


What exactly is the issue you see with average participation declining? If there are only 4 tournaments and the total number of tournament entries is 160 then we have an average participation of 40. If there are 7 tournaments and the average participation is lower (say only 30) then we have 210 total tournament entries.

Can you explain the disadvantage of reduced average participation in the context of overall increased participation?

I also don't see the issue with players picking and choosing.

If the Pyramid League was run twice in a year many players would not be able to make such a big commitment, which would likely lead to reduced participation.

The Pro Series offers players flexibility in type and duration of tournament. Not all of TCs customers wish to make a 2-3 month commitment every time they wish to enter a tournament, hence why offering some shorter 5-6 week tournament options enables flexibility and guaranteed games.

#14 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,852 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 March 2018 - 11:57 PM

I’ve put together some responses to the various points that malcom.jansen has raised (his points are in italics).

 

(1) Qualification for the PL is too complicated…. there are too many qualification scenarios

I’m not clear what the issue is here. If it is one of complication, would clearer presentation of the Pyramid system alleviate this?

(2) Players can qualify for a higher division in the PL from other tournaments, this diminishes the significance of PL results....
Promotion between PL divisions occurs based only on PL results.

Allowing a small number of players to qualify for PL who finish highly in another tournament has advantages. Firstly, players outside of the PL system can enter at a level which is appropriate to their ability (as opposed to having to play in a Division where they are the outstanding player). Imagine if Sohal decided to enter the PL and he had to take part in Base. This would be unappealing for Sohal - he wouldn't be provided with the challenge that an elite player wants and it would likely stop him participating altogether, but it is also unappealing for the players in Base that hoped to win promotion - one of their promotion spots is effectively already taken. There will be the odd surprise qualification in the short-term, but the system that allows players to qualify from other tournaments will group players together by quality better and faster than the system that excludes those results.

Secondly, the other qualifying routes offer incentives to finish well in the other tournaments. A number of players in the closing weeks of the WCO for example were aware of the possibility of Pyramid qualification. Plenty of players enter tournaments who don't believe they have a genuine chance of winning outright - so having more to play for will appeal to many. The lure of a PL place from a good finish in Winter/Champ League/WCO is likely to increase participation in those tournaments.

I'm not sure I fully understand your argument about PL results being diminished. Can you elaborate? 

(3) The ProSeries is a bad idea...

Your reasoning isn’t entirely clear. Are you saying that this tournament is a bad idea because it is not different enough? If so, why is it important that they are different? 

Some players may find the minor variation appealing - but the appeal of the Pro Series is not intended to lie in its novelty. 

It is important to acknowledge that while there is a main group of tournament regulars there are also players who dip in and out and play now and then. If we want to maximise participation it makes sense to have some shorter tournaments available (5 weeks) rather than only those with a long duration. With a few of the shorter tournaments spread throughout the year you are likely to attract players for whom a 10 week tournament is too much of a commitment. 

Additionally, with tournaments starting at more times throughout the year, you avoid the situation where a player who wants to join a tournament does not have to wait months for the next one to begin (in which time they may have lost their interest - and a potential player is gone). 

On top of that there is an outlet for all the die-hard tournament players who can't get enough. If a certain tournament is too much for a player they need not enter.

The tournament schedule as a whole should consist of a mixture of tournaments which preferably have a range in duration and variation and ideally quality. If you ignore the fact that players have different schedules and availability you will end up with a smaller playing pool.

(4) The TC runs too many tournaments. This will lead to decreased turnout and lower quality tournaments.

If some tournaments are lower quality then I don't see this as an issue. There are some tournaments where maximising average quality is a goal - eg Apex. There are also tournaments where a decrease in average quality is a natural result of attracting players of a wider standard. This could - depending on your perspective - be perceived as an advantage. Some players may in fact be more likely to join a tournament which the top players are more prone to sit out. The tournament schedule is not intended so that every player plays in every tournament (although they can if they want to), it is intended to provide a range of options so that some people can join the tournaments that they can/want to.

I don't think that overall participation will decrease by having more tournaments available.  Should it be the case that overall participation decreased this would be an issue and this is something we can easily measure and assess as we go.

(5) The TC only runs 1 tournament a year in which the median finishing player is guaranteed to plays more than 5 games. This likely discourages lower ranked players from registering.

As Master Mind has already mentioned, only the Winter Tournament has the potential for a player’s involvement to end having played less than 4 games. 5 of the 6 tournaments guarantee a player to have a minimum of 4 fixtures.  As such, lower ranked players are presented with many opportunities to join a tournament that guarantees them a reasonable number of games.

Additionally, the PRO Ladder and the Pro Perfect are tournaments in which as a player progresses they are more likely to be paired up with an opponent of similar strength – which may be a factor in encouraging lower ranked players to participate.

 

(6) I recommend the following alternative schedule:
Pyramid League 1 (Weeks 36 - 50)
Winter Tournament (Weeks 1 - 11)
Pyramid League 2 (Weeks 8 - 22)
Champions League (Weeks 24 - 36)

 

My main objection to running 2 Pyramid tournaments in a year is that this will reduce participation. Some players will only be able to commit to a tournament (that is already significantly long) once a year. It is also more likely to become a stale format quickly. You mention in the next point that the Champions League format is less special when you have more than 32 players. For me, the Pyramid League becomes less special when you start it so soon after the end of the previous one.

 

(7) The initial CL groups should have 4 players. The number of players who can participate in the CL should be a multiple of 16. The TC should use qualifying matches and PL results to eliminate players before the tournament begins. This will make the CL be a special experience. Theoretically, the TC could run a concurrent Euro League tournament

 

I can see that a Champions League with more participants and bigger groups means a less competitive Group Stage than a Champions League with only 32 players in the Group Stage (i.e. you are never going to get eg Hielco/Nortrom/OverLord/TheOptician in the same group). Perhaps this is what you are referring to when you talk of a special experience.

 

Then again, the current format gives everyone the chance to opportunity to play in the Champions League Group stage and also guarantees a player 4 games - a point you recognised as important in (5). In 2016 there were 73 participants – I’d be interested to hear how you would propose to cut that down to 32.

 

Perhaps there is a case for running two Group Stages (considering the first Group Stage as a ‘Qualifying Round’) which allows everyone the chance to play the competition properly, but then also guarantees 4 groups of death.

 

(8)There is no tradition within the TC…the TC makes changes too frequently.

 

I’m not sure how to take this one – you are after all proposing mass changes. I agree that some stability (i.e. no changes next year) would be beneficial.



#15 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 24 March 2018 - 12:15 AM

I will elaborate on a few of these points later. Please hold off on voting until then.
69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#16 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 24 March 2018 - 02:09 AM

I’ve put together some responses to the various points that malcom.jansen has raised (his points are in italics).

 

(1) Qualification for the PL is too complicated…. there are too many qualification scenarios

I’m not clear what the issue is here. If it is one of complication, would clearer presentation of the Pyramid system alleviate this?

(2) Players can qualify for a higher division in the PL from other tournaments, this diminishes the significance of PL results....
Promotion between PL divisions occurs based only on PL results.

Allowing a small number of players to qualify for PL who finish highly in another tournament has advantages. Firstly, players outside of the PL system can enter at a level which is appropriate to their ability (as opposed to having to play in a Division where they are the outstanding player). Imagine if Sohal decided to enter the PL and he had to take part in Base. This would be unappealing for Sohal - he wouldn't be provided with the challenge that an elite player wants and it would likely stop him participating altogether, but it is also unappealing for the players in Base that hoped to win promotion - one of their promotion spots is effectively already taken. There will be the odd surprise qualification in the short-term, but the system that allows players to qualify from other tournaments will group players together by quality better and faster than the system that excludes those results.

Secondly, the other qualifying routes offer incentives to finish well in the other tournaments. A number of players in the closing weeks of the WCO for example were aware of the possibility of Pyramid qualification. Plenty of players enter tournaments who don't believe they have a genuine chance of winning outright - so having more to play for will appeal to many. The lure of a PL place from a good finish in Winter/Champ League/WCO is likely to increase participation in those tournaments.

I'm not sure I fully understand your argument about PL results being diminished. Can you elaborate? 

(3) The ProSeries is a bad idea...

Your reasoning isn’t entirely clear. Are you saying that this tournament is a bad idea because it is not different enough? If so, why is it important that they are different? 

Some players may find the minor variation appealing - but the appeal of the Pro Series is not intended to lie in its novelty. 

It is important to acknowledge that while there is a main group of tournament regulars there are also players who dip in and out and play now and then. If we want to maximise participation it makes sense to have some shorter tournaments available (5 weeks) rather than only those with a long duration. With a few of the shorter tournaments spread throughout the year you are likely to attract players for whom a 10 week tournament is too much of a commitment. 

Additionally, with tournaments starting at more times throughout the year, you avoid the situation where a player who wants to join a tournament does not have to wait months for the next one to begin (in which time they may have lost their interest - and a potential player is gone). 

On top of that there is an outlet for all the die-hard tournament players who can't get enough. If a certain tournament is too much for a player they need not enter.

The tournament schedule as a whole should consist of a mixture of tournaments which preferably have a range in duration and variation and ideally quality. If you ignore the fact that players have different schedules and availability you will end up with a smaller playing pool.

(4) The TC runs too many tournaments. This will lead to decreased turnout and lower quality tournaments.

If some tournaments are lower quality then I don't see this as an issue. There are some tournaments where maximising average quality is a goal - eg Apex. There are also tournaments where a decrease in average quality is a natural result of attracting players of a wider standard. This could - depending on your perspective - be perceived as an advantage. Some players may in fact be more likely to join a tournament which the top players are more prone to sit out. The tournament schedule is not intended so that every player plays in every tournament (although they can if they want to), it is intended to provide a range of options so that some people can join the tournaments that they can/want to.

I don't think that overall participation will decrease by having more tournaments available.  Should it be the case that overall participation decreased this would be an issue and this is something we can easily measure and assess as we go.

(5) The TC only runs 1 tournament a year in which the median finishing player is guaranteed to plays more than 5 games. This likely discourages lower ranked players from registering.

As Master Mind has already mentioned, only the Winter Tournament has the potential for a player’s involvement to end having played less than 4 games. 5 of the 6 tournaments guarantee a player to have a minimum of 4 fixtures.  As such, lower ranked players are presented with many opportunities to join a tournament that guarantees them a reasonable number of games.

Additionally, the PRO Ladder and the Pro Perfect are tournaments in which as a player progresses they are more likely to be paired up with an opponent of similar strength – which may be a factor in encouraging lower ranked players to participate.

 

(6) I recommend the following alternative schedule:
Pyramid League 1 (Weeks 36 - 50)
Winter Tournament (Weeks 1 - 11)
Pyramid League 2 (Weeks 8 - 22)
Champions League (Weeks 24 - 36)

 

My main objection to running 2 Pyramid tournaments in a year is that this will reduce participation. Some players will only be able to commit to a tournament (that is already significantly long) once a year. It is also more likely to become a stale format quickly. You mention in the next point that the Champions League format is less special when you have more than 32 players. For me, the Pyramid League becomes less special when you start it so soon after the end of the previous one.

 

(7) The initial CL groups should have 4 players. The number of players who can participate in the CL should be a multiple of 16. The TC should use qualifying matches and PL results to eliminate players before the tournament begins. This will make the CL be a special experience. Theoretically, the TC could run a concurrent Euro League tournament

 

I can see that a Champions League with more participants and bigger groups means a less competitive Group Stage than a Champions League with only 32 players in the Group Stage (i.e. you are never going to get eg Hielco/Nortrom/OverLord/TheOptician in the same group). Perhaps this is what you are referring to when you talk of a special experience.

 

Then again, the current format gives everyone the chance to opportunity to play in the Champions League Group stage and also guarantees a player 4 games - a point you recognised as important in (5). In 2016 there were 73 participants – I’d be interested to hear how you would propose to cut that down to 32.

 

Perhaps there is a case for running two Group Stages (considering the first Group Stage as a ‘Qualifying Round’) which allows everyone the chance to play the competition properly, but then also guarantees 4 groups of death.

 

(8)There is no tradition within the TC…the TC makes changes too frequently.

 

I’m not sure how to take this one – you are after all proposing mass changes. I agree that some stability (i.e. no changes next year) would be beneficial.

I believe that I am unlikely to get my ideas approved in current form so I would like to tone them down and I would like each to be considered separately.

 

1 and 2. PL Qualification is too broad, to preserve the integrity of the PL the number of spots given out in other tournaments should be reduced.  Therefore:

a. Only the top 4 (or 6) should earn a spot in core, only the top 2 (or winner) should receive a spot in the Apex.

b. Players should only be able to qualify for a higher PL division via TC tournaments.

 

3 ,4 and 5. I am not crazy about the ProSeries. I believe higher participation is better, but that is a personal opinion. If you think you can run the ProSeries well in addition to all the other tournaments, then go for it.

 

6 and 8. What I am proposing is essentially the 2015/2016 schedule. I thought this was the best format. It seems like there is no will to back to it.

I would like the TC to commit to keeping the Winter Tournament and PL in their current formats going forward.

 

7. I would like the Champions League to mirror the actual Champions League that is why it used to be my favorite tournament.

I would like the TC to vote on returning CL groups to 4 players.

 

I really do think you guys do a good job overall. I am just sharing my wish list.


69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#17 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,852 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 26 March 2018 - 07:13 PM

> 1 and 2. PL Qualification is too broad, to preserve the integrity of the PL the number of spots given out in other tournaments should be reduced

The Pyramid League is not just a Divisions tournament - it is a wider system which was founded on the criteria that a Top 2 finish in another qualifying tournament earns an Apex place and a Top 8 finish earns a Core Place. That criteria is integral to the system itself, so to say that the PL lacks integrity by using other tournaments is a bit like saying a picnic lacks integrity because it contains a sandwich. The opposite is true - a picnic without a sandwich would lack integrity. Finishing positions from other tournaments do not diminish significance of PL results - they are the foundation of the PL system itself.

#18 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,671 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 26 March 2018 - 08:05 PM

There may be a bit too much tournaments, maybe not. Atleast players can choose. I'd rather have (random numbers) 8 tournaments a year , and someone can commit to 6, opposed to having only 3, and a player would only be able to commit to 1. Yeah, the comparison isn't 100% right, but you get my point.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

#19 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 27 March 2018 - 07:52 AM

There may be a bit too much tournaments, maybe not. Atleast players can choose. I'd rather have (random numbers) 8 tournaments a year , and someone can commit to 6, opposed to having only 3, and a player would only be able to commit to 1. Yeah, the comparison isn't 100% right, but you get my point.


A more apt analogy is that a player can participate in 3 out of 4 current tournaments. When the TC expands the roster to 8 tournaments a year, he can now play in 4. However, he will play in a lower percentage of tournaments, so average participation will go down. I see this as problematic.
69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#20 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,852 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 27 March 2018 - 11:08 AM

A more apt analogy is that a player can participate in 3 out of 4 current tournaments. When the TC expands the roster to 8 tournaments a year, he can now play in 4. However, he will play in a lower percentage of tournaments, so average participation will go down. I see this as problematic.

 

Can you explain the problem with reduced average participation in the context of overall increased participation?

 

 

snapback.png

 

7. I would like the Champions League to mirror the actual Champions League that is why it used to be my favorite tournament.

I would like the TC to vote on returning CL groups to 4 players.

 

 

Just to be clear, when you mention groups with 4 players, do you also mean that groups should be limited to 8  (i.e. 32 players total max)?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users