Tournament Ideas

A tag battle would be brilliant. My money's on Jolt/Greece. And yeah, I'd rather not have a 3 person final. That's the part that takes forever, not so much the rest of the tourney.

 

I still think that Risk is a good idea

 

Tag team doesn't necessarily mean double battles. Much like the exhibition battle of me, Buoy and Gman vs TED, we could keep it a single battle, but, say in a 4v4, each trainer could nominate 2 Pokémon to battle with and then work together to defeat the other.

I made it out to be more complicated than it was @[email protected]

 

Risk is based so much on everyone being active. Wouldn't work too well here unfortunately.

 

Gym Tourneys are always held at the end of the year. Don't worry, I'll be all over it in three months or so.

Ideas are getting super complicated and I cbf reading em all. My vote is for Gameboy Tournament, final choice.

 

>implying I'd use a diplomatic process

 

There was no such implication, good sir. My statement was that given a choice, mine would be Gameboy.

 

Looking back, Xali's World Tournament looked quite good.

 

We should obviously just do a Team Tournament.

Team of 4 or 5 people, they have a leader, leader discusses with the team and sends 5 pokemon and moves and we go on from there.

gg

 

Any form of tournament that involves more than 2 trainers battling will take very long because trying to sort out a time for 4 people to get online would be a pain in the ass(not to mention get a ref willing to ref a double battle because apparently everyone hates em).

Just do a GB tourney, too many rental tourneys recently.

 

How about we do a bunch of tourneys with people in the same timezone (or within a few hours) and have the winners do a tournament

 

Or you can have one person bracket and format a 12-man double elimination tourney on Excel for the low low price of nothing

Half the battles byes in the first round > byes in the final rounds + round robin

 

I never understood how and why we always ended tournaments in round robin.

 

Basically, to end up with a 2-man final round, each previous round has to have double the amount of people than before. So, you need to aim for 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc... people to sign up. If you only get, say, 11 people sign up, then technically, byes should 'fill the gaps' as it were. What URPG people tend to do is to make it 'fairer' by only giving one person a bye, and having 10 people battle. This then leads to 6 in the next round, and then finally round robin. What should technically be done is force there to be 8 people in Round 2 by giving 5 people byes in Round 1 and having the other 6 people batte to give 3 people places to advance, totalling 8 in the next round.

When Marth tried it, he gave about 14 people byes in Round 1 and everyone threw a hissy fit. He explained it pretty well, though - it's more fair to have loads of people move on in Round 1 and continue with a straight tourney in Round 2 than to have someone potentially bypass the semi-finals (if the semis had 5 people in).

 

No, what I meant was why we the hosts always did it so there was a round robin. It was more rhetorical. I do know how tournaments work. :spin:

 

Sorry for thinking 'how' meant 'how'. ):

 

Okay I understand we're doing the Gameboy Tournament which is cool but Emma also brought this up in URPG Chat and it's too cool to let go to waste.

Team Wars, 1st Season: 5th Round Schedule Up! - Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 (What I have in mind is quite a bit different but inspired by this; it makes up for the main flaws, but does bring up some other ones as well)

Team-based tournaments. These have been explored, but bear with me.

The main reason these are always shot down so quickly is because getting a whole group of people online at the same time is a ridiculous idea. It's hard to get even two people online sometimes for a tournament battle, so how can we circumvent this?

Do it on forum.

It'll be a drag for sure, but do-able. With another tournament going on at the same time, people won't be missing out on any of the more popular fast-paced action they get on AIM. So, the other tournament won't be in the way of this one, but instead, it'll compliment it.

Here's what I propose: a team of 3 signs up for a Triple Battle tournament (quadruple battles can be explored if that's a thing people would prefer). Each participant gets one Pokemon for the battle, and when they're knocked out, they're done for good that round. We do the battle on a forum, give it a 2-4 week window per round (since teams will be made up of multiple participants, the bracket will be smaller, allowing a longer time frame per round to be viable). If a battle goes past the deadline, it'll have to be determined by the team with more remaining Pokemon (you can use stuff like total HP left as a tiebreaker, or just roll it).

In terms of sign-ups, one person will have to post for their whole team to sign them up. One thing we could do, like in the example thread, is have them sign up with a pre-determined Pokemon. It would save a bit of time, removing the need to send the mon to the ref and being able to get right into sending moves. Of course, I can see how this might not be ideal, so I'm just throwing that out there.

As for how this is going to be reffed (this covers a lot of potential flaws, so make sure to read this), the main thing to worry about is making it so that rounds don't end up running too long. That's why we could implement a FFA-like rule where if a move isn't sent within 2-3 days, dependent on the round-to-round time period, any mon that doesn't make a move either Splashes or loses x amount of HP. Personally, I think the ideal option would be to have them do nothing first time it happens, lose 25-50% next time, and then KO them on the third time.

Another concern to me is adequate reffing. I remember the week in last year's WAR where the theme was double battles, and a lot of refs missed things like EQ doing less damage in double battles or Reflect's effects being reduced (I can say I made some of these mistakes myself). That's why before the battles commence, refs who know what they're doing when reffing Triple Battles have to be found or otherwise taught thoroughly. Those refs can claim battles when the matchups are released, and make the thread on the forum.

In conclusion, I think this has a lot of potential. There's no denying it'll be slow-paced and a drag at some points, but at the same time, the opportunity of getting to do a team-based tournament like this could generate a lot of interest and balance the scales that way. Other issues are bound to come up in discussion, but that's what discussion is about.

Quick pros/cons thing

Spoiler

 

I think this would be good - 3 weeks would probably be ample. However, 1-mon-each Double Battles usually finish basically instantly, and so I'm guessing Triple Battles are probably the same - it basically comes down to luck. 2-mon-each might be better, but then we'd probably have to increase the timeframe. Tbh, though, as long as we have the GB Tourney running alongside it, I think having a slower-paced tournament is fine.

In regards to reffing, they're pretty similar to double battles (just with the whole who-it-affects being a bit different). If there's worry about the competency of refs, then have a week leading up to the tourney where people are persuaded to do 1on1 Triple Battles to practice? Helps both the refs and the battlers.

 

Tag Team Penninsula! That would be epic

 

We need a drinking game tourney. 6v6, each time a mon is KO'd, the person who's mon is KO'd takes a shot.