Is anyone up for planning for a small team tourney after the first of the year? Ideas that have been tossed around have been:
° Small teams 2-4 members (I prefer 2, but that's just me)
° Roughly "Iron-Man" power level or below. We'd need to define this better, but hey, that's why we discuss this stuff.
° A more formal judging/scoring system. Perhaps two or four judges with voting as a possable tie breaker?
° Two or three phases to each round to make them easier to follow. Perhaps a "Respect Phase" where we hash out the characters accepted capabilities, a "Battle Phase" where mainly (only?) the combattants post and concentrate on give and take tactics and moves, and an "Open Debate" phase where judges and voters can pose questions to the contestants. I think this might make for better/clearer battles since all the feat posting boasting can be gotten out of the way before the actual rumble starts, and we can hopefully then judge/vote/debate with a consensus as to the characters capabilities. Our current debates seem to be 80% agruing over power levels/feats and 20% actual battle, which gets tedious and probably turns off readers/voters. Part of that was owing to the amalgam format, but characters power levels fluctuate so much with different writers that we should still address it.
Any thoughts?
P.S. If anyone cares, I remembered how to express ratios with logarithms. Benedict in the sandtrout should have been:
TroutyLetoStrength*2^(log(BenedictStrength)-log(ChildLetoStrength))
or
5tons*2^(log(2tons)-log(.05tons))
=5tn*2^(.3 - -1.3)
=5tn*2^1.6=5*3.03=15.15tons
Double that if you think Trouty Leto was 10 tons. 10X for Vanths sword.
I know it's over, but the math mistake stuck in my craw. Thanks for showing me the error, Creshosk. I'm the better for it.
__________________
...You are Number Six. Respect Popeye
Last edited by Laminator_X on Nov 29th, 2005 at 01:20 PM
Sounds good. I say make it an odd number of judges to eliminate ties, 3 or 5. I like a somewhat larger team, so I lean towards four, but I wouldn't raise a ruckus if it was only two.
If we don't have an open vote tally count as a judge, then we should definately have an odd number of judges. I was thinking an even number of judges and letting the "popular" vote count be a tie breaker. I think reader participation might be more active if their votes could influence the outcome of a close match.
Two judges + ballot would be "more democratic" but would be more vulnerable to campaigning and the Fanboy Factor. Four judges + ballot would be less randomly swayable, but we'd have to find more people willing to judge.
Either way could work though.
__________________
...You are Number Six. Respect Popeye
It's rarely a tie in popular though. If the judges are there at all, they should be the deciding factor. But I like the "popular vote counts as 1 vote if there's a tie in judges" idea...it'll promote interest.
Sounds good though guys. I'm not around much right now but I'll input when I can about it.
I like it except I think that tie or not the popluar vote should count as one vote no matter what. Then the other four judges vote. That way people still feel like their vote really means something but it still is only a small part of it.
I think it's a great idea for the judges to vote last, both for the dramatic tension and so that they can hear all the "regular" voters reasons for their choices.
As for the judge lineup changing, I think that the judges should be the same for all the matches in each round, but different judges from round to round might be a good thing. If we only have two judges, they shoud definitely change up between rounds. If we have a four judge panel, that might be a large enough sample that we can have the same group from round to round. It might still be good to rotate anyway, provided we have enough volunteers.
__________________
...You are Number Six. Respect Popeye
Last edited by Laminator_X on Nov 30th, 2005 at 02:21 AM
Any thoughts on what should constitute "Iron-Man Level" capabilities?
Some confusion mught be avoided by using more objective measurements than referencing characters, as the portrayal of characters powers vary so much over time. I think Digi did a pretty good job of hashing out the limits over the course of the drafting process. Hopefully we can stand on the shoulders of his efforts for the next one and have a bit smoother selection process.
I think we should in particular define the role and limits of forcefields. Every team being "Person-With-Area-Forcefield + Person-With-Indirect-Distance-Attack" would be boring.
Do we want to continue to ban/limit mental powers? Clearly having every bout turn into a TP/TK match would be lame as well, but it might be interesting to open things up to things like illusions. Perhaps TK might be allowed, but tactics like instant-kill-squeezes and immobilizing other characters by levitation disallowed? Allow the power only within the context of the blanket CIS with which it's portrayed in the comics, as it were. (Why doesn't anyone just levitate the Hulk, or Doomsday, or whomever up and out of effective hand-clap range? All the strength in the world is useless if you've got no leverage.)
A great deal of the contested point's in the last tourney came from grey areas in the power limits. Hopefully we can "Iron" more of that out in advance this time, as we're not talking about starting until after New Years.
Comments? Criticism? Suggestions?
__________________
...You are Number Six. Respect Popeye
I say we set hard and fast limits. No limiting an existing character's powers. If they step too far over the line, you have to replace them. No argument, that's it. This is from someone who had one guy who stepped over the limits in armor/shields and another who had a ton of options limited to make them work, and it was annoying as hell. Keepig the limits more or elss set in stone means there's less time wasted on others complaining about a character being too strong and probably saves a lot of stress on the part of whoever is approving character choices. Just a "yes" or "no", not a "yes but this and this and this and this have to be changed".
Another thing that occurs to me... even if the limit is "Iron Man" level, how do we treat the character himself? I mean, Stark friggin changes armor all the time at the whim of whoever's writing him. Do we allow all feats? Or do we limit feats to the one version of the armor, and if so, how do we prove that a scan isn't the same armor just drawn drastically different? I think we should rephrase it Mid-tier level. Not street or high street level, but not Herald/Supes level either.
Good point. I'd say lets use him as a rough benchmark to establish guidelines against. For example: "Strength 80 tons, possably boostable to 100 for short periods via powerup." or similar. We should have those sorts of things well defined before drafting begins.
I agree with what you suggested about firmer limits too, though I think some lattitude about different periods in characters' histories might still be appropriate. Even with people scaled down, there were a lot of arguments dancing around Feats that were beyond the cap. How would someone who hadn't read the tourney start to finish know to disregaurd durability beyond "Cage" level. I think some didn't. Besides, with higher limits, there'll be far more characters from among whom to choose.
__________________
...You are Number Six. Respect Popeye
Solid limits would be good...easier than limiting characters like we did for the last one.
Thanks for the "standing on the shoulders" commetn Lam. I think it was a slight step up from the last tourney (Evangel's) and this next one will be another step up....since neither was perfect and can be imporved upon.
Should we make each team have a set number of roles to fill? So each person gets a 5 person team of Mid level guys, but must have one person that fits into each more specific category. Like one brick, one energy wielder, etc.
I'm also gonna volunteer now to be a judge... I'm probably not going to enter, but tourneys are hella fun.
Oh yeah, and puns are the lowest form of humor. Though how swearing a lot is above them is beyond me.
__________________ DarkCrawler is my hero... RESPECT LEONARD NIMOY!!!
I kinda liked the idea behind Scarlet Spider's doomed team-up tourney from earlier in the year where it was seven characters in four different levels but with one modification, no crossing levels because it came down to whomever won the herald-level, that character then took out the lower levels. I think, have six characters in three different levels:
Tier 1: two characters on/below Captain America level
Tier 2: two characters on/below Spiderman level
Tier 3: two characters on/below Ironman level
So, then you'd have, for example:
Khell picks Taskmaster and Lady Shiva teaming vs Scoob's Prometheus and Deadpool in Tier 1.
Khell teams Spiderman and Venom vs Scoob's Sabretooth and Carnage in Tier 2.
Khell has Ironman and War Machine vs Scoob's Omega Red and Crimson Dynamo for Tier 3.
So voters will have to vote a team for each of the three tiers, like
Tier 1: Khell's team wins
Tier 2: Scoob's team wins
Tier 3: Khell's team wins
So, overall... the vote goes to Khell for the battle. In the event of a tie, it's whomever won the most Tiers. And the power levels can be increased to Spidey/Ironman/Herald because there's not going to be any crossovers between levels. And, in terms of prep, so that there's more cohesion between the characters, all six characters are put together in the same room to plan.
In terms of the debate structure, I think it should be limited to three large-main strategy posts from each debater so that there's not much backtracking such as
Poster 1: Okay, I open with a super optic blast... and so on
Poster 2: I'm phased at the start of the battle... etc
Poster 1: Okay, I don't open with an optic blast... etc
Poster 2: You just said that you did... etc
Poster 1: I'm changing strategy now (and winding time backwards)...
then just answering questions afterwards.
That's awfully complex, but a step in the right direction. I think it could work.
I dislike the idea that you should have "one brick guy, one energy guy, etc." Stuff like that happens normally when building teams, and where would someone like Iron Man fit? (since he can be energy or strength depending on the limits).
The other problem is, the 3-tier system means a minimum of 6 picks for each contestant. Multiply that by probably 16 people and you're looking at a ridiculously large tourney. Iron Man or lower seem to be consensus if we only have one tier, and the opinions of how many we should have is anywhere from 2-4.
Oh, and just from experience...open drafting is better. That whole "PM me with your pick/link/etc." was a pain in the ass. Just looking out for whoever runs this next one.
I think the tiering/set roles might be hard to carry off, but some dynamic to arrange things such that we don't end up with too many teams like:
"Moonstone, Blastarr, Captain Mar-Vell, Iron Monger"
I.E. every character maxing all power limits.
What might make for some more diverse teams would be something like: "No more than one character on a team may max (or be within 20% of?) the same powers cap, and no one character may max more than three caps."
...or similar, depending on how many different limits we have and how many characters are on a team. A dynamic like this would diversify teams and ballance power-levels from team to team without forcing people to pick characters to fit rigid roles. It'd be an incentive to have artfully constructed teams rather than just drafting the most powerful you can.
This is getting rather interesting.
__________________
...You are Number Six. Respect Popeye
Exactly! We want power levels to be somewhat ballanced within teams as well as between teams. We may still get one or two matches like that, but we don't want a whole tourney of them.
__________________
...You are Number Six. Respect Popeye
Meh. I'm not big on the one person for each category. I'd rather be able to pick two or three guys with any powers I want, so long as they fit in the basic power limits.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 29th, 2005 01:17 PM
