Talk Fantasy Football

I'll try once more and then I will give up: Yes, if the ruleset states ties are broken by how many Witch Elves the team has, anyone turning up without Dark Elves cannot expect to win the tie breaker. The point remains that (in the ideal, perfect world) what we'd like to reward is coaching in rulesets, and SOS is our best shot at that. Scoring most touchdowns (or completing whatever other all but random task tie breaker with a veneer of 'but I can sort of effect that' the ruleset outlines, most passes, most non sent off fouls, rolling very sunny the most times) does not. So that's the disconnect; the ideal world and playing to a ruleset. Do you want to create a tournament where people arrive to play good Blood Bowl, or one where two thirds of the field bring Skaven because that's going to break ties in your ruleset?

As for the rest, no, you cannot do anything about who you play. SOS, as has been repeatedly said, is not perfect. Part of the problem here is that we're breaking ties; that is less the fault of SOS and more to do with the fact we play with a six round Swiss system across a weekend, and final positions are rarely quantised in that imperfect system. However, in the event of SOS being needed, there is far more justice / satisfaction in applauding your opponent who comes above you because he's played a better standard over the weekend than watching him lift the trophy because he routed Stunties a couple of times. Put it this way; in the old 'TD + CAS' world, we're actually encouraging coaches to play badly. If you know you're down going into round 6 and winning the event is all you care about, you'll be off breaking your neck trying to score as soon as possible.

I don't really understand the last bit. You shouldn't be avoiding club mates anyway, it's supposed to be a random draw (or it's not a fair draw). Remember it's just a tie breaker; the format of Swiss (not playing the same person again) comes first, and as above, applying it in it's current state throughout is undesirable anyway.

Purplegoo wrote:I don't really understand the last bit. You shouldn't be avoiding club mates anyway, it's supposed to be a random draw (or it's not a fair draw). Remember it's just a tie breaker; the format of Swiss (not playing the same person again) comes first, and as above, applying it in it's current state throughout is undesirable anyway.

Many tournaments have allowed people to swap if they're drawn against someone they play regularly (if they're not at or near) the top table, for example the father/son from Caterham school at Thrud in round 5.

Again, I don't think SoS is any better than some other tiebreakers. It has it's strengths, it has it's weaknesses. As it is, ARBBL will continue with it's current tiebreakers (aand yes, Net TDs is the first one) and no, we've not had 2/3rd Skaven turn up.

Purplegoo wrote:Either way: words. I'm just happy SOS is becoming ever more prevalent. It may not be perfect for our game; but at least it rewards the coach who has, on paper at least, had the hardest time. Clocking up 6 touchdowns when you've drawn the 11 Snotling team with Wood Elves should only be rewarded once (with a win), not twice (with a then unbeatable tie breaker).

This.

It applies to bonus points as much as tiebreakers too.

sann0638 wrote:Thanks for the input Phil. On the one hand i am happy to have the challenge of getting score to di the seeding thing, on the other i am sad because i can't have a go this evening.

if you did 1v8 etc, presumably you would then apply straight sos at the end?

If you're playing with score, getting it to weight SoS (as Phil also points out) would be great too

sann0638 wrote:Thanks for the input Phil. On the one hand i am happy to have the challenge of getting score to di the seeding thing, on the other i am sad because i can't have a go this evening.

if you did 1v8 etc, presumably you would then apply straight sos at the end?

As I understand it, you'd still have to use SoS all the way through the tournament.
Swiss-System puts players who have equal results into brackets. The players within a bracket are then paired off with each other for the next round. This is done by splitting the bracket in half and pairing the top of the first half with the top of the second half and so on. In order to achieve this, the players must still be ranked within the brackets in some way.

I notice that for Chess tournaments they have the Buchholz system for determining tie-breakers, which is a SoS system. However, there is also the Median-Buchholz variant that discards the best and worst opponent scores before totalling the rest for use as a tie-breaker. That would help remove penalty of getting a first round random draw against the eventual wooden spoon winner.

PurpleGoo wrote:Part of the problem here is that we're breaking ties; that is less the fault of SOS and more to do with the fact we play with a six round Swiss system across a weekend, and final positions are rarely quantised in that imperfect system.

It's worth bearing in mind that for 64 players or less, only one player can walk away with 6 wins in a six round swiss system. So in theory, for the vast majority of tournaments, tie-breakers will only become involved in determining the winner where there have been draws.
Unfortunately, it's the bigger tournaments where the tie-breaking comes under more scrutiny.

I know seeding the first round draw has been discussed, but has any tournament ever tried it?

Vanguard wrote:I know seeding the first round draw has been discussed, but has any tournament ever tried it?

I know one I went to years ago where they seeded it based on your NAF rank with the race - I want to say an Albion Coast Cup when Venomous ran it, but I'm not 100% sure.

Pearlies always used to rank the first round by NAF ranking with just the race being used.

Joemanji wrote:Pearlies always used to rank the first round by NAF ranking with just the race being used.

But that encouraged people to take vanilla races to the tournament to get a 150 rating and hopefully a good start.

Not sure that is a good or bad thing.

lunchmoney wrote:

sann0638 wrote:I still think it should be used throughout, not just applied in the last round (which is I think how most tournaments apply it).

On reflection and discussion I agree and will be testing it at Exiles Open this year with a view to using it like that next year.

Didnt try it, completely forgot.

sann0638 wrote:Thanks for the input Phil. On the one hand i am happy to have the challenge of getting score to di the seeding thing, on the other i am sad because i can't have a go this evening.

if you did 1v8 etc, presumably you would then apply straight sos at the end?

Any news on fiddling with Score!?

Nope. Busy

besters wrote:

Joemanji wrote:Pearlies always used to rank the first round by NAF ranking with just the race being used.

But that encouraged people to take vanilla races to the tournament to get a 150 rating and hopefully a good start.

Not sure that is a good or bad thing.

in this case, it's an other way to increase roster-diversity, finally? that's bad?

besters wrote:

Joemanji wrote:Pearlies always used to rank the first round by NAF ranking with just the race being used.

But that encouraged people to take vanilla races to the tournament to get a 150 rating and hopefully a good start.

Not sure that is a good or bad thing.

That only works for your first 24 tournaments.

Vanguard wrote:

besters wrote:

Joemanji wrote:Pearlies always used to rank the first round by NAF ranking with just the race being used.

But that encouraged people to take vanilla races to the tournament to get a 150 rating and hopefully a good start.

Not sure that is a good or bad thing.

That only works for your first 24 tournaments.

Yes, I'm way past that but still have the odd team below 150.

There are very few people who have 24 teams above 150 and even fewer if you ignore those who have only 1 game played with any of the races.

Loki wrote:There are very few people who have 24 teams above 150 and even fewer if you ignore those who have only 1 game played with any of the races.

There are still only a handful that have all 24 played at all.