Archive through March 12, 2009

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Star Fleet Battles Online: Tournaments: SFBOL World League 2: Archive through March 12, 2009
By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 03:35 pm: Edit

I think it might work better with 4 pools. 3 pools with 3 teams and 1 pool with 4 teams.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Yeah. Someone in Pool B (the weird 5 team pool) needs to get a BYE. I'll randomly select someone, and they'll get a free win. That's all I can come up with here.

By Roger Rardain (Sky_Captain) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 03:51 pm: Edit

The 4-pool idea may be better.
I would not want to see a BYE in World League.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 04:24 pm: Edit

I don't think a pool with 3 teams works. There aren't enough match up possibilities. Unless there are and I'm not seeing it.

In any case, I have been working on this for 3 hours now. Finally have 3 pools done (including one BYE). And then went to input the tables into my website. But it turns out I can't cut and paste the tables I made into my web building program. So I have to rewrite the tables all anyway. Which makes me want to shoot myself in the face. So I'm going to walk away from this right now, hopefully, someone will make a good argument for a new pool plan, and I'll get back to this in the near future.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Yeah, a pool with 3 teams ends up with a player without a match up, just like the pool with 5 teams. I suspect that all pools with an odd number of teams will do that. Rggh.

By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 04:46 pm: Edit

No, you are right Peter. If the 4 pools each had 3 teams it would work fine, since you could make up the extra match evenly with cross pool play. But that extra team puts the kibosh on that idea. Good luck my friend. It sounds like the bye idea is the best one at this point. Don't stree too hard about it.

By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Hang in there Peter!

By Roger Rardain (Sky_Captain) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Peter,

I am sure whatever you come up with will be fine. You have my support.

The best part is - anyone who complains can run the next world League. :)

By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Team A plays team B, C, D and E.

If each team has 3 players labelled A1, A2, A3, just match A1 with B1, C1, D1, and E1. Then match A2 with (B-E)2, and A3 with (B-E)3.

I must be missing something. But in a 5 team pool everyone plays 4 games, and a 4 team pool has everyone playing 3.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 07:52 pm: Edit

Everyone plays 3 games (i.e. I can't make some pools play 3 games each and some pools play 4 games each). So the 5 team pool results in a non working number of players (i.e. someone is left over). If all the pools were 5 teams, and then everyone was playing 4 games, it would work out. But as it is, we have pools of 4, 4, and 5. The 4 team pools work fine. The 5 team pool doesn't. So I need to give someone a bye. So I'm gonna do that (one lucky player gets a free win and only 2 games). But now I'm stuck on needing to completely re-write all my pool grids due to them not transferring. So that'll take a couple more days.

By Tom Carroll (Sandman) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Do what they did last year and have the teams in the two 4 team pools team play one team from the other pool. Teams in pool A(C) would play each of the other fellow pool teams plus one team from pool C(A), teams in pool B would only play teams in their own pool.

By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Tom, the cross-divisional worked last year because there were 2 three-team pools and 2 four-team pools (i.e. an even number of teams overall). Peter is correct that when there is an odd number of teams, it gets complicated.

Like Roger, I will state that I support Peter 100% in whatever decision he decides is fairest and most workable.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 08:08 pm: Edit

I don't know that that would help. The issue is that a 5 team pool where each player plays 3 games results in 1 leftover player. Having cross pool games isn't going to fix the issue--if we had pools of 4, 5, 5, then the leftover players from each of the two 5 team pools would be able to match and everything would be el perfecto. But as it is, not so much.

-Peter

By Tom Carroll (Sandman) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 08:21 pm: Edit

My suggestion was to have each team play 4 games. Pools A and C would play three teams in their own pool plus one team from the other pool. Pool B would play four teams in their own pool. If you're trying to limit it to three games per team, then obviously my suggestion doesn't work.

By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 11:25 pm: Edit

I wouldn't have any concerns about playing 4 games in round 1. If that solves the issue, I say go for it!

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 11:46 pm: Edit

With an odd number of players, you must have people playing an even number of games, or have a bye. If everyone plays 4 games, then it works, although it will probably not be symmetrical with regards to who plays which teams.

Of course, more games means not only more time to get through the round, but more variability in the amount of time it takes people to get through their games. A few will finish up in 4 weeks. Some would not get done in 4 months.

By Piotr Orbis Proszynski (Orbis) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 02:43 am: Edit

So... would it be simpler to just throw 3 people out? Starting with me? TOO LATE! I JUST PAID FOR SFBOL :P

By Andrew J. Koch (Droid) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 05:50 am: Edit

4 first round games works for me if that really solves the problem. Just extend the "deadline" a couple of weeks for the first round.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, March 09, 2009 - 09:15 am: Edit

Rather than increasing the number of games, I'm just going to give one player a BYE. Less room for failure there.

-Peter

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 09:00 am: Edit

And...now the tournament is held up while I figure out to do about some particular issue. Sigh.

-Peter

By Piotr Orbis Proszynski (Orbis) on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 05:59 pm: Edit

We love you Peter! *hums soothingly*

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Right. So we are now out a player, and need to find a new one to take his spot. Once I have a new replacement player, and I plug him into the brackets, and I check to see that I don't have to fix any civil wars, I can then post the pools to the site. Probably this weekend, assuming that I get a taker. I have a line on someone, but I have to get back to him with who is teammates are...

-Peter

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 04:56 pm: Edit

To be clear, the player we are now out is Paul Scott, whom I was instructed to remove from the event by the powers that be.

By Piotr Orbis Proszynski (Orbis) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Wait, WHAT? How is WL now a sanctioned tournament on par with RATs? ::rolleye::

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 06:33 pm: Edit

It is an "event" and all "events" are for those who can play by the rules. Paul Scott is the sole cause of the issue and Paul Scott is the only one who can fix it, and all Paul Scott has to do is what he COMMITTED to do. We told Paul Scott this a year ago, that he needed to do his articles or be suspended from all and every "event", and he agreed to do this by early last fall, and not only did not do them, but refused to do them and blew a hissy fit on the BBS and on the Forum.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation