Tourney Format Poll

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Jul 17, 2002 Posts: 1054

I think the current poll on the tourney format is a very clear example of someone pushing a limited poll to try to suppor their position. It even borders on misuse/abuse of polling.

Why no option in the poll for liking them both or having no preference? Why no option for those that like a mix of formats? Is it because that would lessen the usefulness in the results of this poll to be used by Jiles to support his personal agenda of eliminating the 10 round and out format?

Very bad form imo.

Unchartered Poster Joined: Nov 04, 2002 Posts: 7

I agree with Rillion. I can not believe I just said that. The poll is set up to be bias to prove the poller's Ideas

Soultaker

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 12:34 pm

It was like a 55-45 split last night but I just noticed that Trip Elimination had like 100+ votes added to it since Sunday evening.

Advanced Master Poster Joined: Jul 19, 2002 Posts: 479

I know that the polling has had an enfluence on tourney prizes but I would hope that this poll would not carry so much weight on such a delicate issue. I know that some people can vote multiple times on a single issue and that could stack the vote in favor of one or the other which isn't very fair imho.

DeGotti

Advanced Expert Poster Joined: Nov 04, 2002 Posts: 132

Perhaps there should have been the "I like them both." option.

- Dreih

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:15 pm

As a manager who has never been viewed as a great tourney manager (or arena manager for that matter), it seems logical that most people would prefer the triple elimination format, especially those managers with multiple good fighters in a class since one loss (or two) does not guarantee your guy will not TC. The one TC I had many years ago was a triple elimination format that went 17 rounds, plus I've had many warriors go into the later rounds in those triple elimination tournies, whereas I have never (to my poor recollection) had anyone in the runoffs in an "only those warrios with the fewest losses" tourney. I like triple elimination for those reasons. I think that this format is especially appropriate for FTFs where many times you can take a loss because you don't know an opponents style, or have a bad match up...

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:38 pm

I voted for triple elimination but I must admit I do not really understand the difference between the two. My impression is that the ten rounds out is one loss and out? and whoever gets to ten rounds wins? This aside I think there should be descriptions of the two if people are to vote on them.
secondly I also, though I like Jiles and respect him as a manager and he seems to be a reasonable person from what I have seen in his posts and such, get the impression from his posts on the list and such that he is acting in reaction to this tourneys results. I think that if we are going to have something like this be voted on in an effort to influence policy we should have a "both" option or "neither" in the case of presidential election style questions. If we lose sight of our own biases we may lose more than we bargain for in the long run...

Myrdin

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 7:01 pm

Personally, I like the triple elim. I find it a little more fluke free. In the 10 round format, you can loose and be out. Regardless of whether or not you are the top warrior or not. The 10 round format is nothing but luck and matchups. It has nothing really to do with how good your glad really is. Except in maybe champs up. In the lower classes, it's all about who gets lucky with the great matchups. They have a cake walk to the finals. But that is my opinion. I'd rather make sure the best glad wins, not the luckiest. Bash me now at will. Razz

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 9:38 pm

You are going to have to include me in the group who likes the 10 round format; I enjoy the luck, flukes, and favorable match-ups that give this format it's "spice". Where is it written that good warriors are guaranteed to TC/TV? Too many managers think tourney awards are something they are "entitled" to, simply becuase they have great warriors. We would all be bored with the game if every warrior's performance was pre-determined based on their stats/skills/bonuses going into a tourney. Better to have a format which offers the less-than-gifted a chance at their "every dog has it's day" dream. This being said, I DO like the triple elimination format, though I would never support its use as the sole tourney format.

Mannequin

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:57 pm

Fluke free? Define "fluke". Very often, flukes can be traced to your managerial skill or strategy. The triple elimination format is much more forgiving of bad management as you can use your uber warrior to overwhelm the competition even though you didn't do the best job in managing your warrior.
In a 10 rounds and out, you get rightfully punished for your bad strategies, miscalculations, etc.

Quote:

In the lower classes, it's all about who gets lucky with the great matchups.

Then why do the same set of managers dominate these classes?

Quote:

I'd rather make sure the best glad wins, not the luckiest.

If we're talking about the lowest classes, what's the difference between the top warriors? A handful of skills? Matchups play a big factor either way.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:08 pm

Also, it's not like the crappy warriors are TC'ing whenever we have the 10 Round format. If you look at the last FtF:

Eligibles: 10-0 Willowdeer (Finished 3rd)

ADM: 10-0 Mrs. Ippi/Moe/Maui, The same warriors finished 1-2-3.

Freshmen: 10-0: Independent Jed (Runner-Upped)

Champs: 10-0 Percy Quin/Sir Ton; Percy finished 4th, Sir Ton RUnner-Upped

Adepts: 10-0 Valerian (Runner-Upped)

Inits: 9-1 A bunch of 9-1's, on the top of the standings is Achondroplasia (the TC)

Apps: 10-0 Malichai (Runner-Upped)

Novices: Superior (Runner-Upped)

Rookies: Standley's Cup (TC'd)

The cream is still rising to the Top in the 10-0 format. Most of the warriors who were tops in Round 10 went on to TC or Runner-Up. Seeing as the between Rounds 10-17 a warrior can develop a lot, there is no reason to believe that they weren't the best warriors in Round 10. At the very least, they would have all been worthy of a TC in a normal MI format as well.

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:25 am

I believe I agree with everyone posting (geeze, somebody sing a chorus of Koom-Bye-Ya will ya).

The poll doesn't speak to the present policy. Even if everyone agreed they liked the triple elimination better it wouldn't mean a majority wanted it for all tournies...

Secondly, While triple elimination is more forgiving of fluke losses (perhaps only slightly as Manager points out, and also more forgiving of inferior management) it seems to me that the randomness of match-ups is always a factor in tournies. Or doesn't anyone think a warrior that would have won if all run-off warriors were starting even at 0-0 has lost by entering the elimination at 8-2?

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 7:13 am

Hehehe.....I thought I'd raise some hairs here. I agree that your skill as a manager has to come into play. But I've seen everal instances when a good or great warrior that would certainly make it to the run offs in a triple elim format gets bounced at 9-1 because the lost on some kind of goofy, unforseen event. Whereas, if they were in a triple elimination format, they *MIGHT* have the chance to make up for that, and go on to be one of the last few warriors standing, instead of just a TV.

Now, as far as Mannequin's statement about people thinking they are entitled to awards, maybe so. I'm not one of them, I can assure you of that. If that were the case, I'd be spending a lot more on this game that I currently do.

And I agree with Dwayne about the small difference in skills, and with G.O. about helping out with some managers lack of abilities, however, I still think that it's the better method. Or, as I said earlier, it allows you to make up for that one bad matchup, weapon break, scumming, fluke crit in desperation, etc. But that's just me.

The fact of the matter though is this. I doubt it's going to change anything. It will not change the way people send in glads for the tourney. It won't change the amount of glads sent in. So, I'm not really sure what the big debate is. I know Jiles REALLY wants it, but other than that, I can't see a major push for or against it.

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 7:59 am

You all made some great points about the differing tourney formats. It was quite educational for me.

My 2 cents is... give me a little variety and I'm a happy guy.

I too believe that this poll should include a "neither" and a "both" option. I would have voted for "both" myself.

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:40 pm

Quote:

Hehehe.....I thought I'd raise some hairs here. I agree that your skill as a manager has to come into play. But I've seen everal instances when a good or great warrior that would certainly make it to the run offs in a triple elim format gets bounced at 9-1 because the lost on some kind of goofy, unforseen event. Whereas, if they were in a triple elimination format, they *MIGHT* have the chance to make up for that, and go on to be one of the last few warriors standing, instead of just a TV.

And I've seen *many many* more instances of not-the best warriors getting hot in the later rounds or going in poorly prepared and winning a TC fight when they really weren't the most deserving. (Both in ability and in management)

In a FtF format, I can understand the desire for a more forgiving format. People do make a lot more managerial mistakes in that format. (Myself included) In most cases, you can show me a "fluke" event and I'll show you poor (or at least non-optimal) strategy.

In a Mail-In format however, you have more time to deliberate your strategy and can calculate your matchup mathematics given time. Most "unlucky" matchups really aren't that unlucky. There are only a couple of matchups where if you get them they are practically "auto-losses", but those are the exact same warriors that thrive on matching up well with all the other styles.

Quote:

The fact of the matter though is this. I doubt it's going to change anything. It will not change the way people send in glads for the tourney.

Uh, it will change *everything*. That's the heart of the issue. There are warriors that start strong and finish weak and warriors that start weak but end strong. Most managers that play tourneys have different sets of warriors that prep for both styles of tournaments. It's a totally different art to build an all-around warrior that can withstand 10 rounds and go undefeated than it is to design a warrior that will look like a Total Stud at Round 15, but might get scummed a couple of times along the way.

By eliminating one format, you basically but cut out a whole class of warriors that are able to TC.