Tournament Formats [updated 4/10]

[Red Kutai]

Ze3k

dV_Vb or xBillehx will win that format hands down. xd
I wouldn't stand a chance. emotion_facepalm

Strong players will win formats that require them to beat other strong players - leaderboards already exist which don't require that, but that isn't really what this is for. I was under the impression that this was not only about generating more PvP games, but also generating higher stakes games between top-level players - those situations are much better for illustrating the game's mechanical shortcomings and forcibly evolving the metagame than normal games are, which was a significant part of my goal.

That said, what sort of format would you suggest for avoiding that sort of situation? Or would you consider that an 'acceptable loss'?

[Knight of the Horizon]

Red Kutai

Ze3k

dV_Vb or xBillehx will win that format hands down. xd
I wouldn't stand a chance. emotion_facepalm

Strong players will win formats that require them to beat other strong players - leaderboards already exist which don't require that, but that isn't really what this is for. I was under the impression that this was not only about generating more PvP games, but also generating higher stakes games between top-level players - those situations are much better for illustrating the game's mechanical shortcomings and forcibly evolving the metagame than normal games are, which was a significant part of my goal.

That said, what sort of format would you suggest for avoiding that sort of situation? Or would you consider that an 'acceptable loss'?

Well in the leaderboards, I'm at 63/66 (and 1 of the losses was from my dad walking in the room on round 2.. before leaderboards existed.)

It seems in your system, I would very clearly lose to someone like dV_Vb who's won 193/228 games.. even if I never lose a single game in the tournament. o.o;

I mean, I guess it just depends how much it forces the strong players to play each other. I'd like to be able to "knock down" or benefit from other leading players by beating them, and your numbers don't seem to do that.

Wait.. you get 10% of your opponent's points if you win in round 3? This sounds more reasonable now. cool

[SaucyXhanos]

Red Kutai

I like you idea a lot better than my own, though a 2/1 win ratio seems... Well, just as impractical as option C, to be put bluntly. It's not exactly hard to get a win ratio over 2.0 [There's the COD coming out again] but to maintain one... @w@ Perhaps the top 50% in the second round could be extended downward, or the ratio could be lowered to like 3/2 or something.

[Ungoliath]

It's impossible to make both versions available? I mean, optional.

Who would make the tournament? Us or you devs? If it's up to you, then the option B is the one. If It's user-made, then option A since we can organize ourselves in threads and this forum.

[Seasoning Salt]

My personal choice would be option 2 or 3

I'd hate to miss on something as fun as this.

Having a 3 day period gives me enough time. But it depending on school, extra classes ect.

[Red Kutai]

SaucyZoplex

Red Kutai

I like you idea a lot better than my own, though a 2/1 win ratio seems... Well, just as impractical as option C, to be put bluntly. It's not exactly hard to get a win ratio over 2.0 [There's the COD coming out again] but to maintain one... @w@ Perhaps the top 50% in the second round could be extended downward, or the ratio could be lowered to like 3/2 or something.

The difference between a 2-1 ratio and a 3-2 ratio isn't huge (66% wins compared to 60% wins), and the former seems much more intuitive than the latter; what makes you feel that that would be extremely impractical? Yes, it does apply a significant limitation to the field, but that's precisely what it's supposed to do - it ensures that the players who get through the second round have earned that spot. The reason that the round doesn't sort explicitly by player record is that it needs to encourage players to keep playing - if I can hit 1-0 (or 2-0, or 3-0) and then stop and be assured a spot in the next round, the whole system becomes harder to run. The most obvious way to encourage players to keep playing is the 'points'-based system, and a threshold requirement works best with that.

If I were really concerned about how difficult it is to maintain 2-1 (which I'm not), I'd probably change it to simply include all players with a 'winning' record - that is, the top ~50% of players who have more wins than losses move on to the next round. This significantly reduces the chance of the corner case scenario wherein none of the participating players actually reach that threshold, but also significantly reduces the exclusivity of the third round. My goal for the third round of play was to ensure that top-level players would be consistently paired up with other top-level players in high-stakes games, so reducing the exclusivity actually runs counter to that goal. The fact that it's difficult to achieve is intended to be more a feature than a bug, so unless we expect it to result in a scenario where almost no players actually get through, it's not something I'm particularly concerned about 'fixing'...

[Loona Wynd]

I like version a or c

[Hold the Onions]

I like version A and i'd love to do this

[drakokatze]

I'd say B. Option A just leaves too many people out, between real life things like jobs and time zones, and option c could just get too hectic

[Pheregames]

Version B would be the best and on your end would prolly be easy to do. I feel like most user run tournies will follow format A however all the timezone differences make it a little mucky-- perhaps "finals" could be done via version C?

[Cursy]

Silk Kanishk

Option B would be best for me as I don't live in the US. 3nodding

I second this whee

[dreamsk]

Should have put up a poll, Pan!

Version B to accommodate my *special* sleep schedule. But what about people who simply play a lot more games than others? Perhaps it should be based on a win average or an essence win average?

[Bad Evil Candy]

I think version c would be better if it was with in the game ( as in actually in the game)

[icekoldozy]

version b is better

[kremzeek]

I like version B.

I'm assuming that you can hit a button for "battle against someone" and "battle in the tourney," so we can be stricter about forfeiture rules.