Conquer Club

denominator wrote:

jrh_cardinal wrote:

reptile wrote:IN!!!!

lol, j/k. i just saw so many ppl do it and not pay attention to anything anyone has written this far... i hate that!!! couldn't resist the temptation of doing it myself.

phillipm wrote:im in !! good idea

it's like you can predict the future reptile
sigh... I'm gonna hope that phillip knows this isn't something you join by saying in (at least not on this thread)

I'm amused by the fact that this thread isn't even in the Create/Join a Tournament forum and yet people keep trying to join. Probably the same people that don't bother reading the entire first post of a tournament thread and just post "in" when the tournament requires extra information.

without a doubt
people that do that really start to get on my nerves

Jimmy V wrote:In please. Sounds like a lot of fun!

^^

denominator wrote:I'm amused by the fact that this thread isn't even in the Create/Join a Tournament forum and yet people keep trying to join. Probably the same people that don't bother reading the entire first post of a tournament thread and just post "in" when the tournament requires extra information.

This looks awesome. I have one concern - this seems like it will be extremely popular, yet you're allowing for 30-person tourneys. I imagine those will fill up fast, and many players will be left out of luck. I'd like to see the minimum # of entrants increased. I'm sure this has been discussed at length before the announcement, and there are reasons for the rule, but I thought I'd put my $0.02 in anyway.

I would also be a part of this.

drunkmonkey wrote:This looks awesome. I have one concern - this seems like it will be extremely popular, yet you're allowing for 30-person tourneys. I imagine those will fill up fast, and many players will be left out of luck. I'd like to see the minimum # of entrants increased. I'm sure this has been discussed at length before the announcement, and there are reasons for the rule, but I thought I'd put my $0.02 in anyway.

It came up. The popularity of it has come up to question many times. Also, will that popularity continue, or fade... SOME people will want to enter every one. some people simply won't because of game load after a few of these get running at once.

At the moment, there's no good solution. Maybe we'll have to create some sort of qualifier or bidding process for next year, it's all up in the air. Imperfect as this may be, we have to start somewhere. *shrug*

you have to go Q-school just like the PGA

Kinnison wrote:

drunkmonkey wrote:This looks awesome. I have one concern - this seems like it will be extremely popular, yet you're allowing for 30-person tourneys. I imagine those will fill up fast, and many players will be left out of luck. I'd like to see the minimum # of entrants increased. I'm sure this has been discussed at length before the announcement, and there are reasons for the rule, but I thought I'd put my $0.02 in anyway.

It came up. The popularity of it has come up to question many times. Also, will that popularity continue, or fade... SOME people will want to enter every one. some people simply won't because of game load after a few of these get running at once.

At the moment, there's no good solution. Maybe we'll have to create some sort of qualifier or bidding process for next year, it's all up in the air. Imperfect as this may be, we have to start somewhere. *shrug*

yes, this was a big issue. What bart and everybody else decided was that 16 and 32 player 1v1 brackets are easily the most common type of tourney, and the TPA is supposed to represent all of the tourneys run on CC. Obviously 16 is way too small, but to completely take out the most popular type of tourney would also really hurt the TPA and how well it encompasses everything in CC tourneys. Smaller team bracket tourneys are also popular, and increasing the min. players would take those out as well. I don't think it's a good idea to take these out, but maybe an idea bart could consider for next year would be to have 2 smaller tourneys in one week (people could only choose 1 to join) or 1 bigger one. This way, at least 64 people could play each week.

Makes sense. Thanks for the explanations.

Any chance there will be a sort of TPA tour card in the future? (I know there was some questions about qualifying earlier.)

I don't know how it could work for the first season, but it might be all TPA tourney winners and the top 30 or so from the previous year's ranking get added to a list of players who are either pre-invited to tourneys (or, possibly, sent a pm when the tourney is announced.

I also like the idea of there being a Hall of Fame vote-in. Basically, all carded players and TO's get sent a ballot and vote someone into the Hall. That person would also earn a lifetime TPA card (i.e., this year it would likely be bart).

Like they said they don't want to send out invites as this will not give everyone a fair chance to join. While the point scoring for rank may be like the PGA, this doesn't seem to be exclusive to certain players like the PGA. Pretty much everything done on CC is done to be inclusive, not exclusive.

While Joe Schmoe off the street can't just enter a PGA event, any old cook can join a TPA tourney (assuming the rules for the particular tourney allow it). This would probably be more interesting if only certain players were allowed to join, but it would be hard to draw the line on who gets in and who doesn't.

(I don't envy the person who has to keep track of the scoreboard. There will likely be over 1,000 people on the scoreboard by the time the season is done.)

AgentSmith88 wrote:
(I don't envy the person who has to keep track of the scoreboard. There will likely be over 1,000 people on the scoreboard by the time the season is done.)

That would be me

barterer2002 wrote:

AgentSmith88 wrote:
(I don't envy the person who has to keep track of the scoreboard. There will likely be over 1,000 people on the scoreboard by the time the season is done.)

That would be me

Sound like a job for good old Blitzaholic....

I understand not wanting invites. Just pondering possible benefits of earning a (theoretical) card.

What about guaranteed invites to majors and/or tourneys of a certain size (i.e., 128 and more, with, in my model, around 40 or so carded players guaranteed invites)? Or tourneys specifically for carded players (like the Players' Championship)?

There's a mechanism for offering previous winners exemptions, which is cool. I also like the idea of prolonged excellence getting some props in future seasons, though.

FUTURE seasons... maybe. Let's worry about this one first.

Hunter, there are a couple of issues with your suggestion.

1). Tournament rules require that at least 50% of all spots be open to the general public

2). I am anticipating that there will be tournaments for which not all of the regular TPA players will gain entry. This is because the TPA is designed to be a cross section of all CC tournaments and one of the backbones of CC tournaments are the 16 player bracket tournaments. We've made the concession that all TPA tournaments must be open to at least 30 players but I am reluctant to remove the small 1v1 games from the TPA.

3). Part of the issue with this first season is that I have no real idea what the response will be. Many are anticipating a great response with a hundred or more regular players however, until it actually happens I'm reluctant to plan to have that and then to find that it isn't going to be the case. I'm hopeful that it will and we can move forward into Year 2 next May with a better idea of how popular the idea is and player cards may be a part of future leagues but lets run this year first and see how we do.

4). I also would like the TPA to be inclusive, I'd like to see it bring new people into tournaments and requiring cards or whatever becomes somewhat elitist-no matter how easy the cards are to acquire.

Huh... I wasn't aware of the 50% rule. I haven't run a tourney since an open one last year.

I guess all I'm saying is that I think TPA cards can in the future be done in such a way that allows for smaller tournaments and isn't exclusive (which, as you point out, isn't allowed). As you and Kinnison and others point out, that's at least a year away.

No worries! Looking forward to Monday! Thanks for considering and responding to my input!

It's been so long since I started a tourney that I'm worried that my contribution won't get the numbers I hope. How long will I have to fill it and what amount of participants is considered "major"?

poptartpsycho18 wrote:It's been so long since I started a tourney that I'm worried that my contribution won't get the numbers I hope. How long will I have to fill it and what amount of participants is considered "major"?

You'll still get the numbers poptart. You're a great T.O.

I'm assuming not just anyone can slap a "(TPA)" tag on the back of their tournament title. So, what's the process for TOs that want to run a TPA tournament? Sorry if it's been stated already, I didn't see it when I read through the topic.

MGB

MrGlassB wrote:I'm assuming not just anyone can slap a "(TPA)" tag on the back of their tournament title. So, what's the process for TOs that want to run a TPA tournament? Sorry if it's been stated already, I didn't see it when I read through the topic.

MGB

You have to join the TO Usergroup, which requires you to have 3 tourneys completed unless you get an exemption. Then go onto the TPA thread inside the TO Usergroup Private Forum and ask to host. I'm pretty sure bart will let you host automatically pretty much, as long as you're part of the group.

Okay, cool. Thanks for the info.

MGB

MrGlassB wrote:I'm assuming not just anyone can slap a "(TPA)" tag on the back of their tournament title. So, what's the process for TOs that want to run a TPA tournament? Sorry if it's been stated already, I didn't see it when I read through the topic.

MGB

Get in touch with barterer2002 through PM and if you've talked about it and he confirms that you are one of the TPA organisers then let me know and I will grant you access to the TO usergroup forums

Part of the thing for TPA organizers is that we'd like to see a track record in tournaments. We'd like to see that you can follow through on tournaments as that's going to be very important. I do want as many organizers participating as we can get within these parameters though.

Hi guys. When will the first tourney be posted or am I in too much of a hurry as usual?

musteriuz wrote:Hi guys. When will the first tourney be posted or am I in too much of a hurry as usual?

there we be lack of place for all TPA hungry people
well HA's son broke his arm so just keep your eyes open
and you computer on