TLO 2009 II [Winners: Hot TOFU with Pedro Sauce]

[Chariot of Fire]

Kind words SB....thanks mate

If you can just get that last quads game now guys, that would be quite something to bow-out of TLO with. gl

[brian fletcher]

What can i say that hasn't already been said?

Congrats on MVP, COF! Well earned for leading such a great team.

Lindax. Excellently run tournament. You've now set such a high benchmark for multi-team tournaments, that there are going to be many more who want to be in the next one. I predict 25 teams minimum which could well mean 2 divisions. I know we in FOED are hoping to enter 3 teams next time.

[Lindax]

Lindax. Excellently run tournament. You've now set such a high benchmark for multi-team tournaments, that there are going to be many more who want to be in the next one. I predict 25 teams minimum which could well mean 2 divisions. I know we in FOED are hoping to enter 3 teams next time.

Good point brian. Right now I already have more than 24 teams interested in the next version, TLO 2010. And I'll have to put it up for public sign-up as well, so there could be more.

I have some ideas and will send the interested teams a pm soon to get some feedback.

Lx

[Lindax]

----
While we're waiting for the last 5 games to finish, I figured I'd throw some options your way for TLO 2010 since it looks like we'll have quite a few more teams. Please let me know what option you would prefer. I would also like to know if your team would NOT participate when we use one of the options below. I don't want to turn this into a public discussion, just looking for a bit of feedback before I decide what format to use if we get many more teams. Feel free to simpy PM me your preferences.

Option A:

Keep the same format as before.

Pro: every team plays every other team in one league.

Contra: takes a long time (over a year with 24 to 28 teams).


Option B1:

Divide the teams into two groups. In each group every team plays every other team and we have one ranking. Number 1 in the ranking at the end wins the tournament.

Pro: does not take as long as option A (6 to 7 months with 24 to 28 teams).

Contra: not every team plays every other team.


Option B2:

Divide the teams into two groups. In each group every team plays every other team and both groups have their own ranking. At the end the two same positions in the two rankings play each other for the position in one final ranking (for example: team ranked 12 in group 1 plays the team ranked 12 in group 2, to determine positions 23 and 24 in the final ranking and team ranked 5 in group 1 plays the team ranked 5 in group 2, to determine positions 9 and 10 in the final ranking). The two teams ranked number 1 in their groups would play for the tournament win (maybe best of 3 rounds).

Pro’s: does not take as long as option A (8 to 9 months with 24 to 28 teams). And the winner will not be known until the very end.

Contra’s: not every team plays every other team. And the final ranking will most likely not reflect the team’s total win/loss record (for example: the number 1 from group 1 could have 11 wins and 2 losses, with the number 1 from group 2 having 13 wins and 0 losses. Yet, number 1 from group 1 could still win the tournament.)


Option C:

Play a selection round to end up with a smaller amount of teams which will play the current format. The selection round could be something like 5 groups with 5 teams which play each other and the top 3 teams go on. Then we would have 15 teams to play the same format we played in TLO 2009.

Pro’s: does not take as long as option A (8 to 10 months with 24 to 28 teams). And does not divide the field into 2 groups.

Contra: not every team plays the whole tournament.


Thanks in advance,

Lx

[danryan]

I'm for option A or C. Both B options will change the format of the tournament completely.

My favorite event on the site so don't screw it up!

[Chariot of Fire]

Option C with a slight variation, i.e. 4 pools of 6 teams (24 teams). Each team plays the others in the pool (5 series of games). The bottom two get eliminated and the top four join a main league (so 16 teams in all). All points are reset. The format for the pool games is purely based on points won (not rubbers won, which can be the format for the tourney proper as played in previous editions of TLO).

Just my thoughts.

[Dako]

A or C.

CoF option is also good.

[amazzony]

As a player, I'd vote for option A. Though, as an organiser, I completely understand that you are looking for shorter alternatives and support your decision not to continue with the same format. So, I think C is best option, either yours or what CoF offered, both would get my support after a quick thought.

[DAAAAAAANG]

A or C.

CoF option is also good.

What he said.

[Lindax]

----
Thanks for all the reactions with regards to TLO 2010 here and by PM.

Lx

[brian fletcher]

I would certainly favour every team playing all other teams. That way it is more like a league and the winners over the long haul are undoubtably champions. TOFU beat all-comers this season and were worthy champions, so having the chance to knock them off their perch and taking their crown over the same format would be a great challenge. So for that reason i would have to choose option A.

However, i can see it would likely last more like 15-18 months. so whatever the majority decide is good for me.

[Chariot of Fire]

I've had a rethink about my earlier suggestion. One thing's for sure, this is a very popular tourney and will attract quite a few teams. Operating a 'one league' system from the start would necessitate an incredible number of games (say for instance there are 30 teams. That would require 870 team vs team encounters - more than double the 342 that were played in TLO II - which surely isn't feasible). The one thing I'd change about my earlier suggestion is that the results do carry forward, excluding the results against those teams that have been eliminated. This way we wouldn't have to repeat the same fixture.

So, for example, 30 teams join. They are put into 5 pools of 6 teams and each pool play amongst themselves. After those games have completed we'll have a clear picture, e.g.

Pool A
1. Team A 5-0 105-0
2. Team B 4-1 84-21
3. Team C 3-2 63-42
4. Team D 2-3 42-63
5. Team E 1-4 21-84
6. Team F 0-5 0-105

In this case Teams E & F would be eliminated from the competition (this would help greatly, as a total of 10 teams would go out this way leaving a league comprising 20 teams). The Top four teams in each pool go into a single league, along with the results of their games against the other three teams who were promoted with them. This saves that fixture having to be replayed. The results against the two teams that were eliminated are not carried forward into the league (this makes it fairer in case one pool had a particularly weak team who everyone thrashed).

Anyway...this is my tuppence worth. It seems the best way to accommodate a large number of entrants, but it also allows the tourney to discard the weak teams who were never really going to stand much chance. The other advantage of this system is its flexibility (e.g. if we have 28 teams we could do four pools of seven teams and discard eight after the preliminaries, etc etc).

I also suggest that a team could comprise seven players (this might help reduce the number of teams that wish to participate so would benefit the tourney in that respect) and that each team vs team fixture (worth 21 pts) must feature those seven players who each contest 3pts, i.e. it's perfectly balanced and is ultimately a 'team' game rather than the same four players taking-up all the spots. Just a thought

[brian fletcher]

I agree with a lot of COF`s ideas. Except the 3 points per player.
IMO the current set up of one point singles, 2 doubles, 3 trips and 5 for quads, is perfect.
What i would add to the format, is that any player from teams who get knocked out in the preliminary round, are not allowed to re-enter the competition in a different team. This will stop clans from entering 2-3 teams with mediocre line-ups, knowing they can re-jig later. Once out they stay out.
Also. Minimum 6 players in any team, maximum 8, but all players in team must play at least one game. This would help keep the number of teams lower.

[Lindax]

-
Round 17 scores and results updated. Only 3 games are still ongoing. For the final standings we're really only waiting for 1 game to finish....

Click here for Teams, Team Captains, Schedule & Scores and Standings

Click here for Maps & Settings, Game Rosters and Results per round

Lx

[Lindax]

I've had a rethink about my earlier suggestion. One thing's for sure, this is a very popular tourney and will attract quite a few teams. Operating a 'one league' system from the start would necessitate an incredible number of games (say for instance there are 30 teams. That would require 870 team vs team encounters - more than double the 342 that were played in TLO II - which surely isn't feasible). The one thing I'd change about my earlier suggestion is that the results do carry forward, excluding the results against those teams that have been eliminated. This way we wouldn't have to repeat the same fixture.

So, for example, 30 teams join. They are put into 5 pools of 6 teams and each pool play amongst themselves. After those games have completed we'll have a clear picture, e.g.

Pool A
1. Team A 5-0 105-0
2. Team B 4-1 84-21
3. Team C 3-2 63-42
4. Team D 2-3 42-63
5. Team E 1-4 21-84
6. Team F 0-5 0-105

In this case Teams E & F would be eliminated from the competition (this would help greatly, as a total of 10 teams would go out this way leaving a league comprising 20 teams). The Top four teams in each pool go into a single league, along with the results of their games against the other three teams who were promoted with them. This saves that fixture having to be replayed. The results against the two teams that were eliminated are not carried forward into the league (this makes it fairer in case one pool had a particularly weak team who everyone thrashed).

Anyway...this is my tuppence worth. It seems the best way to accommodate a large number of entrants, but it also allows the tourney to discard the weak teams who were never really going to stand much chance. The other advantage of this system is its flexibility (e.g. if we have 28 teams we could do four pools of seven teams and discard eight after the preliminaries, etc etc).

I also suggest that a team could comprise seven players (this might help reduce the number of teams that wish to participate so would benefit the tourney in that respect) and that each team vs team fixture (worth 21 pts) must feature those seven players who each contest 3pts, i.e. it's perfectly balanced and is ultimately a 'team' game rather than the same four players taking-up all the spots. Just a thought

Thank you for your input CoF & Brian.

A few quick remarks:

1.- The formats preferred by the majority of respondents were options A & C. As the organizer I would have preferred one of the B options, but alas! Whether we use option A or C will depend on the final amount of teams signing up, I would think anything over 24 teams would definitely mean option C. The suggestions of CoF on that option are pretty much how I have in mind executing that option.

One observation: To be perfectly honest, as the organizer I have no wish to manage a yearlong tournament without my team and I participating for the whole tournament. Would it be acceptable to grant the winners of the previous two tournaments, as well as my team, a place in the final group, independent of the possible results of the first elimination round?

2.- The original idea was to have teams of 4 players competing. I decided to accept up to 6 players per team because of 2 reasons: players losing their officer's rank and the flexibility to use specific players for specific maps. I don't like the idea of changing that for the following reasons:

a.- There are several teams that manage perfectly fine with 4 players, I do not want to oblige them to expand their team.

b.- Over the course of TLO 2009 II I have had to make many player changes to teams, half of them at the last moment, which obviously is a bit of a nightmare for me as the TO. I'm afraid that if we require and/or allow teams to have more players, the effect will be opposite of what we try to achieve: teams will still sign up and scrape players together who may not really be in there for the long run. This will provoke teams losing players and maybe even having to pull out altogether.

c.- Obliging teams to have 6 or more active players will also provoke the need to change players more often if more than a couple lose their officer's rank. Another thing that will make it more complicated for the team captains and the TO.

d.- Having teams with more than 6 players means a problem with medals for the winning team. The normal standard is maximum 4 winner's medals per tournament, with exceptions for "large" tournaments. As a Tournament Director I certainly don't want to be the one to "stretch" the amount of medals we grant exceptions for.

So, although I agree with a more balanced team set up, in reality I think it will make things more difficult, not in the least for myself.

Lx

[Pedronicus]

Lindax, if I were in your shoes, I'd be looking for what ever helped spread the load.

Best way I can see is that you need an assistant. I'd be happy to help you out next time. I could make all the games, you could do the rest. I know it's not much of a help, but I'd be willing to help spread the workload a bit.

would that help? or would too many cooks spoil the broth?

[Lindax]

Lindax, if I were in your shoes, I'd be looking for what ever helped spread the load.

Best way I can see is that you need an assistant. I'd be happy to help you out next time. I could make all the games, you could do the rest. I know it's not much of a help, but I'd be willing to help spread the workload a bit.

would that help? or would too many cooks spoil the broth?

I'll keep your offer in mind Pedro. I'll probably need a hand....

Thanks,

Lx

[timmy1]

I agree with CoF's idea. The format makes a lot of sense with so many expected teams.

[Lindax]

----
The final standings are decided. There are still 2 games going on, but they will have no bearing on the final standings anymore.

The winning team of the TEAM LEAGUE 2009 OFFICERS EDITION II Tournament (TLO 2009 II) is:

Hot TOFU with Pedro Sauce

Shatners Bassoon (Team Captain)
jpeter15
timmy1
Dako
Chariot of Fire (Tournament MVP)
Pedronicus

Congratulations guys!



----

Here are the complete standings (see also page 1, 2nd post):

1.- Hot TOFU with Pedro Sauce
2.- Outlaws and Highwaymen
3.- Nemesis
4.- UnMilkable!!
5.- The Killer Bs
6.- A Fistful of Sixes
7.- Hard Half Dozen
8.- Team Sweden
9.- The Magnificent Six
10.- The Brethren of the Fat Mermaid
11.- Imperial Dragoons
12.- Rangers of the North
13.- The Stragglers
14.- Generation One III
15.- Legion of the Damned
16.- The Last Warriors
17.- Generation One II
18.- Eternal Empire


Hope to see you all for the next tournament!

Lx

[phantomzero]

congrats to the hot bean curds and pedro juice! very well played guys!

[Master Fenrir]

Excellent tournament, Lindax. I can't quite put into words how much I enjoyed it.

[niMic]

It was a great tournament, no doubt about it. A little disappointed that we fell so thoroughly apart after a wonderful start, but it's been fun all the same.

Cheers, Lindax.

[Pedronicus]

Incredible tournament Lindax. Thanks for all your selfless input, in bringing this, to all of us who participated.

On a side note, I doubt anyone will see it as it's the last round, but it looks like TOFU are going to have a round where we won every game. Random maps with random teams seemed to work best for us (Just a pity that we had to lose a round for a perfect score in the overall leader-board.)

[amazzony]

Thank you so much for a wonderful tournament, Lx! I hope to see many more of these coming and that I'll be part of all of them. Well done!

Also, congratulations to the winners, very impressive!

[Dako]

Game 6564787

Yes, 21-0 it is for TOFU in the last round :-).

Thanks for hosting such a great tournament!