Jump to content


Photo

Proposal Log Discussion 2 - Tournament Over-Saturation


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

#21 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • WC Online Team
  • 814 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 27 March 2018 - 11:33 AM

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


snapback.png


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)?


I want groups of 4. No player limit is necessary.

I believe that more players leads to better tournaments, this is a personal opinion.
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#22 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,117 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 27 March 2018 - 11:50 AM

(1) I want groups of 4. No player limit is necessary.

(2) I believe that more players leads to better tournaments, this is a personal opinion.

 

(1) So if 58 players registered you would prefer to eliminate 26 of them in Qualifying Rounds  (to leave 32)?

 

(2) Let's say there that a schedule has 4 tournaments and each has 50 players. If you add a 5th tournament (30 players sign up) and the participation of the other 4 tournaments remains the same (50), then average participation will have decreased from 50 to 46. However the quality of the original 4 tournaments will not have changed. There will just be an additional tournament for some players to play in. There is no loss of quality.

 

However, if the addition of the 5th tournament to the schedule means that the other 4 tournaments now have fewer participants, then the benefit of greater choice does come attached with the disadvantage of reduced quality. The question for me - to return to the original point you made in this thread - is whether tournament over-saturation will occur from the current schedule to the extent that the other tournaments start to see reduced numbers. This is something we should definitely review at the year end, once we have a reasonable sample size.



#23 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • WC Online Team
  • 814 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 27 March 2018 - 03:18 PM

(1) So if 58 players registered you would prefer to eliminate 26 of them in Qualifying Rounds (to leave 32)?

(2) Let's say there that a schedule has 4 tournaments and each has 50 players. If you add a 5th tournament (30 players sign up) and the participation of the other 4 tournaments remains the same (50), then average participation will have decreased from 50 to 46. However the quality of the original 4 tournaments will not have changed. There will just be an additional tournament for some players to play in. There is no loss of quality.

However, if the addition of the 5th tournament to the schedule means that the other 4 tournaments now have fewer participants, then the benefit of greater choice does come attached with the disadvantage of reduced quality. The question for me - to return to the original point you made in this thread - is whether tournament over-saturation will occur from the current schedule to the extent that the other tournaments start to see reduced numbers. This is something we should definitely review at the year end, once we have a reasonable sample size.


1. Yes, that is the system I would like. The TC could host a "Europa" style tournament for the eliminated players.

2. I believe that the tournaments that initially have 50 will drop down to between 35 and 40, so participation will drop more. For instance, only 34 signed up for the Spring Tournament. However, a larger sample size is needed, so I withdrew my proposal to scrap the ProSeries.
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#24 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,117 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 27 March 2018 - 03:36 PM

I do like the idea of a Europa-style tournament as you call it, for a couple of reasons.

 

1. Everyone who wants to play in a Champions League style competition - still can.

 

2. It offers something unique -  a tournament which doesn't contain all the top players. This might encourage some players to participate and get some tournament experience who don't fancy their chances of playing at the highest level.

 

The question mark for me is number of participants. Last year the Champions League had 40 players. There are still 10 days or so of registration for this year's tournament, but currently it looks like 40 will be the approximate number again. This scenario would only leave 8 to play in the 'Europa', which isn't much of a tournament, even if you delayed the start so that players eliminated from the Champions League Group Stage could join (as they used to do in the Europa League)



#25 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • WC Online Team
  • 814 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 27 March 2018 - 06:39 PM

I do like the idea of a Europa-style tournament as you call it, for a couple of reasons.

 

1. Everyone who wants to play in a Champions League style competition - still can.

 

2. It offers something unique -  a tournament which doesn't contain all the top players. This might encourage some players to participate and get some tournament experience who don't fancy their chances of playing at the highest level.

 

The question mark for me is number of participants. Last year the Champions League had 40 players. There are still 10 days or so of registration for this year's tournament, but currently it looks like 40 will be the approximate number again. This scenario would only leave 8 to play in the 'Europa', which isn't much of a tournament, even if you delayed the start so that players eliminated from the Champions League Group Stage could join (as they used to do in the Europa League)

I envision that the players eliminated after the group stage would join the Europa League at that point.

 

If the TC accepts my modified proposal 3, then the number of American players should increase. I will personally get 8 American players to register.


I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#26 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,117 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 30 March 2018 - 04:57 PM

TC has now voted on the below sub-sections of this proposal.

 

1. Run the Pyramid League Divisions twice a year  (Against 4-0)
2. Discontinue the ProSeries  (Against 4-0)
3. Do not offer Pyramid qualification through WinterTourn, Champions League or WCO (Against 4-0)
4. Cap Pyramid League divisions at 12 players (Against 4-0)
5. Only offer Apex qualification to the winner of WT, CL and WCO (as opposed to Top 2) (Against 4-0)
6. Only offer Core qualification to the Top 4 or Top 6 of WT, CL and WCO (as opposed to Top 8 or 10) (Against 4-0)
7. Do not treat WCO as a qualifying tournament for Pyramid (Against 4-0)

8. Restrict Champions League group sizes to 4 (TC decided that this point merits further discussion and its own topic, so this will be created)

 

Much of the reasoning has already been provided during the discussion so I will not repeat it, but if there is a particular point that you feel requires some explanation feel free to ask and we can provide.



#27 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • WC Online Team
  • 814 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 30 March 2018 - 08:15 PM

TC has now voted on the below sub-sections of this proposal.

1. Run the Pyramid League Divisions twice a year (Against 4-0)2. Discontinue the ProSeries (Against 4-0)3. Do not offer Pyramid qualification through WinterTourn, Champions League or WCO (Against 4-0)4. Cap Pyramid League divisions at 12 players (Against 4-0)5. Only offer Apex qualification to the winner of WT, CL and WCO (as opposed to Top 2) (Against 4-0)6. Only offer Core qualification to the Top 4 or Top 6 of WT, CL and WCO (as opposed to Top 8 or 10) (Against 4-0)7. Do not treat WCO as a qualifying tournament for Pyramid (Against 4-0)
8. Restrict Champions League group sizes to 4 (TC decided that this point merits further discussion and its own topic, so this will be created)

Much of the reasoning has already been provided during the discussion so I will not repeat it, but if there is a particular point that you feel requires some explanation feel free to ask and we can provide.

Can you elaborate on why points 4 through 7 were rejected?

Edited by malcom.jansen, 30 March 2018 - 08:23 PM.

I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#28 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,117 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 31 March 2018 - 12:30 PM

Speaking for myself:

 

(7)  This is one of the founding criteria of the Pyramid - excluding WCO as a qualifying tournament would diminish the integrity of the system.

 

(5)  Only 6 different players have ever won an online tournament (hosted by either TC or WCO) in 4 years - all of whom are active tournament players and 4 of whom are currently in Apex as things stand. Only offering Apex qualification to tournament winners would seriously reduce the chance of players qualifying to Apex through the other tournaments. (I understand this is what you want).

 

(6) With similar reasoning to (5), reducing the qualification numbers as you suggest would mean we have far fewer players qualifying through the other tournaments (Again I understand this is what you want).

 

(4) Capping Pyramid League divisions at 12 players cannot be guaranteed when offering a number of places through the other tournaments. Theoretically (on the current parameters) you could have 6 qualifying to Apex through the other tournaments. While this is extremely unlikely as I have explained in (5), it is not something that can be promised.



#29 Master Mind

Master Mind

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,224 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 31 March 2018 - 02:03 PM

Some of my views, additional to TheO's:

 

(4) I agree it should be our goal to have 12 players in one division. However, because the Pyramid League is a tournament mostly by qualification, we can not rely on this cap size.

 

(5) This would result in too less Apex players. You would for example get a 3-time round robin with 4 players or a 2-time round robin with 6 players in Apex. This is far less favourable then a round robin between 12 players.

 

(6) This would never fill 2 Core Divisions.

 

(7) WCO, as one of the mayor tournaments, is one of the most important tournaments for qualification - excluding the WCO would give too little qualifying tournaments for the Pyramid League.



#30 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 01 April 2018 - 10:04 PM

There is no tradition within the TC.

 

That is a true statement.  We had a nice 4 tournaments a year system not so many years ago that ended with a division setup - that allowed progression up and down based on results.  There was a champion's league and two elimination tournaments in addition.  

 

And I'd point out that participation was growing.  And having fun was actually one of the central elements.  And it was easy to understand and follow.  

 

That was scrapped in favor of TRP's.  Why?  Because it was deemed as undesirable that a few high ELO players had to start at the bottom and work their way up.  (And left unspoken was the other half of that - that folks like Spartan Warriors could be 2 or 3 divisions higher than whatever latest 950 ELO player had shown up).  So we had the Master's Divisions replace it.

 

Then that was scrapped because Sohal and Enigma ended up in Division 5 and Morx didn't qualify under the new TRP Master's Division system and of course that is not acceptable.  So that was scrapped and the Pyramid system came along to absolutely positively guarantee that only the best of the best will be grouped together - no need to rub shoulders with the heathens.

 

All which means that in terms of tradition - the choice has been made to start all over.  And that means you'll have to find a way to maintain the interest of current participants while attracting new ones.  Sometimes, interesting, simple, and fun are better than proper, complex, and rigid.


  • astros likes this

​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#31 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,117 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 02 April 2018 - 11:14 AM

(1) We had a nice 4 tournaments a year system not so many years ago that ended with a division setup...That was scrapped in favor of TRP's. 
 
(2) Then that was scrapped because Sohal and Enigma ended up in Division 5 and Morx didn't qualify under the new TRP Master's Division system and of course that is not acceptable....There is no tradition within the TC....  in terms of tradition - the choice has been made to start all over

 

(3)  And I'd point out that participation was growing

 

 

 
Hi Scott,
 
(1)  You state that the 'nice 4 tournament a year system' was scrapped in favour of TRPs. This is incorrect. The very first division tournament (Years End Divisions 2014/15) used the TRP system (from the results of two tournaments - Autumn 2014 and Champions League 2014)
 
Here is the source: http://forum.strateg...n-announcement/
 
In April 2015-May 2016 TC then continued the TRP system, adding an extra Divisions tournament in the middle of the year.
 
in July 2016- April 2017 TC then continued the TRP system, running the Champions League in the summer instead of a Mid-Year Divisions tournament.  (http://forum.strateg...ent-qualifiers/)
 
Season 1 - Champions League/Autumn Single Elimination/TRP-based Division Finale
Season 2 - Spring Double Elimination/Mid Year Divisions/Winter Double Elimination/TRP-based Division Finale
Season 3 - Spring Double Elimination/Champions League/Winter Double Elimination/TRP-based Division Finale

 
 
(2) In Season 4 TC did made a change to the Divisions system and scrap TRPs. This was for a number of reasons, but mainly because the TRP system favoured the players who were more available to play. This has a secondary disadvantage - with the system geared towards the most available, participation in Divisions is lower. Now this might have been more 'interesting' and 'fun' - in your opinion, but not in mine. I prefer a system that is fair and is available to a wider pool of players. The Pyramid League was introduced, retaining the elements of promotion and relegation in a context which does not give an advantage to the most available players. Now this is something that is worthy of making a tradition. 

 

(3) And - although we have only had one so far - participation shot up. 

 
rZqarZ4.jpg



#32 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 02 April 2018 - 07:22 PM

Hi Opt,

 

I apologize for my bad memory.  You are correct that to seed the first division tournament TRP's were created.

 

But I disagree that this system stayed the same way through three years.

 

First year, TRP's seeded the divisions.  The idea was that once in the division there was promotion/relegation type scenario that would then carry forward every year.  I believe that you could get into 1st division going forward if you won a tournament - otherwise you had to progress through results in the division play. 

 

2nd year, that took place.  BUT there were all kinds of complaints that some players with high ELO were in lower divisions.  To the TC's credit the tournament continued as was intended.

 

BUT 3rd Year I cannot agree that the division format continued as was intended.  TRP's for the year now decided what division you were in.  So you can say its still based on TRP's but it is not the same as what was originally set up.

 

Then in year four it was just all scrapped because even then it was deemed that ELO was more important than results in tournaments.

 

And I stand by my statement that this was all done to accommodate the idea that only the best should be playing the best (all based on the all knowing, all wonderful ELO).

 

So in terms of creating tradition (which I would argue attracts and maintains players), something that was designed to create some continuity was scrapped upon the alter of ELO.  And I'm talking the initial incarnation - which was supposed to be like your EPL if I recall.  And the initial concept didn't reward availability - it rewarded results within the division play.  And offered a few other ways to be in the 1st division if your truly one of the very best.  If you showed up in year three you had to start in division 5 or 6 - but so what?  Part of the beauty of the setup was that some players were playing people they otherwise wouldn't have played via the ELO system. - which helps to build a community.  Would CFLAG be my arch-nemesis under your current system?  Nope.

 

The only reason the TRP's were favoring participation was that the process was changed for year 3 to put all new divisions in place - but when even that didn't produce the "desired" results, that too was scrapped.

 

So now you've arranged for only the best to play the best.  That's great if the only participants you want are those totally devoted to stratego.  But given that this is a worldwide site, I'd have to ask how it is deemed successful that there are 40 or 50 people that participate in tournaments?  Could it be that the element of fun and community has been lost at the alter of ELO?  (and to be fair, participation in tournaments is impacted by more than just the tournaments themselves - the current environment on the forum cannot be helping to attract participants).

 

And finally, there was nothing "fair" about scrapping the system twice - all to accommodate a small number of players that believed they should only be competing at the top.  You rewarded those that hadn't participated at the expense of those that were always participating.

 

I'll stop there as I realize that nothing I've posted matters and things will continue on as they are (which I have no objections to - those that volunteer their time should be allowed to do what they feel is best - regardless of whether or not I agree).  

 

Regards,

Scott


​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#33 rgillis783

rgillis783

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 02 April 2018 - 07:39 PM

I for one enjoy a good back story. I think it is important for all players to know how/why system is the way it is. Forum is good place to strike out and state what is on your mind (scottrussia). I for one would like to much more about history/grudges some players seem to have .Just so I know the who and what of some of these discussions/topics. These  tournaments are just another great aspect of this fine game.



#34 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,117 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 02 April 2018 - 11:17 PM

 

Then in year four it was just all scrapped because even then it was deemed that ELO was more important than results in tournaments.

 

And I stand by my statement that this was all done to accommodate the idea that only the best should be playing the best (all based on the all knowing, all wonderful ELO).

 

So in terms of creating tradition (which I would argue attracts and maintains players), something that was designed to create some continuity was scrapped upon the alter of ELO.   Part of the beauty of the setup was that some players were playing people they otherwise wouldn't have played via the ELO system. - which helps to build a community.   Could it be that the element of fun and community has been lost at the alter of ELO? 

 

 

Scott,

 

I'm not arguing that there was no change - I was correcting your comments about TRPS. But your many statements about ELO are completely misguided. TC have used ELO for seeding in the Champions League - that's it. However many times you mention ELO, it doesn't change the fact that it is totally irrelevant to how TC operates past and present. Your arguments are founded on a completely false premise.



#35 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 02 April 2018 - 11:27 PM

Well I would respectfully disagree - if it wasn't about ELO, ie the "best" players playing each other there would have been no need to change.

 

And I believe there are lots of comments that were made regarding the situation that existed in regards to highly ranked ELO players being in lower divisions.  The changes were made to accommodate those players.  

 

However, it doesn't really matter as its not ever going to be changed back.


​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#36 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,117 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 03 April 2018 - 09:36 AM

I can agree that changes were made to group players in Divisions better and more fairly - that was certainly an aim of the Pyramid League. It was historical finishing positions which were the criteria - ie past tournament performance (not frequency of participation). Places were decided on merit alone - which is the reason why I reject these frequent mentions of ELO, which had nothing to do with it.

If you want to see this as change for the sake of accommodating players with the best tournament performances, then fine. I see it as a system which accommodates fairness and merit.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users