Should we accept late registrations for the game fest?

Submitted by libervisco on Sun, 2007-10-14 02:23.

Posts: 3856
Joined: 2006-05-04

This is a first of a series of a few topics that I am opening in great hope of gaining some feedback from those players who intend to participate in the upcoming game fest and everyone else interested in seeing it succeed. This is in big part a community powered event and so we aren't looking to make all the final decisions alone and without your involvement.

The question in the title of this topic is simple. If we don't accept late registrations then after a certain deadline for signing up passes no more people at all will be able to join the game fest. There could be some exceptions here, such as for games that will start late, but in general that would be it.

If we do accept latecomers they could be treated in several ways, depending on the game type. One idea was to allow extra available player slot in each group of players, but then we have a potential problem if one of the groups has a spot filled yet the other one does not, resulting in an imbalance. Accepting latecomers would be easiest in the qualifications stage if the game would be one large free for all deathmatch. It wouldn't mean that much if there is a one more player in it.

Empty slots would make sense only if we have one-on-one matches in which case when one faces a slot of a player that doesn't exist yet, (s)he immediately wins, as would anyone else. When the latecomer fills that spot, he inherits all those losses and tries to win as much as possible to regain something.

If we allow empty spots in teams, we still have a problem of imbalance if one team's spot is filled and another's isn't.

The cleanest way to accept latecomers may be for game slots that haven't been started yet due to lack of players. For example, Nexuiz may have a multitude of game slots based on its game modes. If majority of players want to play classic deathmatch and only few team deathmatch, then the latter would have a vacancy that would disable it from starting early in the game fest. However if in the meantime enough latecomers come to fill in, that game slot could proceed with qualifications -> tournament as well.

Any opinions? Please share.

EDIT: We have a poll on this.

Thank you

My Memeverse | My Music | Entrancement Tech | Libervis Network

Sun, 2007-10-14 03:57 Keep it simple: don't

plouj

Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-10-09

Keep it simple: don't accept latecomers.

Shouldn't there be a poll for this thread?

Sun, 2007-10-14 04:27 Well I guess it couldn't

libervisco

Posts: 3856
Joined: 2006-05-04

Well I guess it couldn't hurt so here it is: http://www.nuxified.org/poll/should_we_accept_late_registrations_for_the_game_fest

Note that there may be exceptions even if we don't accept latecomers in general. Such exceptions apply for game slots for which there is interest but not enough players yet. So late players may fill in the blanks. Also, there could be game slots with no players right now that could be activated by late players.

So basically when we say "no don't accept latecomers" it pretty much means just that there wont be provisions for new players to join for game slots which have already started and therefore already have defined groups, teams, brackets etc.

Thanks

My Memeverse | My Music | Entrancement Tech | Libervis Network

Mon, 2007-10-15 06:43 A few of things to keep in

Jose

Posts: 308
Joined: 2007-09-10

A few of things to keep in mind.

If this tournament/fest had occured back around the time most people thought of having it, we'd have a lot less participants than it looks like we will have.

If the fest is long, some players may leave. We may want to at least allow new folks to substitute in. There are arguments to go either way.

For those that care, getting the most players to participates, makes it more likely that it will be that much more successful the next time around because more would have taken part and be able to talk about it enthusiastically. Turning less people away, helps future tournaments for a similar reason. In either case, this first tournament is even more signficant and memorable for those that participate if we end up having future tournaments that are large and successful and also if this tournament is large. Well, that is my view anyway since I think it is more interesting to win among 200 players than among 2.

I votes yes and suggest that at least for a few games during qualifiers (if we have qualifiers) that we reschedule if possible or otherwise allow new players but with some losses.

If we don't allow late people, at least let the registration deadline not occur until the very last possible moment and only a few days or more after our next/last advertizing blitz.

Mon, 2007-10-15 11:04 Jose wrote: If the fest is

libervisco

Posts: 3856
Joined: 2006-05-04

Jose wrote:

If the fest is long, some players may leave. We may want to at least allow new folks to substitute in. There are arguments to go either way.

That much seems reasonable. As mentioned, even if we vote to not accept latecomers by default there may be enough exceptions for the answer to the question of whether people can join be "yes", but only in those specific situations: when an existing player quits and when there is a game slot with insufficient players.

If "yes" is decided here that means going a step further in allowing latecomers by actually tampering with the already formed teams / groups and schedules when new players come in. I would in all honesty say that this complicates things quite a bit (and complexity may also be something that can turn people away), but we'll see.

Jose wrote:

If we don't allow late people, at least let the registration deadline not occur until the very last possible moment and only a few days or more after our next/last advertizing blitz.

The deadline was planned to be after the last blitz all along. That's the only way the blitz actually makes sense. Smiling

My Memeverse | My Music | Entrancement Tech | Libervis Network

Mon, 2007-10-15 17:59 I'll modify my stance. In

Jose

Posts: 308
Joined: 2007-09-10

I'll modify my stance.

In short:
1 -- I vote for a firm cut-off except for taking over the spot of a player that leaves tournament (or extraordinary circumstances).
2 -- I vote to have the firm cut-off be after perhaps two games have been played (re-scheduling might not be a head-ache in this case).
3 -- I vote to allow stand-by subs to play (for fun, with the win going to the opponent that did show, regardless of the match results).
4 -- I explain how we might handle a sub officially taking over the spot of a player that drops out.

1:
Overall, it seems that the right mix of simplicity and flexibility might be to allow players to come in to take over an abandoned spot but not otherwise (unless something out of the ordinary happens calling for action).

2:
If we have a schedule that is drawn up automatically (a program with a randomizer, maybe allowing for constraints, spits out the schedule after given the number of players), then it is a simple matter to draw up new schedules. In this case, where the work is minimal, we might wait until two games have been played before we come up with the final schedule which would allow new entrants up to that point. What we can do is to add extra players to the program, and we add the constraint that the first two games have to follow as were played already (note that this contraint wouldn't apply to the few new player slots). Then we just play the new schedule that is spit out and be done with it except that the new players will have the two games (or one) to make up which should be fairly straighforward, especially since they would be against each other (because the rest were constrained to include the games they just played).

If you want I think I can code up such a program. It wouldn't be a pretty program but it would produce a long series of numbers which we might then be able to parse straight into html tables or anything else (I can work on that second translator too if you tell me what you want the html to look like). You'll have to let me know. I won't work on that if we can find something that already exists, and I am almost sure something does.

If we have such a program to make our lives easier, you might want to put to a vote to have the ultimate cut-off be after two (three? one?) games have been played.

3:
Substituting in is not obvious since a player that leaves may not tell the rest. One way to handle this is to try and schedule as many games as possible around the same time and let players that are not in the tournament show up and sign up to play games where one player has not showed up and not "called in" to reschedule. This will actually solve a lot of problems, allowing most matches to proceed on schedule. Again, if we schedule games to be clumped together, then a few stand-bys might almost always get playing time. Think of Roberto at Indy.

3/4:
As for win/loss/points, we can do the following. A sub'd match counts ONLY if (a) the sub was called in ahead of time and the other player acknowledges s/he is retiring from that tournament OR (b) if the player being sub'd has already missed two previous games and has not called in to confirm that s/he will be returning. In that case, when we have a potential third no-show appearance, we automatically remove the missing player and officially put someone in their place to play that game (assuming we have stand-bys at that time.. though we may allow for a reschedule). In each of these two cases, the new player coming in will take over that spot and so the match results will count (win/loss). In any other case, the game is played for fun, with the opponent that did show up getting the automatic win.

[I'll repost 3 and 4 under the forum topic for handling no-shows/scheduling.]

Tue, 2007-10-16 02:30 To be honest I don't really

libervisco

Posts: 3856
Joined: 2006-05-04

To be honest I don't really like the option 2. I'd rather rely on our gut feeling and common sense which are at least two variables a program wouldn't consider. And we aren't dealing with numbers that big anyway. Besides, instead of complicating with these two matches before the cut off, we might as well just move the cut off far enough and be done with it.

Option 3 sounds good, if it will be required. I guess we'll draw provisions for such an option too and let the newcomer decide just what role to play. At this point a latecomer can do either of the following:

Join a game slot that hasn't yet started due to insufficient number of players.
Join as a backup substitute for an existing player (whose certainty of showing up may be determined as shaky)
Replace a dropped out player (if that happens)

Apparently, however, latecomers aren't necessarily guaranteed that they will actually get to play a meaningful match (officially part of any qualifications or tourney), but that's a risk that comes with being a latecomer. Why not guaranteed? Because you can't know if we'll have any drop outs, if any player will want to have a backup sub and if after joining an un-started game slot it will have enough players to proceed..

About 3/4 I guess I can reply in detail in the other thread but tbh I don't have many comments. It looks like a fine solution if the case pops up, but I'm beginning to think that we're crunching way too much here for the initial rule set. We don't want the rule set to end up a book people must read before they join. It will be a skeleton and hence it will not up front address absolutely all cases, merely lay a foundation. I guess if the cases you're describing pop up we'll just look back to these threads for best suggestions posted so far, mostly by you regarding such details. Eye-wink