Skip to main content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Post

Modes of play for the tournament

7 replies [Last post]
libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04

Mkzelda on IRC asked a question regarding whether the modes of play for the tournament have been defined yet. While the final details regarding the way we will arrange matches depend on the final number of players and the games that will be included (will be determined by the players' majority preferences) I think we could start discussing this.

Right now we have about 20 players who signed up of which most seem to be interested in an FPS like Nexuiz or OpenArena which makes it possible to divide them into teams.

If in the end we have at least 20 interested in Nexuiz, for example, we could divide them into four teams (they can choose their names as they wish or we can collectively give them names), each team with 5 players.

So, there are two possibilities here. We could have teams play against each other at once in a deathmatch game (5 against 5) where we would basically have the winner after the three matches. First between the first two teams, then between the other two teams and then between the winners of the two matches.

Another option is maybe slightly more complex, but potentially more exciting. We could have a string of 1vs1 or 2vs2 games between the teams. For example, we could have two 2vs2 games and one 1vs1 game between the first two teams. The final winner will be logically determined according to the number of wins for each team (three games so 2:1 or 3:0 would be wins). Same for the second pair of teams.

And then of course, the same scheme between the two winners to determine the winning team.

The third option is to not have teams at all, but rather individuals against individuals, which is probably most complex but managable. That would include a long string of 1vs1 games in a rather big bracket. Smiling

Similar choice may exist for games other than FPS ones.

So, what do you think?

Offline
Joined: 2006-03-28
Although "weaker" players

Although "weaker" players might have a profit from being in a "strong" team I think the following might also be interesting:
First we have the teams, that fight through to determine which team stands at last.
Then this team is split up and it's a deathmatch between those team-members to see who's the king of the hill.

Also, your 3rd option might be modified to just having a series of games where everybody can participate in a big, bloody free-for-all deathmatch.
Point could be given like in Formula One, and after, let's say 10 matches the winner is the one with most points.

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Cool ideas. Well looks like

Cool ideas. Well looks like there are various ways it could be done. What do others think would be the best?

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Alright, I'll try to make a

Alright, I'll try to make a nice list of options here so that it may be easier for everyone to choose what you would prefer.

There are multiple things in which we would have to make a choice. The first choice is between:

  • 1. Have teams.
  • 2. Don't have teams, only individuals against individuals.

If we have teams..

  • 1. They will game in a whole-team vs. whole-team fashion per game.
  • 2. They will game in a 1vs1 (one from each team against each other) fashion per game until all members of the team are lined up.
  • 3. Same as above, but 2vs2 or even 3vs3?

Will our goal be to:

  • 1. have the team be a final winner or
  • 2. have an individual player be the final winner?

In the second case, after a winner between teams is determined there will be an additional game between members of that team to determine the winner among the winning team members. Otherwise, there wont be such game and the final triumphant will be a team rather than a person alone.

If we don't have teams..

  • We could have many 1vs1 games between every player to determine the winner.
  • We could have a series of free far all games where players will accumulate points according to their results (one with most points in the end is a winner).

I hope this makes it clearer what our options are. Whichever we choose I think there should be a sufficient amount of games for it to be exciting. Now we just have to, together, determine which of the above ways will we have most fun. Eye

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
I largely prefer team based

I largely prefer team based gameplay.
However it also depends on the kind of game.

FFA (Free for All) is fine for an FPS, but I don't really like it in an RTS (altough it can sometimes lead to funny situations ^^).

The main problem is creating teams, because it's hard to know who's good and who's not. So only doing FFA or 1vs1 games might be a lot easier here.
As for who wins:
-if team, team as winner
-if no team, player as winner

I don't really like the mixed style team/no-team.
So if no-team: either 1vs1 or FFA.

===============
clarifying my opinion:
If we have teams..

* 1. They will game in a whole-team vs. whole-team fashion per game.

Will our goal be to:

* 1. have the team be a final winner or

If we don't have teams..

* We could have many 1vs1 games between every player to determine the winner. OK
* We could have a series of free far all games where players will accumulate points according to their results (one with most points in the end is a winner). OK

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
I think games like Nexuiz

I think games like Nexuiz are far better off with FFA considering its best for its adrenaline pumping gameplay as the game system focuses more on individual combat system.

However, games like Tremulous is NOT. A simple fact about tremulous would be " If you don't build as humans, you lose" . A human builder against a dragoon (a strong alien class) is definitely alien sided one way or another. 1 vs 1 system tremulous is simply unsuitable .. but considering the amount of players signed up for tremulous ...

I hope you guys come up with the best and agreeable (fair) solution for this.

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Well Tremulous is

Well Tremulous is definitely a different type of game than OpenArena and Nexuiz (and one I'm really beginning to like most). You must have teams in Tremulous, someone to build and many to attack.

That said, I've noticed that in tremulous if you "camp" you almost surely lose. Camping is when you merely defend rather than attack, building a fortress so to speak while gradually (as the enemy manages to make a few kills still) feeding the enemy stronger and stronger to a point that it will be simply impossible to beat (then it becomes a matter of how long you manage to stay alive). Sticking out tongue

So Tremulous has quite a bit more strategy in it than OA and Nexuiz, and it's made to be team based, not individually.

As for Nexuiz and OA, I think the final decision should really depend on what most players actually want. If most want FFA that's how it should be. If you believe teams would be better (team deathmatch or CTF) that's cool too.

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
With Jose's input in the

With Jose's input in the tournament planning thread we have largely expanded on what was discussed in this thread.

So with this post I'll limit its scope to defining and discussing preferred game modes only.

Of all games included Nexuiz seems to have the largest variety of game modes: Classic Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, Domination, Capture The Flag, Rune Match, Last Man Standing, Arena, Key Hunt

OpenArena has just Free For All, Team Deathmatch, Tournament and Capture The Flag and Tremulous is unique in that it has basically one team play mode between Aliens and Humans.

Classic Deathmatch is basically like Free for All in OpenArena the way I understand it. Team Deathmatch is the same, but in teams. Capture the flag is also in teams, but the winning is determined by the number of flag captures by the team. Domination is apparently about conquering posts and keeping them on your side as long as possible, although I don't know the details nor am I sure exactly who the winner in the end is, the one with most points dominated at the end of the game, the one with most conquers overall or the combination of some sort.

Also the difference between the Arena, Last Man Standing and Classic Deathmatch modes escape me. Maybe seasoned gamers could fill me in. As for Rune Match, it seems to be a deathmatch enhanced by special modifications to players capabilities as picked up throughout the map. Key Hunt also seems to be about the capturing and maintaining the keys of as many teams as possible..

So, the question is, which of these modes would be most preferred to you all? Also, some additional information from experienced players about them would also be welcome.

Thank you

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.