43 replies to this topic

[AlliedPlayer]

Ok so I am looking to do a 1v1 Tournament on RA2.

This will be a paid entry only - therefore giving / making people turn up or they will lose their money.


This will be a 16 man (hopefully we will get this many people) tournament, with best of 3 games until the final, where it will be best of 5 games - and hopefully live streamed by a beloved ST member.


Entry - $10

Winner - $90
Runner up - $50
Random Prize - $20 (from remaining players - top 2 cannot win this)


This will take place one evening on the weekend - possibly running over onto 2nd day if needed. (Sat / Sun)

Tournament will be played on the XWIS server - starting at 7pm GMT.

Maps will be decided at random, and you must select your faction prior to the tournament.


Date to be arranged.

I would like to try and give everyone a chance at winning this tournament, so any input appreciated to make it even, or more helpful, maps, suggestions etc etc for balanced / no confusion / no speculation / no randomness etc etc


Please let me know your thoughts, and if you would be interested to get a rough idea of numbers, and if any adjustments would need to be made.


Thanks.


Players so far:

Marko
Frank
John / Showtime

Joe

Edited by Woooooo, 23 April 2014 - 01:02 PM.

[Seke]

noty

[hardman]

If you are going to charge for entrance i would suggest some form of seeding system. If certain highly skilled players enter then other players may not bother as to them it would be like throwing money down the drain, with no real chance of progressing far.

 

Another way to tackle this could be to award random prizes as well rather then just to the top 2/3. 

Edited by hardman, 22 April 2014 - 06:03 PM.

[AlliedPlayer]

If you are going to charge for entrance i would suggest some form of seeding system. If certain highly skilled players enter then other players may not bother as to them it would be like throwing money down the drain, with no real chance of progressing far.

 

Another way to tackle this could be to award random prizes as well rather then just to the top 2/3. 

 

Maybe change 3rd place to random prize? 

[dsector]

Unfortunately there is no way you'll find 16 players to give $10 each when only 5-6 of them even have a chance of winning a prize.

 

Perhaps there should be a random cash prize that any of the 16 participants can win.

 

EDIT: hardman was faster than me

Edited by dsector, 22 April 2014 - 06:05 PM.

[AlliedPlayer]

Unfortunately there is no way you'll find 16 players to give $10 each when only 5-6 of them even have a chance of winning a prize.

 

Perhaps there should be a random cash prize that any of the 16 participants can win.

 

EDIT: hardman was faster than me

 

Yeah, I seen this.... 

 

Again, I will change 3rd into a random prize then  

[hardman]

Maybe change 3rd place to random prize? 

 

That's an idea yea. Rather then being like a 'bingo' random prize it could be for doing the most of something particular in game for example.

 

I would also add a seeding system once players have entered to make it more appealing to the lesser skilled players (more of a chance of getting to final etc), although how the seeding would be decided could cause problems.

[AlliedPlayer]

That's an idea yea. Rather then being like a 'bingo' random prize it could be for doing the most of something particular in game for example.

 

I would also add a seeding system once players have entered to make it more appealing to the lesser skilled players (more of a chance of getting to final etc), although how the seeding would be decided could cause problems.

 

Seeding would be random, therefore you could walk through a line of "newer" players.... as oppose to the "veterans" as some call them 

[hardman]

Seeding would be random, therefore you could walk through a line of "newer" players.... as oppose to the "veterans" as some call them 

 

hmmm what's the point of random seeding? The way i saw it would be so that the lesser skilled players were pitched against each other early on rather then the pro players and visa versa. Perhaps seeding was the wrong choice of word.

 

And veteran players aren't always more skilled then newer players

Edited by hardman, 22 April 2014 - 06:15 PM.

[AlliedPlayer]

But surely if it is "random"... then it is fair for all, not "easier" for the lesser skilled??

 

surely the more skilled players shouldnt have it any easier / harder just because they're good? 

[hardman]

I just think it will be hard to get people to pay if its say a 50% chance of them going up against a player they have never beaten before. Maybe the random prize will be enough to attract... not sure tho.

[PiNeRs]

i would participate.

[Showtime]

^^

[AlliedPlayer]

Thanks, Added

[Sausage]

count me in bro. if it happens.

10 $ is pennies and may bring back some players.. doubt it tho :|

[AlliedPlayer]

no prbs joe - added

[Shauny]

Any one wanna go halves and we can 2v1? Might stand a chance then ha!

[ZiGZaG]

Any one wanna go halves and we can 2v1? Might stand a chance then ha!

lol ^^

[SoBe0wns]

You could think about handicapping the tournament.  

 

Rank players based on skill (say 1-5, with 5 being best).   Higher ranked players would have to win more game vs. a lower ranked player to advance based on each player's ranking.

 

In other words, if 2 players were matched together, and one was elite (ranked a 5), and the other was good (ranked a 2), the elite player would have to win 5 games to advance, vs. the good player having to win 2 games to advance.

 

Not perfect, but certainly gives the lower ranked player more of a chance.  A system similar to this is used in billiard tournaments.

[Shauny]

Where is the money being sent too?

[AlliedPlayer]

You could think about handicapping the tournament.  

 

Rank players based on skill (say 1-5, with 5 being best).   Higher ranked players would have to win more game vs. a lower ranked player to advance based on each player's ranking.

 

In other words, if 2 players were matched together, and one was elite (ranked a 5), and the other was good (ranked a 2), the elite player would have to win 5 games to advance, vs. the good player having to win 2 games to advance.

 

Not perfect, but certainly gives the lower ranked player more of a chance.  A system similar to this is used in billiard tournaments.

 

Sounds like a decent proposal..... would need some absolute specifics to put into place, but appreciate feedback 

[PiNeRs]

how do u go about creating such a rating system ? I rather be rated a 0 in such a tournament to have 5 chances to win 1 game to move on to win 90$ lol.

[ALiTheGreatest]

I think you're closer to a 1

[AlliedPlayer]

how do u go about creating such a rating system ? I rather be rated a 0 in such a tournament to have 5 chances to win 1 game to move on to win 90$ lol.

 

I agree

 

I think you're closer to a 1

 

please stay on topic, and not indirect flaming for once please.

 

thanks guys 

[SoBe0wns]

how do u go about creating such a rating system ? I rather be rated a 0 in such a tournament to have 5 chances to win 1 game to move on to win 90$ lol.

 

You need someone trustworthy to accurately rank the players.  Someone (Tomi?) that has played everyone and can give an honest assessment, especially if he isn't playing himself.