OpenRA

Just a quick thread to gauge interest.
We have run this format in the past. Was awesome fun.

the PREVIOUS 'big team' tournament can be seen here as an example of the possible setup:

http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... hp?t=16462
http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... hp?t=16463

Feel free to comment aswell as voting with the poll.

I'm not sure how you guys chose teams last time, but I think a draft would be pretty cool.

Last set if teans was just set uo by myself manually and then i had ut double checked by 3 ir 4 other members. But i would like to do it a different wat this time. So am open to ideas. Sorry fir touchscreen horrible spelling. Will edit later

Ripsn wrote: ↑ the PREVIOUS 'big team' tournament can be seen here as an example of the possible setup:

http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... hp?t=16462
http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... hp?t=16463

A quick recap of that last tournament:

The first week had a flying start with almost 20 matches played. The second week provided about say, 6. The third about 2-3 and the following weeks it became a real hassle to get players together to finish the last matches. The main problem was simply that around half of the players for each team didn't actively pursue matches, especially after the first week. There were no place outside IRC or the tournament thread for the teams and team captains to come together to arrange matches efficiently. Despite having about 32 players registered between the teams, a 20 point win was just out of reach. Incredible enough the score stalled at 16 - 19.

The first week we had quite a few registered onlookers on IRC that was just waiting to get in to some sort of match but didn't want to speak up. Understandable given the long back and forth chatting on who's gonna play against who, novice players having concerns on match balances, and all the matches required the attention of at least 1 tournament official - which now had to deal with one spontaneous match after another. I think it's mainly because of this we had that big drop-off after the first week of matches.

Looking back, one thing that would conclude the previous BTT would be for the tournament captains, some of the team's players and otherwise skilled players willing to help, to come together beforehand and draw up as many balanced matches as possible that everyone could look to. I think that would be the easiest change and solution with the least amount of hassle for a similar BTT should we pursue it. Also required would be, say, a tournament thread on Sleipnir exclusively intended for listing potential matches and discussing match balance.

The positive experience from the previous BTT is that despite the hassle we actually got through 35 matches. 35! The tournament was well advertised beforehand so that anyone looking up OpenRA at the time would've quickly stumble upon the tournament. We got some tournament casts from Rider Rockon, VODs that are now in the 1000's and are still popular today on youtube searches. Personally I got the chance to expose my voice on youtube for the first time.

I think with a proper set-up and planning we could easily have a BTT resembling the previous one, if that is what we end up wanting.

I would like to participate!

I'd be down to go 6-0 again and carry my team like last time :^)

An idea that is not finished:

Let teamleaders draft their team. This hopefully results in equalish teams in the first place.

Teamleaders then rank their team. They must report the ranking to the Tournament Director, but not to the other team (and not even to their own team if they don't want to as it could be sensitive information that is helpfull and could be leaked - would be childish/stupid, but you never know).

These rankings can be used in different ways to achieve a honest competition. One idea:

Lets say each team has 10 members. Each teammember may start a game against another when they want to, and in fact, they may also start double matches when they want to, or triples or whatevers.

The team that wins gets a certain amount of points, depending on the difference in their rank. This is a formula that could be used: 10 - rankdifference (loser - winner) = winnerscore. (formula is adjusted for 2v2 and 3v3 ofcourse)

Examples:
Rank 1st wins against Rank 9th: 10 - (9-1) = 10 - 8 = 2 points.
Rank 8th wins against Rank 5th: 10 - (5 - 8 ) = 10 - - 3 = 10 + 3 = 13 points
Rank 2nd wins against Rank 2nd: 10 - (2-2) = 10 points

A note on this system: captains will have to be honest when ranking their team. An exploit could be present, but lets hope our captains act honest. Its troublesome when a player is unknown and thus hard to rank.

Furtehrmore players maybe have to play a minimum number of games (or a maximum).

Tournament Director could report the standings every 10 games or so.

Will this be another Red Alert tournament?

noobmapmaker wrote: ↑An idea that is not finished:

Let teamleaders draft their team. This hopefully results in equalish teams in the first place.

Teamleaders then rank their team. They must report the ranking to the Tournament Director, but not to the other team (and not even to their own team if they don't want to as it could be sensitive information that is helpfull and could be leaked - would be childish/stupid, but you never know).

These rankings can be used in different ways to achieve a honest competition. One idea:

Lets say each team has 10 members. Each teammember may start a game against another when they want to, and in fact, they may also start double matches when they want to, or triples or whatevers.

The team that wins gets a certain amount of points, depending on the difference in their rank. This is a formula that could be used: 10 - rankdifference (loser - winner) = winnerscore. (formula is adjusted for 2v2 and 3v3 ofcourse)

Examples:
Rank 1st wins against Rank 9th: 10 - (9-1) = 10 - 8 = 2 points.
Rank 8th wins against Rank 5th: 10 - (5 - 8 ) = 10 - - 3 = 10 + 3 = 13 points
Rank 2nd wins against Rank 2nd: 10 - (2-2) = 10 points

A note on this system: captains will have to be honest when ranking their team. An exploit could be present, but lets hope our captains act honest. Its troublesome when a player is unknown and thus hard to rank.

Furtehrmore players maybe have to play a minimum number of games (or a maximum).

Tournament Director could report the standings every 10 games or so.

This system looks pretty good imo, at first I thought a 1seed win v a 9seed was undervalued but it's probably pretty close to a guaranteed victory for the 1seed, and you probably don't want too many (or any) matches with very wide gaps anyway.

anjew wrote: ↑Will this be another Red Alert tournament?

Previous BTT was cross-mods. I'd hope for it to be the same with the next.

I'm in on the BTT hype train! Would be great fun to play and cast!

Some more thoughts on the system:

Players can always challenge others, they just have to post the replay (to replaygames.org) in which they both declare it to be a BigTeamTournament game in the chat.

Players can also go 2v2 or more. Formula could be:
- 20 - rankdifference (loser - winner) = winnerscore. (< bigger scores for teamgames)
- 10 - rankdifference ((loser - winner)/2) = winnerscore. (< same scores, more or less)
Same adjustments can be made for 3v3 and 4v4 or whatever matchup.

Also to prevent people from blowing the tournament because they hardly play: at the end the two teams lose the points for their lowest scoring player (or lowest 2 players when many people have joined).

Casters could announce castingtimes for when they livestream. People then know when to have a good chance to find opponents (aside from randomly during the day) and as a bonus it gets livestreamed. Also from the replaysite the casters can pick games to cast if they want to.