Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Suggested Tournament Format

  1. #21
    I enter the tourney each time, even though I don't expect ever to win. It's well worth 20 renown to get fights against a wide array of ELO opponents, all with the same unit-cap constraints.

  2. #22
    Junior Member Chopsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    23
    It is a valid point that the payout for the tournament doesn't scale up, though. Especially now since the game has went public and you're competing against hundreds of players. Maybe offer small rewards to the top 10 contestants?

  3. #23
    I say bump up the rewards a bit. Pay the top 15% rounded up. So if there were 100 people the payouts would be to 15. They would be something like:

    1- 300
    2- 200
    3- 100
    4- 100
    5- 75
    6- 75
    7- 50
    8- 50
    9- 40
    10- 40
    11- 30
    12- 30
    13- 20
    14- 20
    15- 20

    Not a lot, but at least if you place in the top 15% you will at least get your renown back. If you win you get enough renown to level a unit to 3. Seems fair to me.

  4. #24
    I vote a tentative "yea" for more rewards. Maybe that will lead more folks to participate fully.

    I think Vexbane's are over-generous to those far down the ladder, though. Maybe... keep it as-is for the top 3 and give 20 back to the rest of the top 20, for now. They could always make it more generous later.

  5. #25
    Superbacker netnazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    I vote a tentative "yea" for more rewards. Maybe that will lead more folks to participate fully.
    There needs to be reasonable timetable "to participate fully". Current tournament has not started yet, and it's 0:00 thursday for me already. But it will nevertheless end on 9:00 monday.
    If you don't know where to put it - put it in the pillage

    Steelhammer Tribune issues collected here
    Some of my Factions games can be observed here
    Also possible streaming at http://www.twitch.tv/netnazgul

  6. #26
    Oh, right. I forgot about that issue...

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    I vote a tentative "yea" for more rewards. Maybe that will lead more folks to participate fully.

    I think Vexbane's are over-generous to those far down the ladder, though. Maybe... keep it as-is for the top 3 and give 20 back to the rest of the top 20, for now. They could always make it more generous later.
    How is it over generous? Top 15% is a good accomplishment imo. Rewards should be scaled. If they are not it is still no incentive to play. Top 3 get the big rewards and you throw everyone else a little bit? You might get a few more players, but not many. Eventually the turnouts will be very low. Sub 100 renown is far from generous imo.

  8. #28
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    I still think the point of tournament was not, and is not renown.

  9. #29
    Junior Member Chopsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    23
    Then why have renown rewards and a renown cost to enter at all? Just make it entirely free.

  10. #30
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Because there are players like Vexbane, who need some sort of incentive to enter. (and I don't mean this in a bad way or anything ) "Material" incentive is a human and economic concept and reality.

    Though, Chopsticks, I do feel that way too: I wouldn't mind if tournaments were free (from renown rewards, costs). I just don't have reason to complain or ask for a change if Stoic implemented tournaments with a renown prize.

    All I am trying to say is that if the point of tournament isn't to earn the renown, then it's not something we need to be building into the mode. Tournament is for competition primarily. The renown we already earn from any of the battles we play anyway (within tourney or versus), and the rewards are just like icing on the cake.
    Last edited by raven2134; 03-15-2013 at 08:39 AM.

  11. #31
    Junior Member Chopsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    23
    Well then as is it's a renown sink. The renown rewards ought to be related to how many people sign up for the tournament, even if it's not spread out past the first 3 slots.

  12. #32
    Junior Member Chopsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    23
    One thing that also just came to mind - because of the way the tournament is set up, you might not get a chance to play competitors of a higher ELO than you simply because the two of you might not be online at the same time. Given the way ELO works, that makes it very difficult to climb up the ranking. For example, the matchmaker wasn't able to find me any adequate matches and I was paired with the same opponent 3 times in a row, each time I beat him thoroughly. This is frustrating for both players involved, for me since I don't get any real ELO boost out of it, and for him since he's fighting against an opponent 3 times in a row and dropping in the rankings.

    Because of this, I don't think it'd be too unreasonable to give modest rewards to the top 10 competitors, or perhaps even top 20.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    Because there are players like Vexbane, who need some sort of incentive to enter. (and I don't mean this in a bad way or anything ) "Material" incentive is a human and economic concept and reality.
    Its not so much of an incentive as that is how tournaments work. Name one tournament that you get no prizes for winning? If the point isn't to win (beat all the competition and hence earn the appropriate rewards/bragging rights) than why bother having a tournament? Why not just stick to regular ranked play? Especially one that you charge a fee to enter? Even if it was free to enter there still should be better rewards for more spots due to the way you have it set up and how hard it is to actually play against the competition. So Raven if you do not want to give out appropriate prizes, and have a fair way to compete than what is the current purpose of the tournaments as they are set up now besides a renown sink? Please do not say "to compete" because I can just play a normal match for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by chopsticks
    One thing that also just came to mind - because of the way the tournament is set up, you might not get a chance to play competitors of a higher ELO than you simply because the two of you might not be online at the same time. Given the way ELO works, that makes it very difficult to climb up the ranking. For example, the matchmaker wasn't able to find me any adequate matches and I was paired with the same opponent 3 times in a row, each time I beat him thoroughly. This is frustrating for both players involved, for me since I don't get any real ELO boost out of it, and for him since he's fighting against an opponent 3 times in a row and dropping in the rankings.

    Because of this, I don't think it'd be too unreasonable to give modest rewards to the top 10 competitors, or perhaps even top 20.
    This is another reason why I feel same day tourney's that are over in a few hours are a much better way to go. Right now it is easy to manipulate the rankings to win. That is why I will never play one as they sit now. It is not fair. Even if it was free to enter. As you say you can play against the same player multiple times (something that should not be allowed at all). The worldwide audience means that some people may have a 12+ hour difference in time. So any decent player that is on when others are not can just farm lesser skilled players to get elo and rank up with no risk, since you can play the same person 3+ times.

    If you want to keep the system the way it is now than you should not be able to play against the same player more than once a day. If people cannot get games because of it than so be it (just goes to show how flawed the system is). At least it will be more fair that way.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •