Round 1 Seeding

The place to discuss all that was! Visit the AdeptiCon website (www.adepticon.org) for past coverage, event results and photos!

Postby Inquisitor_Malice » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:44 am

Get your rankings right Bill. We came in 3rd. Don't you know that we have a permanent position in the Top 3 every year. :wink:

Plus we weren't clubbing baby seals (well kinda). Maybe after your first round you were clubbin' seals, but we continued on ground pounding (literally).
- Greg
User avatar
Inquisitor_Malice
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:58 pm

Postby Generalissimo_Fred » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:54 am

Hmmmm... Seeding teams doesn't seem like such a good idea unless your objective is to have a different winner each year, in that case it's ideal.
Generalissimo_Fred
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

Postby biztheclown » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:56 am

I see Shawn's concern about people trying to draw a first game so they can then spend the rest of the tourny climbing up the swiss rankings, but I don't think you could win any Adepticon tournament that way. I'm pretty sure the Swiss ranking is a solid method for determining a winner. I think that kind of thing goes on in tournaments with more rounds where it is less likely that there will be that many flawless scores.
User avatar
biztheclown
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Postby Janthkin » Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:30 pm

Jeff wrote:As Matt has mentioned, ALL tournaments at AdeptiCon had random first round seeding EXCEPT for the 40k Team Tournament. So the LoTR and Fantasy players have been spared from being INSULTED. The 40k Team Tournament is not your typical 40k single player tournament. It has different nuances than your standard RTT-style event does (using a mulligan to obtain the first turn may be an insult to your opponents, combing your Orks horde with an IG gunline may be an insult to your opponents, etc etc) The first round seeding for this year's 40k TT was done in a fashion based on overall (not Battle) points from 2007. As Matt had mentioned, you can think of it as a 2007 Overall tiebreaker round. As such, it is very likely the team (if you were a returning team) was one you did not play last year (hence, no grudge matches) and was also on the same "level" as your team. Hopefully, this would have made for a good game to start off the event for returning attendees. Would it have been a challenging game? Quite likely. A fun game? Hopefully! And that is what the event is really about. Having fun with toy soldiers. Does it give returning teams a disadvantage and new teams an advantage? Possibly. But then again, if you look at the 2006, 2007, and 2008 final standings (which were all seeded this way), you'll see a lot of familiar faces at the top. As always, we'll definitely take AdeptiCon players' feedback into consideration for future events to improve them.

PS: Changing your team name (i.e. Two Tau One Cup, Codex Toldeo, etc) would not have helped you. I track stats at the player level.


We matched up against Casus Belli in round one. They're great guys, and we greatly enjoy playing them; I don't think we played a single game that was more enjoyable (though the inexplicable ability to roll saves on their TMCs probably helped that). And we would be happy to play them again...if the scores are there to make it happen.

As Bill (kinda) noted, our day essentially went from HARD to easy, even as we climbed back up into the top 5. The quantitative result (overall placement) is very similar to 2007, but the qualitative process of achieving the result was, frankly, a little odd for a Swiss-style tournament.

You've got better access to the data, Jeff - can you see any trends in how the top 10 teams progressed through the rounds (and what became of our, say, round 2 & 3 opponents?). I'm just not sure if the round 1 seeding is accomplishing what you're expecting it to.

*edit: Also, "Hi Jeff!" I have zero complaints about the team tourney, and certainly don't want to criticize; you guys did an absolutely fantastic job. But this one thing stuck in my mind, and I thought it worth discussing. Not sure where the "ranking by skill == insult" thing entered the conversation....
Last edited by Janthkin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Janthkin
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:14 pm

Postby Janthkin » Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:33 pm

biztheclown wrote:I see Shawn's concern about people trying to draw a first game so they can then spend the rest of the tourny climbing up the swiss rankings, but I don't think you could win any Adepticon tournament that way. I'm pretty sure the Swiss ranking is a solid method for determining a winner. I think that kind of thing goes on in tournaments with more rounds where it is less likely that there will be that many flawless scores.


The Team Tournament is (effectively) an 8-round tournament. Very few teams go undefeated (have any?), and an 8-0-0 record isn't mandatory to achieve general (or even overall success) - Dakka Detachment One is 6-1-1 for each of our 3 years, with consistent finishes very near the top (both in battle points and overall).

I don't think anyone has tried to game the system to this degree, but it's an interesting theoretical puzzle. I think the round to throw is probably round 2, though, rather than round 1.
Janthkin
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:14 pm

Postby Centurian99 » Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:36 pm

AdeptiCon's scoring system means that an 8-0-0 record isn't exactly accurate. Having multiple objectives (primary/secondary/tertiary) means that it becomes tough to define exactly what is a "win".

As far as I know, no team has actually ever gotten max battle points since the pri/sec/ter system was put in place.
Centurian99
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:59 pm

Postby Rhysk » Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:56 pm

My comment on this is such:

Round one Casus Belli matched up against Dakka Detach 1. We had a great game on somewhat Titanic proportions, that ended abruptly with a general shortage of time. All in all classy opponents, challenging game, and reasonably balanced outcome on the table. However, it seemed a bit anti-climactic to have this match-up in the first round. The NCAA tournaments don't start by matching up Kansas and Memphis, they end that way. My next three games were fun, but vastly one-sided in most cases and no where near as nail-bitting as the first round. This is not to judge the quality of the players as all were fairly nice guys, just the first round overshadowed the rest of the day for me personally.

My preference would be to see these types of match-ups in rounds 3 and 4 not round one. Perhaps after the first two rounds, begin to rank teams by overall points earned instead of just battle. Is it possible that the teams most likely to finish near the top will have seperated themselves when considering battle and soft scores? In essence you would have 4 rounds (2x2) of battle scores and all the soft scores in by the start of rnd 3. Going to a total points scored swiss match-up at that point should produce the desired match-ups, at least in my mind. Thoughts?
Rhysk
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:27 am
Location: Mil-Town Baby!

Postby Generalissimo_Fred » Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:52 pm

Chris has a good point. I would just like to add that if the goal of seeding the top teams is to prevent a lower ability team from being randomly creamed in the first round, what's to prevent the losing top team from randomly creaming a lower ability team in round 2?
Generalissimo_Fred
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

Postby blood angel » Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:18 pm

I think the reasoning that it helps jump start the tournament with a supposedly very difficult game isn't too bad.

There was speculation that this type of paring going on and I'm 50/50 on it.

Doesn't matter if you like it or not 'someone' always draws the guy/team who wins in the first round.

Of course it also takes some of the drama out of the finale. Being a completely unknown team in 06 it was nice facing the champs from the previous year in round 4.
blood angel
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:30 pm

Postby Ed » Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:57 am

Jeff wrote:PS: Changing your team name (i.e. Two Tau One Cup, Codex Toldeo, etc) would not have helped you. I track stats at the player level.


Crafty Jeff is always one step ahead of me. :(

The "insult" line of thinking is going way over the line.

Ed
Ed
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:08 am

Postby Primarch » Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:47 pm

I can assure you, 2 Oblit was not clubbing any baby seals in round four at Adepticon 2007...or Adepticon 2006, they played us in back to back years in that round.



Clay
Primarch
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:16 pm

Postby Chubs » Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:34 pm

About -pre tournement rank, I'm all for it. I'm also a fan of posting these match up prior... at least top 10. Seriously, I'd like to see the top teams know who they are going against (but not what the teams are playing).

I know this would be a difficult task, but doing it for the Gladiator might not be a bad idea. It's the big show for the best players, Hell, make them work for it!

No More Seals! No More Seals! No More Seals!
The handsome face of 2T1C
User avatar
Chubs
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:06 am
Location: Libertyville

Postby Nidzilla517 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:06 pm

The only problem I have seen is that you place a highly ranked "known" general against a newcomer, like myself, and the game is not fun. YEah, it is a tournament where guys want to win, but I think the 1st round should be a positioning round. A feeling out round persay. new guys do get luck soome times, but why GIVE the experienced one a FREE ride in game one? I am sure I am going to get alot of, it's a tournament and you shouldn't be there if your not experienced. But, What happened to keeping the game FUN? That is what the new rules are going after...keeping the games fun. I like the challenge of playing guys better than me, but why give the great players free rides?
This Bugs For You !!!!!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Nidzilla517
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:34 pm
Location: Alien Nation, USA

Postby Nidzilla517 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:08 pm

Centurian99 wrote:If I could add my 2 cents:

2007 Rankings: Top 4
1 - Checkmate
2 - 2 Oblit/Saim Heinous/Glance
3 - Dakka Detachment 1
4 - Casus Belli

Said four teams play each other in round 1 of 2008, 1 v 2, 3 v 4

2008 rankings:
3 - Checkmate
4 - 2 Oblit/Saim Heinous/Glance
5 - Dakka Detachment 1
6 - Casus Belli

So essentially what happened is that our four teams spent rounds 2-4 clubbing baby seals.


Exactly...And we were one of the seals...
This Bugs For You !!!!!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Nidzilla517
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:34 pm
Location: Alien Nation, USA

Postby Centurian99 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:23 pm

Now, I don't want to offend anybody. And I'm not saying that this year's winners didn't deserve it, or anything like that. Da Boyz and We Piss FN Excellence performed excellently and deserve everyone's kudos.

My problem with pre-seeding isn't that it results in the preseeded teams clubbing baby seals rounds 2-4. My problem is that it allows for the chance of a new, strong team that just hasn't performed well before (ex. This years 1 & 2, who have both greatly improved their performance from previous years, or last year's 5th place team, Craftworld 40K Fight Club, who took fifth in their first year at AdeptiCon), to have a much greater chance of NOT running into strong opposition in the early rounds. Whereas with preseeding, that result is guaranteed.

Essentially, the preseeded teams are being penalized because they did well in previous years. If you're doing well, you expect to have some tough games in the second half of the tournament. But everyone hopes that their early matchups aren't quite as cutthroat.

We all know that actually winning a Tournament in 40K has a lot to do with matchups. Had my stealer shock run into a Destroyer heavy necron list in the Gladiator, I would not have won.

If you're a top-tier team (and I classify any team in the top 10 as contenders) different matchups could easily have resulted in a different outcome. Any given Sunday and all that. If everyone starts out from the same random pairings, then nobody really has any room to complain.

But when you single out several teams because of their past performance, you're starting them off on a much tougher road.

I'll admit there's an element of self-interest here that could even be classified as hypocrisy. Jeff's been preseeding for years, having the previous year's champions face off against the champions from two years ago. This year, I believe he expanded it further down the the roster. Totally his choice as tournament organizer.

And it may be a contributing reason why the TT has never had a repeat champion, which I believe is also a good thing. And it does kind of stick it to the idea that AdeptiCon is biased in favor of AdeptiCon vets, which I also like.

I just think it would be fairer to have every team start out from the same randomized playing field. Like I said, its definitely in my self-interest to say so, since my team (Dakka Detachment One) has definitely thrown its hat into the "Bridesmaids" competition.
Centurian99
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to AdeptiCon 2008

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron