IMHO what would be quite interesting to do, would be to simulate a whole series of countdown on apterous, with a randomly generated order of play, and see what happens. I don't think the guys with the highest ratings would necessarily run away it.
Andrew Hulme tm.
I would love to do this. Probably starting after the Apterous Masters. Fairly simple idea, start with two challengers and continue like the series would do with the winner staying on until they lose or win 8 games. Culminating eventually in a series finals.
Please declare an interest and ask useful questions!
I'd play in this, and can provide any technical assistance you might need. Are you going to separate the big hitters at all, as they allegedly do on the show?
Sounds like fun! And I'd sure like to give it a try if it goes ahead.
The organisation could be tricky, though, and not just in who goes where. It's often difficult to pin down opponents to a time for apterous tournaments. So, if one game had to be held before the next one could, and so on and so on, instead of a group of games every week, all the participants would have to be very sure of their availability.
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me." Benjamin Disraeli
Julie T wrote:Sounds like fun! And I'd sure like to give it a try if it goes ahead.
The organisation could be tricky, though, and not just in who goes where. It's often difficult to pin down opponents to a time for apterous tournaments. So, if one game had to be held before the next one could, and so on and so on, instead of a group of games every week, all the participants would have to be very sure of their availability.
I think you have to give people a 2 day window in which to play their game and then knock them out if they don't turn up, or it'll turn into a farce a la the Countdown league.
Julie T wrote:Sounds like fun! And I'd sure like to give it a try if it goes ahead.
The organisation could be tricky, though, and not just in who goes where. It's often difficult to pin down opponents to a time for apterous tournaments. So, if one game had to be held before the next one could, and so on and so on, instead of a group of games every week, all the participants would have to be very sure of their availability.
I think you have to give people a 2 day window in which to play their game and then knock them out if they don't turn up, or it'll turn into a farce a la the Countdown league.
Seems like a fair solution, as long as you only knock out the one of the pair (if it is only one) who doesn't turn up. Presumably what you meant, anyway.
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me." Benjamin Disraeli
I've thought about this idea before and the main problem I thought of was - what's in it for the last few contestants who can't get enough wins to make the quarters or will there definitely be another series?
Gavin Chipper wrote:I've thought about this idea before and the main problem I thought of was - what's in it for the last few contestants who can't get enough wins to make the quarters or will there definitely be another series?
Or you could automatically give the person who wins the last heat the 8th seed place if they haven't got enough wins to be seeded already. Obviously it's a bit generous to the last few players but I think it's better than leaving them hanging.
Gavin Chipper wrote:I've thought about this idea before and the main problem I thought of was - what's in it for the last few contestants who can't get enough wins to make the quarters or will there definitely be another series?
I think so GC. If we get right to the end it will have gone well and therefore we'll do it all again.
Would there be a lottery to decide who plays when, or would it be on a first come first served basis?
Or will Apterous have its own version of Damo to decide.
If in Normal Countdown, there is around 110 contestants per series, which is the number of different players who played yesterday. Since there will probably be less than 110 people playing, might it be a good idea to reduce the number of wins for 'octochampdom' since if there are only 40 people, you might only get 5 people winning all the games, which kinda defeats the point of the idea of it.
Oliver Garner wrote:Since there will probably be less than 110 people playing, might it be a good idea to reduce the number of wins for 'octochampdom' since if there are only 40 people, you might only get 5 people winning all the games, which kinda defeats the point of the idea of it.
I think that Ollie's raised one of the most interesting questions. For a conventional series, to fill the finals with octochamps takes 64 games, which is just over half of the total number of preliminaries. That "just over half" ratio seems to work well, and it might be sensible to try to repeat it in this competition. With a lot fewer entrants, that "just over half" ratio could be achieve in two ways, reduce the number of finalists to four (as was done on one of the short tv series), or as has been discussed, reduce the number of wins before retiring to six, or even lower - the actual number could be determined once the total number of entrants has been confirmed.
Another question regards the position of the winner of the final preliminary. Giving that person the number eight seed place seems very unfair on the person who would otherwise have come eighth. I'd favour copying the tv series, and carrying over their number of wins to the start of the next series.
If it runs for four series, could we then have a COC?
There's one way in which this competition will not be able to emulate the tv programme, and that is in the balance of quality. Ours will definitely be top-heavy. And so, in order to redress the balance just a little bit, I'll put myself forward as cannon fodder.
Howard Somerset wrote:Sounds like an intriguing idea.
I think that Ollie's raised one of the most interesting questions. For a conventional series, to fill the finals with octochamps takes 64 games, which is just over half of the total number of preliminaries. That "just over half" ratio seems to work well, and it might be sensible to try to repeat it in this competition. With a lot fewer entrants, that "just over half" ratio could be achieve in two ways, reduce the number of finalists to four (as was done on one of the short tv series), or as has been discussed, reduce the number of wins before retiring to six, or even lower - the actual number could be determined once the total number of entrants has been confirmed.
Another question regards the position of the winner of the final preliminary. Giving that person the number eight seed place seems very unfair on the person who would otherwise have come eighth. I'd favour copying the tv series, and carrying over their number of wins to the start of the next series.
If it runs for four series, could we then have a COC?
There's one way in which this competition will not be able to emulate the tv programme, and that is in the balance of quality. Ours will definitely be top-heavy. And so, in order to redress the balance just a little bit, I'll put myself forward as cannon fodder.
But they did have the same octochamp system with the 3-month series as well. And I don't think it was too bad like that.
If Howard's willing to put himself forward as cannon fodder, I'm prepared to join him. I've been meaning to figure out how to play the letters on Apterous sometime.
Gavin Chipper wrote:But they did have the same octochamp system with the 3-month series as well. And I don't think it was too bad like that.
If you imagine chopping a recent series in half, the effect would be that players who've won perhaps 2 games with high scores would probably make the finals. No problem with that of course - it would just be different. The important thing is that the big hitters would still be coming through at the same rate, whereas in the Apterous simulation they could easily crush the life out of everyone else.
Perhaps those who wish to register leave a mobile number, when it's their turn to play, a text is generated automatically and they get say an hour to log in and start - saves others waiting for them to play?
Perhaps those who wish to register leave a mobile number, when it's their turn to play, a text is generated automatically and they get say an hour to log in and start - saves others waiting for them to play?
Surely not everyone is available to be called upon at any given hour?
I've already said I'm in, but I'm tempted to wait for a second series, as I don't want to shoot my entertainment bolt early as it were. Let's see what numbers are looking like...
The whole draw so far has been done. We are going all out. Octochamps et al
We'll see if it works well. I will announce one week at a time and we will work our way through. If people back out of playing, they will be eliminated forever.
Good luck all.
---------------------------
Opening Match
Oliver Garner vs Charlie Reams
Challengers in order
Ryan Taylor
Jon O'Neill
Innis Carson
Sue Sanders
No great rush to play the games especially with Jono still in the Masters but the path has begun and is in fact opened.
I already asked to be included, then was too lazy to check whether i had, so did again here, then checked anyway and saw i had, so now have ended up typing this here instead. Don't mind me, i don't mind myself.
Last edited by Andy Wilson on Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The whole draw so far has been done. We are going all out. Octochamps et al
We'll see if it works well. I will announce one week at a time and we will work our way through. If people back out of playing, they will be eliminated forever.
Good luck all.
---------------------------
Opening Match
Oliver Garner vs Charlie Reams
Challengers in order
Ryan Taylor
Jon O'Neill
Innis Carson
Sue Sanders
No great rush to play the games especially with Jono still in the Masters but the path has begun and is in fact opened.
Right so I assume it isn't seeded then? Good luck Charlie, you might just need it!!
Just thinking, giving that there's a finite pool of us available for such a thing as thing, it would be difficult to run this a second time unless repeat entries were allowed.
Ian Volante wrote:Just thinking, giving that there's a finite pool of us available for such a thing as thing, it would be difficult to run this a second time unless repeat entries were allowed.
Ian Volante wrote:Just thinking, giving that there's a finite pool of us available for such a thing as thing, it would be difficult to run this a second time unless repeat entries were allowed.
