Grum's Eurobowl Suggestion

[Hangus]

ok i was wrong

[Pipey]

Purely out of interest, how is the captain for the English Eurobowl team selected? I have seen that other countries have a qualifying tournament for example.

I'm not trying to start a big inquest into who is selected and why, I was just wondering.

Hi Matt, take a look at this thread:
viewtopic.php?t=26149

In particular see my longish post on the first page. Should make things a bit clearer. There is no qualification system per se for being the captain or a member of Team England.

This is another debate entirely so maybe PM me if you have any more questions. I was captain last time but there will be a new one for next year.

[Pipey]

Back to Grum's suggestion...

It would be great to see change that adds something new and interesting but keeps the balance.

But just remember that as Topper in particular points out, there are many unkown factors with something completely new such as this. Lots of discussion / testing would be needed.

I would hate it if a new system wasn't popular with all the teams/nations. As far as I am aware, everyone at EB08 was happy with the format. We don't want to lose that for next year.

[Grumbledook]

From playing at the flame bowl, it was not as competitive as the eurobowl

the team line ups included a lot of "weaker" races and teams taking a theme for their race selections

it still worked fine, the team that did win it did have the strongest race lineup of any of the team afaik

obviously I don't know what the situation is like at the other team events, though I wouldn't really call using this idea as much of an experiment

switching the eurobowl to swiss rankings was done without any testing, the scoring system was put into place without any testing...

I would say testing would be fair if some manic radical system was bought in, or there was some glaring problem that needed addressing

So if someone can see one I will conceed it, though with all those team tournaments already out there, I fail to see a big issue at the moment

[haktar]

If we class the rosters. There are 24 rosters, if we allow 1 point for the last (hafling) and 24 for the first (woodies).
8 players, so to be medium we can allow 100 points (or more) to choose the team.
For example, if one player take woodie and another hafling 25 points are already taken. So there left 75 points for the 6 others players.

[Grumbledook]

perhaps that would get a better reception amongst the doubters

[Podfrey]

The problem with points per roster is that do you/how do you differ between say Wood Elf, Undead, Dwarf & Orc? In the Eurobowl format all four are good, but 3 of the 4 are just a little better. So would the first 3 be 24 points each? Or would the Dwarf be 23? And then the Orc??? And are Wood Elves 24 times better than Halflings?

I agree, the points system suggested is superior and allows for more flexible selection, but at the same time it is also more prone to nations "maxing out" if the points aren't EXACTLY balanced across all 24 races.

The pot system is easier to balance, and still produce a very varied mix, by saying "Wood Elf, Undead and Dwarf are ABOUT the same, so you can have ONE of them". As long as there are no stand out races in each pot then it will achieve balance; something that a points system might take several attempts at to reach.



As for other team tournaments to "trial" this idea at - yes there are some, but none which are 8 players!! Eurobowl should be competetive AND fun. We've got the competetive element so let's bring back the fun!!!

[sann0638]

Insanely complicated, but you could take plasmoid's match stats to find out how much better than halflings WEs are, and give them a points rating according to this.

Not really suggesting this as a good idea, just theorising.

[Dave]

I don't see why putting the teams in pots is experimenting. I guess yo could still get a pretty compettitive team selection that also includes one of the joke teams (and when you play a decent coach they can be quite a bit of a nightmare) It's just another way of team selection the same as 'each race once per team'!

In the end the choice is up to the organizers, If I was to organize this thing I wouldn't think twice and try to get more fun and a little less competition into the tournament.

I heard the Italian coach that lost to the netherlands (agreed, he was the only one to lose, the rest won) was forced to eat and sleep alone. (And I heard this story second / third hand so I may have some things wrong) but in my world that's taking competition a bit too far.

More fun people, the game is all about it and so should tournaments!!

[Grumbledook]

I don't see why putting the teams in pots is experimenting. I guess yo could still get a pretty compettitive team selection that also includes one of the joke teams (and when you play a decent coach they can be quite a bit of a nightmare) It's just another way of team selection the same as 'each race once per team'!

good point dave

[haktar]

I don't see why putting the teams in pots is experimenting. I guess yo could still get a pretty compettitive team selection that also includes one of the joke teams (and when you play a decent coach they can be quite a bit of a nightmare) It's just another way of team selection the same as 'each race once per team'!

In the end the choice is up to the organizers, If I was to organize this thing I wouldn't think twice and try to get more fun and a little less competition into the tournament.

I heard the Italian coach that lost to the netherlands (agreed, he was the only one to lose, the rest won) was forced to eat and sleep alone. (And I heard this story second / third hand so I may have some things wrong) but in my world that's taking competition a bit too far.

More fun people, the game is all about it and so should tournaments!!

I didn't heard about this story, but i think it was a joke, so for me there is no problem.

[Topper]

Yeh, it was a joke, not actually true.
Grum (in particular) before I can say alot more, I think you should read my first thoughts (for and against) more carefully, and try and answer them.
I have both argued and explained, and if we are going to have a meaningful discussion I´d like to know how you (and others) feel about those points.
So far I have a feeling only Pippy really read it, since most arguments are either plainly dismissing or plainly for - though with new ideas for (often not responding to the arguments as such).

I think it´s a big experiment, and I am not sure if people like that?
Also some countries may have no trouble getting players in, other countries do have though, and this is a thing that might provide an obstacle for these countries (but also could be good, if players from those countries prefer the new rules).

Finally I know that in Denmark EB is considered the main event of BB anywhere, and as thus people aren´t too interested in removing much of the competitive side - it is still hugely fun.

edit:
I don´t like the idea of switching races between players.
I have two problems with it:

1) I play a race I like and might have another way of chosing a team and/or skills than another person.
2) If a person is really good at a few races but haven´t tried all teams he might do a few "rookie" mistakes he wouldn´t do otherwise.

I also think that random mixing players is a bad idea.
Swiss draws between both teams and players is by far preferable.
Both for team and individual competition balances.
The less randomness in this field the better.

[Dave]

why would it be less competitive if 'joke' teams are included by some ruling? I know for sure I play more seriously when I play ogres (for example) positioning - wise as they allow less leeway when one goes 'duh'.

For some reason competitiveness is measured by the quality of the race, not by the quality of the coach. And that becomes even more important when a 3rd tier team is incorporated in each team, you can make a big difference there!

[Thadrin]

Have just skim read the thread. Interesting idea.
I'm hoping that I'll be part of team Scotland for the next Eurobowl, and have already started painting the team I hope to use. (and before you say anything, anyone interested in being part of Team Scotland should know about my plan because I did post it on our forum).

I have several concerns, most of which have already been voiced, regarding the ability of people to play certain teams and the "best of group" points....though I'm sure it could be beaten into something the majority would accept. Whether it would lead to "Best list" scenarios is another debate. I would worry about implementing something like this without CONSIDERABLE debate, and it would have to be resolved soon so players can be assigned races and obtain the relevant models (and hopefully paint them).

FWIW, One idea you could insert rather than rate individual races is points for each tier.

Say these groups (based on Ian's "similar styles" idea as much as percieved competitiveness):
1 - Wood Elf, Skaven, Lizardman
2 - Undead, Orc, Dwarf
3 - Norse, Amazon, Chaos Dwarf
4 - Human, High Elf, Dark Elf
5 - Elf, Slann, Underworld
6 - Chaos, Necromantic, Khemri
7 - Goblin, Nurgle, Chaos Pact
8 - Halfling, Vampire, Ogre

Each assigned a rating, and the 8 teams would have a maximum total rating. If said rating was 24 maybe groups 1 and 2 would be worth 5 points, 3 and 4 worth 4 and 5 or 6 worth 2 with 7 and 8 worth 1, and no more than 2 teams from any single group?

I haven't really thought through those numbers, just an example that seems close-ish to right.

[Grumbledook]

1) You will play a lot more diversity of teams.
2) There will be more tactical thoughts on who plays what race, as a weaker team, might need a stronger coach..
3) If extra skills are involved, strategical thoughts on how the team should develop, will be even more influential.
4) As there are more teams to play against, the teams will have to be able to deal with a wider variety of teams.
5) If it is not swiss draw between the races, there will be even more games against same races than before.
6) Unless implemented correctly, the luck draw factor, can become even more vital than it allready is - and thus more broken.
7) Is it cool for the coaches who play with teams that have less chances of winning than those with higher chances? (the skill system more or less removes this point)
If using batches of only three teams, I think you will narrow down the chosen teams even more. Larger batches makes more variety in chosen teams (IMO).
9) Important thing to look at is if batches makes meetings between directly "favoured" opponents more or less likely.
Fx. atm. Amazons are a very strong team, but if they are unlucky and meet Dwarves and/or CD they are likely to be in for a whooping.
So if this new system changes the odds of these matchups, in one direction or another, it will make either that team unusable or much stronger.

No problem:
1- Thats the idea behind the suggestion and I think this will be good for the EB, in my eyes its come somewhat over competitive and stale with the same lineups taken from nearly all nations. As Dave mentioned surely winning with a weaker race requires more coaching skill, so encouraging nations to take weaker teams will make the winning nation more deserved.
2- Again I think you put this as a good thing and I agree, an extra bit of tactical thinking for each nation to consider.
3- This was from your suggestion rather than mine, again something that may work but I see this as being even more of an experiment where as I don't see how mine is. The current system forces nations to pick the 8 best races if they want to be competitive.
4- Again a positive, coaches are most used to playing against the better teams in tournaments, than they are with dealing with races they don't play much.
5+6 I have mixed feelings about the swiss side of matching players up. I can see both sides of it, I don't see how it will put any more same race games in than it would before. With nations taking different line up of races there is even less chance. Having it swiss means the group v group match ups would probably happen a lot ie stunty v stunty. There may be a couple of nations where the stunty team isn't last in their nation. Though the benefit is more "even" coach and race balance. Having it random will allow for a greater chance of playing a larger range of races than previously seen. It will also put in games where there can be a humiliating/great upset. Don't forget that if a stunty team one nation is put against a group 1 team from another nation. That the stunty team from the other side will also be playing a against a group that is higher in the reverse match up. I think this disparity will even itself out over the course of the tournament, though I accept it adds randomness to the tournament. What we have to consider though is that a bad thing, personally I don't think so. Gives the "outside" nations more of a chance, the better players should still rise to the top and compare it to real life football tournaments where teams are seeded into groups but then its still a random draw and some sides get an easier route to the final (like germany in the european cup this year).
7- For me yes, I like the challenge of playing against a better race, gives you more incentive to bring out your A game to pick up those points for your country and should you win it feels that much more vital and rewarding. Perhaps some coaches don't agree but if you can't handle playing in this situation, are you suited to be playing for your country?
8- The group sizes has arguments both ways, having groups of 3 with one pick verses groups of 6 where you can pick 2 teams, having 6 means there is a greater chance of having 2 teams in the group that are "better" and are more likely to be picked. Currently with 1 group with 8 picks, most nations take the best 8 races. Forcing the teams into smaller groups means you can put the teams that are most likely to compete with each other in being picked and only allow one of them.
9- This was another reason why I feel the player match ups each round would be better randomised like the first few eurobowls were. Geoff for instance likes playing against dwarfs with amazons, he says its not actually that bad a match up and you can look up his results on the NAF site. It isn't always so cut and dry though, when we won it max had dwarfs vs amazons for two games and lost one and drew the other, we thought those two games would be easy points but it didn't turn out that way. Also this may result in as you saying one team being much better suited to the other 2 races in its group. This would then result in that race getting picked more. Randomising would solve this.

You also stated that forcing a more wide range of races to be taken may make it harder for some nations to get a team together. The current system with the better 8 races being taken somewhat forces each nations hand to a degree on who takes what. I understand that someone said they would only go if they could play goblins this year (last minute replacement) though the current england team was picked based on who could play with what race in the first place, as were some other nations I assume.

Hope that clears up my thoughts on it a bit better and addresses your concerns and I hope it can persuade the naysayers as well. There is more skill involved winning with weaker races and the nation that can best do that would win the EB in my opinion and perhaps deserve it more than in the current system.