More Tournament Control Features

[JCUK]

I withdraw this suggestion.

 

[kenjoh]

Now I am a curious fellow, and I thought maybe I could help out JCUK if this was a player I know.

So I went looking through the lists of players in the current open tournaments and the last 25 ongoing tournaments. There are only a handful of players (maybe 5?) below Sgt. that have played in these tournaments.

But I can vouch for most of those as team players from my experiences with them, including the one with the longest list of current games.

I would say that none of these few "joins every tournament going" by any means.

So now I am puzzled. JCUK likely has no reason to make this up. How am I supposed to reconcile this inconsistency?

I am all for creating solutions for problems, but the problem described above doesn't appear to exist according to my review.

Am I missing something?

 

[Sebrim]

I agree with you, kenjoh. Everybody is able to learn and can only do so if allowed to. And what better place to learn about team play than in tournaments?
I think there are regulars that I detest being on a team with, but most newcomers learn after a few games, especially if you actually nicely tell them that they could be better

 

[kenjoh]

I agree with you, kenjoh. Everybody is able to learn and can only do so if allowed to. And what better place to learn about team play than in tournaments?
I think there are regulars that I detest being on a team with, but most newcomers learn after a few games, especially if you actually nicely tell them that they could be better

Thanks Sebrim. I have had that same experience. I've met lots of quiet newbies, and I try to put them at ease by chatting with them, and often mentoring them a bit.

I have lately avoided tournaments with teams because there are a few (sometimes obnoxious) regulars that I don't want to be randomly teamed with. I'm not sure how we would fix that, except to allow teams that entered tournaments as a team. But that is a slightly different topic.

 

[Sebrim]

The player I'm talking about has been messaged and spoke to by a number a number of people. You both know exactly who I'm talking about.

If it's the one I'm thinking about, he's been very cooperative in the last games I had with him on my team. Quiet, yes,, but listening

 

[kenjoh]

I was not describing bilsi, he does not join every tourney and my suggestion was for the occasional tourney. Do you not think the 20 tourneys I put on the board and the odd rank ranged tourney to attract more senior players would be a good idea?

I base my rationale on fact having spoken to senior players and asking them why they don't join tourneys.

I am glad you asked. No, I don't think that is a good idea. I don't think that banning the lowest-ranked 10% from the occasional tournament would matter much to senior players.

Perhaps if you banned the lowest-ranked 50%, that might draw your senior friends into those tournaments. When I was a colonel, I preferred to play in games with less uncertainty, and the lowest-ranked 50% added quite a bit more uncertainty to games (now I just play any ranked players, figuring it's all just for fun anyway).

But I don't think that MajCom's present tournament program should be changed to segregate paying members based on some arbitrary ranking. My rationale is that players can come up with their own games and even tournaments if they want to exclude other players. But MajCom should not formally endorse such a practise.

Maybe they do this type of thing at other sites, but I like to think that MajCom is the friendliest site, and I would like to keep it that way.

I would like to hear other players' opinions too. Come on, MajCom, have your say!

 

[kenjoh]

Thanks for the additional information. I understand your position much better now.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

As I have said, some tournaments and I meant an occasional few tourneys to give some of the regular players that want to play a good strategic game with like minded people an opportunity to play games without the risk of 1 person who is clearly not a team player (proven over a period of months) the opportunity of ruining their game because they can't be bothered to read chat or play as part of a team.

You clearly are looking at this from a single lense, your own, without looking at it from a holistic view. This is not banning people from playing tourneys, 95% of tourneys would be open to them. People invest time and points into playing tourneys, and also a lot of time creating tourneys.

We should not be afraid of change and trialing something new, also raising the bar sometimes for people to aspire to get to. It might stop 1 or 2 players from joining the occasional tourney but it opens the door for others to play in the occasional different tourney.

You are making me out to be an elitist which I am far from and clealry not getting my point.

This was a suggestion to improve play and competition on the site whilst still making it friendly for players of all ranks. In reality, rank has nothing do with my suggestion but the only metric available to make an occasional different tourney.

Many other payers have requested metrics in some form to avoid playing particular players in casual games so I know I am not alone in this, I am just looking at it from a tourney perspective to give more people opportunities. The so what of this is the occasional tourney would not be available to all. I put up to 20 tourneys on the board to provide variety and choice, if 2 of these had a rank restriction of Sgt or Warrant Officer I believe more players would join tourneys and make the site better not worse as you are suggesting.

I have discussed these issues with a quite a few players who although agree with me will not respond in this forum for the fear of being berated or made to feel elitest. 1vs1 tourneys are an opportunity for low ranking players to play higher ranking players and learn from them, there are and will always be these tourneys available to play as there will be many other team tourneys available for everyone. As an active TO I would ensure that.

There is and underlying affect of rank on this site that cannot be avoided. Many players, and I could name probably 10 that would love to play in a tourney without players that have no real interest in the strategy aspect of the game.

People come here for different reasons, some to play care free, some to aim for high places on different leader boards, some for the great community and some for the complex strategy. My suggestion opens up opportunities, not reduces them, there will still be the same amount of tourneys available for everyone to join just a few more specialised to encourage more players to join.

How about you stop twisting my words or trying to put words in my mouth and look at it from the opposite side of the argument as I have done.

Quote from Bilsi: Wondering if game can be changed to include a setting with min. rank. Or if it's easier, the starter of the game should be able to boot players before the game starts?

Quite from Cards: I believe that the option for allowing specific ranks is on the list of possible new features with the rebuild.

Why is this so different for the occasional tourney? This subject has been kicked around a few times but I believe not easy to implement.



I am not trying to ban 50% and draw in senior friends, I would like to create 'extra' tourneys based on a minimum rank (not a high rank) in the hope that players that would normally avoid tourneys would have less reason to avoid them. This is a perfect example of you twisting my suggestion and not understanding my point at all.

Not going to address every point, because I don't think it's necessary. But the idea of having a FEW tourneys with rank limitations seems like a reasonable idea to me. What I'd suggest, from the Admin side, is that there be built into the tourney creation link that feature, and it only allows a specific number at a time, say 2. So if there were already 2 tourneys with rank limits, you couldn't create another one until the others filled up and started. Would that be acceptable to those commenting in this thread?

 

[once]

What I'd suggest, from the Admin side, is that there be built into the tourney creation link that feature, and it only allows a specific number at a time, say 2. So if there were already 2 tourneys with rank limits, you couldn't create another one until the others filled up and started. Would that be acceptable to those commenting in this thread?

i think this is a good idea. i am honestly torn on the whole issue. my experience has been that teammates could be duds very much regardless of rank, though i guess it is reasonable to assume that the more dedicated players are likely to have a higher score. personally, i think i prefer the tourney section to remain open to all in principle. i do see how rank limitations on other regular games are a good or very much desired idea. but for tourneys, i dont know.. i have never refrained from joining one because i was scared of my teammates, and i would worry that the option of having higher ranked only tourneys could lead to a braindrain of the regular tourneys, because all the sudden you would not only *hope* to eliminate the kind of *bad* players being referred to here (i have btw no idea who they are), you would also naturally lower the risk of point loss. i know there are players who get way more annoyed than me (and i do get annoyed too) if another teammate just doesnt play well in a team. so i guess there may be a true desire to have an option similar to what jcuk outlined.. and - while i am not for it - the idea to at least limit this to a set number of games seems a good compromise to me.
my #1 request for a change in the tourney format would be be able to enter tourneys as teams though. for so many reasons, but it would also solve the issue. obviously not a solution for singles tourneys..

 

[once]

This is a risk and would have to be managed by the TOs.

ok, .. how about making them more expensive? i have no idea if there is a way to circumvent all the buy-in points automatically ending up in the pot, but it would seem fair for part of the buy in to vanish? on the whole players should earn more & lose less points in the individual games..
i am making this too complicated maybe..

 

[once]

i was thinking of a premium, of raising the threshold of even wanting to join such tourneys. if 1st winner gets less because 2nd winner gets some, all the buy in points still get distributed. but it doesnt matter, what i had in mind is simply not feasible i think, the math alone makes me shiver. as long as you & all the other TOs have an eye on this not spinning out of hand, you have my blessings.

 

[Redstorm]

The ability to set minimum rank to join i.e. Sgt.

JCUK's idea from original post

As I usually do, I can live with any changes to this site and still enjoy playing this game. This idea did make me remember one of my earliest wins though it was not in a tourney. I'm pretty sure I was below the rank of Sgt and got into a 1v1 game against a general at that time ranked 4th on the site. While I wont claim any credit for any tactical or strategic brilliance, the dice probably won the game not me, I did win and collected the max of 100 points. What a thrill to get that and outduel an obviously very good player. I guess my point is that I would hate to see those opportunities go away by setting a new precedence for restricting any player from any game...team or singles. With the help of an Admin, such restricted "tournies" can already be done via the password protection option. While not a tournament strictly speaking, the result would be the same. Just my 2 cents and as I stated in the beginning I can certainly live with the proposed option shud it be incorporated.

 

[samps]

I’m not a big forum poster and while I think we at majcom should be inclusive for everyone as we were a cadet at some point I like the idea of a minimum rank tourney. Ultimately we have general games by invite only and they are taxing because you know all the players really know how to play the game.
I join nearly all tournaments but would look forward to an officer class game for the added challenge. Ultimately the long time players I think will agree with me that a really good game lost is just as much fun as an easy one won.

 

[kenjoh]

I’m not a big forum poster and while I think we at majcom should be inclusive for everyone as we were a cadet at some point I like the idea of a minimum rank tourney. Ultimately we have general games by invite only and they are taxing because you know all the players really know how to play the game.
I join nearly all tournaments but would look forward to an officer class game for the added challenge. Ultimately the long time players I think will agree with me that a really good game lost is just as much fun as an easy one won.

Thanks for your opinions, guys. They have stimulated and evolved my thinking on the idea of restricted tournaments.

I offer the following ideas for your consideration:

We should hold periodic "officer only" tournaments, mainly to encourage non-coms to achieve officer status so they can get into these tournaments. We give medals for lots of things to reward achievements, and this would be another type of reward. As I mentioned before, I think senior players want games with more consistency from their opponents, and this tournament should provide that.

We should also hold two other levels of tournament, one for captain (2,600 points minimum) and up, and another for major (3,000 points) and up. These would act as an incentive for those below those levels to try to achieve them. We presently reward players who achieve 4,000 points with an invite to the Generals Clan, so I see this as a reward for those who achieve these levels.

These tournaments would be only held periodically, and as Cards said, we may want to have their frequency restricted. For instance, maybe we could ensure that a certain percentage of tournaments would be open to all.

Another thought I had came from JCUK's comment to the affect that just because you paid to play doesn't mean that you must be given access to all tournaments. It seems to me now that MajCom and its regular members should be the ones to determine this. Therefore, if we decided to restrict 50% in this way (a drastic example, maybe) maybe that could be acceptable at some point. I don't necessarily think that it would be that bad. But I would be open to hear other opinions on this.

As for Once's thought about the house keeping part of the tournament entry fees...are you crazy, man?...lol. Hahaha. Who would want to see part of the prize points effectively scooped out for nobody? I am sure you had a good thought there when you started out, but I think that idea wouldn't get much support. But I like very much that you tried to float an original idea for us to consider. You are a great asset to MajCom for all the fine posting that you do!

Now, let me have more feedback!

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Another thought I had came from JCUK's comment to the affect that just because you paid to play doesn't mean that you must be given access to all tournaments. It seems to me now that MajCom and its regular members should be the ones to determine this. Therefore, if we decided to restrict 50% in this way (a drastic example, maybe) maybe that could be acceptable at some point. I don't necessarily think that it would be that bad. But I would be open to hear other opinions on this.

The idea of 'pay to play' has come up before, in lots of different ways - restricting new maps to Commander class for a period of time before opening them up to Strategists, then grunts, is one that has been floated several times. Quite likely that Land Rush (I always want to call it Land Grab, lol) and the two other maps that were originally brainstormed with it as part of a "map pack" will be released that way.

So, having tournaments restricted by rank, or by user class, is definitely an idea which likely will come to fruition with the new game engine, it's really just the details that remain to be worked out.

That being said, I'm sure that the majority of tourneys will still be open to all paying members, as it should be.

 

[bilsi]

I'm good with having a minimum rank level to play certain tourneys. I understand everybody's point. But I don't like the pay to play idea...I'm here for fun. I'll leave the running of it to you guys...But if you don't have some where everybody can join, I'll never be able to play lol....Officer looks a long ways off for me again...

 

[once]

thanks kenjoh, thats a nice thing to read. and yes, my idea was not thought through.
i like the idea of occasional or seasonal restricted tourneys. like championships. for all the reasons that have been given: create incentives other than points & medals, give senior players a more challenging .. challenge. and i would also like it if they were attached to fixed ranks, like captain or major and above for instance.
but i am still against a permanent installation of different tiers of tourneys, i just think this would lead to higher ranked players sticking mostly to their peers, and that, in my mind, would not change the overall experience for the better, quite the contrary.
so ideally, for me, we would have a system in place where every so often these kind of special tournaments would open up. but then disappear again until it is time for a new iteration. a special cup. that whoever wins gets to keep until it is time to defend the title. one would also win an island.

 

[Lokiskittens]

Thoughts from a erratic player.
Part of team tournaments is the odd 'uncooperative' player, I may even have ruined some team games for other players. I do not feel that rank has anything with ability to be a good team player. I got lucky and won my first tournament for 900 points which means that right now my point total is inflated.
If you want to have occasional (monthly) championships, one where your honor rating has to be +70 (excludes me), one where your total UDO has to be above 200 (again excludes me) that sounds like a good addition to me. I feel that the rank is arbitrary, there are many players that love playing games and run 30+ games at a time, and having a few games going the wrong way can change your score quickly. I would do metrics different than ranks as selection criterea.

Also, I guess my main point is, the uncooperative player is annoying when it happens to you, but it is part of the game. I have meet good people in team games, that I never would have gotten to know otherwise. We play some doubles and triples games on the side now, totally initiated by chance through team tournaments. There are many hinders to win a tournament, dice, drop, matchups and also team mates.

I do like the idea of signing up as a team, but that requires recoding of the tournament software, and I would not have made connections with some really great players. Enough rambling, (mic drop)

 

[once]

Also, I guess my main point is, the uncooperative player is annoying when it happens to you, but it is part of the game. I have meet good people in team games, that I never would have gotten to know otherwise. We play some doubles and triples games on the side now, totally initiated by chance through team tournaments. There are many hinders to win a tournament, dice, drop, matchups and also team mates.
(mic drop)

yes, i fully agree with this. i have met most of my favourite partners through chance encounters in tourneys. and i feel strongly about the last point you make: that team matchup is just as much a variable in a tourney win as dice drop etc & part of the experience. but i also think that video proof was a bad idea for football..
and regarding other metrics vs rank. i dont think this would have to be mutually exclusive. honor or udos or score or favourite color - all could be potential criteria for defining a tourney group.

 

[Lokiskittens]

Also, I forgot to mention in my last post that I greatly appreciate the tourneys and have a great time playing them. I feel we do not give enough kudos to the people that spend their time organizing them for us.