The Championships - 1v1 - [t4mcr53s2]

[Jippd]

My thoughts are that you want to do tournament winners to allow those who may be lower ranked in score to have a chance to still get in.

If you do tournament winners first you will then have to separate those tournament winners by score. So a lot of the tournament winners if you pick the top 24 would likely be people that would have made it in by the score qualification alone anyways so you have not changed anything.

Think of it on a smaller scale:

If you have 10 people wanting to get in to a tournament but only have 5 slots to fill:
10 and 9 are the qualifiers. then 8-1 are in order of rank with 8 being the higher ranked player.

2 of those slots are guaranteed by qualifying tournaments (10 and 9)
You now have 8 people left that want to get in and only 3 slots left to fill.

If you just did it by average score you would pick 6, 7 and 8.

If you did it by average score first then tournament wins you would pick 8 and 7. Then you would have to sort and someone either 4,5 or 6 would probably get the last spot. So it allows 4 and 5 to have a chance to get in due to the tournament wins filter.

If you did it by tournament wins first and then picked average score to fill in the last spots I think it would end up much as the same as if you just picked the last three spots by average score.

Odds are someone in 6,7 or 8 fits the tournament wins requirement. You would pick one from 6,7 or 8 to fill in the spot after the qualifiers. Then the next two spots would be filled based off of rank. So if you had 10 and 9 from qualifiers and 7 fit the tournament win requirement 6 and 8 would fill in the last two spots. You would still be stuck with numbers 6-10 the same as if you just sorted the last 3 spots based on highest score.

I hope that makes sense, let me know if I can clarify or if I need to try to re explain.

[squeaks_is_mine]

put me in please!

[alaskanassassin]

My thoughts are that you want to do tournament winners to allow those who may be lower ranked in score to have a chance to still get in.

If you do tournament winners first you will then have to separate those tournament winners by score. So a lot of the tournament winners if you pick the top 24 would likely be people that would have made it in by the score qualification alone anyways so you have not changed anything.

Think of it on a smaller scale:

If you have 10 people wanting to get in to a tournament but only have 5 slots to fill:
10 and 9 are the qualifiers. then 8-1 are in order of rank with 8 being the higher ranked player.

2 of those slots are guaranteed by qualifying tournaments (10 and 9)
You now have 8 people left that want to get in and only 3 slots left to fill.

If you just did it by average score you would pick 6, 7 and 8.

If you did it by average score first then tournament wins you would pick 8 and 7. Then you would have to sort and someone either 4,5 or 6 would probably get the last spot. So it allows 4 and 5 to have a chance to get in due to the tournament wins filter.

If you did it by tournament wins first and then picked average score to fill in the last spots I think it would end up much as the same as if you just picked the last three spots by average score.

Odds are someone in 6,7 or 8 fits the tournament wins requirement. You would pick one from 6,7 or 8 to fill in the spot after the qualifiers. Then the next two spots would be filled based off of rank. So if you had 10 and 9 from qualifiers and 7 fit the tournament win requirement 6 and 8 would fill in the last two spots. You would still be stuck with numbers 6-10 the same as if you just sorted the last 3 spots based on highest score.

I hope that makes sense, let me know if I can clarify or if I need to try to re explain.

This is written fairly complex, but I agree, if you go with tournament 1 v 1 wins first, you may still get all high rank people and take away the chance of lower ranks who do well in 1 v 1 but dont have a high score. Then you still take high ranks to fill the rest and again the lower ranks don't have much of a chance despite quality 1 v 1 play.

[chidone]

IN PLZ

[MEP]

in pls

[Avi8or]

in please

[iAmCaffeine]

Now I don't qualify.

[HighlanderAttack]

in please

[HighlanderAttack]

If you want a true championship let everyone who wants to play get into the tourney--if you have an uneven bracket it will only be for the first round and that means some players will get a bye--a true championship on CC would include all players wanting to get into the tourney in my opinion,

[agentcom]

I think that I'm in agreement with Jippd here, but let me see if I have this right. My interpretation of what should be done is that you have 128 total slots. You set aside 24 of those for tournament winners.

First fill up the slots taken by the 16 (or whatever) satellite winners. Now you have 80 at-large slots and 24 slots committed to tournament winners. You fill up the 80 slots by score among all the remaining applicants. Now you have 24 more slots to fill and you let in any tourney winners that are left (sorting them by score if you have more than 24). This ensures that 24 of the slots (max) go to tourney winners and that a tourney winner who would've got in based on score will not "block out" a lower ranked tourney winner. (Note that instead this player will "block out" a lower ranked non-tourney winner.) If there are not 24 tourney winners remaining, you return to filling the slots by score.

You could adjust the numbers, but I think the above interpretation of your (chap's) rules, which I think Jippd is also promoting, provides a good balance. In the end any variation in the order in which you assess eligibility will only change the result for a couple of players.

You would then seed all entrants based on score, so that each group has a mix of scores, as you had already planned on doing. This effectively would distribute all the tourney winners and satellite winners with low scores among all the groups. Tourney winners and satellite winners with high enough scores will be mixed in where they would have been anyway.

[phantomzero]

If you want a true championship let everyone who wants to play get into the tourney--if you have an uneven bracket it will only be for the first round and that means some players will get a bye--a true championship on CC would include all players wanting to get into the tourney in my opinion,

Exactly this. The reason I am disappointed is that I think I could win this but won't even have a chance. How does that make it the true 1-1 champion on CC if not everyone can play?

What if there were a round of two of run offs using HA's don't blink format? Instead of 128 spots filled using the current format fill 28 of the spots using all interested players in round 1c. Use the same map settings and the run off is a best of one. Fon't blink indeed.

[misteryforall]

in pls ....

[chapcrap]

If you want a true championship let everyone who wants to play get into the tourney--if you have an uneven bracket it will only be for the first round and that means some players will get a bye--a true championship on CC would include all players wanting to get into the tourney in my opinion,

Exactly this. The reason I am disappointed is that I think I could win this but won't even have a chance. How does that make it the true 1-1 champion on CC if not everyone can play?

What if there were a round of two of run offs using HA's don't blink format? Instead of 128 spots filled using the current format fill 28 of the spots using all interested players in round 1c. Use the same map settings and the run off is a best of one. Fon't blink indeed.

Well, we'll see how many sign up and maybe tweek things in the future. We don't want the whole world to sign up, because we're gonna be running this every year, along with multiple others and want them to be able to finish with a few months if possible. We won't use HA's don't blink format, because he uses manual and we don't want that for this, because it's too luck oriented with who goes first. Other than, it's just a normal bracket and that will take too long.

Maybe I'll talk to bigWham and we can add a small play in or something, but that's basically what the qualifiers are and there were 8 of them. I don't see that happening this year for this event.

I think that I'm in agreement with Jippd here, but let me see if I have this right. My interpretation of what should be done is that you have 128 total slots. You set aside 24 of those for tournament winners.

First fill up the slots taken by the 16 (or whatever) satellite winners. Now you have 80 at-large slots and 24 slots committed to tournament winners. You fill up the 80 slots by score among all the remaining applicants. Now you have 24 more slots to fill and you let in any tourney winners that are left (sorting them by score if you have more than 24). This ensures that 24 of the slots (max) go to tourney winners and that a tourney winner who would've got in based on score will not "block out" a lower ranked tourney winner. (Note that instead this player will "block out" a lower ranked non-tourney winner.) If there are not 24 tourney winners remaining, you return to filling the slots by score.

You could adjust the numbers, but I think the above interpretation of your (chap's) rules, which I think Jippd is also promoting, provides a good balance. In the end any variation in the order in which you assess eligibility will only change the result for a couple of players.

You would then seed all entrants based on score, so that each group has a mix of scores, as you had already planned on doing. This effectively would distribute all the tourney winners and satellite winners with low scores among all the groups. Tourney winners and satellite winners with high enough scores will be mixed in where they would have been anyway.

I'll look at both methods and see. I do not have a preference for either one. The reason I was going to use tournament winners first is because I wasn't sure there would 24 people that qualified that would sign up under that stipulation. There are only about 120 that qualify anyway I believe and I doubt the all sign up here.

Anyway, no more changes to the format for this one. I will still consider taking tournament winners last in the order of entry and will probably do it, since that's what it sounds like people prefer.

#HighlanderAttack #agentcom #Jippd #phantomzero #alaskanassassin

[Jippd]

I think tournament winners last will provide a better chance for some lower rankers to get in that would otherwise have not gotten it. As agent pointed out though, it might leave out some who would have made it by rank but don't qualify now because they don't have the tournament wins. Either way some people are going to lose out somewhere.

I'm also in agreement that a true 1 v 1 championship should allow anyone who wants to compete to have a chance.

I also understand that you don't want to change the format now, and I am fine with that. I hope my ideas will hopefully help in the future.

Perhaps a way to decrease the potential pool is to shorten the signup period.

One way you could run qualifiers is you could do a speed qualification tournament day or something where people have a short amount of time to complete games

[alaskanassassin]

A lot of good thoughts and I think the tournament will be fine and people will know for the future. I think the real issue has to do with the short notice everyone got. Everyone has a chance to play through the qualifiers. You could list those as the play in rounds or the round "1c" that phantomzero is talking about, it's the same thing just a different label. Meaning everyone is part of the tournament if the wanted to be. The issue is not everyone got into those because of the short notice. We live, we learn, and it'll be a great tournament, wonderful new idea from the leadership team here at CC. Next year people will know to have their chance to play through the play ins if they don't think they will qualify otherwise.

My one suggestion to that for the future would be to have the sign up period before the qualifiers. You don't have to change the timeframe, just have signups in November and qualifiers in December to start the main thing in January. Take your 104 slots and then those who didn't qualify and only those who didnt qualify can then enter those qualifying tournaments to try and play their way into the tournament. It gives them, which is probably me, a chance.

[hwhrhett]

in please

[wookie1]

In please // the wookie

[NoSurvivors]

In, please.

[Jippd]

Could possibly do a "random draw" for qualifiers so that everyone that wants in has equal odds of getting in one of those. This random draw would replace the first come first serve that was used this time.

[NMUMUWSU]

In, please!

[RobbieDub]

in please

[Craig25]

in please

[bernooch]

I would like in pls?

[agentcom]

Could possibly do a "random draw" for qualifiers so that everyone that wants in has equal odds of getting in one of those. This random draw would replace the first come first serve that was used this time.

I think I'd rather see future tourneys remain merit based or be open to all rather than a random draw.

I like the way that this is set up where there are 3 ways that you can get in, all related to gameplay.

[rousseau72]

In please