Re: USA Supertournament [128 Tournaments - 12-13-17]
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:30 pm
Dukasaur wrote:
I liked your idea, but I took it a step further: I just eliminated Round 3 entirely, and moved the others up. Round 3, after all, was the bastard child of the original Round 5, which was supposed to have been a team game but became impossible due to autotourney limitations. I was never completely happy with what I replaced it with, and it finally occurred to me, after reading your thoughts there, that it no longer serves any real purpose and can be cut outright.
Starting with Week 24 (Mississippi) the new progression is:
Round 1 (2 Points per Game): Seeded by Score, 3 Games, 2 Player Standard
Round 2 (3 Points per Game): 24 Start, Seeded by Score, 2 Player Poly (3)
Round 3 (4 Points per Game): 24 Start, Random Draw, 2 Player Poly (4)
Round 4 (5 Points per Game): 24 Start, Seeded by Score, 4 Player Standard
Round 5 (7 Points per Game): 24 Start, Seeded by Score, 6 Player Terminator
Round 6 (8 Points per Game): 24 Start, Seeded by Score, 8 Player Assassin
The points-per-game steadily increase, and the size of the games steadily increases, with all the two-player games in the first half. This should much reduce the effect of deadbeats (they have a lot less effect in a 6- or 8- player game than in a 2-player game). In keeping with djelebert's idea, I made the second poly round randomly seeded, but kept the first poly round seeded by score.
Could this cause a problem with the final standings in that the second half of the weeks have one less round than the first half?
I'm also wondering about the random draw for the one poly round. It seems that positions do have the possibility and potential to change in the first couple of rounds, rather than the person in first place staying there for every round. djelebert asked about it based off of a week 1 Alabama tournament - before any of the changes to the rounds were made. I haven't seen as much of a problem with deadbeats giving unfair points in the poly rounds since the rounds were restructured - mainly because everyone is still there. I think that makes it not just unnecessary to need a random draw, but makes it unfair to those who had been doing well, as something like this could happen: 1 v 2, 3 v 24, 22 v 23, etc. Possibly a rare/extreme example, but that could move those from the bottom up to the top and those from the top down to the bottom in one round.