Moderator: Community Team



















































Indeed, we were hoping for more entries.Fuzzy316 wrote:I think they were hoping for a larger tournout for the entry. It could be people just didn't feel up to it, or it could be some people don't think they have the storytelling skills/capabilities, from what I can tell anyways
That's actually the part that made me pass it up. I've never run a tournament before, so I didn't want to jump into the pool with some elaborate format that was over my head.DJ Teflon wrote:However, most of those that have entered have put a great deal of effort into their ideas. It would be great to see them all running as active tournaments so the creativity doesn't go to waste/

Was just waiting on the final outcome before posting to the sign ups page.DJ Teflon wrote:Indeed, we were hoping for more entries.Fuzzy316 wrote:I think they were hoping for a larger tournout for the entry. It could be people just didn't feel up to it, or it could be some people don't think they have the storytelling skills/capabilities, from what I can tell anyways
However, most of those that have entered have put a great deal of effort into their ideas. It would be great to see them all running as active tournaments so the creativity doesn't go to waste/
I think a few of us have already put them as active tournaments.. once it was done no point in just letting it sit there I believe..DJ Teflon wrote:Indeed, we were hoping for more entries.Fuzzy316 wrote:I think they were hoping for a larger tournout for the entry. It could be people just didn't feel up to it, or it could be some people don't think they have the storytelling skills/capabilities, from what I can tell anyways
However, most of those that have entered have put a great deal of effort into their ideas. It would be great to see them all running as active tournaments so the creativity doesn't go to waste/

you forgot biscuits to go with the tea!!DJ Teflon wrote:One of the judges is perhaps playing the legal judge role and considering his scoring very carefully, perhaps with several tea breaks, meetings in chambers, working from home, long lunches, early finishes, fridays off, flexible working hours, .... .....
I think you should go for it. (Meaning making the small one, not joining a contest just yet.)denominator wrote:That's actually the part that made me pass it up. I've never run a tournament before, so I didn't want to jump into the pool with some elaborate format that was over my head.DJ Teflon wrote:However, most of those that have entered have put a great deal of effort into their ideas. It would be great to see them all running as active tournaments so the creativity doesn't go to waste/
Given the level of the first couple that were posted, I came to the conclusion that I wouldn't win with a small, simple tournament, so there came to be no point in entering - I can still run my small tournament on my own if and when I choose.
If there had been a requirement that all tournaments be run, then the winner be selected, I probably would have taken the plunge and run a small one for this.
yeah I don't know, I don't like tournaments that take several monthes, I tried to make one rather short. I do get bored with too long ones, and just wish they could finish fast.Dukasaur wrote:I think you should go for it. (Meaning making the small one, not joining a contest just yet.)denominator wrote:That's actually the part that made me pass it up. I've never run a tournament before, so I didn't want to jump into the pool with some elaborate format that was over my head.DJ Teflon wrote:However, most of those that have entered have put a great deal of effort into their ideas. It would be great to see them all running as active tournaments so the creativity doesn't go to waste/
Given the level of the first couple that were posted, I came to the conclusion that I wouldn't win with a small, simple tournament, so there came to be no point in entering - I can still run my small tournament on my own if and when I choose.
If there had been a requirement that all tournaments be run, then the winner be selected, I probably would have taken the plunge and run a small one for this.
Making great tournaments is a craft that requires lots of practise, and even after doing it for a year, I'm still making mistakes. For instance, in one tournament that I just launched (and which I spent months planning, I just realized that although Phase One will probabably go really fast and be done in two or three weeks, Phase Two will probably last for three or four months, maybe even five, and by the time we reach Phase Three a lot of people who got won early in Phase Two will have forgotten about it. This kind of stupidity makes me want to beat myself in the head, but it's just the kind of thing that happens when you get too obsessed with the creative aspects and forget about the practical aspects.
So definitely, if you want to be involved in making good creative tourneys eventually, get started now, making some basic simple uncreative ones. You will definitely benefit from the experience when it comes time to make fancier stuff later.

Please don't make ANY changes until the seventh judge has had a chance to vote.betiko wrote:Hey I was wondering, as my tourney is taking longer that I expected to fill in and I see that people are afraid by the number of participants (128) would it be ok if I reduce it to 64 and just give a double chance to participants on round 1?
I'm used to create smaller tourneys and they fill in very fast, also I've noticed people are afraid when they see 128 participants..
thanks. well basically on my round 1, 1 out of 4 players go to round 2; I would just want to make it 1 out of 2 players to advance, so the number of entries would go from 128 to 64. I would need to do just some minor adjustments on round 1; all the other rounds would remain the same.Dukasaur wrote:Please don't make ANY changes until the seventh judge has had a chance to vote.betiko wrote:Hey I was wondering, as my tourney is taking longer that I expected to fill in and I see that people are afraid by the number of participants (128) would it be ok if I reduce it to 64 and just give a double chance to participants on round 1?
I'm used to create smaller tourneys and they fill in very fast, also I've noticed people are afraid when they see 128 participants..
With a bit of luck that will be within the next day or two. After that, yes, trimming some of these tournaments down to a more manageable size might be an option. (Even after that, I would send a PM to DJ Teflon before making changes, because if the tournament is drastically different from what was posted I would want to make sure that your medal is not in jeopardy. But it will probably be okay.)

This kind of minor practical adjustment would be fine.betiko wrote:thanks. well basically on my round 1, 1 out of 4 players go to round 2; I would just want to make it 1 out of 2 players to advance, so the number of entries would go from 128 to 64. I would need to do just some minor adjustments on round 1; all the other rounds would remain the same.
It really seems like the best solution because in 10 days I have 20 entries and people have told me that 128 seems like too much participants and are afraid it could be a long/difficult tourney.
Sorry but it's the kind of things you figure out only when your project goes "on the market". It doesn't change the storyline or anything, I just want to be certain it will be running (if the tourney is not filled up within a month it's abandonned right?)
thanks, will wait for djteflon's feedback
Ok thanks DJ, the modification has been made; it's now a 64 players tourney, and not a 128 players anymore; all remains the same except that you have now 50% of entries that go to round 2 instead of 25%.DJ Teflon wrote:This kind of minor practical adjustment would be fine.betiko wrote:thanks. well basically on my round 1, 1 out of 4 players go to round 2; I would just want to make it 1 out of 2 players to advance, so the number of entries would go from 128 to 64. I would need to do just some minor adjustments on round 1; all the other rounds would remain the same.
It really seems like the best solution because in 10 days I have 20 entries and people have told me that 128 seems like too much participants and are afraid it could be a long/difficult tourney.
Sorry but it's the kind of things you figure out only when your project goes "on the market". It doesn't change the storyline or anything, I just want to be certain it will be running (if the tourney is not filled up within a month it's abandonned right?)
thanks, will wait for djteflon's feedback

There is voting going on currently. Votes will be tallied soon and a winner announced as soon as it is possible. I wasn't one of the judges or voters, but there were some good things in there. I would say Fuzzy's was my favorite.Fuzzy316 wrote:Has this been decided as to who the actual winnners were yet?
Well, thanks for the update Duka. thought that the one they were waiting on was supposed to have been back, but is cool that we know now.Dukasaur wrote:I don't want to say too much, but basically one of the judges seems to be stuck somewhere with no Internet access for the holidays, and we are just going to have to wait for him to resurface.
The votes are extremely close: some good efforts there.
Thanks Chap, nice to hear.chapcrap wrote:There is voting going on currently. Votes will be tallied soon and a winner announced as soon as it is possible. I wasn't one of the judges or voters, but there were some good things in there. I would say Fuzzy's was my favorite.Fuzzy316 wrote:Has this been decided as to who the actual winnners were yet?
Congrats guys!!DJ Teflon wrote:Apologies to all for the delay.
The judges tallied scoring is as follows:
fairman - 73.5
SirSebstar - 14.5
Fuzzy316 - 100.5
eagleblade - 88.5
lostatlimbo - 102.5
betiko - 92.5
DoomYoshi - 97.5
Therefore, General Achievement Medals will be awarded to the following Tournament Organisers on completion of their tournaments:
- Fuzzy316
lostatlimbo
DoomYoshi