[UNAC S2] Suggestions, Improvements and Announcements
- Thread starter Kherven
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Can we get this tournament started a bit sooner?
I notice in the roster thread it says,
"Team submissions close Sunday, January 26th"
Why wait a month and a week? The NA community is pretty well established at this point. I fully understand waiting until Christmas and New Year's is over, but you could very well close registration on January the 4th and start the 11th without any issues. That gives two weeks and a half to submit a team.
I notice in the roster thread it says,
"Team submissions close Sunday, January 26th"
Why wait a month and a week? The NA community is pretty well established at this point. I fully understand waiting until Christmas and New Year's is over, but you could very well close registration on January the 4th and start the 11th without any issues. That gives two weeks and a half to submit a team.
If I am not mistaken, the intent is to have another meeting early-mid January to go over maps and associated items (we didn't talk about them at all during the captains meeting). More testing of potential offerings should be done with a more cooperative effort across the clans.
Starting the tourney early January diminishes that opportunity and doesn't easily allow for necessary discussions to be made. Starting the tourney on the first full week of a month is also nice. On the feasibility of teams signing up much earlier, I agree there wouldn't likely be issues but shifting that sooner doesn't make sense unless map stuff is already decided upon.
Starting the tourney early January diminishes that opportunity and doesn't easily allow for necessary discussions to be made. Starting the tourney on the first full week of a month is also nice. On the feasibility of teams signing up much earlier, I agree there wouldn't likely be issues but shifting that sooner doesn't make sense unless map stuff is already decided upon.
With the current system to allow teams to pick their own maps it's not really too big of an issue if a turd of a map makes it into the pool. Mostly, things will run smoothly if the pool doesn't feature some absolutly abhorent map with glitches or massive cliffs or cheeky ranged postions like forest hideout and those Romans maps on POM.
I also think it would be a great idea if the maps being submitted for usage were posted here so anyone can download them individually and play test them without having to run through the comp thing. (or i'm blind and missed clear links)
I also think it would be a great idea if the maps being submitted for usage were posted here so anyone can download them individually and play test them without having to run through the comp thing. (or i'm blind and missed clear links)
cba to read everything but why not do this:
After round robin:
1st team of Division B gets to choose to fight either the 5th or 6th of Division A. If 1st team of Division B wins, they change places in Divisions.
Then 2nd team of Division B fights the remaining team out of those two, then if 1st team of Division B wins, they change places in Divisions.
Then start the Single Elimination with a bracket like this:
After round robin:
1st team of Division B gets to choose to fight either the 5th or 6th of Division A. If 1st team of Division B wins, they change places in Divisions.
Then 2nd team of Division B fights the remaining team out of those two, then if 1st team of Division B wins, they change places in Divisions.
Then start the Single Elimination with a bracket like this:
It adds an 1-2 weeks onto the tournament to do it that way. It was discussed in the meeting I think too -- I wouldn't mind a change to something like that.
Personally, I wouldn't like the time that would add to the season and I do feel like 1 match to determine your division switch could potentially be quite unfair if one or both teams is missing a few core players for whatever reason (Similar to how BkS/wK finals felt when some of their core roster wouldn't be able to make the match)
2 Week byes for teams 1 & 2 = bad
I think the mid-tourney transitioning stuff was brought up a while back and was dropped in favour of something like what is currently being used. On a personal note, not a fan of transition between brackets within a tourney. Movement should happen prior or after the tournament and not during, especially in this case where your 5 and 6 seeds are facing the stiffer competition during the RR (the whole point of the brackets) as compared to the 7th and 8th.
I find the idea of the 7th seed having a choice of opposition between seeds 5 or 6 interesting though (removed from sota's mid-tourney transition that is). Never considered it, but it would provide a bit more weight to winning the lower bracket. As it is now, simply winning the lower bracket is really nut much different than coming second as both get a shot at knocking the 6th and 5th seeds down, respectively. The "problem" is that this ignores matchups and this would be where that choice of opponant bit might work, as the 7th seed has their option of whom to face, they have a choice to make on which of the 5th or 6th seeds might be a better match for them. Similarly, the 8th seed still get's their shot as well, but they don't get that choice. Further and more meaningful incentive to win the lower bracket.
I find the idea of the 7th seed having a choice of opposition between seeds 5 or 6 interesting though (removed from sota's mid-tourney transition that is). Never considered it, but it would provide a bit more weight to winning the lower bracket. As it is now, simply winning the lower bracket is really nut much different than coming second as both get a shot at knocking the 6th and 5th seeds down, respectively. The "problem" is that this ignores matchups and this would be where that choice of opponant bit might work, as the 7th seed has their option of whom to face, they have a choice to make on which of the 5th or 6th seeds might be a better match for them. Similarly, the 8th seed still get's their shot as well, but they don't get that choice. Further and more meaningful incentive to win the lower bracket.
22nd_Can
Sergeant Knight at Arms
sotamursu123 said:cba to read everything but why not do this:
After round robin:
1st team of Division B gets to choose to fight either the 5th or 6th of Division A. If 1st team of Division B wins, they change places in Divisions.
Then 2nd team of Division B fights the remaining team out of those two, then if 1st team of Division B wins, they change places in Divisions.
Then start the Single Elimination with a bracket like this:
Seriously this,
It gives a lot more incentive to win the lower league right now.
I also wish there was some kind of a chance that the winner of both leagues could play each other for some other kind of a match ( winner of the champions league vs the winner of the Europa league for the ones who knows what they are ) of course not changing the winner of the first league but maybe adding another kind of honorary prize, and also official.
The issue with this is that it is technically a punishment to seed 5.
The relationship of 7v6, 8v5 works both ways. 7 is rewarded by getting 1st (Div B) and gets to theoretically face a weaker opponent (seed 6, last of A) Seed 6 is punished and forced to theoretically fight the harder opponent. Seed 5 is rewarded by for not getting last and gets to theoretically face a weaker opponent (seed 8 ).
To allow seed 7 to face seed 5 breaks the reward/punishment relationship for 5. Because of this, 5 is no more valuable than 6.
I'm not saying no, it isn't my decision. I'm just saying it has drawbacks.
None the less, if you can get a large majority of the captains on board, feel free to contact me and we can get something rolling.
The relationship of 7v6, 8v5 works both ways. 7 is rewarded by getting 1st (Div B) and gets to theoretically face a weaker opponent (seed 6, last of A) Seed 6 is punished and forced to theoretically fight the harder opponent. Seed 5 is rewarded by for not getting last and gets to theoretically face a weaker opponent (seed 8 ).
To allow seed 7 to face seed 5 breaks the reward/punishment relationship for 5. Because of this, 5 is no more valuable than 6.
I'm not saying no, it isn't my decision. I'm just saying it has drawbacks.
None the less, if you can get a large majority of the captains on board, feel free to contact me and we can get something rolling.
AgreedKherven said:
I feel offering such really depreciates the "uniformity" that has been established in UNAC. However the idea is very innovative.
I mixed on the idea personally. While I think it is definitely "cool" that a team can pick which team they face, whether to take the "ballsier" or safer approach, I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about it.
On one side, I feel like it creates further incentive for teams to remain in the top 4. Especially in circumstances where only one "true" competitor exist within the bottom bracket, complacency can emerge for those in the top bracket. While nobody wants to be in the bottom of their bracket, once it is clear that they can't win, some teams simply try less. In circumstances where a team is clearly in the top bracket that shouldn't be there, a team can be complacent in the fact that no matter how poorly they do (within reason), they won't fall into the 6th seed (which is taken by the team that shouldn't be there). By allowing the 7th seed to pick their fight (between 5th and 6th seed), it becomes debatable that teams will be further incentive not to fall into the 5th seed. Likewise, promotion rounds can become more interesting in cases where a team decides to "shake it up" and challenge the more difficult team.
This being said, questions emerge on:
1) whether this additional incentive is even needed; and
2) whether this freedom of choice promotes the ideals of the tournament.
While I'd argue that the bracket system is designed to promote competitiveness, competitiveness is clearly not the sole objective. This is clear by the lack of seeding exceptions for new and returning teams. Rather, the tournament seems to have adopted a hybrid approach between competitiveness and consistency (between tournaments). While I see a choice of competition as being cool, it certainly doesn't create any "consistency" and it's debatable to what degree it adds to tournament competitiveness.
As I see it, it is a system that will be controlled by clan rivalries and bitterness as opposed to what will practically create the most competitive tourney going forward. You will possibly see teams trying to "spite" other teams as opposed to acting in the best interests of the community.
Note that I say this despite foreseeably being in the clan that will have this opportunity of discretion. From a tournament standpoint, I just don't see this discretion as being in the community's best interests.
On one side, I feel like it creates further incentive for teams to remain in the top 4. Especially in circumstances where only one "true" competitor exist within the bottom bracket, complacency can emerge for those in the top bracket. While nobody wants to be in the bottom of their bracket, once it is clear that they can't win, some teams simply try less. In circumstances where a team is clearly in the top bracket that shouldn't be there, a team can be complacent in the fact that no matter how poorly they do (within reason), they won't fall into the 6th seed (which is taken by the team that shouldn't be there). By allowing the 7th seed to pick their fight (between 5th and 6th seed), it becomes debatable that teams will be further incentive not to fall into the 5th seed. Likewise, promotion rounds can become more interesting in cases where a team decides to "shake it up" and challenge the more difficult team.
This being said, questions emerge on:
1) whether this additional incentive is even needed; and
2) whether this freedom of choice promotes the ideals of the tournament.
While I'd argue that the bracket system is designed to promote competitiveness, competitiveness is clearly not the sole objective. This is clear by the lack of seeding exceptions for new and returning teams. Rather, the tournament seems to have adopted a hybrid approach between competitiveness and consistency (between tournaments). While I see a choice of competition as being cool, it certainly doesn't create any "consistency" and it's debatable to what degree it adds to tournament competitiveness.
As I see it, it is a system that will be controlled by clan rivalries and bitterness as opposed to what will practically create the most competitive tourney going forward. You will possibly see teams trying to "spite" other teams as opposed to acting in the best interests of the community.
Note that I say this despite foreseeably being in the clan that will have this opportunity of discretion. From a tournament standpoint, I just don't see this discretion as being in the community's best interests.
BoogyLoH
Knight
To continue the topic, I'm for the 7th seed only getting to play the 6th seed. 5/6 need no more incentive to be 5/6 than they already are. Although I could see a team tanking a fight to grab the 2nd seed if they really wish to fight the 5th seed. Just a thought. Maybe add in a home field advantage in someway.
I guess I'm not suggesting anything, but another issue I could see arising and that I'm sure you guys have thought about and I just haven't read yet, but what if, for instance, HB ends up destroying the lower bracket. 16-0 every clan, then they face off to get into the top 6 and lose by a round like the wK vs BkS UNAC season match. They would have to endure another season of destroying the same teams they have no fun scrimming against. What if that happens again? Do you really believe that team would join season 3/4 under those circumstances? Hypothetical, I know, but you have to think of the hypothetical when designing a system.
I guess I'm not suggesting anything, but another issue I could see arising and that I'm sure you guys have thought about and I just haven't read yet, but what if, for instance, HB ends up destroying the lower bracket. 16-0 every clan, then they face off to get into the top 6 and lose by a round like the wK vs BkS UNAC season match. They would have to endure another season of destroying the same teams they have no fun scrimming against. What if that happens again? Do you really believe that team would join season 3/4 under those circumstances? Hypothetical, I know, but you have to think of the hypothetical when designing a system.
Volpel
Sergeant Knight
Highly unlikely. In the event that HB is able to destroy 16-0 every clan in division B, they should be able to pull off a win pretty easily over the sixth seed. I don't think that, say currently, the gap between Wappaw (6th) and KoA (7th or is it SF?) is great (I'd even say it is nonexistent atm, but that's another matter). Defeating KoA/SF 16-0 would be highly indicative of the score to come against Wappaw or Balions.
Similar threads
