Re: D8 Deb8
Quote:
|
Re: D8 Deb8
Quote:
Also doesnt that system makes it so the upper half of R1 which ends on lower half of R2 will play against lower half R1 that ends in upper half R2 ? Idk if that's good or bad, just making sure that's what you had in mind. |
Re: D8 Deb8
Admittedly that would be a bit tricky, since in each successive round there would be more and more uncertainty in the skill rating of the participants of each group. But here's what I would do, using the current 275 player signups as a model:
In the first round, I'd take the median of everyone's skill rating. In this case, that's low-mid D5, so around 72-74. Then I'd add a few to that, to avoid seeing 50% AAA's. So the first round would be around 78. In the second round, we'd expect the groups to contain roughly the top 50%, and the bottom 50%. The median of the top 50% of players is in the mid D6 range, which is about 87-89. This group would get a song of about 93. The median of the bottom 50% of players is in the high D3 range, so about 56-58. This group would get a song of about 62. The third round we'd see groups of around top 25%, middle 50%, and bottom 25%. We'd take the expected medians again and add a few to each to get song difficulties of around 99, 78, and 40, respectively. Though by this point, that 40 might need to be adjusted upwards a point or two to account for the likely skillboosting of many of the D1-D2 players. And so on. And yeah, that's the idea. In Round 3, the middle group (1 strike) would contain both people who got the strike in the first round and survived the second round, and people who survived the first round and got the strike in the second round. |
Re: D8 Deb8
Quote:
Idk if I like that or not yet. Needs some more thought I think. |
Re: D8 Deb8
78 on R1, 93 on R2 (by winning the round), then back to 78 on R3 (by losing the 2nd round and gaining a strike), then up to around 87 on R4 (by winning the 3rd round).
If a player were to follow that exact path, they'd probably be a high D5 or low D6 player with a skill level of 80-84, so by Round 4 this is pretty close to the songs they'd be playing in the current OT anyway. Though I admit it is true that lots of players would be playing songs way above/below their skill level for the first few rounds. |
Re: D8 Deb8
Quote:
|
Re: D8 Deb8
All of these ideas amount to basically the same real conclusion:
The flaw isn't divisions, or the size or range of the divisions. It's that our flagship tournament can be entered by literally anybody. Trying to come up with a system that would make it so a group of 5 buddies who play basketball at the gym on Wednesdays could compete in the NCAA tournament is just a losing effort. In basically every other place where there is competition, there is a season, or qualifiers, or seeding that takes place ahead of time and weeds out all the inferior competition. If we put everybody into divisions by skill rating, and then did a preliminary event purely for qualifying for the ACTUAL tournament, and then made the actual tournament only be between the top 8 in each division, it would be pointful. As long as the format of our tournaments is "Here is a song, play it and get the best score you can" then 95% of people who enter the tournament have 0 chance to win it. It would probably be more productive and interesting for people to come up with ways to do user-run or staff-supported events at other times, using songs already in the game, under novel constraints to give the general population something to do and have fun with. The FFR TCG is a -fantastic- example of something that gives you recurring content to take part in that doesn't punish you for being low/mid in a division. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution