10 replies to this topic

[Mainhunter]

in a Tournament per bracket/class.

How about a 10 out of 30 games per Tournament and class? This would benefit people who cant play the hole weekend.

Edited by Mainhunter, 23 July 2013 - 01:00 AM.

[IronChance]

These types of tournaments just need to be replaced by elimination tournaments. Until that happens, it doesn't matter whether you limit the drops or not, there are too many variables decided by luck - like teammate competence, disconnects, enemy team work, etc - to make any set amount of drops "fair."

[Bilbo]

Just make it the first 10 matches per leaderboard. Anything else just becomes a marathon, as people repeatedly drop to replace their lowest score.

[hammerreborn]

Bilbo, on 22 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Just make it the first 10 matches per leaderboard. Anything else just becomes a marathon, as people repeatedly drop to replace their lowest score.

10 out of 40 eliminates the well ****, i dropped with only 7 players issues. Also, if it were 10 out of 10, I would totally troll the **** outta some of the more prominant leaderboard whores and TK/cap rush.

I mean, I already do the latter on tourney weekends (not this one, dragon's dogma), but it would incentivize me even more.

[Bilbo]

hammerreborn, on 22 July 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

10 out of 40 eliminates the well ****, i dropped with only 7 players issues. Also, if it were 10 out of 10, I would totally troll the **** outta some of the more prominant leaderboard whores and TK/cap rush.

I mean, I already do the latter on tourney weekends (not this one, dragon's dogma), but it would incentivize me even more.

40 is way too much. I don't play the tournaments because I want to play in each of the leaderboard chassis to see where I can end up. The only way I can do that is to play the minimum for each, which, in the tournament's current format, gets you absolutely nowhere. Maybe if they limited it to 15-20 it would give a better representation, but even that would require a fairly hefty time investment.

[hammerreborn]

Bilbo, on 22 July 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

40 is way too much. I don't play the tournaments because I want to play in each of the leaderboard chassis to see where I can end up. The only way I can do that is to play the minimum for each, which, in the tournament's current format, gets you absolutely nowhere. Maybe if they limited it to 15-20 it would give a better representation, but even that would require a fairly hefty time investment.

40 is somewhere around 4 hours over the course of an entire weekend.

Even though my wife bans me from video games on weekends I can still manage to sneak that much in while she's sleeping >.>

[Bilbo]

hammerreborn, on 22 July 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

40 is somewhere around 4 hours over the course of an entire weekend.

Even though my wife bans me from video games on weekends I can still manage to sneak that much in while she's sleeping >.>

For one bracket. Like I said, I'd like to be able to play all of them.

[Sephlock]

IronChance, on 22 July 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

These types of tournaments just need to be replaced by elimination tournaments. Until that happens, it doesn't matter whether you limit the drops or not, there are too many variables decided by luck - like teammate competence, disconnects, enemy team work, etc - to make any set amount of drops "fair."

Elimination tournaments? With the current state of balance?

[Mainhunter]

My fault, I should have added in the poll title "per Bracket". Sorry guys.

[Dirty Panda]

I think it'd be a bad idea to limit tournaments to 40 games and even worse idea if it'd be less than that. In forty games or less, luck with team mates and with opposition would be a bit too much of a factor. Maybe one hundered games or so might be right, but then again, I think tournament is totally fine as it is now.

I played about about 9 hours this weekend and it was enough to get me to 9th place in stalker category and I really think that even though I would've played 20 hours, I would've not been too many places up by the end of the weekend.
Reason is this - I would've needed 200 points more to get to 3rd place, which means I should've had two more kills or 300pts more damage in every one of those ten matches and I think that with my skill level I could've not done that no matter what.
In general, I really believe that skills that people have limit their final score more than the time they have to play. For example, in last three hours of play I didn't raise my score at all, which means I got those ten games that counted in about 6 hours. And even though there could've been some very good game up ahead if I would've played lots more, it would've most likely raised my standing only little and I think that would've not been time well or wisely spent.
Having said all this I still think that forty games would be a bit too modest amount to rule out bad luck with trolls, team mates and/or opposition.

People really should give credit to those who deserve it, not make so many excuses why they didn't make it as high up the ladder as they' tought they would. You know, excuses like time issues, people cheating, sync dropping (really wtf?), scoring system or what not. They just seem to be too occupied with the idea of fame and glory that they forget that games are about having fun - not about grieving over tournament scoreboard. The reality for the largest part of the player base is that there will always be this buch of players who are more talented, more driven than they are. Maybe people should spend less time reading/posting on forums, instead relax, play/enjoy the game and most of all, go outside to have fun with their loved ones.

Sorry about going a bit off topic.

Edited by Death Kell, 23 July 2013 - 09:40 AM.

[MacKoga]

Varitations I'd like to see:

1) Internal Tournament ELO
Everyone enters the tournament and is in an isolated cue from non-tournament players. Everyone starts with an equal Tournament ELO. The highest ELO at the end wins. This would better reflect fighting the competition than our current system, and should take fewer fights to win.

This is what I most want to see.


2) Tiered "Best of" Categories (10 of 12, 10 of 25, 10 of infinity)
This would be like what we currently have, but all categories have at least 2 additional categories. One would be almost no extra matches beyond 10, but with one or two extra in case one was lost due to a game bug or something like that, to mitigate forum rage. The second tier is a moderate range, like 25, for playing plenty of games, but not a 20 hour marathon. The third is the full-tournament, unlimited match number we have now.

Not all the tiers need rewards for lots of people, but there should be rankings and at least a bonus for the top #1. Scoring can be done either the way it's currently being done, or by separate Tournament ELO.


3) Modified Tournament ELO / Limited Grudge Match
An internal ELO helps rank up players. A player shouldn't fight the same player on an opposing team more than 3 times, with best of 3 being used to sort out who's higher on the ladder. This is much more complicated than #1, and has some issues.