i have no clue how to make a tournament so here is my idea the
Tourny of the Knights
Tournament Ideas: Free to a Good Home
Moderator: Tournament Directors
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
-
Exterminator
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:52 pm
i was thinking about a new tourney idea, then i saw ''WW2 Eastern front'' map is now in use so i thought of WW2 tourney, see who really came out on top. the world could be so much different if the germens won. 
"Sex is like maths. You add the bed, subtract the clothes, divide the legs, leave your solution and pray you don’t multiply."
Click this to be part of something HUGE!
Click this to be part of something HUGE!
-
Night Strike
- Posts: 8512
- Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
- Gender: Male
Exterminator wrote:i was thinking about a new tourney idea, then i saw ''WW2 Eastern front'' map is now in use so i thought of WW2 tourney, see who really came out on top. the world could be so much different if the germens won.
Not a bad idea, but it should wait until qwert's other WW2 maps come out: Western Front and IwoJima. Battle of Australia could also be used.
tournament idea; feedback desired
I'm floating this idea for a tournament/league. I'm not yet asking for participants! If I go forward with the idea, I will start a new thread for that.
Please comment on this concept. Does it make sense? Does it sound interesting?
In an effort to counter the distressing trend toward 1v1 tournaments, where this enticing game of skill and chance becomes a maddening game of merely chance (I concede only slight exaggeration), I'm starting a tournament that combines the popular concept of home-field advantage while dispensing the 2-player concept that was never really intended for this game.
- 36 players, who will be seeded into six 6-player divisions
- entrants must be premium, and have a minimum score of 1400
- All games will be sequential, and either escalating or flat-rate cards.
- Adjacent fortification is not allowed for 3-player games.
- Each player will play 18 regular season games, and will be the home team for one 6-player game, one 5-player game, one 4-player game, and one 3-player game. (They will be the "road" team for five 6-player games, four 5-player games, three 4-player games, and two 3-player games.)
- Players will have 3 games start each Monday, so the regular season will last approximately 6-8 weeks, with the finals another 6-8 weeks.
- When signing up, entrants must specify their preferred settings for each of their 4 home games (6P/5P/4P/3P). The settings may be the same for all 4.
- the six division champions will advance to a Finals Division, and each division champion will play 18 games in the same format as the regular season. Finalists may submit new home-field settings for the Finals Division.
- Points will be awarded as follows:
* 6-player game: 10/5/3/2/1/0
* 5-player game: 9/4/3/2/1/0
* 4-player game: 8/3/2/1/0
* 3-player game: 6/3/1/0
Concerns:
1) With only the division champ advancing, could have a high drop-out rate of players at the bottom of a division once the season wears on.
2) I'm thinking about dumping the points scale and just going on wins, but either way, there would be incentive late in the division play for a first place team to just attack the 2nd/3rd place team and be happy for the 5th/6th place team to win.
#2 may be collateral damage that I can live with - that a division leader has earned if they choose to play that way. #1 I'd like to have an answer for.
Please comment on this concept. Does it make sense? Does it sound interesting?
In an effort to counter the distressing trend toward 1v1 tournaments, where this enticing game of skill and chance becomes a maddening game of merely chance (I concede only slight exaggeration), I'm starting a tournament that combines the popular concept of home-field advantage while dispensing the 2-player concept that was never really intended for this game.
- 36 players, who will be seeded into six 6-player divisions
- entrants must be premium, and have a minimum score of 1400
- All games will be sequential, and either escalating or flat-rate cards.
- Adjacent fortification is not allowed for 3-player games.
- Each player will play 18 regular season games, and will be the home team for one 6-player game, one 5-player game, one 4-player game, and one 3-player game. (They will be the "road" team for five 6-player games, four 5-player games, three 4-player games, and two 3-player games.)
- Players will have 3 games start each Monday, so the regular season will last approximately 6-8 weeks, with the finals another 6-8 weeks.
- When signing up, entrants must specify their preferred settings for each of their 4 home games (6P/5P/4P/3P). The settings may be the same for all 4.
- the six division champions will advance to a Finals Division, and each division champion will play 18 games in the same format as the regular season. Finalists may submit new home-field settings for the Finals Division.
- Points will be awarded as follows:
* 6-player game: 10/5/3/2/1/0
* 5-player game: 9/4/3/2/1/0
* 4-player game: 8/3/2/1/0
* 3-player game: 6/3/1/0
Concerns:
1) With only the division champ advancing, could have a high drop-out rate of players at the bottom of a division once the season wears on.
2) I'm thinking about dumping the points scale and just going on wins, but either way, there would be incentive late in the division play for a first place team to just attack the 2nd/3rd place team and be happy for the 5th/6th place team to win.
#2 may be collateral damage that I can live with - that a division leader has earned if they choose to play that way. #1 I'd like to have an answer for.
-
Optimus Prime
- Posts: 9665
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:33 pm
- Gender: Male
Alright, I figured I'd be the first to give you some feedback on this idea.
Overall, I think it is a very good idea, and a very solid format, however, here are a couple points I would personally make. Feel free to like them or dislike them, that is completely your choice given that you are the tournament organizer.
1. The 1 vs 1 tournaments are not that bad, I run several of them and they are met with great enthusiasm, although I will admit that they games take a little less strategy than the others.
2. I agree with requiring premium if you are going to start three games per week, however, I think that requiring a 1400 point threshold is a little extreme. Granted, I personally would not be able to play in this tournament, and I can understand you don't want players with 700 points messing with point totals, but try to remember a couple of things:
A. You don't want it to become too much of an "elitist" tournament (If you do, make sure to say so).
B. Winning and losing points is part of this game, so if a player with 2300 points signs up for the tournament, it is a bit extravagant to think that everyone with far fewer points should simply not bother in worry of taking away too many points.
I think if you went with a 1100-1200 point threshold it would be a little nicer. You also need to specify at what point they need to have those points as their score. It is much different to sign up for a tournament when you have the required points, but if it takes 2 weeks to get underway, you might not have them anymore and be disappointed when the organizer says that you can't join all of the sudden. (My personal recommendation would be that the participant has to have that point total at sign-up).
3. The regular season set-up seems very interesting and I like the way you've designed it. I might even steal a few particulars from it in the future for some of mine.
4. I don't know what others think, but I doubt that the regular season will take only 6-8 weeks to complete, especially with how many games there are. It has taken 9 weeks to reach the finals in my doubles tournament I'm running and there were 12 less "teams" with far less games. Standard games are bit slower.
In relation to your two concerns, this is what I say:
Concern #1: The way to avoid the drop out rate is to decrease the spread between the points you award for first and further down. I notice right now that it is fairly high, which will lead to players not wanting to continue and they will ask to be removed once they realize they are no longer in contention mathematically. Close up the points spread and you should greatly eliminate that problem as players will think they have a chance far longer. If you want to make winning more beneficial you can add things such as a bonus point for winning in a certain timeframe, or bonus points for eliminating players and so on.
Concern #2: If you do dump the points scale, you will want to keep track of more than just wins, simply for tie-breaking purposes. With just wins over such a long season you could easily wind up with many ties. Ways around this would include only recording top three finishes (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and use those for tie breaks, OR, you use the points and use wins as the tie-break protocol, which gives more incentive for the win, especially if you tighten up the point spread. With a tight point spread, you can have a shot at contention longer, but will still be motivated for the win because of the chance that so many can catch up to you.
Hopefully all of that feedback helps, I don't mean to sound preachy if I did.
Regards, Optimus Prime
Overall, I think it is a very good idea, and a very solid format, however, here are a couple points I would personally make. Feel free to like them or dislike them, that is completely your choice given that you are the tournament organizer.
1. The 1 vs 1 tournaments are not that bad, I run several of them and they are met with great enthusiasm, although I will admit that they games take a little less strategy than the others.
2. I agree with requiring premium if you are going to start three games per week, however, I think that requiring a 1400 point threshold is a little extreme. Granted, I personally would not be able to play in this tournament, and I can understand you don't want players with 700 points messing with point totals, but try to remember a couple of things:
A. You don't want it to become too much of an "elitist" tournament (If you do, make sure to say so).
B. Winning and losing points is part of this game, so if a player with 2300 points signs up for the tournament, it is a bit extravagant to think that everyone with far fewer points should simply not bother in worry of taking away too many points.
I think if you went with a 1100-1200 point threshold it would be a little nicer. You also need to specify at what point they need to have those points as their score. It is much different to sign up for a tournament when you have the required points, but if it takes 2 weeks to get underway, you might not have them anymore and be disappointed when the organizer says that you can't join all of the sudden. (My personal recommendation would be that the participant has to have that point total at sign-up).
3. The regular season set-up seems very interesting and I like the way you've designed it. I might even steal a few particulars from it in the future for some of mine.
4. I don't know what others think, but I doubt that the regular season will take only 6-8 weeks to complete, especially with how many games there are. It has taken 9 weeks to reach the finals in my doubles tournament I'm running and there were 12 less "teams" with far less games. Standard games are bit slower.
In relation to your two concerns, this is what I say:
Concern #1: The way to avoid the drop out rate is to decrease the spread between the points you award for first and further down. I notice right now that it is fairly high, which will lead to players not wanting to continue and they will ask to be removed once they realize they are no longer in contention mathematically. Close up the points spread and you should greatly eliminate that problem as players will think they have a chance far longer. If you want to make winning more beneficial you can add things such as a bonus point for winning in a certain timeframe, or bonus points for eliminating players and so on.
Concern #2: If you do dump the points scale, you will want to keep track of more than just wins, simply for tie-breaking purposes. With just wins over such a long season you could easily wind up with many ties. Ways around this would include only recording top three finishes (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and use those for tie breaks, OR, you use the points and use wins as the tie-break protocol, which gives more incentive for the win, especially if you tighten up the point spread. With a tight point spread, you can have a shot at contention longer, but will still be motivated for the win because of the chance that so many can catch up to you.
Hopefully all of that feedback helps, I don't mean to sound preachy if I did.
Regards, Optimus Prime
-
BeastofBurson
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:55 pm
yes...Optimus runs great tournaments and they are always met with great enthusiasm
Making the points to high is a big drawback for me though..(I'm in the 1300's so I couldn't be in it...
but yopu don't want to alienate alot of CC members that don't have the points....
and what if somebody starts out just above 1400...and loses alot of their other games?...now you have people under that threshold of points playing in it anyway
for a first tournament...you should allow all points to join...see where it goes from there...then adjust accordingly...
JMO
Making the points to high is a big drawback for me though..(I'm in the 1300's so I couldn't be in it...
but yopu don't want to alienate alot of CC members that don't have the points....
and what if somebody starts out just above 1400...and loses alot of their other games?...now you have people under that threshold of points playing in it anyway
for a first tournament...you should allow all points to join...see where it goes from there...then adjust accordingly...
JMO
Dancing Mustard wrote:Are you flirting with me? Your angry posts are just the equivalent of school-yard pigtail-pulling.
wicked wrote:We like to give the mental patients a chance to get back on their meds.
Very helpful so far guys. I'll definitely lower the threshold.
Regarding the 6-8 week estimate, yes, that may be optimistic. It would obviously depend somewhat on the settings people choose, but that's the main reason I vetoed no-cards. It would also depend on how I could schedule each division, but my intention is to backload the escalating (or more importantly, front-load the flat rate and 6-player) so that the longer games have 6-8 weeks to run and the games that should be shorter would have less time.
More comments welcome...
Regarding the 6-8 week estimate, yes, that may be optimistic. It would obviously depend somewhat on the settings people choose, but that's the main reason I vetoed no-cards. It would also depend on how I could schedule each division, but my intention is to backload the escalating (or more importantly, front-load the flat rate and 6-player) so that the longer games have 6-8 weeks to run and the games that should be shorter would have less time.
More comments welcome...
-
michiganfan22
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:34 pm
- Location: Rochester, NY
-
Optimus Prime
- Posts: 9665
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:33 pm
- Gender: Male
pjdonald wrote:Very helpful so far guys. I'll definitely lower the threshold.
Regarding the 6-8 week estimate, yes, that may be optimistic. It would obviously depend somewhat on the settings people choose, but that's the main reason I vetoed no-cards. It would also depend on how I could schedule each division, but my intention is to backload the escalating (or more importantly, front-load the flat rate and 6-player) so that the longer games have 6-8 weeks to run and the games that should be shorter would have less time.
More comments welcome...
That is a good idea to help with the length of the tournament, I hadn't thought of doing something like that. It makes perfect sense though. I think you will also find as you seed the divisions (I'm assuming that higher ranked players will be matched against themselves) that those upper divisions will finish much more quickly than the others.
That was my experience with Battle for Middle Earth so far.
-
Optimus Prime
- Posts: 9665
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:33 pm
- Gender: Male
-
michiganfan22
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:34 pm
- Location: Rochester, NY
Optimus Prime wrote: I think you will also find as you seed the divisions (I'm assuming that higher ranked players will be matched against themselves) that those upper divisions will finish much more quickly than the others.
That was my experience with Battle for Middle Earth so far.
Oh my goodness, no. Seeding divisions means that I will take the rankings of the 36 participants, and #1,12,13,24,25,36 will be in one division, #2,11,14,23,26,35 will be in another, etc. That's the fairest way to give the 6 best players a shot at the finals.
-
Optimus Prime
- Posts: 9665
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:33 pm
- Gender: Male
pjdonald wrote:Optimus Prime wrote: I think you will also find as you seed the divisions (I'm assuming that higher ranked players will be matched against themselves) that those upper divisions will finish much more quickly than the others.
That was my experience with Battle for Middle Earth so far.
Oh my goodness, no. Seeding divisions means that I will take the rankings of the 36 participants, and #1,12,13,24,25,36 will be in one division, #2,11,14,23,26,35 will be in another, etc. That's the fairest way to give the 6 best players a shot at the finals.
Aaaahhh, that makes much more sense then. In Battle for Middle Earth, I had a huge point spread so for the first round I seeded them with similar ranked players and then randomly from then on.
I am unsure if this can be done based on the final battle or not. I'd like to get an ok from a mod that this is doable before I post this up. I realize the tournament capability won't be granted until I have everything setup and ready to go.
General
- Players: 36
- Games: 12 6player games. Each player will play 2.
- All games will be Freestyle, Terminator, Escalating, Unlimited. This is to help prevent the tournament from going stagnant due to slow games. All games will be played on the same map. Map will be 42 territories or less (Examples: Classic, Germany, British Isle, Circvs Maximvs)
- Who you play is based on rank points at the time of tournament planning stage.
- Premium Required
Scheduling
Game 1 will be against like ranked people.
Game 2 will be a spread against all ranks.
Quick format based on rank:
Player 1 - 2535 points
Player 2 - 2511 points
Player 3 - 2215 points
Player 4 - 2098 points
Player 5 - 2055 points
Player 6 - 1988 points
Player 7 - 1987 points
....
Player 35 - 765 points
Player 36 - 740 points
Schedule
Games 1-6 would be:
Player 1-6
Player 7-12
Player 13-18
Player 19-24
Player 25-30
Player 31-36
Games 7-12 would be:
Player 1, 7, 13, 19, 25, 31
Player 2, 8, 14, 20, 26, 32
Player 3, 9, 15, 21, 27, 33
Player 4, 10, 16, 22, 28, 34
Player 5, 11, 17, 23, 29, 35
Player 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36
After the first 12 games, there will be 1 final game that has 12 people (ala Battle Royale style, just smaller).
Ranking
Total number of kills, will be used to determine the 12 that will be in the "Battle Royale". Ties will be broken in this priority:
1) If you eliminated the player you are tied with, then you hold a better standing then they do.
2) Board wins (last one standing in their games).
3) Points earned from kills. (I realize this favors lower ranked players, if anyone has any suggestions that do not require another game to be played out, please say so).
Example:
4 players (player 3, player 7, player 8, and player 21) have 2 kills and are in a 4-way tie for 10th place. Only 3 can fit into the final battle.
- Player 3 defeated player 21, and player 15.
- Player 7 defeated player 9 and player 10. Also won the board for that game.
- Player 8 defeated player 2 and player 20.
- Player 21 defeated player 19 and player 20. Also won the board for that game.
Player 3, 7, and 21 will hold the 3 spots in the final battle.
Player 7 holds priority over Player 3 and Player 8.
Player 3 holds priority over 21.
Player 21 holds priority over Player 8.
Player 8 holds no priority over any other players.
Announced winner of the tournament will be the last person standing in the final battle, regardless of kills.
Misc
Upon signups, players should specify if they want to be color'd or uncolor'd in the final. Kill rank will determine if their request will be filled or not for the final battle.
General
- Players: 36
- Games: 12 6player games. Each player will play 2.
- All games will be Freestyle, Terminator, Escalating, Unlimited. This is to help prevent the tournament from going stagnant due to slow games. All games will be played on the same map. Map will be 42 territories or less (Examples: Classic, Germany, British Isle, Circvs Maximvs)
- Who you play is based on rank points at the time of tournament planning stage.
- Premium Required
Scheduling
Game 1 will be against like ranked people.
Game 2 will be a spread against all ranks.
Quick format based on rank:
Player 1 - 2535 points
Player 2 - 2511 points
Player 3 - 2215 points
Player 4 - 2098 points
Player 5 - 2055 points
Player 6 - 1988 points
Player 7 - 1987 points
....
Player 35 - 765 points
Player 36 - 740 points
Schedule
Games 1-6 would be:
Player 1-6
Player 7-12
Player 13-18
Player 19-24
Player 25-30
Player 31-36
Games 7-12 would be:
Player 1, 7, 13, 19, 25, 31
Player 2, 8, 14, 20, 26, 32
Player 3, 9, 15, 21, 27, 33
Player 4, 10, 16, 22, 28, 34
Player 5, 11, 17, 23, 29, 35
Player 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36
After the first 12 games, there will be 1 final game that has 12 people (ala Battle Royale style, just smaller).
Ranking
Total number of kills, will be used to determine the 12 that will be in the "Battle Royale". Ties will be broken in this priority:
1) If you eliminated the player you are tied with, then you hold a better standing then they do.
2) Board wins (last one standing in their games).
3) Points earned from kills. (I realize this favors lower ranked players, if anyone has any suggestions that do not require another game to be played out, please say so).
Example:
4 players (player 3, player 7, player 8, and player 21) have 2 kills and are in a 4-way tie for 10th place. Only 3 can fit into the final battle.
- Player 3 defeated player 21, and player 15.
- Player 7 defeated player 9 and player 10. Also won the board for that game.
- Player 8 defeated player 2 and player 20.
- Player 21 defeated player 19 and player 20. Also won the board for that game.
Player 3, 7, and 21 will hold the 3 spots in the final battle.
Player 7 holds priority over Player 3 and Player 8.
Player 3 holds priority over 21.
Player 21 holds priority over Player 8.
Player 8 holds no priority over any other players.
Announced winner of the tournament will be the last person standing in the final battle, regardless of kills.
Misc
Upon signups, players should specify if they want to be color'd or uncolor'd in the final. Kill rank will determine if their request will be filled or not for the final battle.
-
michiganfan22
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:34 pm
- Location: Rochester, NY
-
Optimus Prime
- Posts: 9665
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:33 pm
- Gender: Male
michiganfan22 wrote:i liked the nfl dubs tourny and that cause its a dubs league, not just a tourny. i would like to play a in a dubs league that will actually finish and can go on for many seasons
I can totally understand the fact that you like the doubles tournaments that can actually end, without anything to crazy. I had an Arena Football league planned, but luckyderus beat me to it, so I think I might do Arena 2 Football instead, I've also got plans for another couple of doubles tournaments, including Transformers Wars II which will have a different format from the first version (click link below to find out the info).
In the end, I would run 20 at a time if I could, but I have to pace myself for the most part in order to keep up with the wife, and school which starts in a couple of weeks.
-
michiganfan22
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:34 pm
- Location: Rochester, NY
-
Optimus Prime
- Posts: 9665
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:33 pm
- Gender: Male
There does appear to be a shortage at the moment, that is true. I think the tournament directors are starting to disappear from burning out. It's a bit of a shame really. I'm hoping to keep a decent mix up and running for the most part.
Perhaps I should recruit my own little "helpers" to work on it....
Perhaps I should recruit my own little "helpers" to work on it....
-
Night Strike
- Posts: 8512
- Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
- Gender: Male
-
Optimus Prime
- Posts: 9665
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:33 pm
- Gender: Male
-
Optimus Prime
- Posts: 9665
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:33 pm
- Gender: Male
-
michiganfan22
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:34 pm
- Location: Rochester, NY
here is my idea, confusing but i think its a good one. i would do it but i have no interest in organizing it. there r 16 teams. the top 16 ranked players are the captains. the other people are separated into dubs teams, 2 put with each captain so the teams are fair by rank. this is a trips tourny by the way. there are also 8 reserves, or free agents. a team captain can drop a player on his team for a reserve at any time. a team captain can also trade for another player on a diff team if both captains accept. all of these transactions go through the commmisioner (tourny organizer). this is played out as a league with a season and a playoffs.
thoughts?
thoughts?
