Tournaments Should Be Created With A Pot of Points

[Qwert]

interesting idea, but point system calculate all games, and these will be hard to create pot with enough points to cover games.
example-you can have two tournament with same number of players 32, but one tournament can have 32 games,and other tournament can have 64 games, and then you will have trouble to calculate,and to cover these games who will be no points game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that best option for these specific tournament idea,its that after every game player who lose game,point be transfered into main pot,and to be reward for 1st,2nd or 3rd place ,in the endo of tournament. In these way, you will have equal point lost in all tournament,who will be equal to prize-(i dont know its these understand)

[stahrgazer]

Many tournaments come up with their own points system, so that games won in the rest of CC or any other tournament have zero bearing on the tournament itself.

If a tournament OPTION was designed to make any awarded points part of a pool, then that tournament could operate under a "points system" where each player who won games gets some amount of points from games won; or where only a set number of people at the top at the end of the tournaments get points. It would be an interesting option for tournaments.

Hower...I doubt the idea will fly, not because it's a bad idea; but because these points adjustments would rely very heavily on Admin performing the points adjustments, to "enter the betting pool," or to "reward the winners."

I just don't see any easy way for Admin to make a tournament-option program that would make the points adjustments other than manual manipulation.

Also, what about replacement players; would they have to put up a new set of points, thus doubling the points that were available from one tournament slot; insted, would that slot's betting points be divided between the original player and the replacement player? If a same-slot had to be replaced twice, how would that work?

I like the idea. I just think it falls under, "too hard to work the details," especially when you consider that some tournaments might award the top ten, others the top three, others top four, and yet others, only the two playoffs or the ultimate winner.

[Woodruff]

Many tournaments come up with their own points system, so that games won in the rest of CC or any other tournament have zero bearing on the tournament itself.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here...can you give me an example?

However...I doubt the idea will fly, not because it's a bad idea; but because these points adjustments would rely very heavily on Admin performing the points adjustments, to "enter the betting pool," or to "reward the winners."
I just don't see any easy way for Admin to make a tournament-option program that would make the points adjustments other than manual manipulation.

That is why I also believe this would have to be some sort of an automated system, because I definitely agree that it would put entirely too much work onto the Tournament Directors, and I don't want that.

Also, what about replacement players; would they have to put up a new set of points, thus doubling the points that were available from one tournament slot; insted, would that slot's betting points be divided between the original player and the replacement player? If a same-slot had to be replaced twice, how would that work?

Hmmm...interesting point. I guess my initial feeling (and I'd like to hear what others think) is that replacement players would be in the clear...the original entrants' points would be on the line and they'd just get the good fortune for helping the tournament to finish smoothly. I don't personally find that an unfair situation, since the original entrant did drop out of the tournament. I suppose that might lead to some point-whore folks being "perpetual alternates but please don't start me in the tournament", which would be annoying as hell.

I like the idea. I just think it falls under, "too hard to work the details," especially when you consider that some tournaments might award the top ten, others the top three, others top four, and yet others, only the two playoffs or the ultimate winner.

Well, I tend toward more of the "winner takes all" variety, but I think if the system is automated, it should be easy enough to set up at the tournament-start which individuals would get what points. In fact, now that I think on it...if the Tournament Directors put some sort of a very small limit on it (say, no more than three can be awarded points or something like that), then the point-award wouldn't necessarily need to be automated, avoiding that particular problem. It could just be handled at the same time as that particular tournament's medal is done, with the tournament organizer PM the "who the points go to" to the Tournament Director in charge of that. Of course, for that, I'd want to hear from Night Strike as far as how much of a burden he thinks that would put on them, because as I said, I don't want to create a big burden.

[Chuuuuck]

This suggestion would wreak havoc on the scoreboard and change a lot of other things about the site as far as points are concerned so for that reason I think it is a bad idea.

Think about it, we would instantly have a 1,000 player tournament where everyone puts in 20 points and winner takes all. Our all time high scorer would quickly go from 6,000 points to 20,000. One big tournament win when instantly make you "the best player on the site."

Another idea is that maybe you all come up with a separate point system for scoring in tournaments and have a tournament leader board that does not effect the general scoring system of the site.

[maasman]

Another idea is that maybe you all come up with a separate point system for scoring in tournaments and have a tournament leader board that does not effect the general scoring system of the site.

I was thinking this as well.

Also, I wouldn't mind this as an option, but I don't think it should be required for all tournaments.

[Blitzaholic]

I am not sure what you mean by this?

[40kguy]

I am not sure what you mean by this?

when you win a tournament its like you just played everyone in the tournament. then its like you beat everyone in the tournament at one time when you win.

[Uncle Death]

My idea is that you put in a small amount of points to play and the winner gets those points. There have been many good objections. It's not my objective that a win would be a bonanza of points but rather that higher ranked players could play with lower ranked players and not lose an inordinate amount of points. The goal will be to win the tournament regardless of rank. I understand the objections of those who feel it will pervert the current point system. I don't want it to do that. I think with careful deliberation a solution and compromise can be reached. My hope is that the tournaments can become more popular than they are for all players. I am choosy about the games I enter and I'm not that highly ranked. I am always excited when I'm in a game with higher ranked players because I expect the competition to be that much greater. I don't see this as being destructive but more inclusive and fair. We all know that regardless of skill and rank that any of us can lose a game due to the dice. This might be one way that all players will have a chance to compete with players that they will never have an opportunity to play with. It would be a great way for players to show their metal to clans and others that they have some skill. Most importantly, I think it would be fun. If a player fails to play in the next round deal with it just like they would in a tennis tournament. That player loses and who cares. One forfeited game doesn't ruin the tournament.

[SuicidalSnowman]

I really, really, really like this idea. It also opens up a ton of creativity, including "objective" style games where the goal is to hold points on the map, or go for kills, or something else that demonstrates great skill but doesn't always win the game. And as others have said, it prevents high/low rank issues.

Having said that, here are my concerns:

First of all, I imagine (but I don't know for sure) that it would take a ton of programming, and we all know how long stuff takes to get programmed around here. If we are getting new features, I would rather we get new gameplay features like Adjacent Attacks. If this can be programmed in, then I say do it, but it seems pretty involved.

Second, I am concerned about abuse. There are 3 subcategories of this.

a) Players start 1 point per player tournaments to essentially play for no risk. Lack (and I agree with him) has repeatedly stated that practice games or "no risk" games are not a part of this site.

b) Remember when Colton ran that tournament where every time he lost he magically got "voted" into the next round? I worry about these things happening. Currently, the worst that happens is one medal changes hands, but in the future, we could see C&A mods trying to unwind 1,000's of points.

c) Similar to b, we see tournaments with bizarre rules or other ways of declaring winners that participants don't understand or don't agree with.

Third, I am concerned about more practical issues: Let's say a player bets 1,000 of his 600 points. If they are deducted immediately, we now have a 600 pointer who could play 1v1 games against even a 1200 point player, earn some great scores, then win the tournament, and suddenly you have someone with a ridiculously inflated score.

Or, the inverse, someone with 2000 points bets 1,000 in a tournament that lasts several months. During this time he/she goes medal hunting and drops to 990 points, then the tournament ends. We now have a negative. Or, even if that person only drops to 1500, then loses, and we now have someone with 500 points.



On the other hand, I agree with Evil Semp, we already influence score by games we choose, against whom, etc. There are great players out there with 1600 points, there are players who are only decent with 2,000 points. Every time we have a new conqueror, "Oh, he farms, plays team, doesn't play tournaments, etc, etc."

And I would love to have tournaments where the only thing that mattered was how you played in that tournament, I like the idea of "put your money where your mouth is" and I like the idea of high buy ins to make it really interesting.



Honestly, this might be better off like Call of Duty. The latest game has different ranking modes, including EXP, "game score", Kill/death ratio, and finally, "CoD Points." The CoD points are like currency, and used for unlocking add ons, but also Wagering. Maybe CC needs a separate "Wager Dollars" system where every game you win you get 10, every game you finish you get 5, and then you can bet from that account separately from the "always on" points system. This also eliminates the need for the score disparity worries, and honestly might be easier to program. You could have 1,000 point buy in tournaments for "high rollers" with big stakes. Finally, as scary as it is to say this, I am sure if Lack was really mean he could find a way to monetize this system...

[Woodruff]

Honestly, this might be better off like Call of Duty. The latest game has different ranking modes, including EXP, "game score", Kill/death ratio, and finally, "CoD Points." The CoD points are like currency, and used for unlocking add ons, but also Wagering. Maybe CC needs a separate "Wager Dollars" system where every game you win you get 10, every game you finish you get 5, and then you can bet from that account separately from the "always on" points system. This also eliminates the need for the score disparity worries, and honestly might be easier to program. You could have 1,000 point buy in tournaments for "high rollers" with big stakes.

This is a fascinating addition to me. I recognize the legitimate concerns about the "sudden conqueror" syndrome for winning a tournament...and this would seem to eliminate that problem. A very interesting idea.

[SuicidalSnowman]

Well, thank you. I am flattered. It is a little half-baked at this point though. At the same time, I am less interested in supporting something through the process, so if you do a little more research or decide you really like it, go ahead and run with it.

-Snowman

[stahrgazer]

Many tournaments come up with their own points system, so that games won in the rest of CC or any other tournament have zero bearing on the tournament itself.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here...can you give me an example?

Several tournaments have designed into themselves a point system, so that not just 'wins a round' or 'wins a game' matters, but performance throughout the entire tournament. That's how you can score tournament performance to divvy out rewards.

I'd suggest that type of system over a "winner takes all" pool; so that someone who won some of the games gets at least a handful of the available points, but the overall winner gets a ton of points.

Think about it: who'd want to play if they could win 50 games and get nothing at all because someone else won game number 51?

[Woodruff]

Many tournaments come up with their own points system, so that games won in the rest of CC or any other tournament have zero bearing on the tournament itself.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here...can you give me an example?

Several tournaments have designed into themselves a point system, so that not just 'wins a round' or 'wins a game' matters, but performance throughout the entire tournament. That's how you can score tournament performance to divvy out rewards.

Oh, well sure...my Track Meet tournament does that. I guess I didn't get what you were referring to.

I'd suggest that type of system over a "winner takes all" pool; so that someone who won some of the games gets at least a handful of the available points, but the overall winner gets a ton of points.
Think about it: who'd want to play if they could win 50 games and get nothing at all because someone else won game number 51?

Well...uh...I would, if the settings were right for me. In that large of a tournament, I'd be thrilled to finish 2nd. I'm quite certain I'm not the only one.