Jump to content


Photo

Proposal Log Discussion 5 - Champions League Format


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#21 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

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

Posted 20 April 2018 - 09:35 PM

Count one participant that will not consider playing in a 2nd tier tournament.

 

If you can't put your army on the battlefield against whomever you draw, then YOU are the one that doesn't belong in the tournament.

 

And what are the 8 tournaments the TC is running?  I thought there were 4?

 

It is 7:

 

http://forum.strateg...-schedule-2018/



#22 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Captain

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

Posted 20 April 2018 - 09:49 PM

So even though there is now a "PRO" series and another tournament previously set up to dump the existing normal folks, there is still a proposal to dump normal folks from one of the 2 remaining normal tournaments??????

 

 

You have to be kidding me.


Edited by scottrussia, 20 April 2018 - 10:21 PM.

​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#23 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

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

Posted 20 April 2018 - 10:07 PM

So even though there is now a "PRO" series and another tournament previously set up to dump the existing normal folks, there is still a proposal to dump normal folks from the 2 remaining normal tournaments??????

 

 

You have to be kidding me.

 

You are going to have to explain yourself a bit more because I don't follow you.



#24 roeczak

roeczak

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 924 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 April 2018 - 10:17 PM

Scott, 

PRO series are open for everyone, as is any other tournament.


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)

#25 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Captain

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

Posted 20 April 2018 - 10:22 PM

Sorry, my statement should have said one of the 2 remaining tournaments.  Corrected.


​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#26 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

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

Posted 20 April 2018 - 10:31 PM

So even though there is now a "PRO" series and another tournament previously set up to dump the existing normal folks, 

 

What tournament is 'set up to dump the existing normal folks'?



#27 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Captain

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

Posted 20 April 2018 - 10:49 PM

I was referring to the divisions/pyramid tournament - which we should just agree we disagree about - I don't think we need to rehash the history of the divisions/pyramid structure.

 

And I thought the Pro series was supposed to be one for the "serious" players - where there would be no draws and invitation only tournaments, etc. (all of which I have no issue with if there are enough folks that want to do that great).  

 

But we don't need to turn one of the two original remaining tournaments into invitation or qualification or tiered.  All these highly rated ELO folks should be trying to EXPAND the tournaments with lots of lower rated ELO folks - after all that should allow them easy wins and boost their alternative stratego ranking, Hippo ranking, Voom Voom ranking, Klier Ranking, Swiss Perfect Ranking, and IHNL Ranking.

 

Heck if they attack and capture the flag it might even increase their pathetic Spartan Warrior Rankings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#28 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

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

Posted 21 April 2018 - 01:37 AM

Astros, how would eg a 15-player EL work? I think this idea is good (although not nessecarily better than thecurrent system) but it would need more playera to enroll to work properly.


Fill it out with players eliminated in the group stage of the CL.
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#29 roeczak

roeczak

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 924 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 April 2018 - 05:28 AM

So the EL will start after thr CL?
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)

#30 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

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

Posted 21 April 2018 - 05:29 AM

So the EL will start after thr CL?

After the group stage yes. Presumably on a smaller scale.

Alternatively, you could feed CL players into the knockout stage of the EL, as is done by UEFA.

Edited by astros, 21 April 2018 - 05:34 AM.

I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#31 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

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

Posted 21 April 2018 - 05:54 PM

I was referring to the divisions/pyramid tournament - which we should just agree we disagree about - I don't think we need to rehash the history of the divisions/pyramid structure.

And I thought the Pro series was supposed to be one for the "serious" players - where there would be no draws and invitation only tournaments, etc. (all of which I have no issue with if there are enough folks that want to do that great).

But we don't need to turn one of the two original remaining tournaments into invitation or qualification or tiered. All these highly rated ELO folks should be trying to EXPAND the tournaments with lots of lower rated ELO folks - after all that should allow them easy wins and boost their alternative stratego ranking, Hippo ranking, Voom Voom ranking, Klier Ranking, Swiss Perfect Ranking, and IHNL Ranking.

Heck if they attack and capture the flag it might even increase their pathetic Spartan Warrior Rankings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


I don't want to re-hash the Divisions format argument again either, but you can't make wildly incorrect statements like there is a 'tournament previously set up to dump the existing normal folks' and not expect to be corrected. The Pyramid is open to everybody. The ProSeries is also open to everybody - I honestly don't know where you got the impression that the ProSeries is for 'serious' players only. Perhaps it fits the ongoing narrative that you present where TC serve ELO and the elite - but it isn't remotely accurate.

In regards to the actual proposal - to reduce Champ League to 32 and create a Europa - the thrust of your argument is that participation from the lower ranked players would be reduced.

Well if those players who didn't qualify went on to play in the Europa League then participation wouldn't be reduced. I daresay there would actually be a number of players who would play in the Europa League who wouldn't have signed up to the Champions League, because they don't fancy going 0-4.

My main issue with the proposal comes with the the fact that you have to select 32 to play in the CL, and thus disappoint 10-15 players who wanted to play in the Champ League. Running qualifying rounds by seeding players on ability is also far from ideal. This pretty much guarantees that the lower ranked players are kept out of the Champions League. I know they can still play in the Europa, but some may view this as a consolation.

Is this restriction necessary just to get a nice number of 32? Do the benefits outweigh the downsides?

I do like the idea of a Europa tournament that keeps out the top players, because this is something that doesn't exist - and Scott should love it because it is anti-elitist. But do we have to exclude those players from the Champions League to achieve it?

#32 Major Nelson

Major Nelson

    Major

  • Moderators
  • 1,163 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 April 2018 - 09:56 PM

After the group stage yes. Presumably on a smaller scale.

Alternatively, you could feed CL players into the knockout stage of the EL, as is done by UEFA.

How do you know this stuff... I thought Americans don't care about football (soccer) at all.


  • rgillis783 likes this

Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is.


#33 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

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

Posted 21 April 2018 - 10:08 PM

Is this restriction necessary just to get a nice number of 32? Do the benefits outweigh the downsides?
I do like the idea of a Europa tournament that keeps out the top players, because this is something that doesn't exist - and Scott should love it because it is anti-elitist. But do we have to exclude those players from the Champions League to achieve it?

CL with 4 player groups could also work with 48 or 64 players too.

Edited by astros, 21 April 2018 - 10:10 PM.

I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#34 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

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

Posted 21 April 2018 - 10:09 PM

How do you know this stuff... I thought Americans don't care about football (soccer) at all.


I'm moving to Europe next month. I have also lived there for a year.

Edited by astros, 21 April 2018 - 10:18 PM.

I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#35 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Captain

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

Posted 21 April 2018 - 11:54 PM

I don't want to re-hash the Divisions format argument again either, but you can't make wildly incorrect statements like there is a 'tournament previously set up to dump the existing normal folks' and not expect to be corrected. The Pyramid is open to everybody. The ProSeries is also open to everybody - I honestly don't know where you got the impression that the ProSeries is for 'serious' players only. Perhaps it fits the ongoing narrative that you present where TC serve ELO and the elite - but it isn't remotely accurate.

In regards to the actual proposal - to reduce Champ League to 32 and create a Europa - the thrust of your argument is that participation from the lower ranked players would be reduced.

Well if those players who didn't qualify went on to play in the Europa League then participation wouldn't be reduced. I daresay there would actually be a number of players who would play in the Europa League who wouldn't have signed up to the Champions League, because they don't fancy going 0-4.

My main issue with the proposal comes with the the fact that you have to select 32 to play in the CL, and thus disappoint 10-15 players who wanted to play in the Champ League. Running qualifying rounds by seeding players on ability is also far from ideal. This pretty much guarantees that the lower ranked players are kept out of the Champions League. I know they can still play in the Europa, but some may view this as a consolation.

Is this restriction necessary just to get a nice number of 32? Do the benefits outweigh the downsides?

I do like the idea of a Europa tournament that keeps out the top players, because this is something that doesn't exist - and Scott should love it because it is anti-elitist. But do we have to exclude those players from the Champions League to achieve it?

-----------------------------

 

Sorry Optician,

But your just wrong.  The pyramid/division structure WAS changed to dump out the lower rated ELO players from the higher divisions to make room for those deemed more deserving (ie high ELO).  It is your statements that all the changes for division structure weren't done to achieve this end that are wildly inaccurate.  Saying that the pyramid is open to everyone ignores the fact that the entire thing was changed time after time trying to achieve the end that only the best would play the best.  You may consider that a worthy goal - you may feel that's fairer - or that has more merit, but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.  Constant participation was deemed irrelevant and dumped to make way to ensure the "proper" players were grouped together.

 

I made no derogatory statements regarding the ProSeries.  When it was posted I read the proposal - if I recall correctly there would be no ties, a panel would decided the winners of any games deemed a tie, there would be invitation only tournaments, etc - that all sounds like its for the more serious players to me.  I didn't post anything about the series, and in fact I believe I just stated that if there are folks that like that and want to participate that's great.  The name alone constitutes that its for the very serious players.

 

I have no issues with folks that want to have tournaments where "the best of the best" is determined.  It seems to me that exists with the world championship.  Want to know if your 1st or 3rd or 13th or 33rd.  There it is.  

 

The VAST majority of actual players at this site have ELO scores below 700.  And the tournaments run by the TC should aim to include as many players as possible.  Not to segregate.  Not to discourage.  And I'd point out that if that took place you'd end up with many more highly rated ELO players as more and more people took interest and participated and decided they'd like to see how high they can get.  And you'd have a much stronger community.  Somehow we are forgetting that there are lots of very talented and successful people that aren't rated ELO 990 - and heck it might even be enjoyable for those rated 990 to play them.  Seems to me having more of them participate would lead to a much more robust community.  Proposals like this - The changing of the division structure to accommodate a few  - all make it less likely people that fit that description will simply not bother.

 

Anyways I don't need to post about this anymore - I don't support the proposal.

 

 


​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#36 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

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

Posted 23 April 2018 - 12:21 PM

Your original comment which I took issue with was that there was a tournament set up to 'dump existing normal folks'. In my dictionary, dump means get rid of.

Your latest comment 'dump out the lower rated ELO players from the higher divisions to make room for those deemed more deserving (ie high ELO)' is a very different statement. In this context you are clarifying that 'dump' is more akin to 'demote'.

Grouping players by ability was and is an aim of the Pyramid - there has been no denying of that. It is clear that we have different preferences - I prefer merit-based, you seem to prefer allocation based on how often someone turns up to tournaments.

Now you have brought ELO into the fold yet again I will have to correct you - ELO has nothing to do with any division allocation. Allocation by tournament position - yes, allocation by ELO - no. How many times does this point about ELO need to be made before you can accept it? ELO has no bearing on Division placement. It is almost as if you would prefer that to be the case so you can argue that TC is elitist.

In regards to your comments about the ProSeries, you state 'if I recall correctly...a panel would decided the winners of any games deemed a tie, there would be invitation only tournaments'.

Again I don't know where you have got the panel deciding the winners, or the invitation-only part from. You keep making criticisms based on false premises. TC has never run or suggested an invitation-only tournament, and the same applies to deciding results by a panel.

Your next point: 'And the tournaments run by the TC should aim to include as many players as possible. Not to segregate. Not to discourage'

Participation is one of the main aims of TC, so we agree there. I don't believe that allocating Divisions by merit does anything to discourage participation. If you feel that it does, can you explain why?

Would running a CL/Europa discourage participation? Possibly, possibly not. How many players would refuse to play in a CL/Europa that otherwise would have played in the CL? How many players would wonder across the forum - new to tournaments - and be discouraged when they see they have to qualify for Champ League? How many would be relieved that their first tournament experience is against players nearer their level? Does it necessarily follow that segregation means reduced participation?

We do not have a steady stream of new players joining under 500ELO. One factor may be because players tend to join the Forum when at a higher level. They like the game enough at some point that they decide to investigate the Forum.

Four years ago, admin sent round a circular to all bronze members advertising the Champ League 2014. That is how I first learned of the forum, and 15 or so new bronze players arrived. It is methods such as those which really increase participants.

I don't buy the argument that a Europa tournament would negatively impact participation of newcomers. However I could see how non-newcomers might be aggrieved that they don't get to play in the Champ League.

#37 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

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

Posted 24 April 2018 - 08:42 AM

An issue for me with the Champ League/Europa proposal is how qualifying is decided. I don't like the seeded draw for qualifying (based on a ranking which doesn't yet exist) and making it best of 3 doesn't make it appeal more. I don't mind a small number of top players automatically getting spots (so that it made the qualifying round work in terms of numbers) but it is the other end I'm concerned about. A seeded qualifying draw basically means that the Champions League participants resemble the Top 32 in the ranking. If there really was going to be Champions League qualifying, then the qualifying section for me should be far more rigorous and definitely not seeded. This would need 5 weeks to do it fairly, at the end of which maybe a number of players wouldn't want to join Europa, and the tournament would be left undersubscribed. And the Chanpions Leaguw tournament would have got even longer.

For the Champ League, can you explain how it would work for eg 36/40/44/48?

#38 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

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

Posted 24 April 2018 - 02:14 PM

I agree that qualification is not ideal and you want to limit the process as much as possible. Therefore, we can be flexible with the starting number of entrants. The CL will work nicely for 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 64 contestants, (other numbers are possible, 56 is not terrible) so the TC should try to get as close as possible to one of those numbers.



For instance, this year I would have held off on starting the tournament until you got a 48th participant. Recruiting is always something I have been good at, the NASF averaged 200 percent more contestants when I was organizing for them, so this is theoretically something I could help the TC with.



If the TC does not want my help organizing, then it is a simple matter of eliminating only a few contestants. Choosing one of the "nice" numbers, we can ensure that we do not need to eliminate more than 7 players, ie 47 down to 40. A seeded qualification process implicitly has many games factored into it, particularly the one I proposed in Choosing a Ranking System, even if the actual qualification process is only 1 or 3 games.



If the players getting eliminated in the qualification stage are serious about Stratego, then they should have no problem qualifying for the CL the following year.



Table of different formats



32 players -> 16 advance (no byes)

40 players -> 20 advance (12 byes) -> 16 advance

48 players -> 24 advance (8 byes) -> 16 advance

64 players -> 32 advance (no byes)



Les "nice" numbers



36 players -> 18 advance (14 byes) -> 16 advance

44 players -> 22 advance (10 byes) -> 16 advanace

56 players -> 28 advance (4 byes) - > 16 advance



It ends up working for any number of players

Edited by astros, 24 April 2018 - 02:15 PM.

I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#39 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

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

Posted 24 April 2018 - 05:45 PM

> 40 players -> 20 advance (12 byes) -> 16 advance

In this example you present, the 10 group winners would qualify straight to the last 16. How would you determine which 2 of the runners up get given byes?

Secondly - one of the reasons you proposed a Champions League to have groups of 4 is that it more closely resembles the actual Champoons League. But the actual Champions League has never run such a system whereby:

1. Group winners automatically progress a round further than the runners up

2. Some runners up qualify for a different stage than other runners up

I might ask what is the point of going through all the motions of a qualifying round, if you arrive at a format which is no Improvement?

Getting 32 would be one thing, but these other multiples of 4 are by no means ideal. At least in the current format everyone who finishes in the same position in their group is treated equally (like the Champions League actual)

#40 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

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

Posted 24 April 2018 - 06:02 PM

I would use tiebreaks in the following order:

Group stage points, total wins, best group stage win (what was the highest seed number that a player beat in the group stage?), ranking/coin flip.

Any proposal needs compromise. I would like to run a "real" CL with 32 or 64 players only (48 is the next best option), but not everyone is in favor of a lengthy qualification process.

Alternatively, a number of 3rd place finishers using the tiebreaks above could advance such that the number of players in the Knockout Stage is 2^n.

I would like to see some form of my proposal implemented. Can the TC please let me know which option is more appealing: a lengthier qualification process to get down to 32 or 64, or allowing some 3rd place finishers to advance (World Cups have historically done this). I will be happy to provide additional details.
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users