OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Tournament Survey

15 posts, 380 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  

20 days ago
(edited 20 days ago)

Please fill this out.

This is to gather feedback and possible suggestions on the next tournament to improve the user experience. I'll be attempting to maximize enjoyment and participation. I think we had a pretty nice base line for the tournament despite the mess and drop outs, etc. That said, there will definitely be a better one coming up, but I need to gather information for a date and time that maximizes participation. I'll be announcing the date and time on Sunday (Sept 9) or Monday September 10th. Please note the survey is completely anonymous and shouldn't take more than a minute or two of your time.

Thanks and have a resignful day <3

-- USrank_Shaman
+4 / -0

20 days ago
It took me 3 minutes, refund please :L
+3 / -0

19 days ago
The next flyers will be made with Inkscape in SVG format for easier resizing and storage.
+0 / -0

19 days ago
There is no option for a FFA format tournament.
+0 / -0

19 days ago
Done. Option was not selectable but was my favorite: best of 1 except silver and gold
+0 / -0

19 days ago
(edited 19 days ago)

I forgot FFA even existed. Meh, bit too late to add it into the current survey (12 respondents as of writing). I'll just throw it into the next one and use that as an actual baseline.

I have an idea now though. One second..
+0 / -0

18 days ago
An ffa comp is complex, but could be quite achievable.

things u have to consider.

-easy for a top ffa player to get knocked out, so u need rounds.
-games are long, so u need time limits
-placing in games can be made, by who last the longest\who has most [whatever formula you can create on premature game end].
-you could easily make a ffa tourney with a fair few players with only 3 rounds + finals.
-variance is high, even moderate players could win.
+1 / -0

18 days ago
(edited 18 days ago)

FFA would make quite a lot of sense as a Swiss and absolutely no sense as eliminations.
+1 / -0

17 days ago
Survey results will be posted on Sunday along with announced next tournament day.
+0 / -0

15 days ago
I feel like Swiss is the most enjoyable format for players, while the elimination in finals adds a more competitive touch that also makes for better casts/replays.

Swiss pretty much emulates a simple matchmaker, giving players a rating and pitting teams of similar rating against each other to refine their rating. The problem is that Swiss is designed for matches with equal length, if one match is much shorter than another, it leads to teams having to wait and getting bored.

So what if we take the more casual approach even further:
  • Instead of the simple Win/Loss count, we use an Elo rating (WHR and multipass Elo are equal when there is no inactivity time).
  • Instead of waiting for every match in a round to finish, we give every team an expected wait time (3-5 minutes) and match them against their most similarly rated opponents when the wait time expires.
  • Instead of a fixed number of rounds, we have a total time limit for all casual rounds.

After the time limit for the casual rounds expires, every team that has played at least X matches is sorted by rating and the top Y teams are advanced to the elimination finals.

This sounds like a rather hard format for an organizer to keep track of, but the advantage is that all of this can be easily automated. The spectators see a list of ongoing matches, past results, and rating (history) for every team. The teams enter the Tourney Matchmaker after every game without needing to create rooms or choose maps themselves. The organizer sets maps and MM parameters. There might be some special rules to ensure no two teams fight each other twice in a row or similar things.

In general, this would be even less competitive than Swiss, but should reduce the time and effort required for those early rounds, give every team lots of matches and lead to well seeded finals.
+1 / -0

15 days ago
sound like we can just designate an independent WHR system [called "Tournament" say]

copy paste most of the team/1v1 matchmaking code over.

only allow people to join queque at a specific time [ or even all the time like a tournament ladder [just a normal MM then]]

the after timer run out get top 4 teams for final
+0 / -0

15 days ago
(edited 15 days ago)

So what if we take the more casual approach even further:

This is called a group tournament (with a very low duration of 1 day).
There's technically no big reason not to make this a longer duration thing and streamline it with an actual matchmaker.

So, like, you have a monthly resetted ladder, and top 3 players/teams on that ladder receive awards before reset.
+4 / -0

15 days ago
Instead of making tournaments more frequently, it'd be better to incentivize players to play the matchmaking more, build more social stuff around it, add awards for whoever holds the top spots, etc..

Imo periodically doing a full reset would be bad, too grindy, but a soft reset might be nice.
+0 / -0

15 days ago
I don't want this to be a "get people into matchmaker campaign". This is just supposed to help make the tourney easier to run and easier to play. It should still be within a reasonably short time-frame, so it doesn't just turn into a ranked season. It will be directly followed by the elimination rounds for most of the better teams.
+3 / -0

15 days ago
Results time!

22 respondents answered the survey. Here are the results:

Format style: People were pretty much indecisive on this with a slight majority answering "Don't know / No preference" in terms of individual response. However, when we break it down by style, Swiss had an overwhelming majority with 9 respondents voting for some format of Swiss. The next popular format was Double Elimination and Round Robbin (3 votes each) with single elimination getting 0 vote.

Map pool:

Ravaged v2 was a pretty popular response. This will definitely be in the next tournament.


Least popular response:
CCR and Geko Island had 4 votes each and as such, we're probably not gonna see many games on them. Titan duel was another unfavorite along with Hide And Seek, Icy run and Speed metal (You know who you are, and whoever you are I'll get you one day you snooping a new plants unlocker.. :P).

Other unfavorites:
- Red Comet
- Shimmershore
- Zed
- Adamantine Mountain
- Isis Delta
- Small Supreme BattleField Dry

Favorite Format:
Here's where things get interesting. Most of you voted for 2v2 and 3v3 with a sizable minority in 1v1. Few wanted to experiment with 4v4, so we probably won't be doing that for some time. In likelihood I'll be rotating 3v3, 2v2, and 1v1 out with the occasional weird format now and then to spice things up.

Tournament hosting:

By overwhelming margin, most of you wanted Saturdays at 59.1% (13), along with minorities in Friday (22.7% or 5 people) and Sunday (13.6% or 3 people). One insane person wrote down Monday and nobody voted for Tuesday through Thursday.

A pretty good majority voted for 18:00 UTC at 7. 2 people voted for 8:30, 2 people voted for 5:00/5:30, and the rest were random times. About 5 people said no preference. With this in mind, 18:00UTC on Saturdays wins.

Majority said 4 weeks average at 54.5% (12 people). Minorities in 2wks (4 or 18.2%) and 8wks (3 or 13.6%) also popped up. With this in mind, we're gonna stick to monthly tournaments.

WHR Caps:
Nobody voted no here, so they're gonna stay in all future team events. We will be experimenting with several different caps (probably around 2150-2200 per person) until we find values that are just right.

54.5% (12 people) voted yes, with 10 voting no preference.

Time limit:

This is where the polls get interesting. 31.8% voted for a time limit while 45.5% voted to not have a time limit. 22.7% said no preference. In the time limit category, 30 minutes was the most popular at 3 votes, 45 at 2, and 40 and 15 getting 1 vote each. I don't think we will be enforcing a strict timelimit in the future, and instead opt to try to save time in the intermission period. I'll be experimenting with this next tournament.

Who should choose the maps?
Here we find people a little more indecisive on who should choose the maps. A slim majority exists in Totally random (at 8 votes) and Random First->Losers at 7 votes. If we count in "Losers", we arrive at 10-8 in favor of losers. Likely this will stay the same in future tournaments, but random only may be experimented with in the future.

Other rules:
There weren't any suggestions that stood out here aside from pre-tournament checkin. This would solve the attendance issue most likely, so I will definitely be including this next time.



12 Respondents

WHR Cap Fairness:
Majority chose yes, with a sizable minority in no preference / don't know. 1 person chose too high.

Swiss Enjoyment:
1 person said no, 1 person didn't participate. Rest said yes. This kind of fits with the idea of swiss being a preferred format.


A slight majority said they were too short at 5. One person voted for double elimination finals (staying Bo1 except finals) and the rest said make them Best of 3. 4 people were indifferent, and 3 want to keep the current system.

Average seemed to be 7.9. Nobody voted below a 5 so that's good. 1 person said 6, 4 said 7, 3 said 8, 3 said 9, and 1 said 10. This establishes a strong base line and may be hard to top in the next tournament.

Returning voters:

Nobody voted no. Majority said yes (8) with 4 saying possibly.

Faster intermissions was a frequent suggestion. One person said more balanced matchups. I'll be attempting to work on minimizing intermissions in the future. (Especially now that I'm getting some tools)



Here we got a few joke responses. My favorite was "constant awareness of the inevitability of universal death and meaninglessness of all human existence". Most people agreed that the messy organization and waiting time was horrible. So we'll be trying to cut that out.



This is where things get a bit shakey. Some of these votes make me a bit nervous. I think experimenting with the tournament format may help improve this.

Preliminary length:

Most people seemed to say the preliminaries were just the right length. I think I'll see about trying to cut down in initial start up and increase the rounds to 5 next time, along with a custom tailor made format for zk.

Overall length:

A slight majority people complained that it was slightly too long, while a sizable minority said it was just right. Some outliers in the too short field.

No Participatory Survey:

A majority said that the reason they didn't sign up was because it was on a bad day for them. A sizable minority said not enough time, one person said they were a sub and wasn't selected (Aww, really? Who didn't I assign? :( ). One said they were on vacation.

To convince:

Convincing people seems to be easy: select a better day. Half would probably sign up if the date was better. One said they would, 2 want a better time, 1 said predetermined maps.

Finally, the result everyone was waiting for.


Resignateers in service to our Queen, we must resign!
+2 / -0