OP
OP
Izac
Legend
The old-fashioned way. Alt code guides and armory B)
F2P Tournament: NEW ... improved? ... REGISTER HERE.
- Thread starter Izac
- Start date
The old-fashioned way. Alt code guides and armory B)
Kincaide
Legend
You're going to do that, for every name in every screenshot submitted, at twenty names per screenshot? And figuring out some system for determining whether they're P2P or not, whether they were using outside buffs or not... how?
Another question, if a person from Realm A queues with a friend who is in the tournament, and faces a pair on the other side who are also in the tournament... and just happen to also have with them eight other people from the same realm, in Skype together, but who aren't registered in the tournament, how are you going to score that? What if all ten of them are registered in the tournament, but registered as two 3-man teams and one 4-man team? What if one person is registered on two different 3-man teams and all 5 of them are in the game, does the one guy who is running with two teams get double points? If not, isn't it true that the ONLY way there can be one winner is if the winner plays on more than one team, and if so, why would anyone accept someone on their team who was also on another team, knowing that doing so would be eliminating their own possibility of winning, unless everyone were on more than one team, in which case it's a popularity contest / server population contest, rather than a skill contest?
I appreciate your bullheadedness in continuing undeterred in the face of all the myriad feedback on all the ways in which this can't work, but perhaps at some point you have to just stop and reevaluate the soundness of your overall structure? I know I would by this point.
OP
OP
Izac
Legend
Thank you Kincaide, I appreciate your responses and I know you're trying to help make the tourney successful. There are many things that can go wrong, but we're just going to go ahead with the tourney and see how it turns out. I think Cheesetoast clarified a lot here:
Kincaide
Legend
That's cool and all, and I'm glad you recognize that I'm not just trying to poopoo your idea, but could you answer the scoring questions I asked above? In competitive western martial arts that I do (rapier swordfighting) we do melee scenarios (team on team) and the first principle I teach to people is completely understanding the "victory conditions". Knowing all the details of how you're going to score will greatly affect the proper technique for planning one's strategy. If there are any scoring details that you change or decide on the fly after the tournament has started, it's not really fair to those in the tournament. It will come off as arbitrary at best. So how do you account for non-participant assistance? Like let's say I'm on a realm where people like to premade all the time, but only two people are interested in the tournament (or more likely, even know about the tournament because the rest of their realm doesn't really attend the forums.)
Kincaide
Legend
Also, let's say that 10 people from a big server all sign up for the tournament and all queue together. What's to prevent them from claiming they were each playing as 2-man teams, to maximize their bonus when beating say a 4-man, but giving the fewest points to their opponents if they lose? Do you automatically become a "team" if anyone on your side of the battlefield is registered in the tournament? Even if they're from another realm? Even if they're the secret alt of someone from the other side, sent to sabotage the game to maximize their real character's winnings?
OP
OP
Izac
Legend
The same way this bracket handles everything - we deal with it. If a rule could change the way the bracket works it would be too much of a hassle for anyone to want to follow. That's why in this tourney you are encouraged to group and to find other groups to time your queues with
If we could make rules to account for everything that could go wrong there would be way too many rules. And if I just said "I will be the judge, and look for any sort of unfairness and kick people from the tourney as I see fit" that wouldn't work either. No one would sign up for a tournament hosted by a dictator
But yes, we are going to armory everyone in the battleground. And if a registered player is breaking any rules, take a screenshot of them
OP
OP
Izac
Legend
Yes, and that should answer the question you had in that post. There might be sabotages, yes
Kincaide
Legend
Are we registering participants, or are we registering specific teams? If my 2-man team queues and there just happens to be another 2-man team on our side and a single 2-man team on the opposition, how many points does each of the six individuals get if my side wins? If my side loses?
OP
OP
Izac
Legend
We simplified it to just registering participants, not teams
If your side wins all 4 of you would get 20 points + 10 points for each of your caps, and the 2 man team would get 20 points for each of their caps (it's double points per cap in a losing game). If the 2 man team wins they'd get 40 points + 10 points per cap, and the 4 of you would each get 20 points per cap
Kincaide
Legend
So the scoring for capping, I'm unclear on. Are the points given A) to the participant if said participant caps, B) to all participants if any of the participants cap, or C) to all participants if anyone on their team, whether they're in the tournament or not, caps?
If it's C, then does that mean that two 2-man teams can queue up to face each other, do nothing in the BG, and in a 3/2 game they would automatically get 50/40 points respectively? So the best strategy for four people (or two with multiple accounts, or even one with 4 accounts) would be to queue for as many games as possible, simulqueueing with the other side, and just soaking up whatever victories fall in their lap?
OP
OP
Izac
Legend
Yes, C). Your job is to help your pugmates get caps and everyone gets credit for them
Yes, but all points that you earn will be averaged by the number of games you played so that it's not about quantity. You want to win games against bigger teams and get 3 caps
Kincaide
Legend
So wait, if all games are averaged, then the only way to win is by just happening to get queued against a larger opponent team. The only way to raise your average game score is to maximize points in each individual game, which means deliberately facing a larger team with a smaller team. Is it deliberate, or unintentional, that this encourages people to queue with the fewest teammates, and thus the tournament actually discourages group social play? Why would anyone queue with or stay in a game with more than the minimum number of two, if queueing with more automatically lowers your average and thus your chances of winning the tournament?
OP
OP
Izac
Legend
You get the same points for beating a 4s team with 4 people as you do for beating a 4s team with 3 people. Whatever size team you need to get the job done with however many people you're willing to help earn points with B)
We thought about adding the rule that your team can't be 4 or more larger in size than the other team. But I don't think that's going to be a problem
Kincaide
Legend
Game theory, though. Consider two factions; one who queues in groups of 2, 3, 4, or 5, and one who only ever queues in 2s. The first faction can never earn more than 20 points off the participant portion of their score, while they have the potential of giving away 50 points if they lose, The second faction, however, could earn up to 50 points off the participant portion of their score, but never risks giving away more than 20 points. From a game theory perspective, queueing with only 2s has the greatest potential reward, at the least potential risk.
In your response you say "Whatever size team you need to get the job done" but the problem there is that you don't know what the minimum number of people you need is until you're already in the BG. The winning strategy therefore would be for two highly skilled and geared people--let's call them, I don't know, Bop and Oldspike, for the sake of argument--to queue as a duo, and skip out of any game in which A) they don't think they can handily win, or B) they're only facing 2 across the field, which would bring their average score down even if they skunked them. With the rules as they are, a wise participant only has to wait for a game where the number of opponents, and the skill of the opponents, is suitable for an assured and lucrative win. Far too easy to inflate one's overall average if there's no penalty for cherry-picking your wins.
A very clear and direct resolution to this problem--albeit one you definitely won't like, having worked so long on your disparity balancing formulas, is to only count games where the number of tournament participants on both sides is the same.
There are several reasons why this is the better solution. One, it encourages people to bring more participants to a match, because the only way you can get a greater per-game average is to maximize your earned points, and the only way to face a larger team is to assemble a larger team. Two, it encourages people to set up games and use communication tools to coordinate queues, to assure that both sides have exactly the same number of participants, rather than just randomly queueing and hoping for the best. If the tournament's intent was to encourage more communication and large-scale objectively play, this is your solution.
OP
OP
Izac
Legend
Unless you're confident that you'll win every game with 2 people it will not be good for your average. Every loss is a game where you can only earn 20 or 40 points max and that's one more game that your total points will be divided by for your final average
This is why we also want people to take screenshots with the full alliance/horde scoreboard as soon as they enter the game. We will do our best to catch /afkers. If we do, that's a zero point game for them and that'll hurt their average. So it's best to stay in the game and try to get a cap or two even if you think it'll be a loss
Kincaide
Legend
Okay, I didn't see that in the rules. Thanks for addressing all my posts, I'm going to bed now.
OP
OP
Izac
Legend
You're right it's not in the rules, it was going to be a surprise B) but it's not really a surprise, it's just common sense. If you don't stick around for the game then there's no way to award you points. And I may or may not have a few more surprises for rule benders...
No problem, goodnight man
