Continuing the TPA going forward

[kennys777]

Yeah, tracking who is and isn't a freemium through the year would be such a pain in the ass.

Kenny-with regards to the sign ups. Two points. 1). Using a specific time is somewhat against what I'd like to do. We have players from all over the world so if we set something in a certain time frame it would set certain people at a disadvantage in all tournaments. As it is, we're somewhat skewed to the US/Canadian time zones but there are plenty of players in Asia (including some of the TOs). For that reason there won't be a specific time on Mondays that the events will go up.

As far as TOs missing their date. There were some growing pains. Part of it is TOs learning the process, part is me not getting the reminders out timely. This year we will expect more from our TOs.

I agree with you, I was just trying to get a discussion going on it. I see there are other issues here also from other players, and it is good to have a discourse. It helps "fix the fences" to keep the cows in, and the mushroom pickers out!

I really didn't see a solution to the time problem, so I offered some suggestions, if they don't work, then case closed.

[SuicidalSnowman]

I came a little late to the TPA, only joining in games from the last few months, but I think the idea is genius in concept, and can't wait for next years.

1) I would like to see the scoring changed by a power of 10. Why not make 1.23 into 12.3 or even 123?

2) Personally, I think the scoring and the whole TPA would be helped by a more standard size. I don't know if you guys have this data or not, but why not make every major a 128 player, every mid level hit around 80, and every smaller one be 64? This way you could have more standardized scoring that would give players a clearer idea.

3) As for overall scoring, I personally think you should have to do well in the tournaments to win. I haven't really looked too closely at the current standings, but I think the winner should have ideally won at least one tournament and finished near the top in a few others, as opposed to simply entering every single one.

4) More info about when they are actually starting... the dates never seem to line up with the TPA info thread.

5) Finally, and this might be too hard to track, but I would like to see players join the TPA at the beginning of the season, and then everyone is still allowed to join TPA sponsored events, but only players who want to be in the TPA are scored. It might eliminate some of the deadwood on the scoreboard and make events a little more competitive among TPA players. I think, to this end, a TPA subforum would be great as well. Take a look at clans. Ever since the Conquerors Cup was started, it seems (to me at least) that clans have become what they should be, a place for some very competitive games that are actually "watched' by other members who aren't playing. I would like to see the TPA become this for tournament players. We all know how hard it can be to maintain a rank while playing tournaments, so a more regulated TPA may be able to showcase the skills of some players who play tournaments. I also think the TPA could require some more commitment from members who are interested.


Anywho, just my thoughts from my brief participation. I think the TPA is awesome, personally.

[barterer2002]

So we've got a couple of things going forward to hopefully make it more worthwhile for people.

1). I'm instituting a rule that TPA TOs can not have abandoned a tournament over the previous 12 months. I'll vet them through the TDs to make sure we're still on track. Hopefully this will result in less issues with TOs.

2). The scoreboard is getting re-vamped. We're not going to standardize the tournaments in general because part of the view of TPA is to showcase a snapshot of the tournaments as a whole. We are going to divide into 3 parts to better reflect the differences in different levels. We're also going to create a system where not every touranment needs to be counted in the final score. Debating the final points at this point we're looking at 25-30 counting tournaments. Players can enter all 52 but only a certain level will count on the scoreboard. This should allow those to come in at different points in the season, allow freemiums to make some sort of scoreboard dent and still require the level of commitment to make it worthwhile.

I don't want to require players to register for the TPA at the beginning of the season. I think some flexibility is good and locking players in or out goes against part of what we're trying to do here which a part of is being all-inclusive.

I'm also going to announce that the TPA will itself reserve slots in the major tournaments for the previous year's winners. Theses will not count against the TOs own reserved slots but Year 1 winners will get automatic invites to the corresponding Year 2 tournament (if one is not yet over it will get into the next opening major)

I've also communicated privately with those who had TO concerns from Year 1 and I believe we're all on the same page with where we're going on those.

[danryan]

I just want to tip my hat to bart and the TPA organizers, who have created a really engaging format for tournaments in addition to the standard tournaments we have come to know. It really is a lot of work for bart, so some recognition is due for his effort here.

[benga]

I just want to tip my hat to bart and the TPA organizers, who have created a really engaging format for tournaments in addition to the standard tournaments we have come to know. It really is a lot of work for bart, so some recognition is due for his effort here.

Hear, hear!!

[MudPuppy]

As part of the score revamp, I'd recommend revising the scoring for each tourney so that you get less credit for just showing up. For instance, in the Speed Assassin IV St. Pat's tourney, I lost every game I played (0-4) yet still ended up with 0.5000 points: a full 50% of the 1.0000 points sonicsteve earned for winning every game (4-0). I think the scoreboard would be more accurate had I been awarded something closer to 0.00.

The current scoring system typically is calculated using the formula: (1/No of players)* ((No of players+1)-finish position) with tied players all getting the full amount for that tied position. So, in a simple 16-bracket tourney, the 8 1st round losers would all receive 0.5 points for coming in tied for 9th: (1/16) * (16+1) - 9. This results in point inflation for tournaments that have more ties. Take two 16-player tournaments with a multiplier of 1.00 each. The tournaments have the following places awarded:
TOURNEY A: 1,2,3,3,5,5,5,5,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9 (2-way tie for 3rd; 4-way tie for 5th, and an 8-way tie for 9th)
TOURNEY B: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 (tournament settings allow for no ties to occur)

TOURNEY A awards 25.7% more points than TOURNEY B (10.6875 vs. 8.5000) when TOURNEY B likely has more involved settings.

While it would take a just a bit more calculating, it would be more equitable to have tied players split the available points for those finishing places rather than give everyone points for the highest of those places. e.g., the 8 folks tied for 9th place in the above example would split 2.2500 points (the total awarded for places 9-16 in TOURNEY B) for an award of 0.28125 each rather than everyone getting 0.5000.

Also, I'd prefer to see points awarded for only the top half of contestants to prevent players from getting up to 50% of the highest award just for posting "In, please" in the tourney thread. TPA point awards would be much more meaningful if players had to earn them rather than just show up.

There are a lot of different approaches to making point totals more equitable between tourneys and to better correlate the awarded values with performance which is the desired outcome of my suggestion. My example is just one way to get there.

[barterer2002]

Well lets get some comments on the scoring. Here's where we are at the current point


52 weeks
4 Majors
16 Premium Events
32 Regular Events

Each player gets 30 scores: 4 majors, their BEST 10 Premium event scores, and their BEST 16 Regular event scores. This gives an advantage to those who play in the most tournaments, as they'll be able to kick out bad scores, but still allows a player who can't handle the game load of some of the tournaments to have a shot at the win.

Place / Major / Premium / Regular
1 / 2000 / 1000 / 500
2 / 1200 / 600 / 300
3 / 840 / 420 / 210
4 / 600 / 300 / 150
5 / 480 / 240 / 120
6 / 390 / 195 / 95
7 / 315 / 155 / 80
8 / 255 / 130 / 65
9 / 235 / 115 / 60
10 / 215 / 110 / 55
11 / 200 / 100 / 50
12 / 185 / 90 / 45
13 / 170 / 85 / 40
14 / 155 / 80 / 40
15 / 145 / 75 / 35
16 / 135 / 65 / 35
17 / 125 / 65 / 30
18 / 120 / 60 / 30
19 / 115 / 60 / 30
20 / 110 / 55 / 30
21 / 105 / 55 / 25
22 / 100 / 50 / 25
23 / 95 / 50 / 25
24 / 90 / 45 / 25
25 / 90 / 45 / 20
26 / 85 / 40 / 20
27 / 80 / 40 / 20
28 / 75 / 35 / 20
29 / 70 / 35 / 15
30 / 65 / 30 / 15
31 / 60 / 30 / 15
32 / 55 / 25 / 15
33+ / 50 / 25 / 10

The other aspect that goes along with this is that I'm asking the organizers, particularly those who do 1v1 events, to split out the finishes a bit better. For instance in a best of 3 1v1 bracket style tournament, half will be eliminated in Round 1 but those may not all be equal. 10 of them may have won a game and can be ranked above those who get swept (with the splits being more as the players advance, in round 2, you'll have 4 that lose 1 second round game and of those 2 swept in Round 1 and are ranked ahead of the other 2 who went 2-1 in Round 1

This gives a certain number of points for showing up still but really requires moving on to score anything significant.

(credit to dowian2 for the chart above)

Note, ties split the points (so a 2 way tie for second in a regular tournament the two players would split the 510 points that 2nd and 3rd get for a total of 255 each)

[MudPuppy]

I'll look through the proposed scoring system a bit more but at first glance it addresses all my concerns: Tied places share points and last-place finishers are awarded significantly less points than in year 1. In my 16-person bracket example, the proposed scoring would give the 8 players tied for 9th 40 points each in regular tournament which is just 8% of the 500 awarded to the winner (compared to up to 50% now). This is a huge improvement from the current approach. Also, based on bart's desire to break out the placings more, those 8 players would likely be further split into at least 2 groups. So, I'm quite pleased with the work you guys have put into the scoring revamp. Very nicely done!!!

[Lindax]

Each player gets 18 scores: 4 majors, their BEST 10 Premium event scores, and their BEST 16 Regular event scores.

Sorry Bart, do you mean 30 scores instead of 18?

Lx

[Bones2484]

Each player gets 18 scores: 4 majors, their BEST 10 Premium event scores, and their BEST 16 Regular event scores. This gives an advantage to those who play in the most tournaments, as they'll be able to kick out bad scores, but still allows a player who can't handle the game load of some of the tournaments to have a shot at the win.

I really like this change. Now I wont get punished when I can't make those darn speed tournaments.

[Tupence]

Each player gets 18 scores: 4 majors, their BEST 10 Premium event scores, and their BEST 16 Regular event scores. This gives an advantage to those who play in the most tournaments, as they'll be able to kick out bad scores, but still allows a player who can't handle the game load of some of the tournaments to have a shot at the win.

I really like this change. Now I wont get punished when I can't make those darn speed tournaments.

I agree, this looks great. Good work guys, I'm looking forward to it.

[barterer2002]

Yeah I didn't get that part changed.

[kennys777]

I like the new scoring rules...Including the speed tourneys. I did score some nice points in DJ's first Speed tourney last summer. It was my first points on the scoreboard.

Can we ban a few players from participating though??? Such as the unbeatable HighlanderAttack, or Mudpuppy??? I am just tired of losing to them!

[jrh_cardinal]

Can we ban a few players from participating though??? Such as the unbeatable HighlanderAttack, or Mudpuppy??? I am just tired of losing to them!

neither of those two are going to win year 1...

[HighlanderAttack]

Personally the only suggestion I would have is having at least 8 weeks off so making it like a 44 week season lasting a year.

I know for myself I was bogged down by real life and had to start dropping and not joining TPA events. I wish I could have played in all of them and that was my original goal but it was impossible for myself.

Maybe a suggestion for season three. Just a thought and by no means should the TPA be catered for myself.

It was and is a great idea and has been executed wonderfully.


Edit--after reading the new scoring this is a mute idea.