Forums

Search
Forums » T2R Competitive Play - English » FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
onyx puffin
Senior Member

Posts: 1034
Registered:
January 2005
FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Thu, 10 April 2014 22:53
As The FUSION CUP is coming to a close, (2 games remaining) It is time to start discussing thoughts on any changes for next year.

Here are three things I wonder about for next year:

Q1. Should we make it best of 5 matches instead of 4, and add in another US regular version? So we would have
US-1
US-2
EU
AAT
TAG


My reasoning has to do with the many very good players who only play US board. Adding this match may add more players and maybe more teams to the event.

Q2. Make EU/US all EU matches instead of 3 of each.


Q3. TAG is an important fun part of the matches but its scheduling is tougher, and almost every week someone needed extra time. (Coordinating 4 people is tough) Not sure what change to call for in this. Just a note.
My one suggestion is to list TAG with one primary supervisor in match per team, then she/he shows up with some teammate at an arranged time.

[Updated on: Thu, 10 April 2014 22:54]

      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2670
Registered:
December 2007
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Fri, 11 April 2014 03:48
Do we have an interesting competition ?
I guess it depends on the points of view. No team has remained undefeated, most teams have a shot at reaching playoffs, and a majority of them has the potential to reach the semis.
That makes it interesting

More players ?
The rules/format have little impact on the turnout.

Let's say that NC represents the pool of players likely to play a 2er event. Fusion gathers almost half of those players. Offering one more US match would not attract many more players who already play League, or who just need a break.

Captains and players are the ones that can make a difference. A motivated captain is more likely to find players, and to build a motivated team. A motivated team is more likely to go far in the tournament.
If more captains/teammates are motivated, for sure, we can improve the quality of the event itself.

Format
5 matches, including one more US match, would favor the strongest teams, eliminating the chances of a tie. BTB is not the strongest on paper, but seeing BTB/GANG for the second time in final may be a motivation killer.

The "home/away" feature from the CL was a good one. A 5th match could be the "home team's choice".
Or the home team could design partially a clash, among a list of possibles matches format.

Team composition ?
Establishing restrictions did not give every team more chance to win the CL in the end.

Are players really willing to play with people they have no relationship with ?
I guess the social part is related to the motivation factor. You split friends, you kill some team spirit.
Only a very few players make themselves known in the forum... I guess everbody likes to do their own stuff, according to their own relationships.

Are players really willing to let a draft determine who your teammates are ?
I am all ok with a draft on paper... but if my teammates does not care about being a teammate, nor does care about the event, that would piss me off pretty quickly.

If some players expect teams to be more mixed over the years,
I, (I talk for myself, not for my teammates) would be open to merge my team with another one to rebuild 2 new teams. We would then mix players a bit more while keeping some solid foundations.

[Updated on: Fri, 11 April 2014 05:16]

      
dea1
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2007 Winner

Posts: 2010
Registered:
September 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Fri, 11 April 2014 15:50
@Q1: add 2nd US match

I can't see how this should bring more teams to the event.
In the best scenario that I can see the number of teams would stay the same, and they all add one more player for this 2nd US match.
In the worst, the number of teams will shrink, because some Players who could also play another variant and form a Team around themselves prefer to play US in some other Team.

I like competitions with even # of matches/clash.
It makes every point you achieve in your match more important (because tie in matches won is likely).

Summary: I wouldn't add a 5th match (2nd US match).
But if you do, fine with me, I'll find a Player for it.

@Q2: Make US/EU EU only
Not sure: There certainly are some players who would prefer to play EU only, others may like the mix.
I hope the guys playing US/EU this year let us know what they would prefer.

@Q3: TAG coordination
The only thing that needs to change here is some player's (captain's) attitude.
When you put somebody in the lineup it should be ascertained before that this player can offer a reasonable number of dates at reasonable times.
There should be no difference at all between single and TAG, the TAG players just have to check their possible times before the lineup. Then one player of the partnership can speak for both of them and arrange the date with the opp just as he would for a single match.
If you know in advance that you can offer only limited dates/times, talk to the opp capt asap (in RR you can do that weeks ahead for some matches) and fix the problem before it occurs.

@Team composition:
There really should be one event where you can play with whoever you like!
In NC you are bound to players of the same country - good, because that's the idea of a Nations Cup.
FC shall be the Cup with no boundaries, where you can choose your (other) friends no matter what their ELO, TELO, or whatever else crapLO currently is.
Does skiing get less interesting because in a men's Slalom it's mainly the question whether Felix Neureuther or Marcel Hirscher will win, and in a women's Slalom the question is whether Michaela Shiffrin will win again as expected?
Do other skiers stop to participate because of that, or do they keep on trying and hope for the moment where they can beat them?

Please leave that, as it is!

Any version of more or less random composition of teams (draft ideas) is a clear Nogo for me. There are people with whom I simply wouldn't want to be on a team, and even if I'm lucky to get a team with all nice players it wouldn't be the same fun that I can have with my friends.

Mixes may happen anyway over time (it may get boring to play with the same people 5 years in a row, you may find new friends, some may stop playing or need a break, ...) but I'd find it absolutely crazy to enforce them.
      
GenuineFauxFarm
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 363
Registered:
February 2009
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Fri, 11 April 2014 17:22
Thanks for the forum to discuss onyx.

Q1:
I'd rather only have 4 matches per round. Some of the reasons agree with dea - this format does encourage a player to play the whole match with some attention because a 2-4 loss is better than a 1-5 loss, just as 5-1 is better than 4-2 (for example). And, I have to admit that I can only spend so much time. Adding more matches means I need to find more time to be there when team mates play. I try to be there for at least part of each match, but more time commitment only reduces my ability to do that. As a result, I'm afraid we lose more team unity.

Adding another US round doesn't add anything to the competition in my mind. We are not limited by that. We are limited by the number of people willing to do AA and TAG. If you want to increase teams, you need to find ways to encourage both of these.

Q2 - I do like the idea of changing US/EU to just EU. AA awards players who can adapt to a different map/set of rules each game. Let's go ahead and reward the highest levels of play and understanding for the EU map by making it all EU.

Q3 - TAG schedule.
I had my lineups set up for the entire season at the very beginning - with contingencies, of course. I don't think we should find it so terribly hard to have each team submit their TAG team for each and every round at the very beginning.

Let me summarize what I'm thinking.

a - all TAG teams scheduled known at the beginning of Round 1.
b - TAG matches can be played at any point PRIOR to the round the match is to occur.
c - TAG matches have an additional 2 (or 3) days beyond the normal round deadline to complete as long as either
1 - the match scheduling is known prior to the deadline
or 2 - circumstances arose that the teams are adjusting to and adequate communication is demonstrated.
d - the final round TAG match can only get 1 day grace in extenuating circumstances meeting conditions above.
e - TAG team member composition should be allowed to change as circumstance requires to get the match played (we do this already I think)
f - perhaps we should even require teams to provide a back up TAG team in their schedule.
g - perhaps we should have TAG teams published preferred playing times (CET for common frame of reference) and/OR playing time limits. This puts potential conflicts out there for all to see.

Q4 - Team composition
I'm fine with just letting people figure out who they might enjoy having on their team regardless of location, etc.

With team events it is important to have people who get along with each other on the same team and have similar motivations to be a team.

Q5 - Finding a way to do more with other maps?
I do think going just EU rather than US/EU is a good move.
But, I wish we could have a slot for Asia or Swiss or Big Cities, etc.

One option that I'm not sure I like... but I'll put it here anyway:

Make the US/EU slot an EU/Asia slot. Then, allow teams to split the match between two players. One person plays 3 EU games and another plays 3 Asia games - applied to one slot in the competition. with the option that the same 2 players can play both the EU and Asia portion if desired.

I don't like it because:
- it reduces the recruiting power the EU slot would have for EU specialists
- adds complexity to tracking, scheduling, scoring, etc
- does nothing to address other maps
I like it because:
- there may be some players who have trouble playing a 6 game match, but could manage 3 - perhaps increasing participation
- it gives another map a little more exposure
- it moves this tournament away from the predominant US only map. Don't get me wrong, I like that map still. But, if we're going to try to get interest on other maps to increase, there needs to be more opportunities to play them with the motivation of competition. A single game of Asia in AA and one single elimination tourney will not do that.

That's my 2 cents worth.

Rob
GFF
      
dea1
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2007 Winner

Posts: 2010
Registered:
September 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Fri, 11 April 2014 19:11
GenuineFauxFarm schrieb am Fri, 11 April 2014 17:22

Q3 - TAG schedule.
I had my lineups set up for the entire season at the very beginning - with contingencies, of course. I don't think we should find it so terribly hard to have each team submit their TAG team for each and every round at the very beginning.

Let me summarize what I'm thinking.

a - all TAG teams scheduled known at the beginning of Round 1.
...



Here I don't agree with Rob.

If I had been forced to give my TAG lineups for all rounds in advance, it would have been different.
I wouldn't want to lose the possiblity to decide my lineup based on developments.
Eg I very much enjoyed to play one TAG with Kasi, but probably wouldn't have decided on that as long as I didn't know we were safe to qualify for KO (because we never played before).
And hey - what if there once comes a day where my beloved Hecki insults me just a little too much because I commit some terrible blunder and I defnitely want/need a new partner? Rolling Eyes Wink Laughing
      
SuperPello
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 386
Registered:
January 2011
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Fri, 11 April 2014 20:23
Hi all.

Why not a more simple:
US
EU
US/EU
AAT
TAG

?

(The second US player has at at least 3 US game)
      
Knockando
Senior Member
T2R Multi-Player World Championship 2010 Winner

Posts: 1408
Registered:
January 2010
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Fri, 11 April 2014 20:35
Q2 : I agree with Eu instead of US+EU
      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2670
Registered:
December 2007
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Fri, 11 April 2014 20:42
About TAG :We still have SAFE Exit... which allows you to schedule beforehand with a team if you feel like scheduling may be an issue.

If some teams want to release their TAG lineup beforehand, I do not see any issue. Again, I do not think there should be a rule for that. It is the captain's responsibility to foresee possible issues...

Team composition
My offer to mix teams is not meant to be a rule, it is just a personal initiative. It is just an offer to another team who would like to experience something different while keeping a core of players.

More other maps ?

By introducing the home/away feature, home team could have some freedom to set up the clash.

Format available (I just chose random format, no serious proposal here) : AAT, USA, U/E, Swiss/Asia, BC, Asia, Swiss/Europe.

Clash= 4 matches

Match 1 : USA or U/E compulsory
Match 2 : TAG complulsory
Match 3 and 4 : choice of the home team among the available formats.

A bit more strategy, more variety.

5 matches is a bit too much. It would require larger teams.
U/E was meant to give US players a chance to play Euro map. A full Euro clash would maybe not be as interesting for players like Tom, Pegaso, Bean, Tinman or some others. Do we want teams of specialists or players who try a bit of everything ?

[Updated on: Fri, 11 April 2014 20:45]

      
GenuineFauxFarm
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 363
Registered:
February 2009
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Fri, 11 April 2014 20:47
GANG_dea1 wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 12:11



Here I don't agree with Rob.

If I had been forced to give my TAG lineups for all rounds in advance, it would have been different.
I wouldn't want to lose the possiblity to decide my lineup based on developments.
Eg I very much enjoyed to play one TAG with Kasi, but probably wouldn't have decided on that as long as I didn't know we were safe to qualify for KO (because we never played before).
And hey - what if there once comes a day where my beloved Hecki insults me just a little too much because I commit some terrible blunder and I defnitely want/need a new partner? Rolling Eyes Wink Laughing


And, I'll agree to disagree with dea (which is rare).

This is one of those cases where I think a EU and US viewpoint really does differ. If your TAG team resides in US, or maybe East Asia/Australia, it might be good to have more time to plan around events since we all know how the time zones work.

I am able to play in these events in large part because I work for myself and I plan things in advance as much as possible. I push my work into US evenings or weekends during the Winter months. But, it is often necessary that I make specific scheduling changes. In my mind, if I were on the TAG team, I'd be happy to have all of my matches for TAG in the calendar as soon as I could. That doesn't mean I'd want to play them all the same week. It means I'd want them scheduled. Then I only have to worry about the inevitable emergency that forces change.

And, I'm not so inflexible that I wouldn't agree to a change in players if Hecki angered dea so much that she had to play with another partner.

Thanks for listening.

Rob
GFF
      
GenuineFauxFarm
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 363
Registered:
February 2009
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Fri, 11 April 2014 20:57
BTB Sysyphus wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 13:42

About TAG :We still have SAFE Exit... which allows you to schedule beforehand with a team if you feel like scheduling may be an issue.


Yes, I realize this Sysy. But, I don't think anyone gets motivated enough with this to actually use it. Everyone thinks things will work out - until they don't. Besides, to do safe exit, it helps to know the other teams TAG team that is scheduled. Whatever. I'm not worried if none of my suggestions are used. But, discussion isn't useful unless we bounce some ideas around.

Quote:


More other maps ?

By introducing the home/away feature, home team could have some freedom to set up the clash.


Not a bad idea. But, if we do home/away, doesn't that mean we have to meet each team twice to have a home and away leg? Would that fit in our league/tourney schedule?

Quote:


5 matches is a bit too much. It would require larger teams.
U/E was meant to give US players a chance to play Euro map. A full Euro clash would maybe not be as interesting for players like Tom, Pegaso, Bean, Tinman or some others. Do we want teams of specialists or players who try a bit of everything ?


By that argument you would say Asia/EU would be a better slot than the current U/E simply because playing more 2er USA shows nothing beyond the normal.
      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2670
Registered:
December 2007
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Fri, 11 April 2014 21:53
GenuineFauxFarm wrote on Fri, 11 April 2014 20:57


Yes, I realize this Sysy. But, I don't think anyone gets motivated enough with this to actually use it. Everyone thinks things will work out - until they don't. Besides, to do safe exit, it helps to know the other teams TAG team that is scheduled. Whatever. I'm not worried if none of my suggestions are used. But, discussion isn't useful unless we bounce some ideas around.



TAG scheduling is not a major problem.
If USA/Euro timezone could be an issue, then any TAG involving teams in different timezone should be published asap.

Quote:


More other maps ?
Not a bad idea. But, if we do home/away, doesn't that mean we have to meet each team twice to have a home and away leg? Would that fit in our league/tourney schedule?



If 5 matches/team in a round robin, 5th match could be the a neutral format by default determined before the tournament.

Quote:


By that argument you would say Asia/EU would be a better slot than the current U/E simply because playing more 2er USA shows nothing beyond the normal.


Sure. Fusion was meant first to promote alternative maps. We could consider that, after 2 years, everybody had a chance to try something other than US map.
But I can not force captains/players to try a different map. Captains could incitate their teammates to try something else, like Tom does with LOL.
With the home/away format, we could reduce the 'power' of the US map to only 1 match (or even half if U/E) + TAG. 2 other matches on alternative formats.

1. US or U/E
2. TAG
3 & 4. Alternative format of home's team choice.
      
DrakeStorm
Senior Member
T2R 2014 World Champion

Posts: 853
Registered:
March 2006
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Sat, 12 April 2014 01:26
AAT and perhaps TAG are the limiting factor in the number of teams in Fusion. Adding another USA match doesn't do much in that regard.

Since there is no TAG tournament its hard to tell how many players out there will play TAG, but for AAT it is fairly easy to see. There are about 20 players who have played in AAT tournaments and another 4 that played AAT in Fusion this year that haven't played in AAT. So if you have 2 AAT people per team, the most teams you can get is 12. This year 4 teams only had 1 AAT player, so the potential to have more teams was there, but 2 teams, GANG and BTB, each sucked up 4 AAT players. And which 2 teams made it to the finals both year? So the strategy of hoarding AAT players seems to be a winning one.

As for the US/EU match. I don't see why it should be EU alone, or EU at all. EU is not that much more popular than Asia. Currently there are 29 players in AMC, and about 35 signed up for EMC. So yes Europe is more popular, but not enough to warrant its own match. It seems of the people that play SPWC/EMC/AMC/SMC, EMC is the least favorite. The only reason EMC gets more players is there is a fair amount that only play SPWC/EMC (because they don't own Asia/Swiss map?).

32 people played in FUN, so that is a viable option for a match in Fusion. Either to replace AAT or US/EU match.

The Home/Away idea would be good if there was enough time in the schedule. Another option is each week the 4th (or 3rd and 4th) match changes (week 1 its Asia, week 2 = AAT, week 3 = FUN, etc.). This would add variety and wouldn't require teams to find more specialists for their team. On the down side it would be luck of the draw if your team matches up with another team that had a good player (i.e. matching up with Truck's team when its Asia map week, etc.).

I think if you could do 4 matches with the home/away idea where 2 matches are USA and the other 2 decided by the home team (choosing between Europe,Asia,Swiss,AAT,FUN,TAG), it might work. Could restrict the choice more by saying 1 match has to be ATT/Swiss/Asia and the other has to be EU/FUN/TAG.

Whatever is done, it will be almost impossible to get more than 12 teams if the best specialists stick together on a team. As for a different team making it to the finals, that is possible but difficult with no separate TAG tournament to improve skills, unless a team like GP who have Patterson/hogika which did well in TAG, add a top 5 AAT player to their roster (or something similar).

      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2670
Registered:
December 2007
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Sat, 12 April 2014 08:39
DrakeStorm wrote on Sat, 12 April 2014 01:26

.
There are about 20 players who have played in AAT tournaments and another 4 that played AAT in Fusion this year that haven't played in AAT. So if you have 2 AAT people per team, the most teams you can get is 12. This year 4 teams only had 1 AAT player, so the potential to have more teams was there, but 2 teams, GANG and BTB, each sucked up 4 AAT players. And which 2 teams made it to the finals both year? So the strategy of hoarding AAT players seems to be a winning one.



Only 3 teams decided to keep the same line-up over the whole fusion : AN2, PPB and NG. I am sure it is a choice from PPB to do it like that and NG just kept their lineup from last year. Other AAT players were available before Fusion starts for those 3 teams (womble, Rui, and I am sure Maximour or RV would have helped a team if need be)

Giving 4 AAT players to BTB while giving only one to AN2 is pure BS. Are you putting ommie on the same level as me or you ? Or would you consider that BTB is making an effort to have as many players to play AAT ? In that case, I'd also count Cromze as an AAT player since I offered him to play it...
Sucked up what ? Val, ommie and I have been teammates since CL 2010. Elka since 2011. Every year, my teammates are free to join another team if they wish to do so...

Without looking at the AAT tournament, and based on the criteria "ommie is an AAT player", that list of AAT players would slightly modify your 4:1 ratio.

AN2 : The Tinman, Drake
AWT : Julichka, Lexx
G7 : Rui, Will, Womble
BTB : Sysy, Elka, Val, ommie
GANG : chriss, dea, Truck, Hecki
NG : Enix
LOL : onyx puffin, LeGoupil, Pammes
CF : Miguel, Qorlas, Tyrana
GP : GFF, haxxli, Diplo
PPB : Knockando (I'm sure 335d would not look bad either)
XO : Lucullupus, Cat and JenAck

We could push the reasoning at the extreme by considering that Pelo, Loca, dandee and Patterson are also AAT players since they participated (and won) a TTR world championship tournament.

Quote:


As for the US/EU match. I don't see why it should be EU alone, or EU at all. EU is not that much more popular than Asia. Currently there are 29 players in AMC, and about 35 signed up for EMC.


Looking at the numbers is not favoring this argument.
50 players played EMC last year, almost 50 Fusion players are able to play Euro map. It's 50% more players than this year's Fun, or last year's Asia or Swiss. It's also 3 times more players than AAT.
When we look at the top 40 DoW rankings in each map, way more Fusion players are playing Europe on a regular basis than Asia and Swiss.

Fun format is like a full match on Mega Map. It'd be needed to precise the purpose of Fusion : Pure Fun or fun competition ?

Quote:


Whatever is done, it will be almost impossible to get more than 12 teams if the best specialists stick together on a team.


Whatever is done, it'd be hard to get more than 12 teams because Fusion gathers already 64 players. Only NC and SPWC do clearly better in terms of turnout.
If specialists are killing the turnout, I'd like to know the number of players not playing Fusion because they can not form a team.

To form a team, and therefore get more players in, I guess social skills weigh way more than TTR or competitive skills.

[Updated on: Sat, 12 April 2014 08:46]

      
dea1
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2007 Winner

Posts: 2010
Registered:
September 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Sat, 12 April 2014 09:28
Of course Drake is right, BTB and GANG are draining all the energy out of this event by sucking up all AAT players.
The final they sneaked into with this evil strategy is reported as "the vampire diaries".

GANG is probably even worse than BTB:
They have
- 5 US players
- 5 TAG players
- 4 EU players
- 4 AAT players

18 people altogether, if those basterds (an no, that was the other team Smile ) wouldn't horde them that could be FIVE teams instead of 1!!!


I heard that the US are close to bringing the cloning process to perfection, so a team consisting of
- Drake the US player
- Drake the EU player
- Drake the AAT player
- The Drakes, the TAG players
may become reality pretty soon

In the Austrian mountains we are a little unprogressive, so I'll probably be just a TAG player (and therefore no AAT player) in the next years, too.
Really sorry for that, folks Wink

[Updated on: Sat, 12 April 2014 09:30]

      
DrakeStorm
Senior Member
T2R 2014 World Champion

Posts: 853
Registered:
March 2006
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Sun, 13 April 2014 00:09
I love how you like to attack me just to be contrarian.

When the organizers sit and say they are trying to help make the event better or bigger, then say that AAT is the reason that there are not more teams either behind the scenes or publicly, and THEN have a high number of AAT players on their team, then YES that is a problem. Even more so now that it seems you are denying that a lack of good AAT players was the limiting factor in teams.

Want me to revise my numbers and just look at good AAT players, fine. Since AAT started in 2009 here are all the players that have made it to the playoffs.

Truck, dea, hecki, chris = GANG
Sysy, Val, Elka = BTB
Womble = G7
Miguel = CF
Drake = AN2
Knock = PPB

As for EU, if you are trying to make an event bigger, you don't look at what people are playing, you really need to figure out why they are not playing. First thing to do would be survey all the people that signed up for SPWC/EMC/AMC/SMC and ask them if they HAD to drop 1 of the events, which would it be. That would give a decent indication which map is the least popular (my guess is swiss or europe). You can't ask the players who just signed up for SPWC/EMC. Those players probably either don't own the other maps, or don't know how to play them well and don't want to get slaughtered in a tournament. Depending on all this, you can then modify your tournament. If players don't want to get slaughtered, then you develop some kind of handicapping system to get them to play by evening the playing field.

To equate FUN to MEGA is absurb. I have played every format, and I play them well, and FUN has more skill than MEGA, Big Cities and 1910, probably even Asia.

And just to get back to the original point. If you want to get more teams (or even same number of teams but more competitive teams), AND keep the AAT match in Fusion, then there are 2 options, get new players to play and get slaughtered or have players on BTB and GANG split to form more teams (and maybe G7 since Will and Rmarkes are decent on other maps).

Maybe I am wrong, maybe the limiting factor is TAG and that should be axed. Run a TAG only event and see how many teams sign up.
      
Truckerteller
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 696
Registered:
October 2007
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Sun, 13 April 2014 01:01
Getting rid of AAT would probably be the easiest to improve the interest level. The AAT tournament has had only 15, 12 and 15 participants the last 3 years and max 5 players play mega, BC and 1910 enough to know what they're doing anyway.

For TAG I don't see any limitations other than scheduling and time constraints. If you enjoy multi and are half decent at it, TAG seems very enjoyable at a competitive level. I just don't think it should be so important in deciding the overall result of the matches.

Maybe something like
1. US
2. US
3. EU
4. Asia / Swiss
5. TAG US
      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2670
Registered:
December 2007
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Sun, 13 April 2014 04:01
Last year, you did not complain about the format at all, and certainly not about AAT, nor you mentioned FUN.

I think motivation and captains account for 40% of the final result, skills and luck 60%, format : 0%. You can bring up whatever format you want, if your team is not motivated or your captain is not social/motivated, you won't win.

I have no issues with removing AAT... No new players indeed play AAT...
But more players play TAG because some players decided to step up and give it a try. Or it's because their captain incitate them to play it.

To level the field, give 1 or 2 matches to a team's choice so that they can play on their strength and less worry about the format.


[Updated on: Sun, 13 April 2014 04:36]

      
dea1
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2007 Winner

Posts: 2010
Registered:
September 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Sun, 13 April 2014 11:21
One more try as it seems my humouristic attempt (or my attempt to be humouristic?) didn't explain enough:

People who can in theory play all variants will/have to decide what they want to play in FC.
Heck and I have decided to play TAG.
a) Because we like to play that with each other and FC is the only tournament where we can do that
b) Because we think we are far better in TAG than in AAT (if somebody once does TAG-TELO I'm sure that can also be proven as a fact)

I don't like the idea of 1 (or 2) predominant player(s) who play more than one match/week and can basically win the tournament alone.
a) because it's against "team spirit"
b) because it normally increases scheduling problems (if you have to find 2 dates/week instead of only 1)
TAG players being allowed to play a single match in addition is a good rule for emergencies (someone not available in a certain week), and may be useful for strategy in KO (of course you want to have whatever you consider your best lineup there), but - at least for me - it shouldn't be the standard.

So ... if I want to continue playing TAG with Hecki (which we do), we need an additional AAT player on our team.
I think that's completely logical, and simply can't follow Drake's argument here.

Next that we need is an EU player.
Yes, that wouldn't have to be Truckerteller - who could in theory also play AAT - ,it could also be someone who plays only EU+US but not the other maps.
But does Trucker want to play AAT all the time?
If he wants to play EU, nobody gains anything, because he cannot play both, EU and AAT.

Summary:
I'm happy with my team as it is, because I enjoy to be on a team with my friends.
I would consider changes if there were good reasons how that could help whoever/whatever for the "greater good" - but I don't see any.
Counting theoretic AAT players (=anyone who ever played in an AAT tournament) produces more of them (and therefore more teams?) in theory but doesn't work in practice.
If you want to play TAG or EU, because that's where your main strength/pleasure lies, you are not available as AAT player, and that's it.

[Updated on: Sun, 13 April 2014 11:22]

      
DrakeStorm
Senior Member
T2R 2014 World Champion

Posts: 853
Registered:
March 2006
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Sun, 13 April 2014 22:53
GANG_dea1 wrote on Sun, 13 April 2014 02:21

If you want to play TAG or EU, because that's where your main strength/pleasure lies, you are not available as AAT player, and that's it.


I'm not saying you have to play a format you don't want to. I am saying that given the player base if you want more teams or more competitive teams, the AAT players need to split up (especially the good players). If you and truck don't play AAT next year, then there will still be 11 teams (or less).

It goes against the spirit of the team formation, but technically you could make a list of the 25 players who have any experience in AAT and say you can only have 2 players from this list on your team. Kinda like the ELO limit for CL. Actually for any of the formats with a TELO you could say - you can only have 1 player in the top 15 or 20 on your team.

I don't know how you would accomplish this, but it would be nice if each team could put in an "inexperienced" AAT into the line up a certain number of weeks, with the knowledge that the other team would also be putting up an inexperienced player (and not just in the final week when you know you have already clinched a KO spot). So AN2 could put in Tinman knowing he will play Ommie and not Sysy, etc. Against GANG the idea wouldn't work so great unless Kasi played AAT.

As for playing 2 matches a week. That was not an issue for scheduling for me at least. AMC/SMC are at same time, SPWC/EMC, etc. As for help winning, it could be the case (obviously not in my case, we didn't even make it to KO), but you have to weigh that against having less teams. I could have joined a different team and then there would have only been 10 teams, a few more people do that and you are down to 8 teams...
      
onyx puffin
Senior Member

Posts: 1034
Registered:
January 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Mon, 14 April 2014 20:59
So, I started this thread hoping for some input from both those who played this year and those who may desire to play in future years (specifically next year)

The curiosity to me is: we have heard from Sysyphus, dea, gff, superpello, knockando, Drakestorm and truckerteller. These in the main are the people who organize the events and surely have had input over the years. AND while I value these persons very much for what they add to our tournaments and events, I STILL WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHERS we may not always hear from.

I know there can be many reasons not to write something here. ("my english is not sharp enough", "I don't want to get yelled at", (we yell and bicker in love Rolling Eyes ) or "I really don't care, just tell me the rules."
Even if you feel any of those ways, it is still nice to hear from you and you can write in your native language and we can get an interpreter.


Signed, trying to organize to be better for the community.
      
SOJA Ishamael
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 177
Registered:
July 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Mon, 14 April 2014 23:50
Hi Onyx, thanks for bringing this up.

We discussed this briefly in the team, but since I didn't hear back from all members I hadn't posted a reply for XO yet. Here is some of the input so far:

Q1: We think that 2 times US is a bit much, and it would in general be better to avoid doing the same thing twice. Perhaps adding a FUN on US map could be an option, or something else.
Q2: no preference
Q3: for us scheduling TAG went without problems. I am not sure the offered method would solve the problems. What I would propose is that when submitting the team list the TAG teams should include their available time slots of that week, so that it can be immediately seen if there is a time that can work out, or if there is a potential problem. That could gain some valuable time.

Furthermore, we would definitely like to keep TAG. AAT could go and be replaced by something else if that is preferred.

The proposal of home/away matches and choosing 2 formats (along US and TAG please) is an interesting one, but the draw would become a bit more important than it is now. Also how would this work out in the KO-stage? Another option is that each team chooses one format for each match.
      
Mr Bean
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 809
Registered:
May 2006
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Mon, 14 April 2014 23:59
I like team tournaments in general and have been on a very nice team in FC the past years.

Just from a personal point of view I would like to replace EU with any other map; I think it is by far the most random-result-getting map that I played: the others I know and have played are US, CH so I guess that means I would like to see CH replace EU in the current format.

I'm aware that my EU skills are improvable e.g. by learning more about the tickets, but it still doesn't eliminate the (in my opinion) unequality of the big tix, the almost total randomness of the tunnels (I'm sure you can try to avoid them to some extent, but then someone who doesn't and gets lucky might still beat you). The stations are another factor I don't really like, but that's not as bad as the others.

So here goes: eliminate EU from TTR Twisted Evil Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil
(Not the other way around please Cool )
      
Qorlas
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 1569
Registered:
January 2008
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Tue, 15 April 2014 00:10
Just a comment on the Euro map.

It is not random and not all the big tix are good the same.
However you have not to take alway the big tix Wink
And there are a lot of options to play with the small tix that can give you the chance to win against a good big-small combo Wink

In my view:

*USA is over-played and all the tactics have been explored.
*Euro is the second map and is defintely undervalued by lot of people around Wink. Usually you win on it when you follow 4/5 guidelines regarding tix-choice, route priority, color management and tunnel tactic. Believe me: it is not random and I am sure that division A of next Euroleague season will show that Wink

*Asia: 3rd map in my view... I would go with the format: US, Euro, Asia, TAG if you wish to change something in Fusion format (even if I love AAT Wink )

*Swiss: nice tactics but I feel that that is the random map with color management that is defintely more difficult than in Europe if you need to make a route in the north part.

*Big cities is undervalued too.. I find it as a very interesting game. I feel that 1910 and Mega are seen badly because they change too much the game from standard USA while Big Cities is more or less the same without the bonus and different tix.

Just my view Wink
      
Qorlas
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 1569
Registered:
January 2008
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Tue, 15 April 2014 00:11
And in the guidelines... the only one I will tell around is:


5) You will push your opponent towards tunnels Smile

(regarding the rest.. I am not giving away my tricks Very Happy )
      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2670
Registered:
December 2007
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Tue, 15 April 2014 02:28
It seems the discussion focuses on the format rather than on teams.

FUN has been suggested a couple times :

1) How do you make it a 6-game match ? In that case, format should go back to bo 5, or best of 7 for the other mapsss.
2) FUN tournament loses its fun purpose and now becomes a competitive format. I guess that would need clarification.
3) In a clash involving FUN, TAG and US we go back to 3 matches out of 4 on the US map. Not Fusion anymore...

If we give up on AAT, (which seems to be a trend), we should not give up on Euro, Asia and Swiss. Instead of criticizing every map, I'd encourage players to learn new maps, to go towards their teammates to get advice.
USA and TAG seem to be a lock.

1)
USA
EURO
ASIA/SWISS
TAG

Good by me, but would not address some concerns above.

2)
USA
EURO
ASIA/SWISS
TAG (why not include a Euro TAG ?)
FUN

Can still be played with 4/5 players. Swiss/Asia is maybe less exclusive than AAT. FUN can be learnt by any US players.

Drawback = we would need to revise the format (bye ties, and back to bo5/bo7)
Instead of trying to bring more teams, we should simply try to attract more players by strengthening the existing teams. 11/12 with 60 players is still very decent.

[Updated on: Tue, 15 April 2014 02:57]

      
Truckerteller
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 696
Registered:
October 2007
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Tue, 15 April 2014 03:21
Why not even:

US
EU
Asia
Swiss
TAG US

If you play an opponent 6 games in a row, you start to get a feeling of how likely he/she is to block, how fast they tend to get on the board, how likely they are to fiend etc. That extra dimension is lost i.m.o. in AAT and to a lesser extent US/EU currently.

How good people are at Asia, Swiss or Europe is as much a consideration as how good the bottom 10 ranking teams are in 2P US NC. It doesn't seem to deter any teams.

      
GenuineFauxFarm
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 363
Registered:
February 2009
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Tue, 15 April 2014 04:13
Great discussion.

If it is a matter of opinion...

Each variant has strategic pluses and minuses.

I personally like AAT, even if I haven't gotten very good at it yet. I also like Asia and oddly enough, I enjoy Big Cities and am learning to appreciate 1910 (a little). I am not a big fan of EU and I tire of how tunnels in Swiss treat me many days, though I like it much better than EU. I don't particularly care that much for the FUN variants.

But, in all cases, I think that play evolves as we play the map or variant more. I've watched a few FUN matches where the strategies have clearly advanced over the previous 2 years.

So, a suggestion or 2 more...

If you want a US variant match, you can do a US map all around. Include options such as 1910, Big Cities, Snake, etc...

Overall, we've got a creative group of people and can come up with all kinds of options.

In the end, I think most people might be happiest with having a slot that allows a home team to select from a list of possible match options.

Rob
GFF
      
SuperPello
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 386
Registered:
January 2011
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Tue, 15 April 2014 11:58
BTB Sysyphus wrote on Tue, 15 April 2014 02:28

TAG (why not include a Euro TAG ?)


Personally I like/love TAG as it is.
Euro map with stations brings out lot of the essence of the game. Yes, you could block playing double stations, but is not the same thing. No, definitely i would keep US map.

Marco
      
dea1
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2007 Winner

Posts: 2010
Registered:
September 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Tue, 15 April 2014 14:03
@More slots for other maps

Plus:
Goes well with die idea of Fusion.
I like them all so whatever is chosen is fine with me.

Minus:
If we currently see a problem with AAT Players being the limiting factor, adding another "non standard map" will increase this problem.
The players who play Asia, Swiss, etc. are mainly the same.
Now you need one of that species (who isn't already playing TAG or EU) to fill your AAT slot.
With, say, 5 slots US/EU/Asia/Swiss/TAG you will need to find players for Asia and for Swiss who come out of the same "AAT pot" that is currently considered as being too small.


@FUN

has FUN become serious enough to be part of such a tournament?
As long as
... it's played unrated
(Unrated makes sense if the winner of the game is or need not be the one who has most points - and therefore gets the ELO points - in the end. Like in TAG, or in some former FUN variants where you got a bonus for blocking an opp's ticket or something like that. All the current FUN variants have a winner who has the most points - if the majority wants that to be played unrated, that means they don't consider it a true tournament game based on skills)
... even very competitive players consider rules violations (willing to accept the penalty) like blocking in Snake (where the block doesn't fit into your snake) as "against the spirit of FUN"

I don't think so.

If it were included, I wouldn't like to switch everything back to best of 5 matches.
Find a 6th variant - Colo had some more.

[Updated on: Tue, 15 April 2014 14:05]

      
onyx puffin
Senior Member

Posts: 1034
Registered:
January 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Tue, 15 April 2014 14:48
One variant I hope to try is not on US map, but EU. Simply, when choosing tickets you may not take the big 20+ point ticket.
If you know the other did not keep the 20+ ticket, would have to change a lot of the strategy since you would not know where a person was going early on.
      
Qorlas
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 1569
Registered:
January 2008
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Tue, 15 April 2014 15:02
In Euro,

if you cannot take the long tix then the game is already won by the players having the better placement on the map of the small tix (not going to tell which combos Wink )

In my view in Euro map:

Good long + good small is the favoured combo but can lose with
Bad long with good small and two/3 good smalls

There can be however also bad combos of small tix Smile

(example) : bud-sof, mad-die and fra-kob
imagine to have to play a game in which you have these and you cannot select the long.....
and
pure blocking games does not work in euro like in USA Wink

[Updated on: Tue, 15 April 2014 15:05]

      
TAKA Enix - Poulsard
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 220
Registered:
December 2006
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Tue, 15 April 2014 15:19
For me, my principal reason that I'm playing FUSION, It's because there's AAT.

If AAT doesn't exist, I don't play FUSION. For me AAT, is the part of fun of this Tournament.
Because you don't wich map your opponent gonna choose and I like that.
      
Qorlas
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 1569
Registered:
January 2008
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Tue, 15 April 2014 15:25
Summing it up:

the small pool is the same if we consider Asia, Swiss or AAT.
I cannot understand why more people doesn't play other maps... it is just a game!
Perhaps they can be played unranked if they wish to defend the ranking...
Off course when you start to play a map you will lose more... but the main aim is of enjoying more of the game not of being perfect in just one sub-part of the game Wink


In my view:

we could try the home/away format with the following rules:

*Home team declares one week before the lineup sending which formats he wishes to have in the clash (TAG has to be present).

*Clash made of 4 matches:
TAG and then 3 out of US, Euro, AAT, Swiss and Asia.

It could work Wink
      
THEBEEF
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 167
Registered:
July 2009
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Tue, 15 April 2014 22:49
Bonsoir,

For me, my principal reason that I'm playing FUSION, It's because there's EU/US.

If EU/US doesn't exist, I don't play FUSION. For me EU/xx (xx could be US or Asia), is the part of fun of this Tournament.

Because (xx) usually allow to my opponent to defeat me. Shocked Shocked.

More seriously, the format 6 games on the same map exists besides. Keep the spirit of the Fusion Cup with this mixture of players and maps, even if you think that ATT limits it (I hope that certain good ATT players will have the courage to register their own team).

TAG scheduling seems to me to be just a willingness question.

NG spirit burns Inside.

      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2670
Registered:
December 2007
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Wed, 16 April 2014 18:39
When I hear about 'Euro map = luck', 'Asia map = block is easy', 'AAT is too specialized', 'TAG euro = block' etc..

That's we end up with only US map stuff.

Nobody was born an AAT player, you become an AAT player.
Nobody has a huge edge in Swiss, Asia or 1910 maps. Everybody can catch up pretty fast, even faster with the help of a teammate.

We offer different formats/map : and instead of trying to master them, too many players would just avoid them and would stay in their comfort zone.

[Updated on: Wed, 16 April 2014 18:40]

      
Qorlas
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 1569
Registered:
January 2008
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Wed, 16 April 2014 19:52
Fully agree with last statement.

(rulings of League are done but real life stucked me without time, they will be posted soon Wink )
      
Mr Bean
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 809
Registered:
May 2006
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Wed, 16 April 2014 20:46
I can say that I tried: played 66 practise games on EU map for 2 matches (6 games). Apparently that wasn't enough, because I still lost all 6 EU games in FC. I have no problem admitting that is (partly or even largely) due to their greater skill and far greater experience, but e.g. in one of those matches I had 4 tries at a tunnel (in the 3 games combined): none was free and total extra cost was 6. In the same match my opponent took 5 tunnels: 3 were free, the other cost a total of 3 extra trains. I don't think there can be much doubt that this (completely random event) in itself would have a major influence on any match, so I still feel EU is inferior to e.g. US or CH.
Obviously all the games are to some extent luck-driven: you can always get bad tickets and / or bad colours, but only in EU can you get this totally random good or bad luck with the tunnels on top of that.

These 66 practise games I played - as I usually do - against all comers, so a good deal of them were against (very) lowly rated players, but I still managed to loose even quite a few of these, which I don't think had anything to do with greater skill on their part Shocked .

[Updated on: Wed, 16 April 2014 20:47]

      
dea1
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2007 Winner

Posts: 2010
Registered:
September 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Thu, 17 April 2014 00:32
@Bean and all EU haters:

I don't understand why the tunnels in EU are considered evil, but the tunnels in Swiss are not. It's the same concept, and Swiss has more tunnels doesn't it?

Sure, tunnels are an additional luck component.
You can reduce the luck factor by counting the known cards of the suit in question and the known locos, and by trying to avoid tunnels/force opp into tunnels.
You should always be prepared to pay an extra card or two.

Dependence on locos is an additional luck component, as there are routes where you can't do without them (besides locos being always good on all maps).

On the other side the stations give interesting new possiblities and alter the concept of blocking. They reduce the luck factor in my eyes as you are not automatically dead if the opp happens to play a route that you need urgently before you do.

The ticket distribution is more fair - sure, we all like Pal-Mos better than Ed-Ath, but still, everybody gets a long one - and gives a new focus on what to block and how to count.

Dependency on specific colors is less than in US, as most critical routes are grey or rather small with 2 colors.

How does it all sum up? No idea, ask the stats people Wink
My feeling is, it evens out.

Do your results - as relative newbie to a map - against low ELOs prove the luck factor of a map?
I don't think so.
When I started US I was sure that it was merely about the luck who got the more valuable tickets. I got to know TTR on the EU board that we had at home, then went online. So I had a decent idea how to plan routes to complete your tickets, which helped me to win US games when I had good tickets ... but only then.
I think the less familiar you are with a map the more you depend on the "luck" to get the things you can handle well.
Players coming from the US side are good at
- playing long tracks ... too bad there aren's too many in EU and it takes some time to realize the importance of 4ers
- blocking ... well, blocking in EU exists (a lot) but works completely differently with the stations
- ticket fiending (if needed) ... too bad if you don't know the tickets on the new map

My summary:
Each map has it's merits.
If I think a map sucks, that's probably beacuse I don't know it well enough.
As long as I don't know it well enough, I will be more luck dependent - if I get stuff I can handle well I can win against a top, if I don't, I risk losing to an 1100 player.
I don't think there's a general guideline that says "you have to play 100 games then you can judge the map". It depends on your approach (Do you just start playing and see what happens? Do you learn the tickets before? Do you watch good players before starting yourself?) ... and of course also on your talent.
Don't judge a map before you really know it.
      
Knockando
Senior Member
T2R Multi-Player World Championship 2010 Winner

Posts: 1408
Registered:
January 2010
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Thu, 17 April 2014 07:46
About different maps.

You play on the same map as your opponent Rolling Eyes so the luck factor is the same. And if a map was too dependant from luck, the ranking would always change. But on all maps, better ranked players are always the same. So there is not so much luck !!
You can prefer one map or another, but you can't say one map is too much dependant from luck.
But as dea said, you can't play the same on each map ! Perhaps some players are unable to play differently than they play on USA. But most of them don't really try.
Before starting to play a new map, I begin by looking for all the tickets. And after that I play, because I don't really like to watch and prefer to learn by myself, but sure it could be better to watch good players on this map Wink

[Updated on: Thu, 17 April 2014 07:46]

      
dandee
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 549
Registered:
November 2008
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 evaluation & questions Thu, 17 April 2014 09:09
if you want to make a real tournament Fusion the most fun and most interesting is to create teams randomly

a player signs up for one or more categories

Every year different teams

the current form of the tournament for me okay

cu
dan
      
Pages (2): [1  2  >  » ]     
Previous Topic:Late USA Night QT
Next Topic:Your opinion about the different TTR maps
Goto Forum: