Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 98

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Next Factions Community Tournament -- Discussion

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444

    Question Next Factions Community Tournament -- Discussion

    Hello vikings!

    It's been some days after the successful conclusion of the first Random Build Tournament (RBT)... Speaking of which, all hail the champ, Tyrael! So, I thought it's high time to start discussions about the next Factions-community tournament. Before the walls-of-text start, and so as not to scare you away, there's three things that we mainly need to decide on:

    1. Who's in? If you're not 100% in (like "no matter what", as some of us are [e.g.: myself, stoicmom, grumpy and Tirean]) please state your availability status.
    2. Tournament Structure: Knock-out type (like RBT or Vigrid) or League type (like the current in-game tournament)? There are variations of those basic two families, but I don't want to discuss them any further at this moment.
    3. Scoring System: This mostly applies to the league-type tournament. It describes how points are gained (and/or lost) after each match, with respect to: (a) the battle outcome, (b) the performance in the battle, (c) the skill of the two opponents.

    Let me state, as a preamble, that I personally propose we try a league-type tournament this time. More on that later.




    We can all agree that the main goal of a community tournament is to play TBSF, talk about TBSF and have fun. A secondary goal is that the tourney champion emerges, by all accounts, as the best performing player. Now, let's just take some time to consider the problems we've witnessed in the recent tourneys (RBT, Vigrid, ...) as well as some other issues that require consideration:

    • Lost Vikings: Player(s) disappearing without notice, losing interest or just drifting away. Excluding serious & unforeseen reasons, the most usual cause of this problem is when a player has to wait a lot of time for another match-up to conclude, in order to be eligible to play again (e.g one finalist awaits the other semi-finals to conclude). This problem is more likely to happen in knock-out type tournaments, where the match-ups are predefined (brackets are drawn at start), or in tournaments with a fixed number-of-matches for all opponents (e.g. a league where everybody has to play against everybody). Evidently, that's not a problem with the current in-game tournament style, where: (a) there's people who register but play only a few matches, just for the sport, (b) we've seen winners with as few as 7 matches when the maximum is 25!

    • Management: Somebody having to manage, organize and keep track of all things. When this somebody becomes unavailable (like with Butters, in Vigrid), the tournament might collapse. For this reason, it's better that the rules and the "bureaucracy" of the tournament are known by all contestants and so the tournament can be managed by anybody or by everybody. We should look for some convenient way to manage the tourney at an online platform, where anyone can log-in to register a match-result, calculate a score etc. Challonge.com is good choice for knock-out-type tournaments and I'm sure there's something similar for league-type tournaments. Worst scenario is having to make something ad-hoc, e.g. a wiki, google-docs/excel etc.

    • Duration: How long should a tourney run? Experience has shown that knock-out style tournaments might take up to 4 months to conclude, for just 8 players. With weekly tournaments sounding too fast to properly conclude, I think we're looking into some sort of seasonal tournament, e.g. in trimesters. grumpyoldman suggested we call the next one "Winter Tournament", as it's likely to start in December It's important that the duration of the tournament and/or the conclusion-rules are well defined from the start; more on that later.

    • Player eligibility: Who can enter a the tournament, and when? As you understand, this ties closely with the "Lost Vikings" and "Duration" issues. Should we fix the participants list at start (like on RBT and Vigrid), or should we provide flexibility, e.g. allow new players to enter at any time and/or Lost-Vikings to leave (or not participate any longer)? I think flexibility is better. The flexibility of the current in-game tournament (league-type & Elo-scoring) is a good example of this mechanism.

    • Skill disparity: One could argue that all players should have equal chances to win the tournament; another could argue that the best player should win the tourney every time... Well, as I mentioned in the intro, the main goal is to have fun (i.e. challenging) matches and that's why I believe that we should institute a "system" that would adapt the difficulty of each match, for each player, according to the skill-difference of the two contestants. Please note that the current in-game tournament system adapts the outcome (not the difficulty) of the match, by giving less points for a victory against a weaker opponent and vice-versa. This is the easy solution, and the only one possible for a large playerbase. However, in my opinion, for a match to be challenging it should be 50/50 chance-to-win/lose, and that means that we'd have to tweak its difficulty for each player. The first idea that comes to (my) mind is imposing a team-power difference between the two players, e.g. for each Elo-difference of 100 points a power-1 difference is applied: In a 1100-vs-1500 player match-up, the 1100 one plays with a p12 team while the 1500 one plays with a p8. Other ideas are allowing the weak player to choose map, take first turn, or pick a stronger build. The latter leads me to...

    • Build disparity: Despite all the efforts of Stoic to balance the game, and all the theorizing, the truth is this -- Not all builds are not equal. The RBT aimed to give all players equal chances through playing with random builds. However, the "sample" was generally small (so not all random variations were "visited/used" by all players, equally) and, also, some times the players couldn't agree on the rules of the random-builds. We all know which builds are stronger than others, so, maybe, we should also institute a system to classify the potency of each build and take that into account along with the players' skill disparity. One rough idea suggested by grumpyoldman was this: When registering for the tourney, each player submits one or two builds whose eligibility is subject to the community's decision, via discussion, majority-voting or a veto. In this way, OP builds like [2TS 2BM 2WM] will be excluded or penalized in some way; for example, if a victory scores 5 points, using such an OP build could incur a -3 penalty (in this case -1 for each two-of-{TS,BM,WM} unit used).





    So, if you made it to the end of this wall (), and to get things started:
    A. Let me hear your thoughts on the above subjects and
    B. Who's in for a new tourney? Hands up please!
    Last edited by Aleonymous; 12-03-2014 at 03:59 AM.
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  2. #2
    Factions veteran stoicmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Posts
    290
    READY SET GO

  3. #3
    Backer Tyrael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    16
    I'm in. I think a league is a great idea. And I also think the randomness was the best part of the RBT. What's Vigrid?
    I basically agree to everything else, though it does sound a bit complicated.

  4. #4
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrael View Post
    What's Vigrid? I basically agree to everything else, though it does sound a bit complicated.
    Vigrid was the first large-scale community tournament we tried, more than a year ago, that never concluded. Here's the link: https://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?1568

    For a basic understanding of how the current in-game tournament and all-time ranking (Elo system) works, read this: https://bannersaga.wikidot.com/rankings . In a nutshell, the Elo rating/ranking system can be understood via the wagering analogy of the "pot": Before the match, each player places some of his "Rating" in the pot, with the favorite to win (i.e. the one with the higher "Rating") having to put in more. At the end of the match, the winner takes all the pot. For an example in football, check this article: https://www.bettingexpert.com/blog/ap...tball-part-one
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  5. #5
    I'm in.

  6. #6
    Superbacker LoliSauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    166
    There's a couple steps you can take to ensure that a tourney reaches its conclusion in a timely manner.

    1. All players must register for the tourney with their time zone and what time they're usually available to play.
    2. All players must report in for their match in the tournament thread, to more easily organize the match with their opponent and to prevent penalty/disqualification.
    3. Each match will have a time limit (a day or two should be plenty). Anyone who doesn't report in within the time limit either takes a loss for the game, a penalty to their points, or (in the case of multiple absences) is straight disqualified from the tourney.

    These are important for a couple of reasons. First, it forces players to think about whether they can actually commit to the tournament or not. Second, it keeps everything very transparent so you can see who you're playing and what times they're available. If there's a conflict in availability, they can post up and talk it out with the tournament organizer. Third, it keeps things moving at a quick pace, regardless of the style of tournament. If people don't show up for their matches, they take the loss and the tourney moves on.

    As far as tourney structure goes, I think a very important factor is how many participants join in. With less members, doing it round-robin style or league style is better as it's a more accurate gauge of skill over many battles. With a large number of members though, doing double or even maybe single elimination style tournament is faster and more efficient. Additionally, having an elimination style tournament is a lot more pressure on the players, showing not only who is the best player, but who is able to manage well under pressure, which I personally believe is an important part of a tournament (coming from a competitive fighting game background).

  7. #7
    Backer Rymdkejsaren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Malmö, Sweden
    Posts
    72
    I play in a weekly Blood Bowl league, it is up to the two competitors to arrange the matches and play them within a week. It works fine. You do need some type of admin(s) overseeing things though and making decisions about walk-overs etc if someone fails to arrange their game. But as a general rule, I don't think that the league should wait for people to play the games but move forwards. If someone drops off the grid, they lose their game.

    I like elimination tournaments with a loser bracket. They don't take too long but everyone gets at least two games in. Personally I would rather see tournaments happening a bit more often than seeing them go on for a long time. Longer formats also increase the risk of people getting bored and disappearing.

    As for the power-builds, I don't know enough about the game in its current state to chime in on actual builds, but if there are some builds that are known to be very powerful, why not limit them or simply ban them from the tournament? Anything else seems like it would take up a a lot of time for the league admins.

    These are just some thoughts from the top of my head. I will gladly play in the tournament but I will probably not be available to help out a lot. I have always intended to arrange tourneys in Factions but I simply want the meta-game to be in a better place first. And my personal experience is that it's best not to have too many chefs. I would rather have one or two people handling it and the rest of us abiding by their decisions, than half the community trying to run it. Even if everyone walks in to that with good intentions, a train wreck is a very likely end result.

    On that happy note, I look forwards to see where this ends up!
    RK/Magnus on Twitch
    @thewritemagnus on Twitter

  8. #8
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Thanks for the feedback LoliSauce and RK

    Let me recap some of their points, as well as a few other things mentioned in the forum-chat (will be probably posted in more detail soon):
    • Strict Rules: Loli and RK are right. We should have strict and well-defined rules, that all players are aware of before joining the tournament. Those rules provide easy & fast solutions to dead-locks like the "Lost Viking" problem described in the OP.
    • League + Knockout format: grumpyoldman & Loli highlighted this hybrid, the best of both worlds! League is nice as an initial stage where everybody can play without fear of losing. Knockout is nice as a final stage, maybe as a final-four, where the pressure imposed will help the strongest and coolest of mind prevail.
    • Home & Away matches: Proposed by Tirean and endorsed by myself. This applies to fixed-participant league-style tourney, where each player fights all others exactly twice, once at "Home" and once "Away": when playing at Home/Away, you get a small bonus/penalty. Tirean proposed that the bonus/penalty comes from choosing first/last from a pool of random builds. I suggested another implementation where the Home/Away player gets a small team-power bonus/penalty.
    • Administration: I agree with RK; the fewer the managers the more efficient the team! Experience has shown that a tourney of 8-16 players can be managed by one person, even thought that might be a bit of work. I don't expect to grow more than that, so let's leave that on hold for the moment.
    • Knockout Structure: Both RK and Loli suggested knock-out. I agree that it's much simpler to execute and, normally, runs much faster than a league. My main concern with this tourney type is that players who are eliminated early don't "experience" the most out of the tourney; double-elimination fixes this to some extent...


    Finally, let me make a rough list of participants. Those with (?) please confirm your participation.
    1. Aleonymous
    2. stoicmom
    3. Tyrael
    4. Yngvar
    5. Rymdkejsaren
    6. grumpyoldman (?)
    7. Tirean (?)
    8. Lolisauce (?)
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  9. #9
    Community Moderator Guğmundr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Skogr, Setterlund
    Posts
    822
    I might be able to participate, but it depends on when the tourney starts, and how much time it will involve. I'm gonna be fairly swamped for the next couple weeks, so I wouldn't be free at all until after that.

    Thanks for all the work Aleo!
    Án brynju, mağur er varnarlaus. Án styrks, er hann ekkert.

  10. #10
    I am in, will try to make more time than I did for the last tournament

  11. #11
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    @Gud -- With this pace, I honestly doubt we'll start before Xmas If we eventually do a league-type tourney, hopefully match-arrangements will be more flexible for everybody.

    Updated participants list:
    1. Aleonymous
    2. stoicmom
    3. Tyrael
    4. Yngvar
    5. Rymdkejsaren
    6. Guğmundr
    7. Tirean
    8. grumpyoldman
    *. Lolisauce (?)
    Last edited by Aleonymous; 12-02-2014 at 09:07 AM.
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  12. #12
    Hello there,

    This sounds like alot of fun, maybe somewhat on the complicated side for me but I suppose the most part here are veterans to the game.
    I would like to participate tho it is hard for me to have schedueled play due to work, kids, family, house and Xmas coming.
    I can see trouble if I get matched to play someone who has the same eh"problems"? Might be hard to find a gap to run the match in and
    even more so if our timezones are very different.

  13. #13
    Superbacker netnazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    456
    I'm not against it

    read as - I'm in
    Last edited by netnazgul; 12-02-2014 at 03:19 PM. Reason: clarification
    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

  14. #14
    Of course I'm in Aleo!

    Concerning the tourney format I'd like to stress what Aleo said about the main goal of a Community tournament: It's about having fun. And for me, this also implies: It's not for an exclusive club only. Why isn't playing TBSF already fun enough? Because it's imbalanced, because matches tend to get boring due to skill disparity, because you barely talk about matches with your opponent afterwards to actually learn something, because many opponents are not reliable at all. These are the points we may reach out to fix in this community tournament.

    And that's why I propose a hybrid type between League and Knock-out. The League as an initial stage should be framed as easy-to-hop-in, to balance skill disparity, to prevent nasty OP-builds and to be about fun. It should stay open to a great variety of players, even after the tourney started. The applying ruleset to aquire the above-mentioned goals should be as simple as possible. And because these goals mean a better Factions overall, the timespan for this kind of "tourney" should be extensively long.

    However, I myself do enjoy the Knock-out Tourney a lot. Thought of as a playoff between top-League players, this "phase-two" could occure once, or multiple times a league tourney; of course in relation to dedication, player-activety & amount of players. And being a knock out, this part of the tourney would be more competitive, more about an emerging champion, more elaborate, more strict, more classic.

    Combining the best of two worlds, it shouldn't be too hard to satisfy the needs of us all.

    The initial League-Stage

    Administration:
    Hoping for increasing participant numbers, it'd probably best if this part of the tourney was a self organizing bureaucracy only overlooked by a person in charge. I'll look for something similar to challonge.com the next days.
    Conditions of participation:
    By applying for the tournament, everyone must post his time-zone, his willingness to do a report of the results & and a status report if he's currently available for the more time-consuming process being part of the play-off. The knock-out status may be revised at any time. (It's just saying: I'm rather staying in the league; or: No, I got enough time to invest next month, I'm prepared to join the playoff!)
    Duration:
    If it was just me, the league could go on and on. But to keep change of rules simple & transparent, a fixed duration would indeed help. I'd be fine with 3 to 4 months. If the participants are active enough to do a second or third knock-out phase, it'd be helpful if the leaderboard was cleaned after every playoff. Nevertheless, the points could be saved seperatly to announce a leaderboard champion in the end.
    Scoring system:
    I just havent got time to think over it properly, yet; It should stay simple. It should do justice to skill disparity between the players. It should encourage the usage of interesting & fun builds. (I like the idea that every match done with random generated teams provides extra points regardless of the outcome. Also a penalty for using pairs of TH; BM; SRM; WM; WH. Simply banning builds could be an option, too.)


    The Knock-out-stage

    The overall ruleset of this part of the tourney highly depends on the number of participants and should be adapted every time. Expecting easier communication between fewer competitors, the ruleset could be under discussion a week before every lauch.
    Conditions of participation:
    Here's the place where - in my opinion - Lolisauce' conditions fit. Please look them up a few posts above (thank you! ) Although it may seem unjust, the main issue here is the limited time of the administrator; limits also the maximum amount of players at the same time. So, before each launch, it is up to the current steward of the tourney to announce how many may join. Having that said, it's not yet decided Who's in?. I could imagine a few options to choose from, depending on current amount of players.
    #1: The first 8 players leading the league having stated their availablity meet in a knock-out bracket.
    #2: The first 6 players leading the league and additional 2 players chosen randomly from the pool of available players; meet...knock out (underdogs are in!)
    #3: The first 4 players leading the league, 2 chosen as most active players and 2 chosen randomly; meet... (underdogs & passionates are in!)
    #1a-#3a: same as #1-3, but with an additional loser bracket.
    #A : The first 4 players leading the league facing each other in 2 battles + an additional final. (round-robin-style)
    #A1-#A3: you get the idea...


    Options to reach the goal of...

    fixing the balance issues:

    • Build Pool: I'm in love with the idea that every participant has to propose a build by himself, contributing into a pool of available builds and being checked by all other participants. If the other participants do not agree to his/her build, he may propose a second one, otherwise he must cope with playing with strange builds. I know that this solution is questionably complex.
    • Mirror Builds: During the RBT, some participants decided to play with mirrored teams, but leaving stats and team sequence to decide on their own. As the build pool solution, this one raises the question of how to choose them. Could easily be fixed by doing a round robin style.
    • Banned builds: A list of builds which are not allowed in the tournament. This list would emerge from trusted members & supplemental contributions of the commuity.
    • Power level: Every knock out should be at a fixed power level.



    The spice:

    • home & away matches: Easily realized in a round robin style & a power level difference of 1-2.
    • rating builds: We could rate builds regarding their anticipated strenght, maybe in 3 categories (1-3). Afterwards, we translate the difference in strenght to a compensating difference in power level.
    • rating players: We could rate the skill of the players the same we did with builds, if needed with the help of the Elo-rating.



    Having a talk:

    Here comes the possibility of streaming the matches via twitch or similar to my mind; I didn't want to force this one on every participant in the league, but enjoyed it alot during the RBT - and therefore would like to see it return.

    Duration: Personally, I'd like to see it done in about 1,5 months, maybe even sooner. The shorter the time the easier to estimate correctly if one's able to "commit".



    So far from my side, thanks for your interest in the tourney!
    Last edited by grumpyoldman; 12-02-2014 at 02:32 PM.

  15. #15
    Superbacker netnazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    456
    Agreed on banned builds (not that I remember them, but I do remember they are all damned nasty and unpleasant).
    Agreed on home/away, should be a nice touch. Hope that everyone is able to provide sufficient barracks to set golden p12 +/-2 builds. Although this can hamper build pool feature (one presents p12 build but can't play it on p14 at "home"). Same with mirror builds (although mirror builds can be a thing for resolving Bo3 finals by setting same builds from 3rd party to both players).

    As for the format - main decider is the number of matches needed for the tournament. If there is enough interest from players, there could be both league and double elimination knockout phases. Leagues take lots of time investment this way, increasing exponentially (with 4 players it's 6/12 matches (1-2 matches per pair), with 8 players it's already 28/56), so there is a space for balancing between. Probably the best type is either double elimination all the way (requiring a certain number of players) or several small groups leading to simple swiss. And of course it should be at least Bo3 per match.
    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

  16. #16
    Ouh sounds interesting; I'm in

    As for things being said; I agree with lolisauce conditions for entering the tourney. it's important to keep it running, otherwise it would be just waiting and waiting and at the end, we have a lot of quitters and the rest is dissappointed.
    As for the builds; I'm not a fan of banning builds, but on the other hand i myself don't like using the same build every time. i think a lot of us here are the same, but that's not for sure. so for the sake of fun and variety, i think this whole "player suggests two builds, the other participants vote/can veto" sounds good

  17. #17
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    @grumpy -- Thanks for the massive feedback I will try to "digest" the many topics you addressed and come up with something specific later.

    @Lost Viking -- Thanks for giving your availability status. I'm putting you in the list for now, and we'll see how this works. I'll keep you updated.

    @netnazgul -- Good to have you back, netz! I was glad you liked the home/away thing (I knew you would, seeing you play Football Manager so often lately!), as did grumpy. Also, your point about the total number of matches (league style) is a good catch.

    @JackJammer -- I don't think the builds you like to play (at least, last time I faced you) would qualify as ban-able ones



    With the number of participants increasing, but most likely not reaching 16 (so as to be able to do a regular knock-out double-elimination tourney), I think that we're heading for a hybrid league+knockout type. Maybe we can do two small groups/leagues, where the top ranked players from each group meet in a final knockout phase. The players could be divided into those two groups by: time-zone, skill, appetite for new & experimental league-rules etc.

    That said, I will try to outline an experimental league scoring system later. I am divided between these two fundamental approaches:
    • Elo-based system: All players start with same points (e.g. 100 or 1000), and they win/lose some points by winning/losing matches.
      Pros: (a) Allows for a arbitrary/varying number of active players, (b) Passively deals with inactive players, AKA "Lost Vikings", (c) Allows for more flexible match-fixtures between players who are available at the moment.
      Cons: (a) Tends to get dominated by players that simply have more appetite for matches, (b) Needs a somewhat complicated algorithm to track points won/lost by each match-up, (c) Normally, it does not adapt the match difficulty but the point gain/loss, when the opponent skill is imbalanced.
    • Renown-based system: All players start at 0 points, and earn more as they play matches, with a formula loosely based on Renown (e.g. point-gain by: win and/or kills and/or underdog etc).
      Pros: (a) Very simple scoring system, (b) Can more flexibly adapt both match difficulty and point gain/loss.
      Cons: (a) Does not allow flexibility for new players to enter or inactive ones to leave, (b) Normally, requires a fixed number of players as well as a fixed number of match-ups per pair.




    Updated participants list:
    1. Aleonymous
    2. stoicmom
    3. Tyrael
    4. Yngvar
    5. Rymdkejsaren
    6. Guğmundr (*)
    7. Tirean
    8. grumpyoldman
    9. Lost Viking (*)
    10. netnazgul
    11. JackJammer

    (*) Limited availability
    (?) Awaiting confirmation: Veringatorix, Lolisauce, Another Persona



    Remember the keywords folks, "CnC", that stands for "Communications & Commitment". That's all we ask here!
    Last edited by Aleonymous; 12-03-2014 at 05:01 AM.
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  18. #18
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Thanks for Loli, hreinn and AP for joining the thread. We have 10-11 fully registered players at the moment, with another 3-4 partly registered, i.e. having some availability issues. I want to wait some time more, maybe after this weekend, to see if there's any more coming in.

    Proposed Tournament Structure

    In any case, I propose we do two sub-groups/leagues, i.e. two mini round-robin tournaments ("all-play-all"). I propose that each player faces all others exactly twice, in a Home/Away match style like in team-sports, where the player who is "at Home" gets a small privilege. Once the mini-leagues are concluded, the top (4?) players of each group advance to a knockout phase, i.e. a single final elimination tournament. Is everyone OK with the proposed hybrid tournament-structure?

    If you're all OK with that, what's left to decide is:

    • Scoring system: According to my previous post, I propose either Elo-based (like current in-game tourney/all-time ranking system) or Renown-based (e.g. where loser gets 0 points and winner gets points equal to the number of units left alive). We should also look into tie-braking conditions. Which one do you prefer?
    • Home/Away matches: We should decide what the Home-team advantage should be. That can of course be left to the two players to decide, and need not be the same for each group or each matchup! For example: Aleo-vs-stoicmom could have the Home-player choose a build after the Away-player has revealed his own; Aleo-vs-Tirean could have the Home-player take the first turn and/or choose map; Aleo-vs-Yngvar could give the Home-player a +2 team-power advantage. You get the idea....
    • Group composition: How to divide the players between the two groups. Maybe per-timezone is the best option here, but there's some mode considerations: Note that the two groups need not have the same number of players, nor use the same scoring system, nor use the same special rules (e.g. random builds, number of matches per-pair, home-player advantages etc). What do you say?
    • I/O rules: For removing/inserting players in the group(s) and/or the knockout phase. We should have rules to accommodate situations like: players not being available any longer (or altogether disappearing) and other, new ones, popping up to join in before its too late. The latter is easy, e.g. we can throw them into one of the two groups/league and hook 'em up to the scoring system. The former, i.e. removing a "Lost Viking" from a group, ain't so difficult either: We just remove all the effect his matches had across the board. For example: Assume a Renown-based scoring system, and say the removed player had played only three matches, two wins vs. Aleo and one defeat vs. Tirean; when that player is removed, then Aleo's points stay the same (he didn't win any points from those two fights) and Tirean's points are reduced (e.g. he gets a -2, if Tir won with two units alive). Nothing is demanded from you to implement this, except that you should remember to accurately record each of your matches {date, opponent, builds, map, 1st player, outcome, units left alive, ...?} .

    What do you think? Please provide feedback and/or preferences to the above questions. Else, I will assume you're OK with anything.

    Disqualifying conditions

    Now, this is VERY IMPORTANT, so please make sure you read and understand. Participation in the tourney means you accept the following terms & conditions. OK, "disqualifying" is an umbrella term for when somebody fails to commit to the community tourney. I don't expect that anyone will misbehave (insult, troll, harass etc), but we may have instances of players who delay the tourney, don't show up for matches and/or have an overall "bad" communication. For this reason, I strongly urge you to post your availability status in this here thread (or the forum chat, which is also archived). We're all patient and considerate human beings, but, BE WARNED: you will be removed from the tourney if you're not heard from for more than 10 days (e.g. if you don't update your availability status by a post here, don't respond to forum-PMs nor steam-chat messages etc). Did you read & understand?



    Updated participants list:
    1. Aleonymous
    2. stoicmom
    3. Tyrael
    4. Yngvar
    5. Rymdkejsaren
    6. Guğmundr (*) -- Not available before Xmas
    7. Tirean
    8. grumpyoldman
    9. Lost Viking (*) -- Generally limited availability
    10. netnazgul
    11. JackJammer
    12. Lolisauce (*) -- Only for Knockout double-elimination
    13. hreinbenno
    14. Another Persona (*) -- Only in for random build fights

    (*) Restricted / Limited availability
    (?) Awaiting response: Veringatorix, raven2134,...?



    Remember: "CnC" -- Communication & Commitment"
    Last edited by Aleonymous; 12-04-2014 at 07:22 AM.
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  19. #19
    Structure.

    Sounds like our own champions league and that's fair enough for me.

    Scoring system.

    Elo.

    Home & Away.

    I don't know what to say and I don't care about advantages and so, but probably the my home, my map thing would be ok.

    Group composition.

    Timezone sounds good but current Elo ranking could be better.

    In & Out.

    I don't mind so, whatever.

  20. #20
    Superbacker LoliSauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    166
    I don't think I'll be participating. I just wanted to help by highlighting a few things for tournament rules and regulation. I may join in for something short like a 16 man double elim, but definitely not for things like 3-4 month long league shit. I just don't have enough investment while factions remains in its current stale form.

    I think you're all being a little silly about banning/penalizing builds or characters though. Actually, I think you guys are exaggerating how strong those classes are in general. It's more like the difference between a top tier and mid/low tier chara in a fighting game. The odds are against you for not playing top tier, but you can still win. When something is actually over powered, you literally don't have a chance of winning against it. The power gap in this game is simply not that high. That said, the point of a tournament is to bring out the best in people, and even among the so-called op characters mentioned, it's still possible to make multiple builds using them. That is also a form of balance. I say adapt or deal with the handicap.
    Last edited by LoliSauce; 12-03-2014 at 12:54 PM.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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