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 Redbeard » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:24 pm

Nidzilla517 wrote: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?


Consider the alternative. Let's say you rank the top players from last year, and match them up against each other. In the gladiator, if you don't win by a lot every single round, you cannot win. So, if you match all the top players against each other in round one, you basically watch them elminate each other from contention because they're not going to give up a big win.

Two years ago, I got the unlucky matchup of playing Bill Kim in round one. It knocked both of us out of the running for that tournament. I dunno how he did after that round, but I know I got three massacres following the first-round tie and was about 15-20 points off the lead at the end. Having to play top players in the early rounds has a very good chance of eliminating both players.

Is that desirable? That the "good" players knock each other out of the running in the first round, so that the "not good" players can have fun games?

I don't think so. I think that, in a tournament, round one has to be random. If you happen to draw the "good" players in round one, so be it. That's the luck of the draw. But planning it to deliberately give anyone a hard (or easy) matchup in the first round is a disservice to the concept of the tournament. The gladiator is not about "fun" it's about winning. That's the whole point of the event.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby Centurian99 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:30 pm

Redbeard wrote:Two years ago, I got the unlucky matchup of playing Bill Kim in round one. It knocked both of us out of the running for that tournament. I dunno how he did after that round, but I know I got three massacres following the first-round tie and was about 15-20 points off the lead at the end. Having to play top players in the early rounds has a very good chance of eliminating both players.


I remember that game. Came down to that last whiffed massacre roll that essentially made it a draw. (I think you got primary, I got secondary and tertiary, IIRC). Followed it up with 2 massacres and a loss.

Like you said, luck of the random pairing and the Swiss System gods.

Great game, though.
Centurian99
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:59 pm

Postby Blackmoor » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:31 pm

I think the point is that it is better to club baby seals in round #1 and have the good teams separate and play games against other winners in rounds 2-4 that are their equal in points standings and ability.

If they play the tough game in round #1 that means that round 2 is where they club the baby seals, and rounds 3-4 are working their way back to the top through armies that are not at the top in battle points.

As said before, Dakka Dakka had its hardest game in round #1 against Casus Belli, and games #3 and #4 were the easiest in the tournament.
Blackmoor
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:15 pm

Postby Loarde » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:56 pm

Pre-seating should never be done. It reduces the chances of top rated players having to face that guy with an army that looks like it was painted with crayons, who then kicks you in the pants in sportsmanship because you crushed him. Lets face it, "Top Ten Players" don't act like that. If they get to keep playing each other Their soft scores will always be higher. I say cast them into the cess-pool of baby seals, maybe one of them might just get clubbed back. As a side note, one of the worst days of my pathetic 40K life was when I got trounced by one of those top players, and the overheard them later talking about how they just "Whopped a puppy". I know it supposed to be all in fun, but I wasn't laughing.
Loarde
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:30 am

Postby flatlanderboss » Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:35 am

Bloid volunteers to be a baby harp seal in 2009.
"How many of the armies here were painted by you guys?"

"Enough."
flatlanderboss
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:15 am
Location: Towanda, IL

Postby langstraad » Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:20 am

I support the preseeding for a simple reason:

Prevents continuous repeat winners. There are some players who are really good. Without a preseeding scheme the same names would appear in the winners circle every year. Look at the consistency of the winners WITH preseeding. Without it we can hand out the trophy at the beginning and all go play pick up games.

If you claw your way to the top and win an Adepticon event, congratulations! The next time will not be as easy. There will not be a string of fortunate matchups to help. You'll start hitting the heavy bag round one. If you make it to the top a second time you really are the man. The preseeding system allows champions to differentiate between themselves. A one time winner is great, a second time winner is a different level of player.

For Adepticon to continuing to be a draw there cannot be a "champion six years in a row". I think the above constitute several reasons for keeping and possibly adverstising the preseeding scheme.

I support Jeff's monkey kung-fu to keep Adepticon alive.
"We are going to play this game the way Erik Lange would, vicious and cruel, even the women and children must die" - Barry

"You ask the stupidest questions on AWC" -Turtle
langstraad
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Behind You!

Postby Redbeard » Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:52 am

Yes, it does prevent repeat winners. So, what should those 'good' teams/players do? If they do well one year, why even play the next as they know the deck is stacked against them.

You make it sounds like the goal is to ensure that different people have a chance to win the prizes. That's BS in my book (and, that's speaking as someone who hasn't won a major prize). In no other competition that I'm aware of are the odds actually designed to have the best competators knock each other out early so that someone not as good has a chance to win. Look at tournament seeding in all professional sports. They don't match the two teams with the best records up to play first - that's ludicrous.

We're not commies, and the nature of a tournament isn't about eveyone buying a ticket and then distributing a prize to someone who hasn't won yet because that's "fair". It's about competing on an even playing field in an attempt to determine who the best player is.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby Primarch » Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:22 am

Well, a true seeding system would have the very best team from the year before playing the worst team in the tournament. Of course there are too many unknowns for that kind of thing, but still.


The first year of Adepticon, we finished 6th, and played 2 Oblit in the 4th round and got beat naturally. We didnt have a clue on how to design our armies to take advantage of Adepticon missions. We had a 1k Sons player that had 2 scoring units in his 1,000 point list, TWO. So we handicapped ourselves. Even though we were brand new to Adepticon, i'm fairly sure Greg remembers that round and can say they didnt "club" anyone in that round.


My point is, even though the top teams(i consider us to be in this section now) are going to finish in the top 10 most every year, the seeding system would not change that. The good players will most likely split, or draw in round 1, and then play "down" the rest of the tournament till about round 4.


I certainly would love an NCAA type seeding system, but you would have to know alot more about each team. It's just not possible, but the way the guys have been doing it seems to work. I say dont mess with success.



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

Postby Inquisitor Marronovich » Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:21 am

If you don't like the concept of luck of the draw, you shouldn't be playing a game that relies so much on dice.

You have an entire year to pick a list, and get good at it. Practice until all of your friends won't play your list, then change GW stores and beat up on strangers.

This baby seal is going to be packing a plasma pistol / power fist / & melta bomb for next year.

Pre-seeding blows, let people earn their way to the top 10. If you are worried about getting your ass kicked in the first round, you probably shouldn't be playing in tournaments. Have fun, but if you are taking a beating (I received many over the Adepticon weekend), with luck the guy (er... person) across the table will be mature enough not to rub your nose in it.

Pete
The Emperor protects those who protect themselves.
User avatar
Inquisitor Marronovich
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:47 am
Location: SW Chicago area

Postby langstraad » Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:36 am

Well, Redbeard, Adepticon is not your sandbox. Domination of the winner's circle is not a good thing for continued growth. As it would be unfair to tell winner's they can't win next year the next best thing is seeding.

A strong arguement can be made that winning is a combination of chance and preparation. The dice gods smiled on you and your matchups were favorable AND you are a top notch player.

If you want to win a second time your going to prove that you can swing the big stick no matter what. Your going to get stuck with a heavy hitter first round.

Basically you feel that a championship should have the same cost every time. Adepticon is telling you that the cost of your first championship will not be the same as the cost of your second championship. That is not socialism. Asking that all championships have the same cost is... And if you say a second championship is no different than the first then why does this thread exist? Because everyone wants that second championship, its worth more than the first and Adepticon is going to make it cost more.

Apparently the talent to win one championship is in abundance. After all someone will win, if 380 drunken monkey's showed up there would still be a champion. The one thing not demonstrated is that there is talent out there that can close the deal twice.

You want to impress me with your championship? Win a second one.

Quitters don't win, winners don't quit and whining to dumb down the process isn't impressing anyone.

If you want to stand on top of the hill twice you will need to drill Casus Belli followed by spanking Dakka Detachment handily.

I personally like the price differentiation of Adepticon Championships produced by seeding. There is a certain elegance to it.
"We are going to play this game the way Erik Lange would, vicious and cruel, even the women and children must die" - Barry

"You ask the stupidest questions on AWC" -Turtle
langstraad
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Behind You!

Postby Redbeard » Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:21 pm

langstraad wrote:Well, Redbeard, Adepticon is not your sandbox.


I don't understand the point to this sentence. Adepticon is no one's sandbox. Are you saying that I do not have a right to post my opinion on this matter? I don't recall making any demands, I have merely expressed an opinion.

This has been, until now, a civil discussion. Now you are throwing around inflamatory words like "whining". Should I bother to take your post seriously, or are you trolling?

Adepticon is telling you...


I didn't realize this decision had already been made. If it has, why is this thread not locked?

I personally like the price differentiation of Adepticon Championships produced by seeding. There is a certain elegance to it.


That's fine, that's a civil sentence, and you are welcome to your opinion.

I personally like how, in the Superbowl, the best two teams meet in the championship. There's an elegance to that too. Adepticon could use information from prior years to seed the tournament like the NCAA does for their March Madness tournament, pitting the top team from one year against the bottom team from the prior year, and so on, ensuring that the final round would see two top teams facing each other for the title. That would be elegant too.

I don't understand this "protect the weak" mentality. The so-called baby-seals who need to have their mommys at the tournament to make sure they don't have to face quality opposition. Name one other competative field where this happens. It doesn't. It's either random-draw the whole way though (like the Olypmics) or seeded specifically so that strong plays weak first (like all professional sport playoffs).

Baseball has been around for over 100 years. The NFL is heading on 90. The Olympics have existed for over 100 years. They've all apparently figured out that it's better to end with the dramatic matchups, rather than begin with them. It's not that difficult a concept.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby Centurian99 » Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:05 pm

I never complained when it was just champions from one year facing the champions from the year before. After all, the NFL itself would prefer that no one team becomes dominant (i.e. Yankees).

I'm wondering why the preseeding was expanded this year? Sure, my team won best tacticians a few years ago, but we've never won the overall. Only three teams present this year had won previous overalls - and only one of those teams was the same four players as the year that they won.

If Hank retires from Casus Belli next year and hands the reins over to Chris, should Casus Belli still be penalized?

In general, I dislike the idea of preseeding top performers. But I can see where some preseeding might be a good thing...but then again, nothing stops those matchups from occuring in round 3 or 4, if the team's performance warrants it. I'd argue that those matchups should happen then, and will be all the more dramatic for doing so.

B
Centurian99
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:59 pm

Postby Matthias » Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:20 pm

Bill - I am in general agreement with the final part of your post. I still believe the biggest problem for seeding in a team tournament is the changing nature of the teams themselves. *IF* we had 4 people attached at the hip and dedicated to playing the tournament for years in a row, then this might start to be feasible idea, but when a team returns with only one or two members from the year previously it becomes muddied and confused.

Jeff tracked team performace on a player level and the team tournament seeding for this year was set up to be as if it was the 5th round of the 2007 TT. Combine those two things and the matchups are no longer so black and white.

Overall I think there are merits to both sides of the arguement and in the end it is a difficult call for many people. Moving forward, I'd tend to error on the side of caution and that side feels like random seeding to me. It is a more transparent system which I think is the correct direction for AdeptiCon to move in.
User avatar
Matthias
Techpriest
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby langstraad » Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:21 pm

Based on the statements in this thread there are people who are champions who have found that the primary obstacle to their second championship is other former champions...

In order to increase their chances of winning a second championship they would like to stop playing each other first round at Adepticon (seeding).


Casus Belli should always be penalized. Everytime one of their pointy Tyranid figs is removed from play one of the Casus Belli team should have to shove it into his pants and carry all casualties there until the end of the game or when they pass out from bleeding. Whichever comes first.
:D
"We are going to play this game the way Erik Lange would, vicious and cruel, even the women and children must die" - Barry

"You ask the stupidest questions on AWC" -Turtle
langstraad
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Behind You!

Postby Zero_Cool » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:38 pm

langstraad wrote:Based on the statements in this thread there are people who are champions who have found that the primary obstacle to their second championship is other former champions...

In order to increase their chances of winning a second championship they would like to stop playing each other first round at Adepticon (seeding).


I do not believe anyone is asking to increase their chances of winning, they are asking NOT to have them potentially decreased by non-random pairings with other top competitors. If teams such as those listed above, CB, DD1, Checkmate, whatever Greg Sparks' team name this year, get randomly paired against each other in the first round then so be it. If not then they may end up playing in later rounds depending on their record that day. Everyone should have the same chance of winning and this can only be done through random pairings in round 1.

Or from another perspective - Is my chance winning the tourny better because I am not a "seeded/top team" and therefor know that I will not have to face teams like CB, DD1 and the others in the first round. As unlikely as it may be, with a random first round I could play CB in round 1, DD1 in round 2, Checkmate in round 3 followed by Greg & Co. in round 4 - how about that for a tough road to win a championship. Now seed these teams together in the first round and they are all removed from my potential opponents list for game #1, half of them are gone from game #2 (that is if I win my first game). That's 2 games in a 4 game tourny that I will likely not have to face a "top team". Does this increase my chance as a TT rookie or non-seed?

As Matthias has said, for Adepticon the best option will be to error on the side of caution. Pre-seeding of only some of the teams brings with it the potential that some folks will feel unfairly treated or that others were provided an easier road to the championships because they were not seeded and had a free/easy game in round 1. I believe that everyone is trying to come up with ideas to make the event better and better each year and to help eliminate any negative feelings that some participants may have. IMO Random pairings will prevent anyone feeling they had "special" (good or bad) treatment in the event.
Zero_Cool
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to AdeptiCon 2008

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron