Introducing: Tournament Players Association (TPA)

[HighlanderAttack]

The first tourney is full. I should have games out as early as tonight. I am still taking reseves. If you read this you must post for reserve on the thread for the tourney.


viewtopic.php?f=90&t=116529

[IWearRed24]

can I be a reserve?
and where is the TPA tournaments posted at?

[drunkmonkey]

can I be a reserve?
and where is the TPA tournaments posted at?

wow.

[kratos644]

can I be a reserve?
and where is the TPA tournaments posted at?

wow.

Come on guys. We have an influx of new tournament players. Instead of making belittling posts making them feel dumb how about we make helpful posts instead otherwise it's likely that some of these people will get a bad experience and no longer want to play in tournaments.

So in response to the actual question...

If you want to be a reserve for HA's tournament, you need to sign up in the actual thread for the tournament. That can be found by clicking -->HERE<--

For the list of all current and past TPA sanctioned events check the third post on the front page of this thread. That can be found by clicking -->HERE<--

Enjoy everyone.

Cheers,
-Kratos

[IWearRed24]

Well the reason I couldn't find it is because it didn't show up on the tournament tab...

[amazzony]

Well the reason I couldn't find it is because it didn't show up on the tournament tab...

Don't mind drunkmonkey, he had to have a bad day as things get a bit frustrating sometimes, especially if you read back in this topic.

Anyways, it happened that the tournament got full before it was put to the tab and therefore you couldn't find it there. Next Monday, if you are interested, just in case check out the Create/Join forums directly. If I'm not mistaken then next one should be opened for freemium players also.

[Sir. Ricco]

Well the reason I couldn't find it is because it didn't show up on the tournament tab...

It filled up before it could be put on the tournament tab.

[JoshyBoy]

can I be a reserve?
and where is the TPA tournaments posted at?

wow.

Shame on you drunkmonkey.

[josko.ri]

hmm, it sounds very interesting and competitive but I have suggestion about how to improve point system...

"1. Total points Player will get a total number of points based on their finish in each tournament so coming in 2nd in a 16 player tournament would garner .9375 points while a 2nd in a 64 player tournament would garner a score of .9844. Additionally larger tournaments will have a multiplier as its more difficult to win a 64 player tournament than it is to win a 16 player tournament and more difficult still to win a 128 player tournament. Thus the multipliers will be as follows: For tournaments with 16-31 players have a multiplier of 1, 32-60 would have a multiplier of 2, 61 to 89 would be a multiplier of 3, 90-130 would be a multiplier of 4, 131-220 a multiplier of 5 and 221 and over would be a multiplier of 6. In other words that 2nd place finish in a 64 player tournament would then be multiplied by 3 to garner that player a score of 2.95. There will be a running scoreboard with total scores for all players."

so basically a player who plays all 52 tournaments will probably be between TOP 20 because his/her points will grow up every week. I am not fun of PGA so I dont really know how point system there is, but I am fun of tennis (ATP) and I know very good how there is point system. I suppose on PGA is similar. my point is that Roger Federer is number one player in tennis by years but he plays very low number of tournaments. it can be chacked here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx. he has 18 tournaments while the others from top 10 have 25,26.

so, my suggestion is to make only one difference in point system: divide all players' points by number of tournaments played, and we will then get reliable ranking. to avoid that someone plays only 1 tournament and be high ranked, you may take 20 tournaments as a minimum played for getting full rank. so, points of the players who played less than 20 tournaments can be sum and divided by 20, and for the players who played more than 20 tournaments can be sum and divided by number of tournaments played. I think then you will get more representative ranking, at most because of fact that tournaments will be full very quickly, so many interested players will stay without some tournaments.

[drunkmonkey]

can I be a reserve?
and where is the TPA tournaments posted at?

wow.

Shame on you drunkmonkey.

I just wish more people would take it upon themselves to read the thread and find out what's going on. HA's post said to sign up in the tourney thread, and then gave a link to the tourney thread. Maybe it was just a long day for me.

I apologize; it won't happen again.

[Kinnison]

hmm, it sounds very interesting and competitive but I have suggestion about how to improve point system...

"1. Total points Player will get a total number of points based on their finish in each tournament so coming in 2nd in a 16 player tournament would garner .9375 points while a 2nd in a 64 player tournament would garner a score of .9844. Additionally larger tournaments will have a multiplier as its more difficult to win a 64 player tournament than it is to win a 16 player tournament and more difficult still to win a 128 player tournament. Thus the multipliers will be as follows: For tournaments with 16-31 players have a multiplier of 1, 32-60 would have a multiplier of 2, 61 to 89 would be a multiplier of 3, 90-130 would be a multiplier of 4, 131-220 a multiplier of 5 and 221 and over would be a multiplier of 6. In other words that 2nd place finish in a 64 player tournament would then be multiplied by 3 to garner that player a score of 2.95. There will be a running scoreboard with total scores for all players."

so basically a player who plays all 52 tournaments will probably be between TOP 20 because his/her points will grow up every week. I am not fun of PGA so I dont really know how point system there is, but I am fun of tennis (ATP) and I know very good how there is point system. I suppose on PGA is similar. my point is that Roger Federer is number one player in tennis by years but he plays very low number of tournaments. it can be chacked here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx. he has 18 tournaments while the others from top 10 have 25,26.

so, my suggestion is to make only one difference in point system: divide all players' points by number of tournaments played, and we will then get reliable ranking. to avoid that someone plays only 1 tournament and be high ranked, you may take 20 tournaments as a minimum played for getting full rank. so, points of the players who played less than 20 tournaments can be sum and divided by 20, and for the players who played more than 20 tournaments can be sum and divided by number of tournaments played. I think then you will get more representative ranking, at most because of fact that tournaments will be full very quickly, so many interested players will stay without some tournaments.

Unofficial opinion: This is an excellent idea for a secondary ranking system to compare players.

I see a few problems with using this for a primary system:
1> We currently have no way to qualify players (as per PGA or WTA) to see who gets in... if we did, we'd then be violating CC Tournament rules on how much of a tournament needs to be open to how much of the playerbase.
2> This *IS* a game, not anyone's livelihood. Well, PLAYING it isn't anyone's livelihood. As such, comparing it to a sports/profession league is by analogy ONLY.
3> We want to encourage participation in as many tournaments as possible. This system encourages participation in a certain number of tournaments, but only the largest ones. (as they have a better per-tournament score multiplier)
4> Lastly, given how long many of these will run, and the number of games, I suspect 20 tournaments completed to be a significant challenge. Some people who accommodate game loads I would consider INSANE (HA, for example ) will probably not have a problem with 20. I, on the other hand, keep a LOW game load for a premium player (under 25, heck, under 20 if it can at all be arranged), and think finishing 20 TPA tournaments would probably kill me.

[ubcman64]

4> Lastly, given how long many of these will run, and the number of games, I suspect 20 tournaments completed to be a significant challenge. Some people who accommodate game loads I would consider INSANE (HA, for example ) will probably not have a problem with 20. I, on the other hand, keep a LOW game load for a premium player (under 25, heck, under 20 if it can at all be arranged), and think finishing 20 TPA tournaments would probably kill me.

I fully agree with this point. 20 will be a stretch to complete, especially since there are plenty of other tournaments people want to join that are NOT associated with the TPA. Unless, as you stated, game loads aren't an issue. They are with me. However I will do my best to join as many as I can while maintaining a reasonable game load.

[benga]

I thought I posted this earlier but apparently it was somewhere else.

My general feeling is that in tournaments there are two reasons that people do not join their games. 1) they are unaware of how tournaments work and are generally not joining any more of them or 2) they have unexpectedly left CC for whatever reason. In either of these cases there doesn't seem to be much reason to penalize. Are there reasons to penalize someone that I'm not seeing?

In case of:
-intentional deadbeating
-filling room for someone else

But as u stated that should not be penalised
if it does not disrupt standings
in abnormal way

Thx for your reply
was just wondering
not starting a witch hunt

Bye!

[keiths31]

The new TPA event is up and taking sign ups. It is filling fast. Make sure you sign up properly or you won't be included in the tournament.

[keiths31]

Musical Chairs: Eastern Hemisphere Tour [TPA] is full. Will accept reserves. Thanks to all those that signed up and sorry to those who missed the sign ups and to those that didn't sign up properly (tsk tsk tsk)