c4countdown

The inaugural (I believe) team event that will take place will (hopefully) run between 03 September 2012 and 14 October 2012 for 6 weeks. I am aiming for any number up to 64. It is important that there is an even number of participants otherwise I will have to intervene.

The point of having an even number of participants is so that they will be randomly split into 2 teams (Red and Blue unless I can think of anything better). The team with the most points wins.

Points system:
Winner: 12 points
Runner up: 10 points
Semi-Finalists: 8 points each
Quarter-Finalists: 5 points each
Round of 16: 1 point each
Round of 32/64: 0 points.

Par exemple, if Persons A and B are the only people left on the Red Team and persons C & D are on the blue team. A & C are drawn to play in the semi final and A wins, and B beats D as well, then A beats B in the final, Reds would have 22 points from the semi final and final and the Blues would have 16.


Tourney name_________Aptoteam 2012
Dictionary ____________English
Variant_______________Normal
Format_______________9 rounder
Start date ____________03 September 2012
End date_____________ 14 October 2012
Matches______________All best of 1.
Notes________________Straight knockout
Provisional dates______ R64/Qualifiers: 3 Sep - 9 Sep; R32: 10 Sep - 16 Sep; R16: 17 Sep - 23 Sep; QF: 24 Sep - 30 Sep SF: 1 Oct - 7 Oct; Final: 8 Oct - 14 Oct. All matches up to and including SF stage will be decided by random draw, aside from the R32 (or R64 if there are that many people)

So people can end up playing their own team mates? :/

Yeah... Couldn't find a way around it without removing that "random" aspect of it. Of course, if it gets out of hand then I'll remove this randomisation.

Provisionally I quite like this idea, but I think people should get at least point for being in the last 32. Also, participants from the top 25 of Pro Ranks should be evenly split between teams to prevent a Goliath team - this would also (hopefully) limit the number of team mates playing each other. Though, could you not split the team mates into two pots and THEN pick randomly from each pot to set up the draw? This might not work if there are 4 Team Red players in the semis, but would work well for the earlier stages.

Great idea Jen. Was (seriously) about to change it to something like that but I have to say that I'd overlooked the Pro Ranks stuff. Have been pondering all afternoon about it but when we get to a stage where, for example, there are 14 red players and 2 blue players left, I'll remove the "separate pots" stuff.

Aimez-vous il?

Apologies for my negativity but I don't like this idea.

For a "team tournament" it really seems to lack a team mentality - it seems more like doing a straightforward knock-out tournament, but then, as a whimsical afterthought, assigning a player to one of two teams and seeing which half of the players generally did better. There'd therefore be very little sense of being part of a team, and because of this, I don't think the format is interesting enough to bring a decent level of participation. As mentioned above, the fact you can play and knock out your own team-mates further detracts from this team perspective, which would be particularly silly if someone is put into a position where (s)he wouldn't want to compete to their full ability in the game because of playing against a higher-rated team mate (that is, a position where it would be better for the team, in general, if the weaker player didn't try to cause an upset as the stronger player has a better chance to go further).

I think this scoring system is more complex than it needs to be - why not just say one point is gained for each round progressed? In my opinion at least, you've tried too hard with it, and a simple approach would have more welcome. It would also be easier to keep track of results and standings if things were done in that way.

I'm also confused by you choosing 9 rounder, when most people prefer 15 rounds. 9 rounder is only really the better option when it's one of those double elimination tournaments (the ones that Marcus does, for example) and we have to speed up the lower bracket so that the scheduling doesn't become too unsynchronised (e.g. the guy who wins all his games is waiting for an eternity for the lower bracket to finish up). I guess your logic behind 9R might have been so that both players have an equal amount of numbers round selections, which I guess is fair enough, but even so, the longer format is generally considered the correct choice when there is no such urgency to complete the games.

There are better ideas available for a team-based tournament in my opinion, which I guess I'd be happy to share.

Edit:

Also, participants from the top 25 of Pro Ranks should be evenly split between teams to prevent a Goliath team - this would also (hopefully) limit the number of team mates playing each other.

Stuff like this.

Yep, sounds good Rhys.

I like the idea of 9 rounders because there's more potential for shock victories, which would be pretty cool in this sort of competition IMO. Will be interesting to see what others think though.

I have 5 in now.

In. Where do you sign up?

Thomas Carey wrote:In. Where do you sign up?

http://www.apterous.org/to_tourney.php?tourney=62

Bumpey-bumpety-bumpety-bump.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Bumpey-bumpety-bumpety-bump.

Priorities, child.

You do realise lots of people have signed up via Apterous, don't you?

Matt Morrison wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Bumpey-bumpety-bumpety-bump.

Priorities, child.

Have been hovering around apterous but Charlie's not showing at all.