You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.
This topic contains 673 replies, has 80 voices, and was last updated by 
bf_markymark 6 years, 7 months ago.
-
Posts
-
Actually I can’t understand how limitting number of players solves this problem. If there were 32 most responsible players in the world, I’d understand. But there are just 32 players that were first who’d seen this topic.
Let’s use the numbers from last time, to illustrate my reasoning. Rather than me making blanket statements about it being easier – I’ll show you why it is imho.
Last time, from this page, look at the number of incomplete games. 2 whole groups never showed up (8 players) and some more withdrew (almost teh same again).
The reserve list was essentially non existent.
Let’s call that 12 players, from 64 players.
Assuming, and this is fairly pessimistic, that the same trend happens again, we will have 6 players out of the initial 32 not show up, or have to withdraw or whatever.
Look at this page and you see that there are 13 players on the reserve list.
That means if someone has to pull out over the course of a month, it should be much quicker and easier to get a replacement in.
To have the same margin for 64 players, then there would need to be 26 people in reserve.
As things stand, with 8 groups and 6 matches therein that it 48 matches I need to coordinate, and make myself available for, from June 5th.
Any more players exponentially increases the workload, which made me lose my hair last time.
I look like my avatar, whereas once upon a time I looked like this.
“I look like my avatar, whereas once upon a time I looked like this.” BBB, LOL
I know I had a second-hand look at the troubles you had last tourney, and I really appreciate the work you put into managing these tournaments.
How about we still have 8 groups? It should be up to the players to get their matches played, and if they haven’t showed up they get auto-loss. And no need to look for replacements. No replacements after tournaments starts. This shouldn’t be any extra work for you and everyone still gets to play.
A default judgment rule? Seems cool.
I’m not sure I understand.
I’m thinking that with the last 16, if you don’t show up then it is indeed an auto loss, but with the first 32, there’s more leeway incase of real life issues.
I’m not sure I understand.
I’m thinking that with the last 16, if you don’t show up then it is indeed an auto loss, but with the first 32, there’s more leeway incase of real life issues.
Well, in the groupstages, that should be the most drop-outs. If someone doesn’t show up, he should just lose his matches.
We could have 5 or 6 player groups to fit all the players, with top 2 still only advancing.
Being first on the Reserve list , i am confident that at some point I will get to take somebody’s spot that fails to show up.
Question is
say its their second match in Stage one Group stage …. i am entering the tournament credited already with their lost game in standings ?
or will i still get the chance to play all players in the group ?
just curious….. wouldn’t want to join into a group with 2 losses already and no chance at going to next round or something like that….
a player name / email / steamname master list for all players might be useful to have posted by group as well to simplify contacting opponents to arrange game times
just a couple quick thoughts i had to add.
Oh and chip in my vote for Classic turns. Would solve a lot of the common Multiplayer arguments that arise i would suspect.
Speaking as a classic turn noob, are there advantages and disadvantages or other considerations to going first or second? I was trying to theorycraft in my head but its just not obvious to me.
Also since this is BBB’s show and organizing is a thankless pain, lets say thanks and hopefully agree to accept him as dictator who has no axes to grind in the tournament. I organize tournaments for kids and it goes easier when I am the unquestioned dictator and get no arguments for my somewhat arbitrary decisions.
As to Seer’s question, which is sad yes especially since anyone dropping out is more likely to be on the losing side (it just kinda works out that way), I would be ok with replaying matches, as long as that didnt take us past the deadline. I’m here to play really. But this is up to our director. It probably works out to the same amount of fairness no matter which way is decided.
It’s a tough one to decide, i.e. if the player taking over starts from fresh or inherits the record.
In any case, as I am now apparently a dictator and a director, respect my authority!
Speaking as a classic turn noob, are there advantages and disadvantages or other considerations to going first or second? I was trying to theorycraft in my head but its just not obvious to me.
Not really, but certain Empire Quests default to the first player when completed at the same time, for example the Metropolis City and the Grand Palace/Arcane Item Forge quests. However, that’s actually the same at simultaneous play.
Your work and effort is really highly appreciated and admired! So thanks a lot!
I´ll try to shut up now and not be too sad about the sudden drop out of the tourney! 🙂Enough with the gratitude.
Can you guys post which days you can’t play, so we can start to get firm dates for matches down.
I’ll look to get a steam or equivalent group going so things can be organised in real time.
I believe that for the tournament very well, if it involves all strong players.
Therefore, the presence of two strong players in reserve, but not in the main list – “not good.”
I propose to abolish the sortition.
Invite to the tournament all strong players. And they were all familiar with each other.
For others who want to – to arrange the qualifying games (play-off).The tournament will be better if it involves the best players, but not the first inscribed.
I know these top players (and their offer to enroll automatically in the tournament):
Ayenara
Гексоген (he same – Deus_Mortis/Azzazir)
SanTil
AbednegoJC
Gabriel Benichou
bbq… .
Techno
Jomungur
ArigaI agree with FakirFahler.
Here is the list top players I know (sorted by their steam nick):
Ayenara –in
Ariga –in
Azzazir (aka Гексоген aka Deus_Mortis) –on waiting list
Gabriel Benichou –in
BBB –Tourney chief 🙂
Cliffhangerlife (aka bbqsausageomgwtf) –out?
Cerberdm –out?
Endrakan –out?
Fenraelis –in
Fakir_Fahler –on waiting list
Griffith –in
jean_de_metz –out?
jockedamus –out? (propably wont play)
jomungur –in
keejchen –out?
lti –out? (he is maybe not play aow atm)
Marcus –out?
masterboja –in
mental –out?
Millthunder –on waiting list
Santil –on waiting list
Techno –out?
the_End (aka Kozzie) –out?
WhiteKnighted –out? (propably wont play)
[Jimmies]Garresh –in
Xaneorath –in
Zetsan –out?Thats 27 players total.
9 in tourney
4 on waiting list
14 out, from which 4 are propably wont play, I believe rest of them, means 10 would like to play.So we have 9 good players in tourney and additional 14 who are out or on waiting list.
Thats not speak really in favor to quality of this tourney 🙁
What about to make 2 smaller brackets? Like “progamers” vs “casual players” – if you feel like “progamer” you will be placed in group A.. if you feel like casual player, you will be placed in group B. And at the end, semifinals can merge both brackets.
Here is the ling for game system we could use.Also, I suppose there will be about 20 “pro” players and about 20 casual.
Which is only 8 more than at the moment, but tourney will go faster anyway.I dont wanna be rude, Im very grateful that BBB can organize that tourney, but also I would like to see if somebody will win that tourney, he is really “champion”, not some lucky guy who won vs some noobs and even didnt meet top players because they are missing in tourney.
@ fakir, and who is to decide who’s good enough and who isn’t?
Your approach seems too elitist, and could only work if there were a playoff or qualifying stage.
The whole idea is to expand the player Base and provide entertainment, not just focus inwards…
Ultimately, the fairest thing to do is put all the names except the top 4 from last time in a box and pick out 28 that way.
Still not particular satisfying.
@ Abed, last tournament was more random but look at the players who made it through and tell me that was due to luck…
It’s not rude to me, but it is a bit to anyone not on your list I think. Essentially you’re saying they should get their own tournament.
I get what you are saying, that you think some people who should be in aren’t because of the arbitrary nature of first come, first serve, but short of qualifying matches (and how to decide who plays who in a qualifier) or a match against me (28 matched? And I’m rusty anyway) , or full on randomising the names, how then to decide who goes in?
I have to say, if I was someone not on your list I’d be a bit offended.
determine not so difficult – through interviews – active players always know who is most often wins.
If you do not fit – the qualifying round fairer than just taking the first 28 enrolled.I’m looking at your diagram, and I like it.
But if I understand it right, if you lose your first match you are out?
Anyway, I should stress that at this stage pretty much everything is subject to change so enough of ‘authority’ blah and more discussions and suggestions.
The aim of the tournament is to improve and expand the community. This is *your* tournament. I’m just here to facilitate things.
Hi guys! I thought, and decided to apply for the tournament.
Frankly, it’s not organized very well. The official announcement was not. And it’s really bad. Well, you do not want to see the tournament strong players from Eastern Europe? Sadly, if so.
Postscript: if nothing happens – we arrange your event. With Blackjack. Yes.@ Abed, last tournament was more random but look at the players who made it through and tell me that was due to luck…
It’s not rude to me, but it is a bit to anyone not on your list I think. Essentially you’re saying they should get their own tournament.
I get what you are saying, that you think some people who should be in aren’t because of the arbitrary nature of first come, first serve, but short of qualifying matches (and how to decide who plays who in a qualifier) or a match against me (28 matched? And I’m rusty anyway) , or full on randomising the names, how then to decide who goes in?
I have to say, if I was someone not on your list I’d be a bit offended.
Sure. I dont wanna exclude anybody. I just want to include good players who propably didnt knouw about tournament, because they maybe dont visit forum so often and tourney filled really fast.
Also I dont wanna be rude on some players, be I think everybody understand that skills of players are different and casual player will not really enjoy tourney when he will be out after first rounds vs people like Ayenara or Jomungur.
To have 2 brackets would give casual players many option to play good games and best of them could compare with best of “pro”
I see that tournament would be bigger that way, but in favour of quality and joy of all players.
Also, in my system, winner of casual group would be worst 2nd – which is great achievement which he maybe cant get in one-group tourney.
And it still can be really interesting, champion of best players group vs uknown underdog, which can actually win.Tournament! What a surprise! I want to take part
Abed, you are proposing 2 tournaments that meet in the middle. One for the “better players ” and then one for the noobs. That’s pretty much the definition of exclusionary.
@ Melciar, there hasn’t been an official announcement. I strongly suggest you read this thread from the start. The thread was to gauge interest and discuss rules and scheduling so that everyone in the tournament knows exactly what they are committing to.
And what do you mean by excluding people from Eastern Europe?
I think I may have a solution to this. Each group to have 5 people, but still the top 2 go through.
That puts an extra 8 people in the tournament, but still gets us down to 16,8,4,2.
Another option (they do it at my dads office for ping pong) is to have it be double elimination. So everyone randomly gets a first match, and the winner advances. The loser, however, gets to play again in the second bracket with all the other losers until there is only one champion of each bracket. They then play each other for the championship.
That would require a sub dictator (a master of the horse) for the other bracket. I don’t know how feasible that would be.
I think I may have a solution to this. Each group to have 5 people, but still the top 2 go through.
That puts an extra 8 people in the tournament, but still gets us down to 16,8,4,2.
Yes, I suggested this on the previous page, I had a feeling it got buried before anyone noticed. As long as the number of winners from the qualifying groups is a power of 2 then it should be fine. In case of ties you can use their individual games as tiebreakers.
(Slightly off topic, but a fun fact anyway….does anyone think you could win a “coin flipping contest” 100 times in a row? Sounds impossible, right? Well you could make a tournament that gauruntees someone will win 100 times in a row, just have single elimination and invite 2^100 participants, the winner will have won 100 times in a row. And it is mathematically certain you will have a winner at the end.)
I think I may have a solution to this. Each group to have 5 people, but still the top 2 go through.
That puts an extra 8 people in the tournament, but still gets us down to 16,8,4,2.
This sounds like a brilliant idea.
yea, +8 ppl sounds good
Well you could make a tournament that gauruntees someone will win 100 times in a row, just have single elimination and invite 2^100 participants, the winner will have won 100 times in a row. And it is mathematically certain you will have a winner at the end.)
Well, there are some logistics/time issues with this idea. You’ll need some 1.268 * 10^30 participants, which is around 1.8 * 10^20 times the world population(which I rounded to 7 b). Still, you can just assign an ID to each streak, and end each streak after it loses. Let’s say you’ve got a million (10^6) people tossing coins non-stop, taking 2 seconds per toss. You’re gonna need 1.268 * 10^24 seconds, which equates to 4.019*10^16 years, which translates to roughly 11 * 10^6 Universe lifetimes(of 13.8 b years each.). And that’s only the first round of tosses.
Given you can bypass these slight issues, it’s completely possible, that’s granted though.
@bloodybattlebrain
Just going to throw my opinion on some changes suggested before by @abednegojc and @fakir_faler. You are risking alienating a huge amount of players if you will eventually decide to go with a smaller amount of players, especially after you already told them first that they are going to participate and then that you don’t want them because you don’t know how good they are or know someone that can be a better player.If the idea for the tourney is to promote MP to new players, how do you think they will feel if th first thing for them would be that elitist approach?
If it is you seek to increase the player base, then I really don’t see how they will be interested in joining after it if they can’t make contacts within the community (due to not participating because of not being good enough by someone else’s standards, they never even heard of).
Also, equal opportunity is the powerful thing highly encouraged in any tourney I know. There is no AoW league (which merits skills of certain players) and it is not really an ES game that should have one.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.