Tourney Format Poll

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:42 pm

I really couldn't care less. I voted for the trip elim, but, thats just cuz i want more skills for my guys.

Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 3:13 pm

Quote:

All of the above just proving the point that in only 2 tourneys was the "best" warrior, the eventual TC, 10-0 as of round 10.

No, not at all. You are assuming that warriors remain static between Round 10 and Round 17. They don't. In Adepts for example, Valerian beat the TC in an earlier round and then lost twice to him in the later rounds. I *was* better than him in Round 10. If all those warriors had gone on to TC, they all would have been deserving.

In either case, the point was to prove that scrubs were not getting the fluky match-ups to necessarily TC all 10 rounds. You still have to be a solid warrior on some level in order to win it.

Quote:

Despite your bias to the 10-round format that favors scum, even you must understand that the triple-elim is much more "fluke-free".

Sorry, again, I don't see it. It only gives the illusion that it's more fluke free, but I'm not sure it is. If every warrior were staying constant in development, then yes, you'd have the ability to make more rolls. (I.e. my odds of beating Michael Jordan in "Horse" would be slim to none, but would drastically increase if I played him in a game of "It") But since warriors are developing at different rates, you aren't making the same roll multiple times. You have a set of X warriors developing at Y rates. The odds on favorite to win is a formula involving X and Y, where each format weighs X and Y differently.

Quote:

i.e. scum

*gasp* I'm shocked that you think I'm promoting a scum agenda. Some of my recent Mail-In TVs include 15-17-16-11 Striker, 15-9-12-15 Striker, 13-9-16-21 AB, all warriors who I wouldn't let sniff a triple elimination style tourney. Good tournament designs of more common RU's deserve a shot too.

Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 3:40 pm

Ok, I was kind of thinking about what you were saying. I can kind of see where you are coming from.

If you look at it from the standpoint from an invidual warrior--if you believe you have an 1% chance of losing any given fight no matter what, then yes, a triple elimination format is more forgiving. Being in such a format would actually increase your chance of suffering such a loss, but actually suffering one is only 1/3 as debilitating and you may be able to fight your way out of it.

I'm not sure I agree with it, and by having an elongated tourney, you increase the amount of fluky losses that happen to the number of warriors overall. But I understand it.

Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:41 am

Ok - my unsollicited 2-cents.

I'm in the unenviably position as one of the few who has 500+ slow arena fights (and a six-year break) and has NEVER TC'd, TV'd A-B-C'd, Y-M-C-A'd or M-O-U-S-E'd. You want fluke-y - you got it. I've run the bevy of tourney bad-luck and have more 4-3's than you can shake a Manager prediction at. Rolling Eyes

I like the trip-elimination format simply to save lives.

Yup - if I send in my typical 9-10 guys and get back 9-10 0-1 losses, the mail-man would have to die. Horribly. Then I would cry.

Who in the hell wants that Question

Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:31 am

Kat wrote:

Ok - my unsollicited 2-cents.

I'm in the unenviably position as one of the few who has 500+ slow arena fights (and a six-year break) and has NEVER TC'd, TV'd A-B-C'd, Y-M-C-A'd or M-O-U-S-E'd. You want fluke-y - you got it. I've run the bevy of tourney bad-luck and have more 4-3's than you can shake a Manager prediction at. Rolling Eyes

I like the trip-elimination format simply to save lives.

Yup - if I send in my typical 9-10 guys and get back 9-10 0-1 losses, the mail-man would have to die. Horribly. Then I would cry.

Who in the hell wants that Question

I hear ya, Kat... I think I'm in similiar boat as you. At least let some of my chumps lose a couple of fights. Laughing

Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:22 pm

Thats what I appreciate about the three strikes and yer out format, as a fairly new and still learning the ropes manager I like to get my moneys worth as well. At least let me get two or three good try's in before eliminating my warrior so I can learn a little before getting whomped out. In a 10 round and out tourney if my warrior loses his first fight is he out of the tournament automatically? If so, its pointless for us lower managers to send in warriors vs guys who have culled hundreds of warriors and preened them all for the tournament, timing the star alignments (and FE) what chance does my star warrior on one of my two teams have vs these guys ? I want him to at least get a chance to learn from them ya'know what I mean?

2 coppers from Myrdin

Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:25 pm

No, you aren't out of the tournament automatically. You can still earn a TV at 8-2. If you are a newbie, it probably won't matter either way.

Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 1:37 pm

Ok so whats the difference between the two then?

Myrdin

Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 3:59 pm

In the first format, only warriors that have the best record go to the runoffs, in the second format, everyone who is uneliminated goes to the runoffs.

If you played in the last MI, that was non-triple elimination. This FtF will most likely be a triple elimination tourney, so you can see the difference.

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2003 1:22 am

You know, flukey can work in a lot of ways. First tourney ever, MI a year ago, I send off a 3 FE striker to Apprentices. It's 1-2 in the arena but it's got a 17 wit and seems to learn well. Faces a 7 FE AB first turn and gets riposted into the dirt. Turns out she's +3 decise though and the same in defense and an init. fav learner. Less FE than anyone else in the level so learns are especially good. Runs the table to finish 9-1. There were all sorts of "flukes" involved in that one. Didn't fight one TP for instance. Now there was a basher (Gamble sp?) that went 10-0. Would I have sold children into slavery for a shot at him at the end? Ummm. That's beside the point Embarassed

It would have been great to fight him and see what happened, but it was all flukes! I no more deserved to be 9-1 with that warrior than the man in the moon. But it had a real chance against a basher right at that point and depending who else made the run-off could have TC'ed. Tourney's are obviously something you can learn to do well in consistantly, but no format stops them from being heavily fluke tilted.

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2003 3:27 pm

See, that's what I mean! That's a perfect example of something that people think are flukes but aren't really a fluke. You sent a poorly timed warrior to a tournament--of course there is going to be a good chance of you losing to a 7 FE warrior. And it was a Dodge/Riposte loss--warriors lose like that all the time. Not a fluky event. If you didn't think you deserved to go that far--then the system worked because you didn't TC. Imagine the travesty it would have been if the format was triple elimination and then you continued to learn well and then TC'd at the end!

Also, you didn't match up with a TP--not a fluke. There were 35'ish Total Parries in that tournament in a field of 281. Statistically, you should have hit at least 1, but it's not that crazy that you didn't run into any others.

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:32 am

Taken individually, each thing sounds as though it could be expected. But there were more things. Was definately low on decise at the start (3 FE even though bonused) but didn't hit a faster warrior, obviously I did fight some reasonably fast guys but not until I'd caught up. Learned my first attack skill learn vs the AB (to 6 total). Hadn't thrown a crit yet by then. Second fight against a plate wearing WOS, striker starts throwing crits. Gets her weapon broken and crits with her B/U one time to win. All together, as opposed to any one of these things, it was certainly lucky. But it was part of my point that triple elimination would have rewarded me (at least with the chance to TC) for that luck. So, I agree that the luck factor isn't greatly different. It can favor you in either format. I guess I'd have to admit though, by the end of the tourney (perhaps) winning a run-off would have been as much a sign of how much improvement I'd had as anything.

Advanced Expert Poster Joined: Nov 24, 2003 Posts: 181

10 round and out allows the non-tourney manager a higher shot at "flukes". Take the Basher Gamble that Gameogre mentioned. Went 10-0 in the Appr facing 2 BA, 1 ST, 3 LU, 2 WOS, and 2 TP. The amazing thing was he outjumped all his opponents and only had 70 decise in the tourney. Not having a decise rating with a basher with piss-poor end and is very frail and not getting outjumped at all and running the table to close out with his final fight against a 'standby' is one helluva a fluke.
Could Gamble have won it in a triple elim or at a face when everyone would have known he was a basher? You never know... maybe, but probably not.
My point is this.... the single elim puts the tourney on a more level playing field and it allows the non tourney type manager a better shot at success.
RSI has already took a major step in trying to level the playing field by the new tourney classifications where it is less costly and easier for a non tourney type to prep and field a quality team. I believe you will start to see more TV's/TC's from others and less from the usual suspects.
But now I'm rambling.... so the tourney format is perfect the way it is..... triple elim at the FTF, everyother at the mailers although personally I used to prefer both mailers as non triple elim but with the advent of the new tourney classes I like it just the way it is.

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 8:37 am

I agree with Jekyll. I think that RSI has made a large step in making things more level. The class system is AWESOME. I love it. Especially for basic. I think that it'll be a big improvement. Hopefully a lot of different managers will start TVinc/TCing.

Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 8:17 pm

Managerr wrote:

Ok, I was kind of thinking about what you were saying. I can kind of see where you are coming from.

If you look at it from the standpoint from an invidual warrior--if you believe you have an 1% chance of losing any given fight no matter what, then yes, a triple elimination format is more forgiving. Being in such a format would actually increase your chance of suffering such a loss, but actually suffering one is only 1/3 as debilitating and you may be able to fight your way out of it.

I'm not sure I agree with it, and by having an elongated tourney, you increase the amount of fluky losses that happen to the number of warriors overall. But I understand it.

Wow, thank you. I was starting to believe that you and I weren't destined to agree on anything. And I definitely see some merits to single-elimination tourneys as well. In fact, I have been the fortunate recipient of TC's in that format. I just so happens that the way I design and run warriors, I WANT to be rewarded with the best TC chance possible if I design and run a top-top-quality warrior. I would reference the last Eligibles tourney as a prime example of what I was trying to say. Look at Sethra Lavode and how the tourney turned out. One unfortunate loss and a warrior who would in likelihood have TC'd just ends up being another also-ran TV.

Thank you for your post. I was starting to think you liked torturing me or something.