Author Topic: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys  (Read 36903 times)

Offline shadowsteel

  • Member
  • Salutes: 18
    • [MM]
    • 31 
    • 28
    • 27 
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2013, 03:17:17 pm »
Alright, here's what I think sums up the general view on tournaments and some ideas that could be implemented without too much hassle.

The Sunday Rumble takes way too long. This may be because of players and/or casters but it's a problem.

Ideas-
         1. Matches must start by a certain time. Or once the lobby is created, have say, five minutes until the match starts.
         2. If there are too many matches to stream, put it to a vote with a time limit on the voting. If there's a tie, flip a coin.

As for reporting on the other matches, it seems that even though it'd be awesome to have a scoreboard, it's a little easier said than done. (I don't have any experience casting, this is based on Imagine's post.)

A solution that might work is to have whoever is refereeing the other matches report to the casters and have them tell it on the stream during lulls through good ol' fashioned talking. Kinda like they do on the radio.

Anyway this is just my general opinion on this topic.

Offline Garou

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [WOLF]
    • 9
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2013, 03:32:52 pm »
On a side note, I do like how my point about players taking 15 or so minutes to get games started hasn't been addressed like, at all. G'job, selective posters.
It is a valid point. I believe for us in Wolfpack, we were guilty of one of those delays because a couple of our members had to suddenly AFK. We can certainly do our due diligence in making sure we're prepared when the matches are ongoing.

That said, I just wanted to speak up a bit in defense of the "best of 3" format the TSR currently has. I already mentioned my basic feelings on that vs a "one-and-done" in my original post, however there was one point I didn't make.

This week, we saw some creative builds and strategies. Overwatch and Corvus Marauders come to mind, with Overwatch employing some unconventional builds and Corvus taking a gamble on a dual-spire setup. I feel if the tourney was a "one-and-done" format, we would see less of this sort of experimentation if teams only had one chance. I feel like the Rumble is a great proving ground for teams who want to try new builds and strategies in a competitive atmosphere, and I would hate for that to be lost to time-crunching.

I also feel the "one-and-done" format might make TSR feel less "fun" and more intimidating to new clans or clans who are just getting their feet wet in competitive play. Best of 3 means that you can shake off those 'first match jitters' and really give your best efforts. A "one-and-done" format just doesn't facilitate that.

Granted, we still have to wait and see if the interest level for TSR stays as high as it was this week, but frankly I don't see it lessening too greatly. There are new clans popping up every day and they all want a chance to compete. I don't think it's so unheard of that 5, 6, 7, or more clans each week may become the norm, especially as more people become aware of TSR, and even if it doesn't these contingencies are worth exploring in a constructive discussion.

And again, thank you to everyone who takes the time and effort to make TSR possible. I think, though our opinions on this matter may differ, that everyone is grateful for being given a stage to compete in a fun, relaxed atmosphere. At the risk of repeating myself, you guys are awesome.

Offline Garou

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [WOLF]
    • 9
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2013, 03:34:48 pm »
A solution that might work is to have whoever is refereeing the other matches report to the casters and have them tell it on the stream during lulls through good ol' fashioned talking. Kinda like they do on the radio.
That was actually kinda what I was thinking. They could have the referee in the non-streamed match on the Skype call with a muted mic, and he could just chime in when there's a match or series won so we can keep up on the action.

Offline Skrimskraw

  • Member
  • Salutes: 160
    • [GwTh]
    • 21 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2013, 03:49:55 pm »
i'm going to say what I told bubbles today.

I don't care what the casters want, I care about what the teams want.

waiting 1.5 hours to lose was possibly one of the worst thing we have engaged as corvus
I spoke to urz some time ago and asked how long these events would take, and he said 2 hours.
Alright we can do 2 hours in corvus, then its midnight In our timezone, even 2-3am for our russian.

we showed up, ok we got game 3. and had to wait for a long time, rhinos even longer.
luckily rhinos were willing to scrimmage us for an hours time or so in the meantime.

then its suddenly 11.30pm CET and we play, at 12pm we are done. If we had won we would have had to wait further and possibly if we went to the finals we would have to stay awake for the good 3.5 - 4 hours that it took, this we don't really have time for since members of corvus have jobs, school etc. that happens early monday morning.

So don't give me that reasoning where you put casters over the teams participating, because thats stupid. As a caster you should feel privileged that you are granted the rights, like we feel privileged that we get to play, but trying to argue that casting is more important than what the teams feel is not.

In the end its up to Urz if changes will happen, and I'm sure he's keeping an eye on this discussion waiting for it to have some good cons and pros. And when he decide whats going to happen, it will for atleast for some clans wether they are happy witht he results or not.

I just had the feeling that this was meant as an alternative for all the teams that could not get into cogs or did not want to participate. And I also think it was meant as a casual experience for teams, meaning that they themselves decide wether to experiment or to tryhard to see what they are capable off. In any case there is no treasure at the end of the road, no reward for winning, so in the end its just for fun.

Urz have put a ton of time into getting the stream up, I respect that a lot, but as a clan 1.5 - 2 hours is way too long to way if there is no rewards. Then we could just in theory schedule our own scirmmages. Urz is giving us a quick way to get some scrimmages even competitively if you want that, and thats great but I'm personally not waiting that long again, then I'll go to bed instead so I don't ruin my monday morning.

Offline Garou

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [WOLF]
    • 9
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2013, 04:01:02 pm »
I don't care what the casters want, I care about what the teams want.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. While you make some valid points, I frankly don't agree with your mindset. The casters aren't doing this out of any obligation, nor are they receiving any form of backing from anyone. They are doing this on their own and are basically "gifting" us with the opportunity to play in a competition each week. They aren't required to do that, and given the sort of guerrilla-style they employ, it's not going to be perfect.

It's also worth noting that the casters have to make the same time investment we do, if not more. Brick was saying at one point in the stream that he was starving, and bear in mind it's already pretty late for him by the time we get started, but he's willing to soldier on. Again, these aren't paid professionals where these sorts of situations are expected. These are a few guys putting together a tourney for our benefit. I think it's fair to say that they should be taken into consideration as well.

Offline Skrimskraw

  • Member
  • Salutes: 160
    • [GwTh]
    • 21 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2013, 04:04:08 pm »
I don't care what the casters want, I care about what the teams want.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. While you make some valid points, I frankly don't agree with your mindset. The casters aren't doing this out of any obligation, nor are they receiving any form of backing from anyone. They are doing this on their own and are basically "gifting" us with the opportunity to play in a competition each week. They aren't required to do that, and given the sort of guerrilla-style they employ, it's not going to be perfect.

It's also worth noting that the casters have to make the same time investment we do, if not more. Brick was saying at one point in the stream that he was starving, and bear in mind it's already pretty late for him by the time we get started, but he's willing to soldier on. Again, these aren't paid professionals where these sorts of situations are expected. These are a few guys putting together a tourney for our benefit. I think it's fair to say that they should be taken into consideration as well.

I know that they are, and thanks to those who are willing. But my point is that it isnt a valid reason not to let games run without streaming.

Offline Imagine

  • Member
  • Salutes: 59
    • [MM]
    • 19 
    • 33
    • 22 
    • View Profile
    • Twitch Stream
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2013, 04:08:18 pm »
So don't give me that reasoning where you put casters over the teams participating, because thats stupid. As a caster you should feel privileged that you are granted the rights, like we feel privileged that we get to play, but trying to argue that casting is more important than what the teams feel is not.
I'm sorry, what?

Don't try to feed me that bullshit, Skrim. In fact, it should be you, as a team, that should be happy that there are organized events like this to participate in. This is a two-way street buddy, you should feel privileged that you're allowed the rights to participate in events that are promoted, organized, reffed, casted, and then edited by people who are not you. Pissed off at the time it starts or the amount of time it takes to play out? Fine, give some productive feedback or suggestions, but if all you're going to do is spew this dumb vitriol, go make your own event. Frankly I'm shocked at how much sudden hate you have for something that you decided to participate in once. I'm also pretty sure this wasn't meant as an alternative to cogs and was just something tossed out saying as hey, this should be fun, sign on up (but hey, once again, I'm not Urz so that's pure speculation on my part).

Through all my posts I've consistently said that I understand why teams were unhappy with waiting for their games to begin, and we've had some good thoughts about how to make it better. If all you're going to do is come in here and try to act all superior though, please stop.

Offline N-Sunderland

  • Member
  • Salutes: 281
    • [Duck]
    • 15 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2013, 04:21:35 pm »
There's an easy solution to teams taking forever in the lobbies. In the Flotsam, we'd have Duck Buddies (in any other tournament it'd be a ref) create lobbies the moment the preceding matches started. That way everybody would fill in while another match was underway, and any coin tosses etc. would be handled. The transitions between matches were way smoother that way.

Offline Rutger Shaw

  • Member
  • Salutes: 5
    • [WOLF]
    • 6
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2013, 04:39:42 pm »
in some cases Sunderland's idea would work, but the problem when applied to TSR is that some matches(towards the end) there are at least one team still in a match.
but earlier it could work, I always felt like it was kind of silly to wait in crew formation when I could be in a lobby.

As for the tournament so far... show me one standard tournament that doesn't have its kinks? as far as I can tell, TSR has come a LONG way in 5 weeks. I agree we should time lobbies. I mean teams need time to adjust, and crew need a short break to take care of things, but the lobby shouldn't be open for 15 minutes.

and remember TSR is a weekly "have fun and experiment new load outs/crews/ect or just to get into the competitive scene (because CoG's can be a little limited)"

if this sunday's tournament is even bigger, it maybe prudent to start either a new channel to stream, or as garou stated, a group that records it. heck TSR could also be a place for people to try their hand at casting/streaming/editing.

I feel people should relax a little and understand that the competitive scene on Guns is not LoL or SC quality...yet... and remember that the people DOING the streams are normal people who work or go to school. So it is us, the players, that should feel privileged that they take the time to set these things up for us.

so please lets try to work the kinks out and continue to have fun. after all...it's still a game.

Rutger Shaw of the Wolfpack

Offline Squash

  • Member
  • Salutes: 71
    • [Duck]
    • 11
    • 10 
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2013, 07:08:57 pm »
I haven't watched much of the Sunday Rumble but my understanding is that massive chunks of time are lost in late starts and slow transitions between matches, is that accurate?

Offline Garou

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [WOLF]
    • 9
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2013, 07:50:29 pm »
I haven't watched much of the Sunday Rumble but my understanding is that massive chunks of time are lost in late starts and slow transitions between matches, is that accurate?
The late starts aren't common. As I recall, we really only had one rumble start that was significantly delayed (I've participated in all five rumbles). As for match transitions, those are getting faster by the week, and generally only occur when two new teams are joining lobbies. This week we had a couple delays, but generally they only take around 5 minutes tops.

The main time sink is the matches themselves. Because you have teams playing up to 3 matches at each tier, and variety in tactics, sometimes matches can take a while.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 07:59:28 pm by Garou »

Offline Wundsalz

  • Member
  • Salutes: 72
    • [Rydr]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2013, 08:39:36 pm »
There's an easy solution to teams taking forever in the lobbies. In the Flotsam, we'd have Duck Buddies (in any other tournament it'd be a ref) create lobbies the moment the preceding matches started. That way everybody would fill in while another match was underway, and any coin tosses etc. would be handled. The transitions between matches were way smoother that way.
While I think this would be a significant step into the right direction and should definetly be done in future tournaments, I doubt it'd reduce the needed time for the tournament sufficiently to keep Eu-centered clans interested in the sunday rumble. If you want Eu-Clans to participate at the tournament without forfeits in (semi-)finals, it should end at roughly 6pm EST.

Offline Imagine

  • Member
  • Salutes: 59
    • [MM]
    • 19 
    • 33
    • 22 
    • View Profile
    • Twitch Stream
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2013, 08:45:06 pm »
I haven't watched much of the Sunday Rumble but my understanding is that massive chunks of time are lost in late starts and slow transitions between matches, is that accurate?
I would say massive, but enough to be noticeable.

Offline Urz

  • Member
  • Salutes: 75
    • [MM]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2013, 12:00:31 am »
I apologize to those who had to sit and wait two hours for their match to start. We had twice as many matches this week as last, and when I hit the sack Sunday morning, only four teams had publicly RSVPed. I had not planned for a sudden spike in signups; I did not have a contingency in place. That was my failing which I will remedy now.

Going forward we will broadcast a maximum of four matches during a Rumble. The plan will be to run the earlier matches simultaneously, as to get everyone their first match as expediently as possible. To use yesterday's bracket as an example, we would run matches A & B simultaneously, then matches C & D next. On stream we would have run A, D, E, F. If we can get someone to record the off-stream matches, they will be recorded. If we get get someone to broadcast them, they will be broadcast.

The best of three format will not be changed. With a best of one you lose the back and forth, the aspect of teams feeling out their opponents and adjusting their tactics. It is an integral part of competitive play which I will not compromise. You also don't need to worry about gathering your crews and being eliminated 5 minutes later. As a spectator, you get to see more of the teams you came to watch.

If time continues to be an issue, I will consider moving the start earlier by one or two hours.

Offline Mr. Ace Rimmer

  • Member
  • Salutes: 31
    • [OVW]
    • 11
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion regarding larger tourneys
« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2013, 12:06:14 am »
Seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a deadline for applications of noon your time on the Saturday before.