Free Allegiance Forums

Instead of a squad tournament this year we are doing something a little different..
Get ready for BIG, competitive games! And introducing PLAYER TRADES!
This Tournament is open for all squad members, new players, and mercs alike!

2013 Yellow vs Blue 7 Game Tournament

@YE vs @BU
• Map or settings preference given to home team
o (Friendly Fire and Treasures to be agreed upon by commanders on game days)
• Player awards to be given based on achievements in game

GAME #1 (September 29th Squad Game Time (3pm EDT))
• On game day, YE and BU commanders do reverse pick pool attempting to keep rank equivalent
o Late arriving players must join team based on rank needs
• PKK to give @YE and @BU tags to those that were designated to either team after the first game

GAME #2 (October 6th Squad Game Time (3pm EDT))
• Brief second reverse pick pool for players that show up that weren't drafted on GAME #1

AFTER SECOND GAME
• TRADE PERIOD OF 6 DAYS (Oct 7-Oct 12)
o Bundled player trades must be rank equivalent (within +-5 AS) and must be agreed upon by both commanders
o Trades must be done publicly on the forums
o Players can request to be traded but the commander gets final decision
o Players must be notified by forum PM if they are a part of any trade (All players required to have forum accounts)
o Commanders can retain command as long as they show up to games and receive at least 1/2 the votes of any poll to remove them

AFTER FORTH GAME
• TRADE PERIOD #2 (Oct 21-26)
_______________________________________

GAME SCHEDULE

Game 1: Sept 29 SGT
Yellow (Home, chooses map or sets)

Game 2: Oct 6 SGT
Yellow (H)

Game 3: Oct 13 SGT
Blue (H)

Game 4: Oct 20 SGT
Blue (H)

Game 5: Oct 27 SGT
Yellow (H)

Game 6: Nov 10 SGT
Blue (H)

Game 7: Nov 17 SGT
Winner of Game 6 gets (H)

I recon tying this to rank is quite pointless, Babelfish is rank 18 while sheff iirc was rank 12? It basically comes down to the commanders knowing which players are worth more than their rank, and leaving the rest of the players to the other comm. (I would personally start with dumping high-rank low skill players to the opposite team if I was commanding this).

What I would want to see tbh is for the both commanders to be fixed in advance, and them both keeping a list of currently active players, with a separate rank assigned to those players by the commanders (agreed on by both comms). That will be a much more accurate representation of the skill, as well as better "trading" potential that you are trying to achieve. No-hider week to promote such evaluation would help (and possibly even use these ranks instead of currently assigned by ACSS in the future)...

_xJammer_ wrote:QUOTE (_xJammer_ @ Sep 23 2013, 04:08 AM) I recon tying this to rank is quite pointless, Babelfish is rank 18 while sheff iirc was rank 12? It basically comes down to the commanders knowing which players are worth more than their rank, and leaving the rest of the players to the other comm. (I would personally start with dumping high-rank low skill players to the opposite team if I was commanding this).

What I would want to see tbh is for the both commanders to be fixed in advance, and them both keeping a list of currently active players, with a separate rank assigned to those players by the commanders (agreed on by both comms). That will be a much more accurate representation of the skill, as well as better "trading" potential that you are trying to achieve. No-hider week to promote such evaluation would help (and possibly even use these ranks instead of currently assigned by ACSS in the future)...

Good ideas here.

Concerning the fixed commander idea: The initial commanders will be fixed.

That being the case it would be doable, albeit complicated, for them to make up and agree upon ranks for players. However, there's no guarantee that the two initial commanders will be able to show up to command every game. In that event a new commander would have to step up who may not agree with his predecessors rankings. There are many scenarios where it could get ugly.

I agree that our current ranking system is not very accurate, but it's better than nothing or by assigning personally biased ranks.

In light of what you say I might amend the rules to take out the +-5 AS requirement for trades..

That might work too. I was just worried for returning infrequent vets screwing up the intention of what seems to be a fairly awesome idea. (If we had all the time in the world, commanders bidding on players would be even better, imho)


P.S. For "commander assigned" rank, I would of course suggest much simpler bands of "very low" "low" "med" "high" "game changer" ranks, as I am pretty sure, majority here will be able to tell who belongs to what group.

I would just use numbers personally. 1-10.

So how would you gauge that?

The way that I'm thinking of is probably over complicated. New player arrives. Commander 1 gives him a value, commander 2 gives him a value, #Event gives him a value - add them together, divide by 3, round up?

Yeah I dunno about that even. Two 5 players do not equal one 10 player.

Maybe give them point values like in certain card games... Bull@#(!ting some set values here without actually crunching any numbers, but something like:

"Legendary" = 25 pts
"Epic" = 15 pts
"Good" = 10 pts
"Meh" = 5 pts
"sucky/noob" = 3 pts

I dunno, just brainstorming.

why reverse?

Doc Izzo wrote:QUOTE (Doc Izzo @ Sep 23 2013, 10:21 AM) why reverse?

reverse pick pool because ive seen the most balanced games this way and it makes the noobs happy.

however this rule can easily be changed if both initial commanders agree.

Only if it's not on Mach.

No need for arbitrary ranks. As long as trades are agreed upon by both comms there should be any preventable issues.