Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Yes and again a brilliant tourney didnt do so good as i wasnt really on for the tourney just to do buisness really
anyways yhyh wens da vidz being broadcasted on youtube eni
(Feb. 26, 2011 11:28 PM)sexy child Wrote: [ -> ]but bladestorms deception tactics are dirty, may have to do that myself,
but cant wait till next tourney and for the beypoints 2 be up...
I blame Bey Brad for calling me a Scrub because I didn't want to use it
I spent the day miraculously producing pizza
Was fun, but man double elimination is harsh, also means we're less likely to earn good points compared to the other tournaments in other countries, which is a bit unfair I think.
I think double elimination needs to be set as either the standard for EVERYONE running a tourny, or not used.
Kinda feels like we're being punished just for having more bladers.
Anyway /rant
Was a good day, well done to blitz!!!
yeah, agreeing with arkboy that double elimination is harsh but i think it went better than group play because it doesnt allow the high ranking players to get too far ahead but i also doesnt allow low ranking players to drop too far behind the pack and this form of tourney imo double elimination should be used in all tournaments or none as it is a bit unfair on the uk bladers
Agreed...
I only played three times, winning one and losing two...
Double elimination doesnt give people, especially newbies the chance to rack up some beypoints.
Either this should be set as the standard, or we give limited places for future tourneys... (dont think bladers will like tht though...)
limited places mabye but imo we should put the top 3 of evry tourney in the same group otherwise we have the same people winning every time.
Well I got some videos of the tournament and I'll be putting them up on Megaupload soon so if you want them just give me a PM. I'm also looking to make a video for my Youtube channel so it would be great if the other people that filmed any of the tournament could send me their videos, thanks!
Double Elimination will obviously not become the standard for other tournaments ... When you get twenty participants or more, that is what you have to use, but otherwise you cannot possibly do Double Elimination with so few people ... It is, in a sense, England's fault for being so populous in Bladers. As you mentioned, either restrict the amount of participants allowed, or just accept it.
I think we should just accept the double elimination format. I believe closing the game off for others when we can accomodate them is unfair and is counter-productive to what the WBO has strived to achieve for many years.
Having so many interested participants will mean that you can hold more frequent tournaments.
hey guys i was there but i had to go who won and what was the mystery prize in the raffle
(Feb. 27, 2011 5:08 PM)♥ Wrote: [ -> ]Having so many interested participants will mean that you can hold more frequent tournaments.
This is what I like about the UK community at the moment, you can plan a tournament and not have to worry about getting enough people. I would be more than happy to do two tournaments a month but It's just not possible being in a full time job (6 days a week), I know I'm not the only one who can host tournaments but most of the people who are more capable are in the same situation as me.
To be honest I can see why the UK community aren't so keen on the whole Double Elimination format as it does limit the amount of matches you'll get and points you can gain and we are so use to using the Block Round Robin Format. However I can also see where Kai-V is coming from having to process such a large number of battles is very time consuming as we seem to get 50+ people each time and i'm not willing to put a limit on the amount of people who can participate as it is defeating the point of the WBO is trying to achieve.
At the moment I'm happy to do Double Elimination as the UK is pretty active when it comes to tournaments compared to other countries. I'm going to do my best to host a tournament each month at the moment and will continue to do so for as along as I can.
(Feb. 27, 2011 5:22 PM)taz465 Wrote: [ -> ]hey guys i was there but i had to go who won and what was the mystery prize in the raffle
You can find all that info on the previous page.
(Feb. 27, 2011 5:47 PM)Blitz Wrote: [ -> ]i'm not willing to put a limit on the amount of people who can participate as it is defeating the point of the WBO is trying to achieve.
I don't see the idea of restricting the amount of participants as a bad thing, especially when there are many people in your area that can host tournaments frequently.
Agreed, I know it sucks, but it isn't very encouraging for new bladers who get kicked out almost instantly, how does that encourage them to keep blading at all when they play only 2 matches?
Thanks for playing twice, you can go now!
I think we need a mix of double elimination to encourage large gatherings and restricted round robin events to allow people to actually gain points.
I say, we should let newbies go for block round robin
and let the veterans and pros go with double elimination.
Makes sense right?
or we could hold more tournaments... with restricted numbers...
or put the veterans in a group and the newbies in a group that way your facing someone with a similar level of beyblading to you
I noticed you had a whale of a time trying to keep people in their groups. Maybe next time we can erect fences to keep people from wandering around. (ok, maybe not that extreme, but there must be a way)
Have you considered making it a mandatory condition of participating in the tournament, to be able to stay until a certain time? From where I stood it looked like it was handled well by the organisers, but it was still disruptive when people were disappearing without telling anyone.
Dman's makes more sense, if "noobs" by points could be filtered into their own groups, and more advanced players to be filtered into their groups it would not only allow "noobs" to have a higher chance of going further, but identifies the advanced; instead of advanced players stealing points from "noobs", they have to earn them from bladers of similar capabilities.
And an easy filtration to be done on the day/night before meaning no need for dramatic changes in any rules, same frequency of tournaments, ect.
control_ i have just found a flaw in my idea: what would happen if you had never competed in a tournament?
(Feb. 27, 2011 7:52 PM)ControL_ Wrote: [ -> ]Dman's makes more sense, if "noobs" by points could be filtered into their own groups, and more advanced players to be filtered into their groups it would not only allow "noobs" to have a higher chance of going further, but identifies the advanced; instead of advanced players stealing points from "noobs", they have to earn them from bladers of similar capabilities.
And an easy filtration to be done on the day/night before meaning no need for dramatic changes in any rules, same frequency of tournaments, ect.
Technically, if both advanced and "noobs" started at 1000 Beypoints, you could get a "noob" with the same amount of Beypoints as an advanced player just because they fought people of their caliber ... On a world ranking, that would not be representative.
(Feb. 27, 2011 8:02 PM)Kai-V Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb. 27, 2011 7:52 PM)ControL_ Wrote: [ -> ]Dman's makes more sense, if "noobs" by points could be filtered into their own groups, and more advanced players to be filtered into their groups it would not only allow "noobs" to have a higher chance of going further, but identifies the advanced; instead of advanced players stealing points from "noobs", they have to earn them from bladers of similar capabilities.
And an easy filtration to be done on the day/night before meaning no need for dramatic changes in any rules, same frequency of tournaments, ect.
Technically, if both advanced and "noobs" started at 1000 Beypoints, you could get a "noob" with the same amount of Beypoints as an advanced player just because they fought people of their caliber ... On a world ranking, that would not be representative.
It's still somewhat catergorising them, you would definitely find more "noobs" if there was a low beypoint grouping. As opposing to how we did do it, which meant our group was overwhelmed with high BPers and previously podium dwellers (me, JJsonickid, Tormented, judge..)who showed the path to some double losses.
So catergorising the new comers would mean meeting advanced new players (which is ofcourse fair) and less so advanced new players. Now they don't face the top 30 Beyworldrankings; which there are lot of in the UK.
That is just because at least one tournament had way too many battles done, the right format was not used ... If it had been done 'correctly', in proportion with the number of participants, then there would not be so many London Bladers in the top rankings. The same can be said for some Australia tournaments : when considerably more than one hundred battles are done, there is definitely something wrong.
(Feb. 27, 2011 7:48 PM)dman12 Wrote: [ -> ]or put the veterans in a group and the newbies in a group that way your facing someone with a similar level of beyblading to you
no i dont think thats true cos i was atthat tournament and came 4th and that was my first bey i beat ark boy 3-0 and i gave lee draciel a run for his money
take me for example i was new but i got realy far
(Feb. 27, 2011 9:26 PM)stormdragon Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb. 27, 2011 7:48 PM)dman12 Wrote: [ -> ]or put the veterans in a group and the newbies in a group that way your facing someone with a similar level of beyblading to you
no i dont think thats true cos i was atthat tournament and came 4th and that was my first bey i beat ark boy 3-0 and i gave lee draciel a run for his money
take me for example i was new but i got realy far
There was no 4th. It was 1st, 2nd, 3rd and Group Runners-up.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14