Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/28/2017 in all areas

  1. After going to the precursor to the Chicago tourney this week, as well as seeing the discussion about Madison group play blowouts, an idea came to mind for seeding without using even matchups/point differential. Especially at smaller tournaments, it also makes it harder to keep the interest of the new player and build the tecmo scene, since with even matchups they get blown out by the more experienced players. Splitting a tournament into new players and vets, with two different brackets, is one solution. But not an ideal one imo. Another idea to fix this would be to have bracket seedings based on cumulative TPC X Factor difference from group play, so the best seeds are incentivized to call unfair matchups (or choose the worse team if they don't call the matchup). This would add another layer of strategy for both the favorite (deciding whether to call an even matchup or an uneven one, and if uneven, by how much) and the underdog (deciding whether to call an even matchup or call an uneven matchup in the hope that the favorite will go for the X factor points and worse team). Under this system, there'd be better/closer games (i.e. more fun for both sides), and perhaps some upsets if the favorite goes with too weak of a team relative to the opponent's. Bracket play would use the normal matchup system since seeding is completed. Benefits: Likely creates more better games at the group play stage Adds strategy wrinkle for which matchup to call and which teams to choose Drawbacks: TPC X Factor is not perfect, especially with certain matchups Larger tournaments more likely to have seeding ties when adding up cumulative X Factor difference, so would need a tiebreaker (probably point differential haha, but at least the matchups themselves would be less likely to create blowouts even if everyone tries to score as much as possible) One last thought - the favorite may not win every toss, which could lead to the opponent calling safe/even matchups and hurting the favorite's bracket seeding. One solution to this would be to have the higher seeded player always call the matchup in group play. What do you guys think? Things you like/dislike or that I didn't mention?
    1 point
  2. This is what we did in Tomczak V when we had World Cup play. It worked well.
    1 point
  3. Good read fellas love the brainstorming. Most guys like me on this forum have drank the tecmo Kool-Aid and love how deep you can go with strategy. We love this game and we want to get our buds that loved the game back in the day to drink the Kool-Aid as well but when we start talking tecmo advanced stuff like PC/INT ratio, domain of valid match ups etc. our buds eyes glaze over and check out. Our buds want to pick up and play with Bo and put in a flee flicker because that is what they remember. I think the Major Tourneys need to stay pretty close to what they are doing as those are the ones Vets travel to and competition is high and a chunk of money is on the line. I think the Minor tourneys need to focus on Fun and comradery with the game. So xfactor thing is a good idea,, and having vets that are there to help out others. Especially in group play. Maybe even pre-seed a few vets beforehand in these minor tournies so they don’t have to worry about playing another vet early in Playoffs.
    1 point
  4. VERY FUN Rom. (This goes for your 2018 Rom, too.) Some of you will be happy to know that Jets are now 1-1 in SB's (not counting yesterday's Snoopy Bowl), ya'll. Anyone care to venture a guess who I lost (28-34) to? hint: I gave (not really...I tried) them their first-ever SB victory... On the way, we went 12-4 - won the AFC East - and beat the Ravens 21-10 in the Divisional round, before knocking off the Colts 21-14 in the AFCC
    1 point
  5. 1.6 is up! - Some uniform usage and color changes - Some player rating adjustments - SET Command Added : (FIXED) Randomize sound loop used for each play
    1 point
  6. What's the definition of better or interesting? Of course group play rounds can be boring. At some of the smaller tournaments, group play is pointless, a 6 hour slog to seed everyone to do it all over again. If you want to make things more competitive, then I think you have two choices: 1. Don't invite any noobs to your tournament and keep it vets only 2. Grow your base slowly and methodically so that the noobs keep coming back, have an incentive to get better, and become vets themselves. Changing a format to include X-Factor, besides posing some issues with X-Factor, doesn't solve the underlying problem. Instead of noobs being blown out and group play being a slog because everyone is running SD-DEN, SD-WAS, Rams-WAS, Rams-MIA, etc you'd have noobs being blown out and group play being a slog with everyone running Pit-DET, Pit-KC, Pit-Was, etc. The few upsets you would see from a vet taking the wrong end of a big play for X-Factor points would be offset by the blowouts from guys who really can pull a Sobhi and use the Pats for all of group play without being scored upon (still the greatest feat in Madison tournament history). The underlying issue is keeping noobs engaged so they come back. That's a larger, more nebulous issue. But the one thing that can be done is to keep having meet ups, keep having tournaments, and keep mixing up formats. Maybe run two separate fields with a pros division and a joes division and have the joe champ play the pro champ for some extra scratch. Maybe have meet ups where the pros have to use NE, IND, SEA when playing against noobs. I would never want to have a meet up where some guy shows up, picks up a controller for the first time in 10 years, and plays Regulator - that would be a disaster for both of them.
    1 point
  7. Here was a super quick and dirty example I tried to do in a semi-automated, semi-subjective way
    1 point
  8. Calling SF vs INDY would take balls of steel....
    1 point
  9. If the goal is to avoid extreme blowouts, then use a World Cup style seeding system where group winners play group runners up in a prearranged bracket. Then cap point diff at 28 or 21. The goal then changes from needing to go 3-0 in group play with a massive point diff to just getting to 3-0 with every point above a 21 point lead reduced to a 0. This still allows for creative matchups, still allows underdogs to choose a matchup that they think works for them, and reduces the need to lay a 70 spot on a kid to move up by 1 spot on the bracket.
    1 point
  10. This is potentially really dangerous. X-factors are not massive. So, you'd see the same, say, 4 matchups by the "pros" once they figured out which matchup gives them the best blowout potential plus x-factor points.
    1 point
  11. That would be interesting from a strategy perspective for the vets and probably just another level of confusion for a new person. That idea works pretty good for group play as long as there aren't two players fairly equal in skill in the group. Then it kind of sucks. The more minor problem would be the "X-FACTOR" value would need to be re-done. It was created by one person essentially and its basically arbitrary. It was just their gut intuition on the value of the teams. At bare minimum a community average rating should be used. 20 peoples values would be WAY more accurate than 1 persons. Or maybe you just break things up into 4-6 major tiers.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...