*** Tournament Rules (PLEASE READ FIRST) ***

[nahbien]

Easy way to tell if your maps are balanced. Run them by an experienced, over-complaining-about-first-turn-advantage-player like myself, or dullahan, or several others. Usually with a quick glance we can tell if maps are unfair. Here's a hint, the 2nd player almost always needs something extra to balance the map.

[Felix45]

(or just use nahbien's topic and pick maps from there)



So, on tournaments, why must they all be single elim? double elim is much more fair/reflects much better how good you really are.
Ex: say you are a good player, but are seeded to face someone good (say dullahan) 1st round. you hold out, do your best, and lose because of say a simple mistake. with double elim you still have a chance to prove yourself and make it back to face your 1st round opponent in the finals.


even if that specific situation rarley happens, I'm sure that in most tournament games I've played I felt I could have gone farther than I actually did.

oh, and when in doubt, keep this in mind...
round robin >>>>>>> double elim full > double elim >>> single elim

[Kamuscha]

(or just use nahbien's topic and pick maps from there)



So, on tournaments, why must they all be single elim? double elim is much more fair/reflects much better how good you really are.
Ex: say you are a good player, but are seeded to face someone good (say dullahan) 1st round. you hold out, do your best, and lose because of say a simple mistake. with double elim you still have a chance to prove yourself and make it back to face your 1st round opponent in the finals.


even if that specific situation rarley happens, I'm sure that in most tournament games I've played I felt I could have gone farther than I actually did.

oh, and when in doubt, keep this in mind...
round robin >>>>>>> double elim full > double elim >>> single elim

I don't know what round robin is, including the double elim full. will look it up later. However, with the double elim - im all for it and will support this idea. I like it a lot. The drawback is there will be more games, yes? That means more people will stall games and that will send the tournaments to the graves, which we don't want. Even then again, having more games will bring more activity - which is what we want, if we could cut down on the stalling and bootings. That'll surely help. ^_^

[LiteYear]

For the difference between Full and Standard Double Elimination, since those tournaments would boil down to having a person who hasn't lost vs. a person who lost once, in Standard, the winner of that match wins, while in full, the person who hasn't lost can lose the first match and then play again for the title.

I do agree that double elimination is a better format, but I don't know if it's feasible here, as it doubles the matches needed.

[Frostylight]

that format can work, its just a matter of whether or not it can be implemented. Good idea though.

Same thing for the round robin format, if there was a way to get it up and rolling, it could certainly be used. ^_^

As for stallers, there's a possible counter in the works, I wont release details just yet till I know for sure it'll be added. ^_~

[dooey100]

round robin could work becauseeverybody could play everybody else at the same time

[Heidern]

yes, having to play 31 games at once for one tournament is perfectly sensible.

[Dhomochevsky]

yes, having to play 31 games at once for one tournament is perfectly sensible.

lol

[JoeCanada]

Well, there's always the time honoured tradition of... MELEE!

If there were only 30, we could have 3 matches, 10 players, with their points depending upon their order of elimination. 1 for 1st out, 2 for 2nd, etc., Last player standing, 10.

Statistics will match up easier, so there's less chance that there will be matches with weaker players vs stronger players.

For example, dullahan wins the first match, 10 points. However, he only ranks as 4th last for the second(6), and 3rd last for the third(7). (no offense meant, dullahan) He'd have a total score of... 23. Now, say Amarriner was in the tournament. 3rd, 1st, and 2nd, making 26 points, and a win, assuming no others have enough points to beat the current numbers of these 2.

Also, this way if we want to play more for the title, the highest scoring players will make up the 1-on-1 matches in regular tournament ladder style.

In two styles, you can play the melees, do the math, and leave it at that, or you could use the numbers to determine the matches, and the order they go in.

Any comments? Criticisms? Concerns? I'd like to hear some feedback, just to make sure this ranking system's fair. Thanks.

[Felix45]

yes, having to play 31 games at once for one tournament is perfectly sensible.

...no round robin tourney tourney with more than 8-10 people has the pool all in 1 (unless it is a stupid tournament...), usually for round robin you split it up into different pools, depending on the amount of people. then the top (1 or 2, 2 for 8-10, 1 for 6 or less) of each pool go on to double elim or single elim, or another pool depending on how big the tournament is.


but, now that I think about it...AW games take a long time to complete, even on small maps. so round robin while a better choice to show who really is the best, I'd say for AW double elim would be the best just because of time.

[Heidern]

Saying a tourney should be round-robin doesn't mean you're saying it's using pools, just like saying you're using pools doesn't mean you're playing a round-robin tourney.

[Felix45]

sorry for not being specific enough on that Heidern.

[ninja master]

just a question, how can we get in a tournament? We have to talk with a specific person?

[Giantkrow]

You can only play in tournaments by signing up at the beginning of the tournament. You are a bit late. Don't bother asking at the moment.

[ninja master]

ok, thanks for the information