Tourney is short for Tournament

The last tourney has been a bit of a shambles, we all know. This isn't the place to shame or apologise, let's just work on resolving the current one to a semi satisfiable conclusion and having another one running with a reliable host within the very foreseeable future.

Or, we can all ignore it among the other glaring issues and put another hole in the sinking ship that URPG is. Things have been pretty active pretty consistently so this isn't the time to relax and hope it all works out.

 

agree with the idea, if not the underlying 'URPG sux' sentiment. what specifically do you wanna do!

 

Yeah. I appreciate any effort you'd like to make. Don't appreciate the sentiment you're conveying with it.

For example, I consider rude obnoxious self-entitled members to be one of our "glaring issues".

But this thread is about Tournaments so lets not go into that ^.^

 

Okay, keep pushing people away then

 

I was just waiting for you to provide some actual suggestions, which I promise you I'd be genuinely open to.

For reference, I'm currently looking at options for the next tournament
I'll be running a ladder of some sort (or delegating someone else to run it) since we do have some decent activity at the moment, and would be happy to run a bracket tournament alongside it.
Currently deciding on some special rules for the ladder, and I'll probably open up a vote to select from ones I think would be best suited to that format.

If all you want to do is make posts laced with passive aggressive complaints, then I'll leave you to it.

 

Okay, let's all chill. But actually, I think we have to not let inactive members be tournament directors anymore. I know Chainy has run this tournament fine in the past, and honestly I don't totally think everything that happened was his fault. That being said, if he had been more active the debacle probably could've been avoided (ie. hounding members earlier when the battle wasn't getting done. I know for a fact this works because it's exactly what I did in the tournament I ran).

We all know I hate ladder tournaments, but can we at least use ELO Rating instead of a basic scale so people don't abuse over battling?

But to be honest with you, the main lack of battling seems to be coming from a dryness of reffing/refs right now. I guess it's hard to really see that because a few refs just pulled big in the last wages, but I personally have been having a lot of trouble finding a ref recently (and I know the sentiment is shared). I think maybe most of the wages are coming solely from FFAs, which is kind of frustrating. Maybe it would be a good idea to increase wages / make wages more frequent for a limited time? I remember we used to have small bonuses for refs who reffed a lot and things like that, or like X-mas bonuses etc. Seems like that hasn't happened in a looooooong time. Reffing is kind of the backbone of URPG, we should really encourage it as much as possible, imo.

As far as the next tournament I'd like to see, I wouldn't mind a Battle Factory or maybe a small team tournament? Something to mix it up

 

In the last wages I did, there were only around 4 FFAs reffed total between all the wages, for reference. And most of them were very small.

There were also quite a few people who actually got wages. The problem of finding a ref is likely due to being weeknights and a lot of people are busy with school this time of year.

Also I'm not sure if hounding battlers should be the event host's job, as it was stated many times, as in all our tournaments, to contact said host if there is a problem of any sort, particularly with scheduling.

Monbrey developed an ELO system for ladder in the one we tried to run constantly. I fully support a ladder coming back soon.

We could possibly do some doubles/multi thing for Valentines day. I'd kinda like to see something different for this holiday instead of the auction/FFA that usually happens.

 

Maybe people enter on their own, and then you assign them randomly to another person and they have to complete their battles working together?

 

Ladder is always terrible. It always delegates to two or three members repeatedly beating a slightly larger pool of noobs. Even if smo's ladder was used it's just the same with a larger pool of noobs.

Or am I being too self-entitled to express a controversial opinion in a public forum meant for debate.

 

Yeah tbh, I love reffing but school and Parks and Recreation other things have been keeping me busy for days. I think only a small amount of my wages came from FFAs. I definitely binge-reffed the whole first week.

Ok, but that isn't the point of this thread, and now I have to think of something relevant to say...uhh...tournaments are...um...important! We should definitely have more! Yes!

 

1. My post wasn't meant to be a personal attack on you, and I tried to say as much as possible that I was talking mostly from speculation from my own experience. I'm sure that there is an exaggeration on both of our ends and the truth is some where in the middle, but I just personally feel that a lot of the reffing being done right now is for FFAs.

2. And my point still stands. We should want refs to be more motivated to ref during a time when they are less likely to do so. That's the whole point of bonuses.

3. You're right, "hounding battlers" isn't part of the event host's jobs. However, when a host is active and takes initiative and attempts to make sure his / her tournament is running smoothly, surprise, it gets run more smoothly. The more effort you put into things the better job gets done. If you want more tournament hosts to do the minimum requirement job then we'll have more tournaments that are chaotic like Gym Tournament 2015. And besides, hounding battlers isn't the only thing a tournament director can do. Also, making a pre planned bracket would've been nice, since then battlers would've been able to see who their next opponent is and plan ahead. But Chainy hasn't been around to see that we've been making strides like this in tournaments to make tournaments more organized. You obviously have some personal bias in this manner and that's fine, I've even told Chainy personally that the debacle wasn't his fault. All that being said, putting effort into a tournament is just like anything else you put effort into.

4. I think the problem with URPG ladders is a flip coin. Either: the ladder is run for too short of time and it comes down to whichever battler is going to beat up on n00bs the most; or, the ladder is run for a lengthy, more correct amount of time, but people lose interest because the initial flare of the ladder is gone, and the top of the ladder seems insurmountable. I have a suggestion though. Maybe run the ladder similar to the WAR tournament, with a changing theme every week? Couple that with weekly prizes (which I think we already do but maybe make it so they can't be won by the same person 2 weeks in a row), and I think it could be run more smoothly. Again, though. This all comes down to how much effort the organizer of the ladder puts into it. If he just posts a ladder in the tournament section and then never updates it, or is late posting prizes, or doesn't do prizes at all, it's gonna collapse. That's just how it works.

In summation, people need to stop expecting things to happen for them. You actually need to step up and fully complete a project if you expect it to be good. I know it's hard to commit your life to an internet forum, but if you're gonna do something, why would you half-ass it?

 

This sounds good - I've got 3-4 rules which are popular and would work for the ladder format, so we could easily just use one per week and see how it goes.

It will definitely be using an ELO system, the last ladder I ran had a proper ELO calculation, albeit a very simple one.

 

I don't know where you got me thinking personal attack anywhere in that, as I wasn't thinking that/didn't post about that at all XD Was just clarifying the FFA point because I actually did the wages and had info on that bit.

And my event host comment wasn't particularly directed toward Chainy, despite how biased people think I am. The majority of our last tournaments/events have had this sort of attitude/problems/negative feedback lately, so it was pretty much a general point.

And yeah, ladder ideas are coming along nicely from the bits I've heard. Honestly after Monbrey's ELO system, there was pretty much no hounding newbies for battles and easy wins because it didn't give the higher ranked person any benefit. Also we generally limit to 1 or 2 battles per person per week anyway.

 

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. Looking at the last 8 tournaments that were held: Gym Tourny 2015, Budget, Devolution, Battle Factory, Gym Tourny 2014, Risk 2.0, FFA Tourny, Ladder 2013 . Then their tournament directors: Chainy, Swift, Monbrey, Myself, Chainy, ATF/Blue, Syn, Ataro.

Now let's look at the 3 tournaments that were, by general consensus, flops: Gym Tourny 2015, Budget (I think), Risk 2.0. Now I'll be honest, my notion that the Budget tournament is a flop comes only from speculation of what the last round looked like. I wasn't involved in that tournament and wasn't really active at all during the length of the tournament so it's hard for me to exactly speculate what happened there. Personally, I think the Budget Tournament type is flawed and it was also Swift's first attempt at running a tournament so maybe there were some issues there. Let's just call that one a mystery.

Now let's look at the other 2. Both run by not very active members who weren't around to police the tournament. I'm sorry, but a strong tournament director correlates to a strong tournament. Even Risk saw an instant turn-around when Blue stepped up to finish it.

More on the Ladder Tournament:
In my opinion, the ladder should be more interesting than just the rinsed and repeated script that doesn't super work. The weekly prizes shouldn't just go to "Most Points" they should be more interesting. Things like "Biggest Upset", "Best Nailbiter", "Funniest Team", "Best Comeback", etc. Keep people on their toes. Make it exciting for people who aren't (I'm sorry to point names, but...) Ash. That's what will lead to more participation, and excited participation.

P.S.
I'm sort of disappointed the prediction "game" from the Devolution Tournament didn't make a reappearance at the Gym Tournament. I think a lot of people had fun with that and would love to see it return (Especially since March Madness is coming up!!!!!). Same applies for entry fees, though I think people had thought that wasn't necessary for the Gym Tournament anyway.

 

Based on activity, I really don't see how it was a flop at all. Obviously I'm biased, but tbh the only real problem was activity. People were waiting too long to make their purchases and update stats. If you want to say it was a flop because of lack of activity then I guess that's true but that reason wouldn't really contribute to your point. I don't mean to be defensive, but it seemed like the point you were making was that Tourneys do poorly with poor organizers, and while that is very true, it isn't the only reason and I don't think it was the case for Budget.

 

Well, at least we know one thing: tournaments aren't that often and more are being demanded.

I don't know the Budget Tournament is, but it was the latest tournament.

 

Reiterated and Fixed.
@Monbrey;

Well, I think the prediction game was actually kind of fun, and I know that a lot of people enjoyed doing it. You're right that there was some flaws with people not guessing before the round had started. I think the only way to really amend that would be to have people submit full brackets of their guesses at the start of the tournament before any battles have happened (as in predict winners of first round, then second, then next, etc.). That way, not only are the number of possible guesses expanded exponentially, it will also avoid the unequal number of guesses problem. Granted, this means that some people will be out of it right off the get go, but I think it's worth at least trying out. (Since this is the way March Madness for NCAA Basketball is done.) Also, there's typically a scaled number of points as the games get closer to the final, as in guessing a first round game =1pt, guessing a final winner = 16 pts, or something.

As far as your question about who would decide on the "other" prizes for Ladder Tournament,

I suppose a voting system would work, but it wouldn't exactly be ideal. I think optimally the situation would be for the tournament director to decide. This would require that refs fleshed out their logs a little bit more, specifically for tournament battles. This is obviously a nuisance, but let me remind you that in the previous ladder refs were given additional pay AND eligible for winning prizes for reffing the most battles. With those benefits in mind, I don't think it would be too much to ask for the refs to write a paragraph description of the battles. However, this is something that definitely needs the kinks worked out as it isn't a perfect system.