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

Tournament planning

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

For the sake of clarity I'm opening this thread for discussing the planning issues regarding our upcoming tournament. This includes various stages and the way I see it right now these would go as follows (but please let me know if you think I'm missing something or that we should be doing something differently).

  • 1. Setting the deadline for voting and sign ups after which we have the final vote and final number of players.
  • 2. Based on the vote and preferences expressed by the signed up players we choose the official game list.
  • 3. Based on who wants to play which game and when (availability) we asign players to game slots and time slots when they will be played (one player can play multiple games, of course)
  • 4. This is really simultaneous to the third stage - posting installation instructions / helping players get their engines.. er. games running. Eye
  • 5. Before actually running the games, setting up the brackets, for each game there is a bracket and then there is a general bracket for all games and all players. We'll have winners of each games. Winner of the tournament will be the one who wins most game brackets. (This is open to debate.)
  • 6. Final preparations: choosing maps to play, testing servers. We can also do a test run of the game before the actual official match.
  • 7. Engage! Now that everything is planned and set up we meet up at designated times and match up our skills. Sticking out tongue

Now, the step number 7 is not something done at once. Times will probably be spread out in a span of anything from a week to a few weeks depending on the amount of players in general and per game and their availability.

This is all open for debate of course, hence this thread. Feel free to make suggestions.

The first thing to decide on is the deadline for the voting and sign ups. Perhaps we shouldn't wait more than a week anymore? I'm slightly worried about people cooling off about this thing so, I feel we shouldn't stall too long.

Thank you.

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
Quote: The first thing to

Quote:
The first thing to decide on is the deadline for the voting and sign ups. Perhaps we shouldn't wait more than a week anymore? I'm slightly worried about people cooling off about this thing so, I feel we shouldn't stall too long.

I can't participate before October, so I'm rather in favor of October 1st as minimum deadline.
Currently, we are only 16 (despite the fact that 25 people have voted on the poll 0.o ):
Current participants (13/09/2007):
-libervisco
-thatguy
-A Vicious Muffin
-free-zombie
-reptiler
-onlinebacon
-tonyb
-spyro_boy
-.Caboose.
-Diomedes
-vanSG
-KIAaze
-efus
-freegamer
-a thing
-tbuitenh (maybe)

Most of us (probably all of us) are FOSS supporters, so there shouldn't be too many forgetting about this event.
Eventually you could send an e-mail reminder.
2 more weeks of waiting shouldn't hurt too much. If we manage to make more publicity, we could get a lot more players.
(This also makes me think that adding ads for tournaments inside a game could be good (cf battle.net). My only FOSS multiplayer experience so far has been Wesnoth and having a little message notifying you about a tournament when you log on to a server would really be great. Eye )

Quote:
Winner of the tournament will be the one who wins most game brackets.

We could do that, but since not all players play the same amount of games, it gets a little complicated...
I think just having winners for each game (solo and team separately) is enough.

My suggestion would be to follow the technique used at the ESWC (Electronic Sports World Cup) (which is actually pretty similar to what it used in the olympic games or any other worldcup style competition) for example.

Offline
Joined: 2006-03-28
Well, I'll either add on

Well, I'll either add on post on my blog, or, if possible, a news in that german forum I also participate.
I'll of course emphasize that this tournament is about free games, so the common CS-player won't find his game there. ;-)

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Well, October 1st is a nice

Well, October 1st is a nice round date and if we are actively discussing and promoting the tourney in the mean time it could end up quite successful.

Although, it wouldn't be the date when we actually start the first match because there are a few more stages to go through before that, though they shouldn't last long. However, since we aren't sure how much time exactly would be needed for those stages anyway, not setting a deadline that includes those too shouldn't be a big problem. The round date is good for being remembered as a last chance for those who may want to participate to come in, but once they're in we basically internally resolve ourselves into games, times and brackets while those who aren't in are watching. Eye

KIAze wrote:

Eventually you could send an e-mail reminder.

Yes, agreed.

KIAze wrote:

This also makes me think that adding ads for tournaments inside a game could be good (cf battle.net).

You mean add an ad in those virtual worlds? I'm not sure how to do that and I don't even play those... (I don't think GNU/Linux even has proper clients). Of course if there's really a way to do this there without paying a subscription fee I'd be willing to do it from Windows, for the sake of our cause it should be worth it I suppose. Eye

KIAze wrote:

My only FOSS multiplayer experience so far has been Wesnoth and having a little message notifying you about a tournament when you log on to a server would really be great. Eye

I think you have to own the server to put such messages in, unless you can and are allowed to put a bot inside the main lounge that notifies people who come in of the tournament. Laughing out loud

But anyway, you planted a seed here. I should dig for ways to promote the tourney *in-game* as well. It actually crossed my mind to.. like come playing a quick match with someone and then just casually bring up a tourney. :-P Didn't do it yet though.

KIAze wrote:

We could do that, but since not all players play the same amount of games, it gets a little complicated...
I think just having winners for each game (solo and team separately) is enough.

Good point.

KIAze wrote:

My suggestion would be to follow the technique used at the ESWC (Electronic Sports World Cup) (which is actually pretty similar to what it used in the olympic games or any other worldcup style competition) for example.

I'll look into that.

Thanks for your suggestions!

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
That would be great.

That would be great. Thanks. Smiling

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
Note: This is a bit

Note: This is a bit off-topic. Eye

About the ingame ads I was talking about:
Yes, it can only be done by the server I think. But Blizzard owns the battle.net servers. ^^
They use it to announce tournaments, advertise their other games like World of Warcraft, etc.
It isn't really a problem since it's not really ingame. It's only a banner in the chatrooms, or a simple announcement message when joining the chat.

This could eventually even be a way for FOSS games to make money, who knows? Or simply advertise other FOSS games.

Concerning GNU/Linux gaming clients (or whatever it's called), I found this not so long ago: Free Gaming System

Quote:

The FGS is a software suite designed to gather scores from multiplayer games and centralize them on a community website. The project's goal is to offer gamer ranking and to facilitate tournament organisation.

This isn't related to the current tournament, but I think those are the kind of things needed to develop a good gaming community.

I haven't played a lot of multiplayer games over the net, but I really like the battle.net system with its ladder, automatic matching system, clans, etc. Custom maps are also what make Warcraft 3 so popular, since they are the equivalents of mods for FPS games (ex: DotA).

P.S: And this now reminds me of another great Free RTS with mods: TA Spring. Smiling
Only tried it once, but will definitely have to try it again as soon as I can.

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Thanks a lot for the tips.

Thanks a lot for the tips. I'll check out FGS, sounds quite interesting. About ads on battle.net, if those are payed for I'm not sure we'll be able to afford it, but we'll see..

Btw, heard of TA Springs.. it looks great and appears to be Free Software, but I gotta check that. However I think it didn't work on my box. Gotta keep in mind my card is using experimental free 3D drivers right now... but I suppose situation with ATI should be improving soon (though not soon enough for the tourney).

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
Well, I wasn't thinking

Well, I wasn't thinking about paying Blizzard to advertise this tournament, I just mentioned this because I think it would be interesting to implement such a feature in Wesnoth for example. ^^'

I tried compiling FGS today, but I got some errors (backend.h:92: error: ‘xmlrpc_env’ does not name a type), so I gave up.
Their last svn submit was one year ago (2006-08-05). Sad

But I discovered another similar project which works and is even in the repositories:
GGZ Gaming Zone.
(found it when I installed "Widelands".)

It has a chat room for every supported game, a main chatroom and bots.
I haven't found out how to register yet, but creating teams is very easy (careful "create team" window pops up behind previous window).

Most of the games there are board and card games, so it might be useful for those kinds of games eventually.

Other than that I tested Openarena and it works well on my PC, so that's one less thing I have to worry about. Smiling
I also tested Flightgear but it crashed because it failed to load some Glut_cursor. :/
Globulation works well in windows, haven't tested it yet on Ubuntu, but the compilation is running well so far. ^^
I first tried TA: spring on Windows a long time ago, so it should at least work there.
I'll have more time in October to try the different games.

edit:
Globulation2 installed and started well and then Segmentation fault as soon as I pressed space in the tutorial. Sad
Maybe I should try the old .deb that's on their site.
Game versions will also be a source of problems for this tournament eventually.
I know for sure that's it's a problem in Wesnoth for example.
We will have to make sure everybody uses the same version.

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
I'm installing GGZ and am

I'm installing GGZ and am gonna explore it a bit. Thanks for the suggestion.

About everyone having to have the same version, I agree, so we should pick a version for each game which is most likely for everyone to have and most easily available. I think this shouldn't be a big deal, but of course, a bit of coordination will be necessary.

Stay tuned. Eye

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
Ok, not that I'm fully

Ok, not that I'm fully ready yet for the tournament, but my Ubuntu is working correctly again so I would like to try out some new games online.

Is there any IRC channel where I can find you guys?
I have tried playing netpanzer and tremulous online, but had problems getting servers.
As for BZFlag, I couldn't get into any server except as spectator.

Ideal timeframe for me is currently 23:00-02:00 UTC.

free-zombie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-03-08
see

see http://www.nuxified.org/nuxified_irc . Most of us are on #tuxhacker and #libervis (the latter being better for nuxified-specific stuff)

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Yep, as free-zombie said.

Yep, as free-zombie said. Also if you want to meet cluenet people they are on irc.cluenet.org #clueirc or #fun.

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
Season games to warm things up

On #tuxproject irc, an idea came up to possibly have a season that leads to the tournament. This might be a better way for newbies to get their feet wet. It might be less intimidating to join a game here or there that some team is participating in.

Teams that have openings can advertise and can help a newbie take the baby steps necessary to get up to speed. A season also provides the potential for many stats, which is something that can be interesting and help build further interest. The season can also provide better placement in the brackets (eg, strongest team matches weakest team). If a season is done, there are some issues to consider like cut-off dates for accepting team members etc. We can even do trades for gold pieces or something.

Finally, a separate idea is that doing vids for the games can help sell upcoming tournaments. The clips put online recently to announce the tournament were interesting to me (motivated me to solve the problem keeping the video card I bought on the self gathering dust).

I am not interested/ready for this tournament, but I would probably spare some time to participate in games here and there (which might encourage me more).

Should I have posted elsewhere?

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
You posted in the right

You posted in the right place.

That's an interesting idea and I like it. It certainly makes sense to have some preparing in gaming itself and not just the technical and organizational details. For this we need to have servers up and public and some decisions regarding teams already made.

But it may be easier to get that started if we already let people actively participate in games even before the official matches. This might provoke more feedback from those who are interested based on which we can mold the gamefest.

I'll certainly give this some thought. I'd be interesting in seeing what others think of the idea as well and would anyone be willing to participate in such preparations?

Thank you for suggesting. Smiling

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
Stats and help could play a future

If the decision is made to move in this direction, I should be able to help, but since I am busy, I won't try to sell the idea any further (at this time). I am working on other ideas that would add depth to a game "fest", and seasons would be just one more item on the plate. [It currently has less priority than other subprojects but I could bump it up.]

I may not get back to this thread, but I do keep up with Tux Project.

http://thetuxproject.com/node/175
http://thetuxproject.com/node/183

Before going, I'll mention that I think an important motivation to have seasons is to make it easier for newbies to sample the goods, but there are other ways to achieve this. What should not be overlooked is that statistics can be as extensive as our imaginations, and I think these would draw *real* attention if they are fancy, diverse, and extensive. You would have webpages and searching tools dedicated to this, and you would have nice art. The more stats, the more people there will be able to get some form of recognition. The recognition can be formalized further for added effect (ie, follow up on the fact that X, Y, and Z got such and such a stat/score/rank). [A season+tournament provides more opportunities for stats and for participation than does a tournament by itself.]

Also, some further interesting projects would open up where we would hack into the games so that they can automatically spit out the stats we want or maybe do something with them. Even a simple hack could add some spice to the events.

And another thing, we could even dedicate a certain hack to winners. Perhaps attribute some game art to them. For example, their pic can appear in the game on a wanted poster or as an icon, or maybe they will have other suggestions (like advertizing their business or leaving some other mark behind). The art (or whatever) might not be included in the official download site unless we convinced the project owners, which we might be able to do if we convince them the gimmick would help draw attention to their game.

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Before the next and final

Before the next and final promotional blitz the plan is to have everything that can be finished be done. This obviously still excludes a few things though:

- Final number of players and their separation into game slots and teams
- Schedules of first matches.
- Final list of games included.

The reason is simply because these things depend on the players yet to register, not just players already registered.

However, one thing is for sure. We will have the new registrations deadline, a finished website (from design to promotional materials to all the essential content), A finished web shop, game servers of most likely included games ready for testing.

And then what? Well I've been drafting a roadmap that I want to release on the gamefest site as a solid reference point for everyone interested. I'm not releasing it just yet before I am absolutely certain on the details. But here it is:

  • 1. Preparation stage - finalizing the website and a web shop, preparing servers for most popular games, initial discussions etc.
  • 2. Final promotional blitz - opening the website (with ALL necessary information), webshop, sending to all news, setting registrations deadline.
  • 3. Practice matches - at this point we have an official list of games accepted, schedule and execute practice matches with all participating members, to get to know the fellow combatants
  • 4. Create teams, brackets and schedule the official matches.
  • 5. Execute the matches as they are being scheduled, taking demo recordings
  • 6. Once all rounds are over, proclaim the winners and their prizes

To be honest I don't foresee much changing to this plan. Right now I think this does make sense, but I'd have to talk with Tux Project people and well, if anyone of you has something to add hear you out, to solidify this.

What is tricky here is still the lack of an official date that can be counted as a start of the gamefest. If it is not the deadline of registrations then it can only be the start of a first match.. Will that then be the first practice match or the first official match. And still, this wouldn't be decided until after the registrations deadline.

So perhaps this deadline could be marked as the official beginning of the festival which would then in essence consist of two basic parts: practice and official matches. In the first one we basically get to know fellow gamers better and start forming teams and ironing out the last details regarding some issues like which servers to use in particular match (when we have a choice between US and EU servers) etc. Then the second part would consist of simultaneously scheduling and executing officially accountable matches per the brackets set previously, until all brackets have been finished and the winners become obvious.

After that the finalization of the gamefest would consist of proclaiming the winners and their prizes (upon which they would be sent out to them). Then comes a post-gamefest time in which we would be releasing video recordings of matches from the gamefest as a teaser for the Freedomware Gamefest 2008.

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
Brackets; deadlines; season play; play-by-play; latecomers; etc

I have been wondering about what bracket system will be used and how it will be filled. Single elimination doesn't seem to be too worthwhile to me if:
-- we aren't pressed for time
-- costs per match are minimal
-- participants really want to participate as much as possible
-- the number of participants is manageable

World cup soccer (futball) groups countries together and has them play against every other one in the group. Afterwards they do single elimination. This is sort of like having a mini season and then having the winners of the various divisions meet in single elimination.

US college basketball has much longer season play followed by single elimination. Ditto for NBA, NFL, MLB, etc.

In all of these cases, the season play helps narrow the selection (and accumulate stats and grab money from fans and build a following) as well as provide placement in the play-off/tournament where the best season team is rewarded by going against those perfoming the worst. The idea is to have the fruits of the season provide some sort of statistical advantage to what is a single elimination bout.

My vote...

I think we should have a mini-season. Maybe practice play will comprise that. Then we do no less than double elimination. Double elimination is very doable with something like 20 teams. There is a winners' bracket where only those that continue to win stay, and there is a losers' bracket where the earlier you lose the more games you have to play. A drawback to this setup (and why I like some season type of play first) is that those that lose earliest have the most work cut out for them (they end up *almost* having to play and beat everyone else without losing once). This makes sense, but it does mean that those losing early potentially play a lot more games than those that don't. This means we are giving more play time to those that lose early. Anyway, this isn't that big a deal, but people should be aware of it. [On average, this is not an issue, but I have seen early losers play more than twice as many games as the ultimate winner and several times more games than most everyone else.]

If practice play comprises the "season" then we have a way to finalize deadlines. Say that we cluster teams first, then we can do a round to make sure everyone plays everyone else in that cluster once (or maybe twice or more). Finally, we take the top winners from each cluster. What ends up happening is that the fest can get underway with the clock ticking. Latecomers can enter but they eventually inherit loses. So we have a way to push this forward without completely eliminating anyone (unless they miss too many games).

We can even have unofficial practice where for a week prior to practice/season play; the servers are open and a certain block of time is **suggested** as a meeting time so that most show up around the same time and have others to play.

A small clinic prior to this week can be held to help newbies get hooked up and resolve issues without having all practice sessions disappear before their eyes.

With all of this in mind and the various "chances" people and teams are being given, we can take the important step of setting some firm deadlines, including setting up some matchups (after the practice week though). The other great thing about this would be that we can even accept those that register late (see below for more details.. see "slot").

We should develop a policy towards teams that break up or abandon the tournament/season. Generally, their games would continue to be scheduled with the opposing team/player getting a win just for showing up. Also, by doing it game at a time, a team that disbands has a chance to pick up more players or get back together to try and salvage the season or at least enjoy a few more games. Another issue might be that when it is clear that some players are very good, other teams may want to woo them. Will we allow switching teams at the last minute? Will tournament play allow any team switching? Allowing it allows ugly situations to get salvaged to keep the tournament interesting and nontrivial. The problem is that teams that stick together and work together and have diverse talent will call foul if a super team of pick up players whose teams lost throughout ends up meeting then in the final rounds. So we should strike a balance like allowing pick ups for a while but not towards the end. Only so long as most teams are still in the running, not when only few teams are left, etc.

Another thing to consider is to have special games. One example is all-star play. Another is a small number of matchups among a small number of teams selected completely randomly or based on something silly (like alphabetical ordering). Random teams offers another way to mix talent so that one group doesn't dominate completely and so that weak players get opportunities (a potluck). It also allows for some interesting strategy and even cases where team members fight each other.

As long as it is fun, it will be a success I think.

We may also want to have an official policy on missing deadlines (the cat chewed up the broadband connection). Maybe we give one chance for rescheduling. We may also allow for a 15 minute window to check in. Maybe allow for scheduling conflicts (ie, schedule aggressively, but when a conflict occurs, simply reschedule).

We also have to consider what should be done for teams that are short on players (this may depend on the particular game).

Then we have to consider how scheduling will occur across the various games. What I mean is we may want to start with a subset of the games and then introduce the other games later. This is one more tool where latecomers to the tournament may still be able to start fresh with a game whose schedule hasn't begun (a bit like the Olympics where many different types of sport matches occur but not all sports start on day one).

If we stretch this out (eg, a month or month and a half), we can feed a steady stream of updates/summaries so as to encourage latecomers. If we vid most matches, we can post them online as well as the win/loss talies that have been accumulating. This may attract some more to play. It will also help brand the tournament as being something the participants care about and put work into. [Dividende would be payed out in future tournaments].

Having a lot of vid allows for highlight reels (for the day/week/full fest).

To help move this forward, we might want to put a tentative set of deadlines and schedule for the fest. As the days pass we can make changes or make them official. We need to allow time for people that have wondered off to get back in touch (it would help if we have something close to being final and detailed to present). Announce once many of these details or others are ready and there is a registration form online.

Registration deadline can be when the randomizers picks positions on the bracket (or season or practice) and/or random teams are chosen. To allow for latecomers, we may add in ten extra spots and then just pretend they are inhabited. As the games come and go, the imaginary spots accumulate loses (if single elim, they are out). This doesn't present any real problems for the rest. For example, if season play, everyone gets a win against spot 30 when spot 30 is the opponent, so all is fair (well, if team 30 falls into your group). If single/double elimination tournament, then you spread the empty slots out to match them with a filled slot resulting in an auto win for the other slot on day one, but effectively allowing another opportunity for latecomers (if double elim). Clearly, the season format is the nicer one in terms of giving latecomers chances.

I can help set up the numbers and such (we may want to vote), but we need to know the details of the format. The easiest thing to handle would be single elim, so I can give more specific input if you want that. For double elim, you should be able to find sample brackets online. For season and anything more complex, I can also help set that up.

Certainly we should get this moving with some games happening no later than say October 20??

[It may seem like I am pushing having seasons, but I simply wanted to give it another chance to be discussed. It may be too complicated for this tournament.. It all depends on what those posting want. Do you want to add a bunch of polls to help decide these questions? And I apologize if some of these details have already been finalized. I haven't kept up from the beginning and am judging by the parent comment.]

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
maybe a no-show

Sorry for the prior long post. Mostly I talk about single vs double elimination. Pros and cons of having practice sessions and/or a season prior to the tournament.

I am going to sign up (if I can figure out where), but I have not played any of these games so I may be a no-show. It all depends on what time I find to try out the games and get things sorted.

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
The short version

I'll try and condense what I think are the more important points of the long post done earlier. I'll also add new details.

Play some season games. This gives an opportunity for those getting motivated late to join in without having lost all chances of winning the tournament (though they would be handicapped if they show up after games have been forfeited). We can allow for late arrivals by creating empty slots in the season. These slots provide an automatic win if the slot is not filled and the opposition simply shows up. If participants come in and join late, they pick up one of the empty slots and with it pick up the loses that have accrued with these slots. In this way we can manage late registrations in a fair way while getting things going soon. Also, season play provides time for players to get used to the games and the setup and to jockey for better placement in the tournament.

The tournaments would be held towards the end of the fest (fest to last several weeks perhaps). The season play might be used as qualifiers and for placement in the brackets. The tournament might be double elimination.

All of this will take some time to play out per game. There will be many games where this can apply. So all of this time duration provides another opportunity. We can do something like Olypics coverage. This can be interesting to those that have not (yet) joined. We can show highlight films, discuss interesting events, give any other news, show the medal counts or points being racked by the leaders in points, etc. We can also stage the different games a bit so that some games may not start until one or more weeks into the fest, allowing slightly late newcomers to at least have a few games left where they would not have forfeited matches.

It might also be a good idea to give as a trophy to the winner, the ability to put some artwork of his/her choice (but tactful) into the game won. This would require the cooperation of the game project devs to make it worthwhile.

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Wow big posts Jose. Well,

Wow big posts Jose. Smiling Well, the practice matches that I put in the roadmap were inspired by your seasons idea. I just relegated that to practice matches without much explaining on what could those exactly be (in my mind it was at first just a bunch of free for alls among the registered players), but in your posts you lay out some of the ways it could be done.. perhaps having practice matches mirror the final tournament with the exception of not being relevant in terms of winning, but in terms of forming teams that make best sense.

I'll admit though your posts are a bit overwhelming right now.. But talking in simple terms; single vs double elimination: yes, double elimination is the way to go especially when there aren't many players. The reason is, of course, that with a small number of players single elimination would simply finish off too fast. Smiling

About seasons, my answer to that is roughly "yes" as well, but not yet entirely sure how. I just know this would essentially be the practice sessions.

Then there is a third idea (or a variation) you seem to be proposing: accepting new registrations even after the registrations deadline for "imaginary" team slots. I think that's a bit tricky though.. I guess I'm just not confident enough we'll at this point have enough demand to warrant having such blank spots.

However, accepting registrations for game slots that haven't been started yet does make sense. For example, we can kick of the matches with Nexuiz and Tremulous and perhaps OpenArena, but we're still having a shortage of players for BZFlag, Wesnoth and Armagetron, not to mention other games. So, once the registrations deadline is hit, and these games don't have enough players to warrant having any matches.. we could say that registrations for those games are still accepted. Once a critical amount of players for a particular game is reached that game slot will be started too.

So.. bottom line:

- We'll have practice sessions, but need to define their structure.
- Double elimination is preferred to single elimination.
- Late registrations would be accepted at least for games that don't yet have enough players. Accepting them for games that already started by allowing "blank teams" is to be considered.
- A system of scheduling, if one is needed, is yet to be determined, but the current default option is to simply try to come to a consolidation with players that must be involved in a match so that the time chosen is, ideally, suitable for all of them - inducing their promise to show up and require them to show up with a penalization to them or their team if they don't.

Opinions are always welcome, from any player and anyone interested in this gamefest.

Cheers

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
An example of how a season+tournament might take shape

Sample scenario for a particular game:

30 players + 10 initially empty slots = 40 slots

Split 40 into 5 groups of 8. In each group, each player plays every other so each player plays 7 games during the season/qualifier round and the total number of games per group is 28. This means the total number of season/qualifier games will be 140 (wow, that's a lot -- but this is a hypothetical).

We draw up a schedule. The important element in the schedule is the order. There is no time given (see below for explanation).

20 qualify for a double elimination tournament: the top 3 of each group plus 5 with the overall next best records.

Season games are mostly scheduled to the convenience of all players. Some players may not have much time and may want to play 3 or more games in one day. The only requirement to avoid a forfeit is that you remain ahead of the hypothetical "pace" player. This hypothetical player plays one game every 2 days. This means that anyone that hasn't played 1 game by the end of the second day, 2 games by the end of the 4th day, 3 games by the end of the 6th day, etc. loses enough games so as to be even with the pace player. In this way, if we get one late entry on the 5th day. That player takes up slot 31, inherits 2 losses, and has 1 day remaining to play at least one game or that one also becomes a loss. The two losses mean there were two wins awarded. The two that got the win were the first two opponents (as per the schedule) against slot 31 (in whatever group slot 31 fell into). This pattern applies to any that come late or that fail to play enough games to keep up with the pace player. You may even find that one player plays all 7 games on the first day and doesn't have anything more to worry about. We may want to make an exception to the pace player rule if difficult circumstances kept a required game from being played or from being substituted ahead of the pace player (see next paragraph for substitutions/exchanges). Generally, we can make any exceptions, but those that may be affected negatively (perhaps all the other players in the group, if they benefit from a loss in this case) should be in agreement. also, if everyone wants to play and play, we would have to adjust things. Perhaps we might do two rounds (14 games per player, 56 per group, 280 total) or more if people really want to play that much.

Players can play out of order if the opponent due next and another one agree to exchange their order. Example, Slot 1 (P1) wants to play as many games as possible today. P1 is scheduled to play P2, P3, P4, P5 in that order. P3 doesn't want to play against P1 today but is willing to trade with P5. This means P1 can play P2, P5, P4 in that order, today. Meanwhile P3 will be due to play P1 as P1's 4th game and P3's 4th game. This may not happen until several days later. P1 has to wait or ask P3 to trade with the remaining opponents. At any point P3 can refuse to trade. It may be that P1, no matter how much in a hurry, may end up having to wait approximately 2 days per game because none of P1's opponents want to play ahead of time. .. Well, that is theory. We can modify it. .. Also, let's not make it difficult for the opponents to refuse. They should not be pressured to break with the schedule/pace. ..well, whatever people want. I don't know how competitive this will get.

[Who certifies the game result, when, and how?]

The tournament is held only after all 140 games have been played, unless the remaining unplayed games are voluntarily forfeited ahead of time by either of the players for each of those remaining games. Also, we deal with sudden death tie-breakers prior to the tournament beginning so as to end up with an even 20 qualified players. The tournament is held with games one after the other. Unlike the season, the play-offs will require stamina. This means that those losing early will have to run a marathon until they lose their second game and exit the tournament.

The final or few final matches may be done at a slower pace to try to make it competitive and interesting for the participants and for the spectators (give players in loser's bracket a breather).

This process is repeated for all games in the tournament but games don't all start at the beginning. Some start on week 2 or even week 3.

We try to do something like Olympics daily coverage or at least have a summary at the end of each day if possible.

We keep the website updated with results, win/loss stats, schedules, updates on interesting events that transpired, and hot action going on.

Periodically we blog or try to get more attention from the community.

We post all highlights to youtube as early as possible.

**********

I think this is a realistic scenario, except that 140 total matches for each multiplayer game in the fest *may* be impractical. If we like the overall format (after tweaking it) or not, we can still use the idea of breaking into groups for season play but adjust the numbers to make the fest manageable. Note that if we don't break into groups and allow all 40 players to play everyone else, we end up with 780 games; generally the more groups, the less total games. Also note that I am including the 10 initially empty slots. We can do away with slots altogether (and disallow latecomers or find a different solution) or we can trim it down (or increase it above 10).

We need to plan for various individuals to play a supporting role to keep the tournament running smoothly and the highlights coming in timely. [I should be able to help out periodically.]

Reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-elimination_tournament

Oh, and we might want to still have some quasi-official (sanctioned) practice games a few days (or more) before everything starts to iron out wrinkles and have people stretch their fingers. If we take the practices seriously (eg, do video, etc), we can find and deal with issues then and build material to produce a last call announcement. That announcement should assume all information given is final (but make it clear that there is still time to join). We should have a schedule and all details that can be determined, determined. The announcement can probably be made 24 hrs before the official start of the tournament. Make sure to make it clear how someone coming in late can get a hold of us to register and get set up for action. In explaining the format, use examples so that anyone coming in late knows what to expect.

I would change one thing from the example above: have late-comers fall into an empty slot randomly, otherwise they might try to time their arrival to get a nicer slot.. or maybe we can forget about that. Heck they might be willing to invite a friend to register ahead of them so they can get a better slot (that would be fine with us I suppose).

We also have to keep in mind recognition/trophy. It may remain partially a mystery, but this provides yet another item that may attract people.

During the daily announcements/highlights, have a section that quickly updates the situation for any that might be coming in late. For example "Game X still has 3 slots remaining, each with 2 accumulated losses out of 7 total games. There is still time for this one folks. We've seen people pull off 5 consecutive victories before, and probably only 3 or 4 would be needed to qualify.... Game Y will be starting tomorrow. Lot's of dark bloody clouds expected for that one (but no losses) .. Game Z is wrapping up season play. Join if you want to have 2 games of fun, but you have ABSOLUTELY no chance with this one. Man, game Z had a hot season! The tournament for Z, which should begin in about a week, is definitely up for grabs...."

Well, what do you people think?

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
There is a flaw in the

There is a flaw in the example given when explaining substitions (P1, P3, P5, etc). I was only trying to hash out the basic idea so didn't follow through on all ramifications. The mistake is that after the trade with P5, P3 now has two games schedules as game #4. To iron everything out can be tricky. I was just trying to make as many things as I could concrete to facilitate the discussion and to address as many items as possible.

Anyway, this is not a big deal. Informally, everything should work out as people will probably not be too difficult. The main point of that section was to provide a base for how the "pace" player would be used. It's main use is to keep things moving along and to have a mechanism that is at least somewhat fair for allowing late arrivals to enter the tournament (with some penalized loses depending on how late they are). P1, P3, P5 and anyone else that would be involved will probably find a solution. And why penalize late arrivals? Well, imagine anyone coming in at any time. We may or may not be able to accommodate. Someone with a good record up to that point might even object. I mean at some point it has to be too late to join. With the pace player, that point was reached fairly naturally I thought. And importantly, the rules would have been established ahead of time to limit claims of foul play. When rules are known, people usually accept the outcome and get over it. We want people to enjoy themselves and not feel cheated out of their fair shot at the big prize.

We may not even go with the pace player, especially if everyone wants to play most of their games quickly and then do more rounds of game play. Alternatively, the games may need to be further spaced out.

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Alright, I am leaning

Alright, I am leaning towards a system that would allow late joining of players now and I am definitely for qualification games.

However, it may be that I have trouble concentrating, but all of this seems maybe a little bit too complex and I think we should strive to keep things as simple as possible to understand to avoid people coming in with wrong assumptions, which helps keep the integrity of the system at the highest level.

Another thing, which is somewhat related, is the assumed number of players per game. As thing stand it is hardly going to be 30 players as you initially stated which means we'd have less than 140 games etc. Less players also detracts from the complexity necessary to manage them.

So.. I'll try to go through the system you laid down with the current number of players signed up for Nexuiz, which is 14, rounded up to 15, with some possible modifications. We split 15 players to 5 groups of 3 players and add one empty slot to each group, hence 5 empty slots.

- Full slots: 15
- Empty Slots: 5
- Total: 20
- Groups: 5
- Number of players per group: 3 real + 1 empty = 4

Then every player plays with other player in the group, as you stated. 1 plays with 2 and 3 and instantly wins against 4 if the spot doesn't get filled in the mean time. Same thing for player 2 and 3.

Ultimately the number of wins determines the overall group winners. It's a low number of wins per group, indeed, but we can take the best two.. basically only 1 gets eliminated per group. That leaves us with 10 players qualified to proceed.

Hmm not a big number is it? Note that of those ten there could be up to 5 empty player slots, meaning we basically have only 5 real players competing in the actual tournament.

As for scheduling, it's easier to schedule the smaller number of players, but I think your system could work.. Or we could simply ask them when they are available and schedule games accordingly. If they miss out, they lose the game and that's it..

Anyway, I think it is evident that it would be good if we could have more players. Otherwise it seems that qualifications would lose much of their sense. They would just trim the number of players in the actual tourney. If there is a low number of players it may make more sense to use these pre-tourney matches not as qualifications, but mere warm ups.

Anyway, I'll have to think of it more. I would also love to hear more feedback from others!

Cheers

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
Some new numbers; plus I'm asking for ranges and any other input

>> Hmm not a big number is it? Note that of those ten there could be up to 5 empty player slots, meaning we basically have only 5 real players competing in the actual tournament.

Not a realistic possibility. Is only possible if 5 of the real players failed to win, which only happens if they forfeited their freebie win.. essentially, this case will never happen unless 5 of the real players were effective no-shows.

>> Or we could simply ask them when they are available and schedule games accordingly. If they miss out, they lose the game and that's it.

That is the general idea, especially for small groups. I'll repeat, the main reason I added some complexity and the "pace" player was as a way we might manage having late arrivals join in the action (read my last reply -- the relatively short one). If we only have 3 games per player for the season play, arriving late is almost worthless unless you then allow that participant to make up the games [all is reasonable; it's whatever the current participants think is worthwhile].

I think you followed well, but I wouldn't split a small sample into 5 groups because as you show, it means players only go against 2 others (sure, it's only the qualifiers). If you get less groups so that they are larger in size, it might be more interesting for the players. Just a suggestion. I'm not convinced, but I lean towards fewer groups with larger numbers. Figure out the groups in a way so that players go up against a handful or more other players if possible (to get variety).

For a small number of players, we might adjust the tournament format a bit. Say we start with 15. An option is to qualify all 15 (or maybe 12), but make it difficult for those that ranked low to make it to the finals. I saw a bowling finals one time (maybe more than once, but...). I remember that the #5 rank had to face #4 rank. The winner faces #3 rank, etc. This only makes sense if the top players' record really stand out (ie, 3-0 is not it) and if they had a season that was long enough for them to enjoy playing many games. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to penalize the winners by limiting how many games they play (in bowling, there is a lot of money at stake and these people bowl every day, so I don't think they mind).

So, how about this, 15 starting players divides into 3 groups of 6 (including the 3 extra slot). Then, depending on time constraints (I am not familiar with how long a single game/match takes), you do one round or maybe two (or maybe three). With two rounds, each player in a group meets the other 5 twice. That is ten games, implying a range from 10-0 down to 0-10. This record is more interesting. Ten games is more interesting than three. And at least you play five other players instead of only 3 others. Total number of games, two rounds of three groups of six players: 2 x 3 x (6x5/2) = 90 total matches (45 for one round and 135 for three rounds). If we do one round of five groups of three players, we have 1 x 5 x (3x2/2) = 15 total games (30 for 2 rounds; 45 for 3 rounds).

Anyway, if we get a large enough season play, we can do various things. We might for example make players that qualify in the lower 5 spots (assuming 10 qualify) be restricted to single elimination while the upper 5 get double. Further, the first round action would match #1 with #10, #2 with #9 .... So at any point that a top five loses, s/he goes to a loser's bracket to await another top five player to lose. Any bottom 5 player that loses simply goes home.

There are many possibilities. I have no problem continuing to make suggestions. Just give me a clue of what sort of things you (people) like.

We can present a poll with a few potential schedule setups and have the participants decide for themselves just before they start playing (maybe do a weighted poll of some sort).

BTW, I always try to double check by counting on my fingers, calculator, or listing things out (yes), but I do have some experience with combinatorics (combina-what?). An example of 6 players playing each other once means that you have 5+4+3+2+1 total games (or 6*5/2), ie 15. One way to see this is as follows: our goal is to count up all possible matches. We don't want to miss anything and we don't want to count anything more than once. At the beginning of counting (at 0), we pick any player (P1) and we can mark 5 distinct games that player will play. In fact, this covers all games P1 will play. Let's pick another: P2. P2 has five games. 4 of them have not been counted yet; it's the game against P1 that we did count so we don't want to count it twice. Now we have 5+4 games counted and we have covered every game P1 or P2 will play. Anyway, keep doing this to get 5+4+3+2+1. You end up only counting matches against the higher numbered player because the lower numbered player already counted your match with that player. The other main way to see this is as 6*5/2. There are 6 players. Each of these players plays five games (6-1). That count (30) covers every game to be played. Unfortunately, it counted some games twice. P1 vs P2 was accounted for when I said that 6 players (ie, including P1) played 5 games. But it was also counted when I said 6 players (ie, including P2) played 5 games. P2 vs P1 is the same as P1 vs P2. Anyway, I'll let you rack your head, but the point is that 6 times 5 counts every games exactly twice. The total number is half of 30 = 15. If we want to know how many ways we can match up 8 players, we calculate 8 times 7 divided by 2 = 28. Also, doing multiple rounds is just like doing the addition another time and adding that to the running total. So 3 rounds for the 8 player case would be 28 plus 28 plus 28 = 84.

OK. So let me know what other strategy you think might work. We can really so some funky pairings. What we need to know is to have a vague idea of how many games we want each player to play to qualify. We would like to maximize the opportunities for all players to play each other. The more groups we have, each player will only match up with a small number of the total participants (I would think that maximizing variety would be good). Finally, we need to have an idea of how many total games will be played. The more servers available, the more can be played in parallel (up to a certain point). Also think of any funkiness you might want in the tournament play.

OK, with some estimates (ranges), we can deduce a few options and then let the players vote.

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
Trophy option #1

I want to take a good mean look within the source for some of these FPS games to see how we can modify the scenery files to add in something like an avatar or other symbol. Maybe we can create or find some hallway or building wall and start to poster it with First (Bi)Annual Freedomware-gamefest [game X] Winner. Or maybe "wanted dead or alive: ... " or have a special "boss" wear the symbol/pic .. maybe as a face.

Anyway, the specifics can come later. I am curious how this might be done. If you get word, know, or figure it out, let me know. I might look into this for all the games.

So to be clear: I am going to try and find how the game(s) used in the tournament can have its data files changed to add our own images in specific/strategic locations.

We can then sell the idea to the project owner. If we are tactful and not too intrusive, I would imagine the project lead/owner would let this be..

I think this idea can become a major player magnet in future fests (assuming the fest works out and is fun). We just have to try and build on successes because size attracts more (positive feedback -- snowball effect -- gravity clustering.. whatever). You see, anyone can crack open these files and put their vanity pics inside, but only the nuxified/cluenet (bi)annual freedomware-gamefest sanctioned graffiti gets put inside a huge number of distros.

I will admit that it would be a bigger deal for a popular (proprietary) game to offer this to contestants.. but hey, we take what we can get.. we are growing our brand.. maximizing use of our resources.. positioning ourselves to become "the" game in town.. They aren't doing it, but we are. They may be popular, but can they get you exposure on millions of CDs? I think there are more distros circulating than copies of almost any single game out there (mainly because of our cost advantage).

I'll keep you posted. An official game dev may know the answer to this in his/her sleep, but I'm not the type to ask. [I might if time seems to be running out.]

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Jose wrote: So, how about
Jose wrote:

So, how about this, 15 starting players divides into 3 groups of 6 (including the 3 extra slot). Then, depending on time constraints (I am not familiar with how long a single game/match takes), you do one round or maybe two (or maybe three). With two rounds, each player in a group meets the other 5 twice. That is ten games, implying a range from 10-0 down to 0-10. This record is more interesting. Ten games is more interesting than three. And at least you play five other players instead of only 3 others. Total number of games, two rounds of three groups of six players: 2 x 3 x (6x5/2) = 90 total matches (45 for one round and 135 for three rounds).

This sounds good to me. I would go with two rounds just not to overstress, but if players would be willing 3 rounds would be good too.

As the rounds are played we would just have to keep track of the number of wins of each player and then rank them on that basis. Then, who is qualified and who disqualified? We could use some sort of a rule for that which would apply regardless of the number of players. We could say a third of all players, the weakest ones, is out. So out of 15, 10 are qualified. Out of 30, 20 are qualified etc.

We can adjust this according to player's consensus.

Now as for funky business.. one risk with that is adding complexity, but we could try something. Basically there are two ways we could go about the actual tournament after the qualifications. One is to consider the results of qualifications and the other is to start over cleanly with the qualified players.

The latter is simpler, but the former could be more interesting. You already proposed one way this could be done, the bottom half into the single elimination and the upper half into the double elimination. This could make sense, but could also end up being a way to weed out the weak as quickly as possible. Sticking out tongue So maybe putting them all into the double elimination bracket could be a way to give them all a second chance. Smiling

I guess these are the sorts of things we should simply vote on. I don't have any special ideas right now.. and frankly I don't want to add to complexity. A few simple options to choose from should be enough and then let the people choose the preferred way or perhaps even propose an alternative.

On another thought I think funkiness could make more sense for the qualifications than the tourney itself. Once the standard rounds are over we arrange for some special matches with something to win or lose. Those could be a certain amount of points. In fact we could let the players pairing up have a bet at a certain amount of points they accumulated. Who loses, loses that amount of points and therefore potentially their place in the tourney while the winner gains only one point (for it to be fair to others). But I'm not sure... if we do special matches they should apply to everyone or to a certain portion of qualified members.

Perhaps members that end up standing to be disqualified could be given one challenge where they could challenge one of the qualified members, who is willing to accept the challenge, for a certain number of points. If a challenge is won, the one being challenged loses those points and if not having enough then to still stand qualified (be in the top two thirds) (s)he is disqualified. Sticking out tongue

Anyway, we should put up some suggestions in a concise and readable manner for people to comment on and express their preferences.

Also thanks for the heads up on those numbers. It's a devious trap to fall into counting every battle twice. Sticking out tongue

Cheers

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
Survivor Fest

>> This could make sense, but could also end up being a way to weed out the weak as quickly as possible. Sticking out tongue So maybe putting them all into the double elimination bracket could be a way to give them all a second chance.

My thinking was as follows, we make the season long enough so that everyone can play a healthy number of games no matter what kind of tournament comes at the end (eg, single elimination). However, if we want the season to carry some weight into the tournament (a matter to be voted on), we may want to find a way to reward those that did well, so I suggested that as a posible variation. It would motivate players to try and finish in the top 5. A better set of numbers might be qualify all 15 but single elimination for bottom 7.

Anyway, whatever people want. The only thing to keep in mind is that everyone has a bad game or two, so I wanted to give some sort of advantage to those that performed well throughout the season. But it's fine to do it the other way. For example, we may recognize winners during the season (with a "trophy"/points/etc). In this case, the tournament is a way to give those that had a bad season a way to make back some points and pull "classic" upsets.

Whatever people want.

>> [..special matches..] In fact we could let the players pairing up have a bet at a certain amount of points they accumulated.

Nice twist. Something in there for the gamblers inside each of us. Think that idea through (what if a player doesn't want to bet anything; how do we pair up; etc).

It's funny how you keep bringing up that complexity might best be limited, yet you can't hold back! I feel your pain. [yes, I know you are talking about the season not the tourney, still]

>> Perhaps members that end up standing to be disqualified could be given one challenge where they could challenge one of the qualified members, who is willing to accept the challenge, for a certain number of points. If a challenge is won, the one being challenged loses those points and if not having enough then to still stand qualified (be in the top two thirds) (s)he is disqualified.

LOL.

We are going to have to throw complexity-limiting "feelings" out the door.

I like these ideas. Drama is good. We might change the name of the fest to Freedomware--Survivors--Is-that-your-final-answer Fest

I'm about to post something else. I'll see if I can come up with something and add what you mentioned to the mix.

Offline
Joined: 2007-09-10
Suggested point system to encourage participation and increase t

First let me ask, which games can have teams and how large can the teams be?

Will we stick with one set of teams or will we reshuffle and redo [why? I don't know. For variety of some sort.] Each different type of team competition can serve as a whole different game "slot" (as per http://www.nuxified.org/article/freedomware_gamefest_faq ). So we might end up with 20 game slots even if we only have (eg) 8 games. Ie, some games might have several "slots" (not sure if you count each different game mode as a distinct slot).

OK, so I partially answered my question. Now on to the meat of this comment...

********

Here is an idea that may be good. I was thinking how some games might not be attractive. A reason might be because they are simply less interesting to a larger number of people. Another reason might be unfamiliarity. Another reason might be that a player is not practiced in it and doesn't want to compete to lose.

There are some tournament rules we can institute that may encourage those whose main reasons for otherwise not participating are reasons #2 and #3 (there may even be an effect for #1). We can maintain a cumulative point count across all games. Getting the most points means you want to participate as much as possible. Example, if there are 30 total participants, you may give 30-X points for each game where the participant ranks X at the end. For cases of ties (eg, there may be many such cases in an elimination tournament) we round *downwards*. If you miss a game completely you get 0 (as if you placed 30th). If you compete, you get no worse than the last place of the number that competed. So last when only 10 competed means you get no worse than 20 points. Since the number of players is unknown at the beginning but we want to maintain running totals (to add to excitement), we can just take a guess and be a little conservative (eg, use 40 as the base for 30 total participants at the beginning).

[Let me know if you didn't follow this last part above. The intent is to come up with some sort of method for keeping points (where larger points is better). We want to account for the fact that we don't know how many will ultimately participate. We want to reward those that participate in any game vs taking a pass. We want to have a system that doesn't require we wait until the very end to calculate since we want to maintain excitement by having running totals throughout the fest. .. that is the intent. How we do it is a detail.]

A variation is to do averages. We can even use both (though I suggest, just like with sports stats, that there be a minimum number of "at bats" to qualify for a prize in the average category).

Cumulative and averages can each lead to a fest trophy (like "best of show", most league RBI's in season, highest league batting average in season).

We can deal with teams points as follows. We normalize the points: if there are 5 players per team, than we first multiply the rank at the end by 5 and then do 40-X. So if 5 teams compete in a 5 player contest (this means 25 competed out of base of 40), first place can get 40-1*5=35 points. Second gets 30 points.. on down to fifth getting 15 points. All that don't compete get 0 (as if they were in the last placing team which would be 8th.. using the 40 base).

Sorry to be a little confusing. Everywhere I used 30 above to calculate points (in the first paragraph where I mention the point system), change that to 40.

The point system is a bit like a medal count at the Olympics. So we have two types of medals.

Another stat and "medal count" (which is closer to a real medal count) is to see who has how many first place finishes, second place finishes.. For commentary, we can focus on the top three spots (gold, silver, bronze) or maybe go down to five or lower.

[Update: I don't want to go back and rewrite the top part, so I'll update here. How about we allow a few freebies for those that really don't want to play certain games (or don't have time) but want to keep up their point totals. We can allow them to dump any 1, 2, or 3 game slots ahead of time and replace them with a point total that matches their overall average at the end. A similar result can be achieved by dropping the highest and lowest scores from any point totals used for a full fest competition. .. the aim here is to allow for a few bad tournaments to be discardable.. anyway, maybe not. A real all-around award or ironman award should include *everything*. Maybe we'll have multiple awards. One "adjusted" and the other "complete". Yes, I love more awards. I hope someone really wealthy is playing attention and feeling generous. It's going to take a whole month to figure out how to come up with these medals and trophies.]

******

[After reading your last reply] OK, if we allow for various other ways to risk, earn, or steal points from other players, we have to figure out which point totals are we talking about.

Each game probably has its own point system that we can also use. [help with specifics]

We may also want to have special recognition, points, etc, for various achievements during a match or tournament. I am completely open to suggestions. Are total flags or time or score or kills or ?? something we can use for this purpose?

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
I have a

I have a complexity-limiting feeling because I feel repeatedly overwhelmed by these posts.. It seems we could go on forever about various combinations and ways to do things, but at the end of the day we have to pick a few things, run them down to the community in a thread that wont scare the hell out of them with its size and make final decisions on the exact rule set and roadmap.

I think we should have a little bit of drama inducing stuff, but not too much. Smiling

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
Categories

I think it will help us think about the issues involved in a clearer way if we divide them up into clear categories and then address them as such.

So here's an attempt to categorize all the issues that we're discussing.

Registrations

We have two choices here:

  • 1. Accept registrations only till a certain deadline.
  • 2. Accept registrations even after the deadline, but using a special system to accommodate these late joins.

The former is the simplest, but the latter adds flexibility.

Included games

Nexuiz, OpenArena and Tremulous are certainly included, due to being most popular among the currently registered players. However we can allow more games to be added IF the second options in the registrations category (above) is true, because more players bring with them more votes for games not currently included, hence allowing their late inclusion in the gamefest.

Also, this involves a potential system of motivating people to choose more games to play, including those not currently popular enough. In essence, the idea would be to reward people for choosing less popular games, or simply for choosing more games.

Game slots

The initial idea was for one game slot to exist per one actual game. Nexuiz would be one slot. OpenArena would be another etc. However an alternative idea is gaining traction. We could have multiple game slots per one actual game which would match the game modes like Team Deathmatch or Capture The Flag, for games where such modes are applicable. Also one game slot could involve multiple related game slots if we decide to split like this.

So if we go for this alternative way, here are some of our options:

  • 1. Only 2 game slots per actual game: team (including CTF, Team Deathmatch and other "team based modes") and individual (including Free for All, Classic Deathmatch and other all on all or 1vs1 modes)
  • 2. One game slot per one game mode. CTF and Team Deathmatch would be separate game slots in this case rather than a part of the same team one.

Note that a game slots are basically separate tournaments running in parallel. One does not necessarily have to affect the other at all, unless we introduce a cross-game-slots system of some sort.

Seasons / Qualifications

In each game slots we would have two stages: qualifications and the final tournament. This is a seriously considered idea. In essence, qualifications would be more lax, but would result in a top list of players sorted by the number of overall points earned where one point equals one match win or some other representation of their overall success or failure within given qualification matches.

Qualifications would involve a multitude of rounds of matches through which this top list would be determined. Then disqualifying is a matter of deciding how big a portion can be qualified to enter the tournament. For example, if 15 players were in qualifications and third of them are decided to be disqualified, that would be the bottom 5 players in the list.

If we decide that ALL players will be qualified, the bottom players would receive a less favorable treatment in the tournament, as they earned. Eye

Final tournament

This is what comes after qualifications. This category involves deciding what bracket system will be used to match up qualified players - for each game slot. Brackets do not necessarily have to be the same on all game slots. They would depend on the type of game slot and number of qualified players.

Post-tournament - winner proclamations

With a multitude of game slots we would have a multitude of winners. Some may be individual players and some would be teams. Do we create a system which would in some fair way pick only one team or one person as the overall winner of the Freedomware Gamefest 2007?

Scheduling

This is basically setting the date and time of matches. We should have a consensus on how should this be done and how to deal with no-shows. In essence the idea is to schedule matches when all people that should be involved in a match are available.

Game server issues / latency

We need game servers for each game played. This in itself is not a big problem as we have Cluenet and Tremulous community so far providing their own servers. However, there is a problem of latency. It comes down to this. What to do when a match involves players from both EU and US on a server that is in US? US players will have a favorable latency whereas EU players would be at a disadvantage here.

---

So this is it. A long post, but categorized. I think that each of these categories may warrant a separate forum thread with the issue and options laid out for separate discussion. If we are really going for the complexity / flexibility of this amount, I think that would be the best way to reach final solid conclusions. Would this added complexity diminsh the fun of it? I don't really think so. It seems complex when we talk about it, but once the rules are laid out and the game slots are clear the real fun starts in the drama that will ensue as the blood starts rushing players through the infrastructure we laid out. It is made to be competitive, exciting, fun and BIG! That's the point of it.

If we do this right, we will have an incredible amount of material to build on for the Freedomware Gamefest 2008!

Comment viewing options

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