More Tournament Control Features

[samps]

Separate Clans are completely different to Tournaments in my opinion.

I guess from a selfish perspective I would feel aggrieved that being ranked 1 on the tourney board would not allow me to enter every tournament available.

I would also feel aggrieved that I have made tournament success my main mission on majcom at the expense of rank and what if the tournament home page would be false - as it would be polluted with "private tournaments".

If private tournaments were available that did not affect tournament stats then I would be more inclined to agree otherwise I think it is unfair.

Private clan matches and so on do not affect leader boards other than the wins or losses per that match. There is no leaderboard for clan wins for example. I think these off piste things are great and allow those guys who want to play by themselves.

I appreciate I am just one player and probably a little unique in that I am a tournament crack addict but private tournaments that I have no way to enter that would effect the tournament leader board is a non starter to me.

Ultimately I view tournaments as a real mixed bag of settings and maps - and even being paired up with a real **** is all part of it. To me that is the essence of tournament play and why I am so proud to be at the top. Tournaments sometimes get ****ed up by an AWOL or a dickhead who refuses to play team but this is no different to a World Cup Football Match where a ref sends of a player wrongly and Brazil don't win a game, or Iceland can beat England, or a player for no reason handballs in the area and concedes a penalty.

I don't think tournaments should be sanitised to make them nice for the guys in the top 10. Let them get down and dirty with us grunts in the tournament world. Pay your points and take the risk.

As I say, if these guys want to be able to private tournaments that do not affect the main leaderboard that would be no problem. It would be great too for a clan tournament too. I have no objections in using the engine - I feel it needs to be separate.

Hope that makes sense.

I’m double posting here but didn’t see the next bit. You are like me a tourney addict general I get the fact you don’t want to be excluded from any tourneys and feel left out but surely just having them there would make you push to go back up in the ranks? I don’t know maybe that’s just the way my head works and I’m an advocate of being able to have the occasional elitist game.
I guess for me I’m a top 20 player most the time but I play the top 20 so rarely in a fair arena (not I choose the settings or they do dependant on strengths) I don’t know if I’m as good / better / worse (most probably) than any off them because most the time I get set up against redstorm and have to thrash the noob (hahahaha I hope you see this red). Having minimum rank tourneys I think is one of the best things we could have (as long as 95% of the games remained all open) just so the higher ranked among us can see who is who!

 

[TheGeneral]

I have no problem with people having private tournaments. I think this is a great idea.

My issue is they should not register on the overall tournament leader board for all the reasons I have explained earlier. That is blatantly incorrect.

 

[JCUK]

I really think it will make points a little more relevant as once you have got your star they don’t really matter anymore.

This is an interesting point and one i have come to realise. Now that i have reached General and seen that the Generals clan is a bunch of old sweats sitting around eating cakes and talking about the good ole days, points and rank don't seem to matter that much any more and I appreciate the game play more now.

NB. It's not all about the cakes, there is a secret handshake and worth the push to get there. Although Sam keeps suggesting that the handshake needs to be conducted without clothes on, I'm not so sure about this one :vroam:

 

[kenjoh]

Not sure I am miserable at all. I think that is a little harsh. I perhaps don't chat too much but I am busy with work, family and 2 bands so being a major chatty player and contributor to chat boards is difficult.

As long as you have that grumpy avatar, folks will probably always think that you are miserable...lol.

But thanks for taking the time to provide your unique perspective!

I used to be mad if my rank fell below captain but now i think it is part of the way i choose to play. I pretty much only pay tournaments. I would never choose to play 1v1 games outside of tournaments in an attempt to protect my rank however. Is it fair that I am excluded from a tournament game with the big guns? I do not think so.

Interestingly, it seems logically fair to me. You seem to assume that having a large lead in tournament wins indicates that you should be ranked higher than you are, and you therefore should qualify to play with generals. But your lead in tournament wins probably comes mostly from longevity. Since you mainly play tournaments, but your ranking is only lieutenant, it doesn't seem to be that you achieved that honour because of a high skill level. You may not be at the skill level that some of these ranked tournaments are targeted at. Generals would probably prefer to play challenging games against colonels and majors, but less so with captains or lieutenants.

You are recognized undisputably as the MajCom player who has amassed a huge lead in tournament wins. But other than personal anecdotes, where is the evidence that you have a higher skill level than your rank? Why would playing primarily in tournaments cause your rank to be lower than it should be? Maybe there is a reason that I am missing?

That said, some folks might rightly say that I tend to take the bull by the horns a lot...lol. My chatting/conversing style is what I would call "honest and open"...lol. Sometimes I call things as I see them and that might make another person uncomfortable, just as TheGeneral might feel now. I mean no harm, but if someone says something that doesn't exactly add up, I think I should be able to bring those comments into the light. I am always open to consider contrary opinions, ok? But I am a happy person who just happens to want to correct misconceptions (and urban legends?)...lol.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

As long as you have that grumpy avatar, folks will probably always think that you are miserable...lol.

But thanks for taking the time to provide your unique perspective!



Interestingly, it seems logically fair to me. You seem to assume that having a large lead in tournament wins indicates that you should be ranked higher than you are, and you therefore should qualify to play with generals. But your lead in tournament wins probably comes mostly from longevity. Since you mainly play tournaments, but your ranking is only lieutenant, it doesn't seem to be that you achieved that honour because of a high skill level. You may not be at the skill level that some of these ranked tournaments are targeted at. Generals would probably prefer to play challenging games against colonels and majors, but less so with captains or lieutenants.

You are recognized undisputably as the MajCom player who has amassed a huge lead in tournament wins. But other than personal anecdotes, where is the evidence that you have a higher skill level than your rank? Why would playing primarily in tournaments cause your rank to be lower than it should be? Maybe there is a reason that I am missing?

That said, some folks might rightly say that I tend to take the bull by the horns a lot...lol. My chatting/conversing style is what I would call "honest and open"...lol. Sometimes I call things as I see them and that might make another person uncomfortable, just as TheGeneral might feel now. I mean no harm, but if someone says something that doesn't exactly add up, I think I should be able to bring those comments into the light. I am always open to consider contrary opinions, ok? But I am a happy person who just happens to want to correct misconceptions (and urban legends?)...lol.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I mean, if you gave General back the points that he's paid to be in all those tournaments, he'd be at least 3 or 4 ranks higher. He, for some reason, just 'steps up his game' when playing in tournaments. He also plays (or has played) more games than a lot of the high-ranking players, and that will, just by the law of averages, bring your score down. I (feel free to disagree, doesn't matter) consider myself in the higher echelons of skill level, but my rank doesn't reflect that, because I play lots of games all the time, against anyone and everyone - from Generals to noobs. I believe that General falls in that category also. It's much easier to maintain a high rank if you pick and choose your games based on fear of losing points.

I also teach others, and discuss strategies with new players in games. I have literally lost games because I taught strategy in the chat. I'll take the loss of rank any day to gain friendships with people like Riskyone, Redstorm, SamPaul. I don't really CARE about my rank as much as some other metrics. I don't believe that there is any ONE metric which accurately depicts skill. Some people have used kills/games played as a measure of skill, using that metric I'm in or near the top 10. But that isn't 100% accurate either...

BUT, we digress. The subject of whether or not there should be some 'rank only' tourneys when the new game engine comes to fruition will come up in centcom discussions. Good points have been made on both sides.

 

[JCUK]

It certainly seems that we have exhausted all factors and considerations relating to possible issues - I hope. I felt a little beaten up at the beginning for my *little* :stupido: suggestion. As the discussion developed it was clear that there are lot of side affects to consider that would certainly need ironing out if it was to go ahead in some form.

Thank you all for you input and feedback on this suggestion, it was an emotive discussion at times which is never easy via a keyboard, but I translate that to passion for this site. I hope there was genuinely no ill feeling felt during the discussion, I'm sure there was none intended by anyone. Everyone to the bar, drinks are on me...onwards and upwards chaps.

 

[samps]

I don't necessarily agree with that. I mean, if you gave General back the points that he's paid to be in all those tournaments, he'd be at least 3 or 4 ranks higher. He, for some reason, just 'steps up his game' when playing in tournaments. He also plays (or has played) more games than a lot of the high-ranking players, and that will, just by the law of averages, bring your score down. I (feel free to disagree, doesn't matter) consider myself in the higher echelons of skill level, but my rank doesn't reflect that, because I play lots of games all the time, against anyone and everyone - from Generals to noobs. I believe that General falls in that category also. It's much easier to maintain a high rank if you pick and choose your games based on fear of losing points.

I also teach others, and discuss strategies with new players in games. I have literally lost games because I taught strategy in the chat. I'll take the loss of rank any day to gain friendships with people like Riskyone, Redstorm, SamPaul. I don't really CARE about my rank as much as some other metrics. I don't believe that there is any ONE metric which accurately depicts skill. Some people have used kills/games played as a measure of skill, using that metric I'm in or near the top 10. But that isn't 100% accurate either...

BUT, we digress. The subject of whether or not there should be some 'rank only' tourneys when the new game engine comes to fruition will come up in centcom discussions. Good points have been made on both sides.

This post is not meant to help the anti rank gamers as I really want this addition (under controlled measures) but I just wanted to say firstly on JC’s point I do 100% think the secret general handshake should only be conducted naked.

More importantly I have had the privilege of playing plenty of games against both cards and general and I class them both as two of the best players on the site Kenjoh. Cards taught me how to play the game and general has defiantly beaten me more times than I him.

I simply want the ranked tourneys so I can have a go against some of the top boys who won’t join tourneys at the moment because losing a 100 points in one game really hurts (and it does)

 

[Redstorm]

Ok, I'm bellying up to the bar. Now who's buying? Psst, Sam, its a nude bar!!

:cheers:

 

[kenjoh]

This post is not meant to help the anti rank gamers as I really want this addition (under controlled measures) but I just wanted to say firstly on JC’s point I do 100% think the secret general handshake should only be conducted naked.

More importantly I have had the privilege of playing plenty of games against both cards and general and I class them both as two of the best players on the site Kenjoh. Cards taught me how to play the game and general has defiantly beaten me more times than I him.

I simply want the ranked tourneys so I can have a go against some of the top boys who won’t join tourneys at the moment because losing a 100 points in one game really hurts (and it does)

Sam, I agree with you about ranked tournaments and why we should have them. I also think this is the consensus position as a result of our amazing discussion on this thread.

My previous point was to address whether there was any merit to making these additional tournaments non-qualifying in regard to the stats for tournament wins as TheGeneral has suggested. I would be inclined to not make a distinction because a) it seems that the ranked tournaments will comprise less than 10% of the total number of tournaments, and b) most tournament wins is a longevity title, not a skill title, so we shouldn't be too concerned about excluding any particular player from a few tournaments that might otherwise raise his win total.

As always, I would consider alternate views if they can be justified.

 

[TheGeneral]

I do not think that I am the best player at Risk. I would like to think that I am a good all rounder who is probably in the the top 20% and would like to think I could I hold my own against a big gun. I also think if i played less games I could take longer to study each and make more optimal moves but I have many games and little time so a lot of time I go with gut and I know i play suboptimally. It is bit like playing speed blind poker rather than long blind levels I guess.

Yes, my tournaments score is based on longevity I agree and looking at points per game my ratio is not the best. Indeed, Roscokov is a far better tournament player than I am on that basis. That however is not really my point. My main gripe is that if people want private tournaments these should not figure in the overall leaderboard because that leaderboard is instantly polluted and no longer meaningful. I am an accountant for a living and prepare a lot of management information and quality data is important to me. This would be skewed.

Players with my rank do not get the opportunity to play with the big guys much. Looking at the top 20 names as of now I have never even heard of rhinoman, vangboom, vanvonschweetz, Liberal79 ot linkin park. How are lower rank players supposed to get better if they cannot play these guys. I sometimes feel that some of the top ranked players are a little protectionist. They are to scared to lose more than 30 points a game and if they play with each other the law of averages means their rank will give or take stay around the same.

In this sense the scoreboard leaderboard is already polluted as it includes these guys. I applaud Cardinalsrule for playing with the noobs and helping - it makes the overall standard better.

I think using the tournament functionality for clan games and private games is a great idea as I have said - i think it needs to not affect score boards however it just feels wrong and goes against the spirit of what a real tournament is.

I am not beating up anyone either and truly appreciate all the tournaments you create, JCUK, but it is an interesting debate. I am all for your suggestion. If top rankers are too scared to play the grunts and want their own little tournament then that is OK too but they should not be rewarded with wins recorded on the tournament leaderboard as a consequence.

 

[calume]

I do not think that I am the best player at Risk. I would like to think that I am a good all rounder who is probably in the the top 20% and would like to think I could I hold my own against a big gun. I also think if i played less games I could take longer to study each and make more optimal moves but I have many games and little time so a lot of time I go with gut and I know i play suboptimally. It is bit like playing speed blind poker rather than long blind levels I guess.

Yes, my tournaments score is based on longevity I agree and looking at points per game my ratio is not the best. Indeed, Roscokov is a far better tournament player than I am on that basis. That however is not really my point. My main gripe is that if people want private tournaments these should not figure in the overall leaderboard because that leaderboard is instantly polluted and no longer meaningful. I am an accountant for a living and prepare a lot of management information and quality data is important to me. This would be skewed.

Players with my rank do not get the opportunity to play with the big guys much. Looking at the top 20 names as of now I have never even heard of rhinoman, vangboom, vanvonschweetz, Liberal79 ot linkin park. How are lower rank players supposed to get better if they cannot play these guys. I sometimes feel that some of the top ranked players are a little protectionist. They are to scared to lose more than 30 points a game and if they play with each other the law of averages means their rank will give or take stay around the same.

In this sense the scoreboard leaderboard is already polluted as it includes these guys. I applaud Cardinalsrule for playing with the noobs and helping - it makes the overall standard better.

I think using the tournament functionality for clan games and private games is a great idea as I have said - i think it needs to not affect score boards however it just feels wrong and goes against the spirit of what a real tournament is.

I am not beating up anyone either and truly appreciate all the tournaments you create, JCUK, but it is an interesting debate. I am all for your suggestion. If top rankers are too scared to play the grunts and want their own little tournament then that is OK too but they should not be rewarded with wins recorded on the tournament leaderboard as a consequence.

Right on, I fully agree and am 100% behind that statement

 

[JCUK]

You make very valid points General and I agree with most of them. It is very frustrating that some of the higher ranking players almost stop playing or choose their games very specifically to sit at the top of the leader board, this is their prerogative though and I cannot really criticise how they choose to play. It's good to see Th-Child, ericjkline and a few others getting amongst the tourney board, I think it attracts more people to play which is great. This partly supports my suggestion, to attract more people to play. Bearing in mind my suggestion is not to create General and upwards tourneys.

I don't know the answer although I have tried to come up with a reasonable solution which may invigorate something, it may not. I realised very quickly that high rank and lots of games are mutually exclusive as the odds will never be in your favour based on the points system. The points system is great though and it really makes the site work.

I know no one is really beating me up, the challenging debate regarding my suggestion is not an easy one. I would suggest the pros and cons are about even based on the individual responses but your comments regarding the leader boards are the strongest points so far. I agree, changing the metrics of how these work would pollute the data to some degree although I believe the proportion of these different tourneys would not actually affect any standing on the board.

 

[kenjoh]

You make very valid points General and I agree with most of them. It is very frustrating that some of the higher ranking players almost stop playing or choose their games very specifically to sit at the top of the leader board, this is their prerogative though and I cannot really criticise how they choose to play. It's good to see Th-Child, ericjkline and a few others getting amongst the tourney board, I think it attracts more people to play which is great. This partly supports my suggestion, to attract more people to play. Bearing in mind my suggestion is not to create General and upwards tourneys.

Let me bring up to whom we are trying to appeal. I see about 25 players at colonel and up, and wonder whom of these would be motivated to join these ranked tournaments. I think almost none if the bar is set lower than major. So to achieve the objective of getting more top players into tournaments with lower ranked players,, I suggest that this idea may fall short of our expectations. Might be good for majors, but not anyone below that.

What if, instead, we added the odd tournament where the players would earn or lose the same number of game points regardless of their rank? This would mean that generals and privates win or lose the same amounts. Again, this would only be additional tournaments, and comprising only 5-10% of all tournaments. The lowest ranked players would be less inclined to join, maybe keeping out some of the undesireables. Players like me who think they can play with the big boys can put our points where our mouths are, so to speak. My reward for winning the individual games is lower than normal, while my loss for losing is higher. There would be no change to the prize pools. But maybe I get to play a more challenging tournament with relatively more good players and fewer weaker ones.

No metrics involved. But it may accomplish both of JC's original objectives. Maybe.

And hopefully TheGeneral could agree to leave these types of tournaments in as qualifying for the stats, since no one is actually excluded.

What do you guys think of my alternative? Does it have flaws?

Oh and we would need a name for them. Equality tournaments? With the equality provision?

 

[TheGeneral]

I fundamentally think that all this is pandering to the good players who aren't brave enough to enter. th-child, eric, Sampaul and Tharnduil all play tournaments - they have the balls to do this and should be afforded the upmost respect.

I take your point that the top guys won't play you if your rank is too low but don't bend over backwards and force them into it by letting them risk less. The whole thing is a non starter for me if it effects what is a true tournament and I think your suggestion would likely be more difficult to accomplish from a game engine perspective than just excluding private tournaments from the tournament leaderboard.

I do not see how your suggestion will keep out undesirables. I also don't see why you should risk losing more and gaining less if you beat a high rank player. You may as well do away with the whole majcom score function and say each win is 30 points. I don't like it.

I repeat - private games and clan games let them use the tournament functions - great idea - they should not count for tournament leaderboard points as these should be for all and stay pure.

 

[JCUK]

I repeat - private games and clan games let them use the tournament functions - great idea - they should not count for tournament leaderboard points as these should be for all and stay pure.

I would be delighted with this.

I fundamentally think that all this is pandering to the good players who aren't brave enough to enter.

This was never a reason for my suggestion and I think everyone agrees that no one should be pandered to.

We have definitely gone off track discussing how to encourage more top ranking players to join tournaments. This was never a primary reason for my suggestion, it just happened this could have been a by product - it was never a key driver.

 

[kenjoh]

This was never a reason for my suggestion and I think everyone agrees that no one should be pandered to.

We have definitely gone off track discussing how to encourage more top ranking players to join tournaments. This was never a primary reason for my suggestion, it just happened this could have been a by product - it was never a key driver.

None of this is pandering. We are discussing potential ways to encourage the more senior players to participate more in tournaments, which presumably will be a benefit to all players (the benefit derived from playing seriously good players), not just them.

Maybe JC can remind us of the reason for his original suggestion. I thought it was to keep out newbies who were annoying us by playing as singles in team tournaments, and because some senior players told him that this type of thing kept them from joining tournaments.

Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.

I though we moved past the issue of newbies quickly because posters saw them as a random obstacle for which they were willing to accept as a risk of playing in tournaments, and that targetting the rare unco-operative newbie with a tournament restriction was fraught with too many concerns.

That brought us to a discussion of how we could provide a different type of tournament, on a limited basis, that might appeal to the aforementioned senior players and would give players ranked below them more opportunities to play against the higher-ranked (and presumably more skilled) players.


Just as a side note - I would also like to say that TheGeneral's avatar offends me like none other on MajCom. I cannot avoid it if I want to read his posts, which I appreciate and find informative. But when his comments are accompanied by a visual image of a stern older man appearing to demean me with his yelling an finger-pointing, I find it hard to remain objective. The avatar is a bit amusing in small doses, but if I want to read several paragraghs, his avatar quite bothers me, almost to the point of not wanting to read the comments. Maybe he could consider getting a different avatar.

 

[JCUK]

Maybe JC can remind us of the reason for his original suggestion.

I am content that the discussion has covered enough aspects of the suggestion, if not more that I had originally considered. I'm sure an informed decision will be made in due course. Either way I will be relatively content as I wasn't expecting a positive response in the first place.

Just as a side note - I would also like to say that TheGeneral's avatar offends me like none other on MajCom. I cannot avoid it if I want to read his posts, which I appreciate and find informative. But when his comments are accompanied by a visual image of a stern older man appearing to demean me with his yelling an finger-pointing, I find it hard to remain objective. The avatar is a bit amusing in small doses, but if I want to read several paragraghs, his avatar quite bothers me, almost to the point of not wanting to read the comments. Maybe he could consider getting a different avatar.

I think this is probably a PM to TheGeneral and maybe not for forum discussion. I believe TheGenerals Avatar 'Gunnery Sergeant Hartman' is expressing his anger for people that don't like cats and butterflies.

I'm finding my new Avatar quite annoying but it is a representation of what my mind currently looks like. I'll change it in a few days.

 

[TheGeneral]

If the original suggestion is to get more senior players to play tournaments why have rank entry - defeats the object of the original point as they just play themselves??

Yes, I have always had Gunnery Sergeant Hartman as my profile pic - I love Full Metal Jacket - especially the first half. He comes out with some great one liners for insults.

I agree it is a little angry and doesn't actually represent me very well and I can see it is a bit aggressive. I will perhaps try and find a friendlier gif of his perhaps - especially as the actor who played him recently passed away.

If that actually puts you off reading a comment then I think that is probably more of an issue for you than me, Kenjoh, but in the interests of harmony I will see what I can find.

R. Lee Ermey
March 24 1944 – April 15 2018

 

[Redstorm]

I will never change my avatar....who doesn't like a good thunderstorm. One more idea that would seem to cover everyone's concern regarding this topic......What about redefining the relationship between rank and points? If you earn the rank, then it is permanent...never to go down because of losing points. You wouldn't have to necessarily make any other changes.....the points u earn would still give u a higher rank with the same # of points needed as now. You wouldn't ever having to worry about losing ur rank or ur position on the leaderboard (if your permanent rank also contained ur highest points score to separate between like ranks). IMHO, this would seem to provide some encouragement for higher ranks to play more "riskier" games against us blue collar types. In fact, it cud take the sting out of the other issue here of undesirable play in team tournaments as well.

I would go even further than that basic suggestion and reset everyone's points yearly (still keeping ur permanent rank) as well as all the leader boards. However, with doing that I believe another feature would have to be a separate "all time leader board" indicating say the top 5 or 10 of all time. This would seem to really provide EVERY player in MC a sense of the possible and therefore lift morale and add motivation.

Sorry, perhaps a little off issue on the last two but hey, Ive been in a nude bar for the 12 hours and Sam still hasn't shown up yet.

 

[TheGeneral]

why has my avatar changed on the forum post but not on my profile page??