The New Competitive Scene

[Keyvias]

Dunes is being replaced by Fjords due to overwhelming demand.
The cap no matter what is 5.  We don't want one team to win like a massive player made tournament and have 20 points and be untouchable by everyone else.  The 5 cap will have some people sacrifice points for too many wins, but we'll still be funding tournaments with prizes and they can make up titles for them.

Also, this is live now!
It was brought to my attention I didn't explain this well.  You can send in your high level play wins as soon as you get them.
Friday is so we have a more open way to talk about all questions and if there's anything we broke we'll only be a couple of days in before we get called out on it live.

[N-Sunderland]

A standard single elimination tournament, with the advancing eight teams seeded throughout.
There will be 4 tiers, starting with 8 teams, and ending with 1 winner. There will also be an extra game to determine 3rd place.
Maps will be linked to the tiers, and will be ordered as follows:
Paritan, Canyon, Duel, Dunes

I am of the opinion that Fjords should replace Dunes here as well.

[RearAdmiralZill]

So which do you hate more Sunderland, Labyrinth or Dunes? ;p

[N-Sunderland]

In pubs? Labyrinth. In comp? Dunes

[Keyvias]

Because I didn't explain it well.  That google doc is for your use
List your team in the Apply your team tab.  It's open for anyone to adjust to after I've approved the information I'll copy it over to the protected one.
Also use the open scrimmage tab to set up and organize times to fight other teams.
Since it's an open document I'll have  a record to copy it to I'll save just in case. 

[naufrago]

"You may only gain points once from the same team in skirmishes per week."

Hypothetical situation- let's say Merry Men have a scrimmage against Corvus on Saturday. Both of us have point totals of 0. Say Corvus wins the fight, netting 1 point. Could we then decide to do another scrimmage with Corvus immediately after? Would it count for 2 points if Merry Men win the next fight (since Corvus would have 1 point to MM's 0)?

If that's the case, it could be exploited a bit to guarantee two colluding teams to get 1 or 2 points from each other each week. You may want to change the phrasing to "There is no limit to how many scrimmages per week you may play, but you may only fight each team once per week for points. You may, however, face those teams in a tournament the same week and get points."


EDIT: You may also want to put an anti-collusion clause somewhere in the official rules, and maybe a minimum size for a tournament (3 or 4 teams from 2 or more clans). There's currently nothing written that stops, say, The Ducks from creating a 2 or 3 team Duck-only 'tournament' multiple times per week (the Ducks are just conveniently large, not implying they would actually cheat the system). You could even say "Muse has final say on whether a tournament grants points or not. As long as it's not blatant cheating or against the spirit of competition, pretty much anything is fine."

[Morbie]

If Merry men won the first against corvus, then the two teams played again, merry men would not gain a second point if they won again.
The rule is as it reads.

[Captain Smollett]

I think what naufrago is saying is that two teams could conspire to just lose one match to each other every week. 
I was actually thinking of something similar to your proposal but you beat me to the forums.

I kind of like the idea that if team A receives a point for beating team B, then team B can't receive a point for beating team A during the same week.

This will also ensure Scrimmages stay competitive since it will make winning even more important as you won't be able to just rematch to get your point.

[Skrimskraw]

I'm still not a fan of point systems based on whoever has the most time per week.

I want to say good luck to everyone. Corvus will probaly be capable of playing each of you at some point, but I don't think we would have the time to stack up points each week. Lots of school, studies and work coming up for us these next months.

If there isnt some kind of participation points from scrimmages, that would mean we have to win each and everyone of our scrimmages to even have a chance at getting into the seasonal finals. Of which has proven to be hard vs. the sniping meta.

[Coldcurse]

i have all the time of the world at the moment.

May the best dutchmen win!

[Kyren]

I'm worried about how this is going to encourage any new clans or casual players to really get into it, because I fear it's heavily in support of big clans. At the moment we've got groups who are able to field even more than 2 teams - Imagine 2 or 3 of such groups, and you've got the Top 10 for the big Tournament very likely already half filled. Smaller formations that won't have that much time or suffer of a lack of members will not appear anywhere on the Top 10 - meaning a further lack of promotion for them.

I'd find it better if there was some segmentation that makes both groups of players visible and gives them a chance on fame; the "professionals" and the ones that are clan and team players, but play more casually. Because right now we'd only see the first group, which will be a relatively small minority to get all the promotion, I'd say.

How about a second Invitational Tournament seeded from Teams that only manage 2 to 3 scrimmages per week?

[naufrago]

Kyren, I think 2 to 3 scrimmages per week is going to be an upper limit on what most teams can manage, not a lower limit.

This system certainly puts late-joiners and casuals at a disadvantage, but there are 12 slots for the end-of-season tournament, with 2 of those spots voted on by the community to choose who gets them. I don't think there are many more than 12 competitive teams in GoIO atm. That means most teams will qualify for the tournament regardless, and even a super casual team has a good chance of getting in if they can convince people to vote for them.

If Merry men won the first against corvus, then the two teams played again, merry men would not gain a second point if they won again.
The rule is as it reads.

Erm, I suggest re-reading my post, because that's not what I was saying at all. Smollett got it right. With the current wording, the system is very vulnerable to win-trading. I'm not sure I'm capable of typing it more clearly without sounding terribly condescending.

[Morbie]

Erm, I suggest re-reading my post, because that's not what I was saying at all. Smollett got it right. With the current wording, the system is very vulnerable to win-trading. I'm not sure I'm capable of typing it more clearly without sounding terribly condescending.

My apologies, apparently my brain derped a touch while reading it.
Yes, it is very vulnerable to win trading at the moment, and we'll probably have to go back and revise a rule in there. As for now, I do find it amusing that in a competitive system, there is fear of teams being too nice to one another. Quite a caring community we have indeed.

So regarding newer teams, and more teams playing, remember that the invitational tournament is a 2v2, so only 8 players in the large clans can claim the prizes for winning. Which will (hopefully) promote the formation of new teams and clans.

(Hopefully I'm making more sense this morning)

[Surette]

So regarding newer teams, and more teams playing, remember that the invitational tournament is a 2v2, so only 8 players in the large clans can claim the prizes for winning. Which will (hopefully) promote the formation of new teams and clans.

(Hopefully I'm making more sense this morning)

So the invitational tournament is open to clans, not to teams? That's an important distinction to make clear, particularly for clans like The Ducks with three competitive teams. (i.e. "The Ducks" would be invited to the tournament, not The Paddling, and there could only be one Duck team in the tournament. Not picking on The Ducks by the way, they're just a prime example for a clan with multiple teams.)

[N-Sunderland]

As far as I can tell multi-team clans can only enter one team in the tournament.

It's not optimal for us, but we'll make do.