[UNAC] Season 1 Feedback, Season 2 Suggestions.

[Cleric_Johnson]

Could do what the ENL used to do. Sticking with a seeded 2 division round robin format. So using the seedings from this season make 2 different divisions from bottom half and top half. Have one team automatically relegated (bottom of div a) and one team automatically promoted (top of div B). After that have "ups and downs",  so second bottom of Div A plays Second Top of Div B and 3rd bottom plays third top. Meaning you could have a total of 3 teams going up and down. Throw in a season final for the top four teams of Div A and i reckon you could be looking at a good set up. Another option would be to have top 3 teams of DIV A qualify for season finals, followed by the winner of div B, could add some interesting aspects to the finals and give a new but high quality team a shot at the top spot from the get go.

 

[Rhade]

Could do what the ENL used to do. Sticking with a seeded 2 division round robin format. So using the seedings from this season make 2 different divisions from bottom half and top half. Have one team automatically relegated (bottom of div a) and one team automatically promoted (top of div B). After that have "ups and downs",  so second bottom of Div A plays Second Top of Div B and 3rd bottom plays third top. Meaning you could have a total of 3 teams going up and down. Throw in a season final for the top four teams of Div A and i reckon you could be looking at a good set up. Another option would be to have top 3 teams of DIV A qualify for season finals, followed by the winner of div B, could add some interesting aspects to the finals and give a new but high quality team a shot at the top spot from the get go.

Solid.

Also, to those of you against playing the teams more near your level on a more regular basis as opposed to either getting obliterated or just showing up to mow the grass, you need to remember you're also free to scrim outside of the tournament and I feel you can use that time to set up scrims with clans you just "feel" like scrimming. I think tournament matches should be played at the highest possible level a clan can bring, with the best people they can bring, and against teams of a similar skill. No one likes showing up and getting 16-0'd and quite frankly it's boring when you're just dusting a team and going 16-0 as well. I think it's more interesting for competition, spectators, and players that you're playing the teams within your skill range week-in, week-out as opposed to the huge variance of the entire field.

 

[Mr.X]

The reason I'm a fan of tournaments being shorter is simply so there is more of them, and it's more of a regular thing. The more regular and standard competition is, the more the competitive community will grow, ideally.

Also I agree with Rhade's last post (someone record the date :p)

 

[ClockWise]

Though more tourneys is cool, I don't think we should overdo it here. 4 big tourneys sounds cool, maybe seasonal or something like that. 6 might be a bit much...I like having a month or two off between tourneys.

 

[BoogyLoH]

Could do what the ENL used to do. Sticking with a seeded 2 division round robin format. So using the seedings from this season make 2 different divisions from bottom half and top half. Have one team automatically relegated (bottom of div a) and one team automatically promoted (top of div B). After that have "ups and downs",  so second bottom of Div A plays Second Top of Div B and 3rd bottom plays third top. Meaning you could have a total of 3 teams going up and down. Throw in a season final for the top four teams of Div A and i reckon you could be looking at a good set up. Another option would be to have top 3 teams of DIV A qualify for season finals, followed by the winner of div B, could add some interesting aspects to the finals and give a new but high quality team a shot at the top spot from the get go.

I'm not sure how this would work well? You'd need to define how to rank a team that switches between the two divisions or how you rank a team in general? Also, if top of Div B goes to final four, then I can foresee a team try and get in that division and try and stay at the top of that division to have an easier ride to get into the final four instead of trying to duke it out for the top 3 in a tough Div A.

All and all, I'm all for parity and trying to make the best competition is great. However, dividing an already small community of clans into a tournament system that is "those that are good shouldn't have to play against those that are bad" seems counter-intuitive to the idea of a community tournament. I feel a better system could be created.

 

[Cleric_Johnson]

I dont understand your comments about needing to define rankings; it would be done by final places in this current iteration of UNAC. Also teams would be unable to try and stay in division B and finish top because by default #1 in div B gets you automatically promoted.

Also i dont believe its really dividing a community. First of all as Rhade pointed out nobody is suggesting building a wall between two sets of clans; you can still play as many pickups and trainings as you want with eachother. Secondly even in a pure tournament sense, the division is only a blurred one with plenty of movement between divisions when each season concludes.

I like this method because i feel it gives "lower" teams something to aim for; promotion. As is you got like 6-7 teams playing UNAC matches when there is nothing really for them to aim for anymore. This is unfair on the teams, but also leads to more drop outs/default losses due to lack of interest.

In short i feel the format gives a shorter tournament, more objectives for teams of ALL levels, less defaults and less landslide victories.

 

[Gelden]

Personally, I think the results of this tournament could be used to seed group stages for a second go. That would make the tournament shorter but still give everyone a fair shot, as long as you passed enough people from each group to make the final bracket less exclusionary.

Could do what the ENL used to do. Sticking with a seeded 2 division round robin format. So using the seedings from this season make 2 different divisions

I've been an advocate for a 2 group RR for a while, and I'd like to use a system that utilizes the finalized UNAC bracket to produce the fairest group make-ups. 

Group examples:

Group 1: GA, TMW, Balion, DoF, Rebel, WMT
Group 2: wK, BkS, Wappaw, GKR, KoA, SF

Obviously there will be different teams entering/dropping, but I think we're smart enough to compromise on two fair brackets.  The top two (or four depending on how many teams we get) can move on to the finals bracket.  This will take half as long as UNAC.  Think of UEFA champions league in soccer with less groups.

 

[BoogyLoH]

I dont understand your comments about needing to define rankings; it would be done by final places in this current iteration of UNAC. Also teams would be unable to try and stay in division B and finish top because by default #1 in div B gets you automatically promoted.

Also i dont believe its really dividing a community. First of all as Rhade pointed out nobody is suggesting building a wall between two sets of clans; you can still play as many pickups and trainings as you want with eachother. Secondly even in a pure tournament sense, the division is only a blurred one with plenty of movement between divisions when each season concludes.

I like this method because i feel it gives "lower" teams something to aim for; promotion. As is you got like 6-7 teams playing UNAC matches when there is nothing really for them to aim for anymore. This is unfair on the teams, but also leads to more drop outs/default losses due to lack of interest.

In short i feel the format gives a shorter tournament, more objectives for teams of ALL levels, less defaults and less landslide victories.

I guess what I don't understand is how do you rank once the tournament starts, where are new teams to the next tournament (such as HB) ranked, and how do you create the schedule? Is ranking done by W-L, then Rounds? If so, I feel if you start in the lower tier and 16-0 teams until you're out of the lower tier and then end up tieing someone in wins in the upper tier but you have a higher rank because of rounds seems a bit off? Isn't that unfair to the team that started in the upper tier and faced a more stiff competition but ended up with the same record but not the same rounds won-loss?

If the schedule is a round robin, how do you determine who you are playing next if your tier keeps changing? Do you just play the person you haven't played before? Do you play a set rank each week? Maybe this won't be a problem if it is a short tournament (6-8 weeks), but more than that and I can see people playing the same teams 3+ times and that isn't that fun.

Also, maybe I'm overthinking the barrier with the good tier/bad tier, but I could see some clans having the idea that "your clan needs to earn your right to play us" mentality. Maybe I'm wrong though.

I do feel like I'm being a bit nitpicky. I like the idea Cleric, but I'm not completely sold on it yet. I feel I would enjoy Gelden's actual RR a bit more with my suggestion of a mid-tournament cross-tier faceoff.

 

[Rhade]

I advocate a system that allows for closer matches.

No one is saying you can't scrim outside of tournament confines.

But 2/3 of the time showing up and dusting teams 16-0 or 16-2 is just boring. It gets old only having a few scrims in a month and a half span that you really need to care about, and I'm sure it's also equally boring for low-tier teams only having one scrim every few weeks they feel they have a realistic shot at competing in.

You still have your community and ability to play each other, but forcing slaughters is silly for both sides in RR's.

 

[Mr.X]

See, Gelden's proposing we integrate seeds. I'm proposing the top 6 in one rr and the bottom 6 in another.

 

[Gelden]

See, Gelden's proposing we integrate seeds. I'm proposing the top 6 in one rr and the bottom 6 in another.

What happens after the RRs?  A finals?  The two teams advancing from the bottom bracket will likely get crushed.

The "bottom teams" arguably are worse off fighting teams of equal or lesser skill level.  You only get better playing better teams... I believe this system is counter productive to the advancement of our scene.

 

[Rhade]

The "bottom teams" arguably are worse off fighting teams of equal or lesser skill level.  You only get better playing better teams... I believe this system is counter productive to the advancement of our scene.

By your own logic, it's counter-productive for the advancement of the scene if the boon of advancing lower-tier teams is placed onto the top-tier teams that they must play them out of necessity to teach them, as opposed to playing against other evenly matched teams and further driving the cutting edge and blazing the trail to raise the skill ceiling even higher.

Just throwing that out there, Warband's competitive scene is miniscule in comparison to most games, so in the end it really doesn't matter I just know I'm tired of only having to really "show up" to a handful of matches.

 

[BoogyLoH]

Two RRs with top teams in one and bottom teams in another is pointless. Gelden brought up a valid counter-argument. The bottom tier teams wouldn't be good competition for the finals. You can't just say "The finals will be only Tier A" because why would the bottom teams even bother joining the tournament if they have 0% chance of even placing. That would be two separate tournaments, the good clans and the bad clans.

Geldens idea of splitting the rankings on this tournament into Odd ranks in one tier and Even ranks in another tier makes the most sense. A cross-tier week would add a little excitement to the tournament.

Cleric's idea of splitting into two tiers RR with room to advance to tier one or fall to tier 2 is an even better idea as it gives us a compromise between what Gelden and I dislike with Mr.X's suggestion and what you guys are wanting to accomplish which is more competitive fighting. However, I have a few concerns about it as I addressed and am eagerly waiting Cleric's response on how those problems could be corrected.

 

[Gelden]

By your own logic, it's counter-productive for the advancement of the scene if the boon of advancing lower-tier teams is placed onto the top-tier teams that they must play them out of necessity to teach them, as opposed to playing against other evenly matched teams and further driving the cutting edge and blazing the trail to raise the skill ceiling even higher.

That's true, but I'm saying it would be more rewarding and most fair to have a mix of teams, good and bad instead of a bracket of good and a bracket of bad.

My main point was

What happens after the RRs?  A finals?  The two teams advancing from the bottom bracket will likely get crushed.

 

[Rhade]

By your own logic, it's counter-productive for the advancement of the scene if the boon of advancing lower-tier teams is placed onto the top-tier teams that they must play them out of necessity to teach them, as opposed to playing against other evenly matched teams and further driving the cutting edge and blazing the trail to raise the skill ceiling even higher.

That's true, but I'm saying it would be more rewarding and most fair to have a mix of teams, good and bad instead of a bracket of good and a bracket of bad.

That's fine, but a tournament is not about coddling, it's about competition and competing, and that should be the focus. I think it's more than fair to say that you should be competitive in the matches you play, and I think it's fair because everyone has the chance to be in whatever spot they deserve to be. What could be more fair?

My main point was

What happens after the RRs?  A finals?  The two teams advancing from the bottom bracket will likely get crushed.

Depends on the system we take. I like SC2's GSL system, similar to what Cleric was mentioning, with ups and downs that the top of the lower group plays the bottom of the upper group, allowing for promotion or relegation, and the top of the upper bracket plays it out for the championship.

 

[RoBo_CoP]

The ladder system similar to that which was used for the last WNL works around a lot of those issues, I do believe.

The only difference would be the divisions. Perhaps a rule-set can be created have a ladder with two divisions, with some point/win goal to move up from B etc. Just a thought that doesn't revolve around RR.

 

[Kherven]

I personally don't like the idea of splitting the talent among 2 brackets. The thought of not being able to play BkS, or wK, etc all season is disappointing. Likewise, not seeing specific mid-tier teams ever fight each other in the tourney.

So for me personally, if there were 2 RR's I'd much rather see it seperated into top-tier and mid-tier teams. There would obviouslly need to be some specifics about promotions/demotions, who goes to finals and what not, but there's already been quite a few good suggestions on how to handle that.


I personally want to see much closer matches, I just went through the bracket  and TWENTY (there has only been 45 matches)  matches were 16- 3 or less. I know there's an argument that you only learn from playing better teams, but its kinda hard to learn from a 16-0.

 

[Ehombre]

I advocate a system that allows for closer matches.

As an observer and commentator, I support any changes that would work toward this goal. Lopsided results are not engaging.

 

[sotamursu123]

divide the tournament to two groups, "str0nk" and "weak" teams. Then near the end give the best "weak" team a chance to beat any str0nk team to take his place in str0nks in then next season. Invite the top teams of this season to join "str0nks" next season.

About this thing,

It's better that weak teams don't get stomped by str0nk teams in official matches, that's boring. However, nothing prevents weak teams fighting str0nk teams outside official matches. Simple as that. I don't get it why people keep whinink about this, just implement it like this and everyone is happy except retards that get +44,34% e-penis length buff from beating someone a lot weaker than you.

 

[Wyrdwise]

Started to comment and created a  massive WOT.  Made it more concise, though still long - apologies.  My posts are not necessarily views shared among other HB members.

I don't mind a long tourney though I can see the benefits of keeping them shorter and hosting more.  I like the idea of seasonal tourneys, spring, summer, etc.  Keeps things fresh and fits in well with the UNAC Ruleset (which has been a success, imo. Still room for further polish though).

I would support a Double-RR as it will shortens the tourney but you will still get 16-0's though they won't seem as prevalent as strong teams won't face every weak team. 

A tiered double RR I like better as it would give surer indication of where teams stand against one another.  I like the idea of seeding and using this tourney as the benchmark or source for the seeds.  I like the idea of ladders, but don't think they would work for us outright.  I would support something like what Cleric has posted about having chances for transition between tiers.  You still shorten the tourney and I think it would give the best shot of improving the competitive atmosphere.


I think the point should be keeping tournaments fresh for the competitors, keeping the matches as competitive as possible, giving reason to compete for any team and offering opportunity for movement in the pecking order.


For a tiered double RR, for playoffs I'd like to see a best of 3 in the finals (sudden death up to that point, including for 3rd).  I feel the top two teams have earned a chance to comeback after an initial loss, not to mention there hasn't been a series in NA that I'm aware of.

On transitioning between tiers, perhaps have a mini RR between the big tourneys for Div 1 teams 5 and 6 vs Div 2 teams 1 and 2 to decide who ends up in which bracket (assuming 6-team brackets).  OR could do a single elim with top and bottom 3 instead, with both Div 1's 4th and Div 2's 1st having byes.  Something like this should be able to happen as soon as the Div 1 playoffs start and finish well before the next full tourney begins.  EDIT: I guess this is basically what that ups and downs thing is.  I guess I support it.

Also, that cross-tier week would be nice.  I'd stick that between the RR and Div 1 playoffs and include either a public decision on who will fight (I'd see like 2 matches working out) or the Div 2 1st and 2nd  picking their opponents from the top tier.