Tetris Tournament Online 2 Suggestions

[crzy242]

Or do we just want to suck on TTC's dick?

thats what blinks doing. (jokes)
i suggest we should go through the HDO cycle again... since pretty much all games (all the big games) have  been used, so HDOV on blockbox
alternatively, we could do HDOIV again, as that tourney was pretty screwed up..

[coolmaninsano]

alternatively, we could do HDOIV again, as that tourney was pretty screwed up..

What the hell was wrong with it OTHER than that I made the playoffs?

[crzy242]

What the hell was wrong with it OTHER than that I made the playoffs?

look at the playoffs... heaps of dqs...

[Paradox]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]But if we're going down this line of path.  

1.Nullpomino requires installation and complex setting up (This is changing however)

2.Nullpomino isn't really capable of capturing large amounts of people as it'd probably just end up endangering itself as a clone. (This was a reason brought up for why people were wary of advertising Nullpomino in a large manner)[/quote]  

This statement fails because I can assure you the list for TF will be much longer than 2.

You are right that the goal is to improve conditions for competitive play. However, a large player base is not the only important thing. Quality gameplay is important for competitive play.

Its not like Nullpo will have 0 participants, it could easily have as much hype as TTO1 and I would venture to say even more hype because of what we have built up so far with spectators. +we will reach out to other countries a lot better since they won't be blocked from nullpo.

Also the reason for the large amount of participation in TTO1 was 95% because of the efforts of HD.

If TTO2 were to happen, NullpoMino would be the best place to have it.

[mippo]

here are some stats:

hdo 2 on tf entrants 96:
http://harddrop.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1661

hdo 3 on toj entrants 65:
http://harddrop.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2070

hdo 4 on nullpo entrants 48:
http://harddrop.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2293&st=0

tto 256 entrants

i couldn't find hdo 1 stats...

just for the sake of discussion...
i'm not saying the tourney should definitely be held on tf or nullpo, but
how do people interpret these numbers?  

[Paradox]

I interpret as a huge effort made for tto compared to the others. Turnout can be good for nullpo, even if it is not as much as TF (though I think it can be better)

[Rosti_LFC]

Ignoring the question of the game we use, there are two things I'd like to see changed at least (they were discussed on IRC yesterday but I didn't bother making the post):

Firstly, the seeding format. I think that x vs n-x is a really soulless and unsuitable seeding format for a tournament with more than 16 people.

The purpose of seeding should not be to ensure that the best player gets the easiest run of games and that the crappier players get the harder run of games. Seeding is used in pretty much all professional tournaments merely to ensure that the best players are spread out fairly equally through the tournament tree, and so that they're not knocking each other out in the first couple of rounds. Maybe don't even have the very best players feature in the first few rounds.

If you have 256 entrants, you don't need to seed the entire field. It's unnecessary and it's inaccurate, and it really doesn't bring a huge amount to the tournament. Nobody gives a crap past the top 16 or 32 people in the final placing - people aren't going to track back and work out that they had a technical finish of 148th.

By placing the best player against the worst player, all you're doing is stacking a load of one-sided games in the first round. And then in the second round, and the third, and pretty much the whole way through until the skill gap really starts to get small. The only interesting games are the ones near the middle (which nobody really cares about, because it's like 120th vs 137th), and most of them are easily predictable.

Tetris is already a game where there are huge gaps in skill, and where a lot of games are boringly predictable and the outcome is pretty much decided before the game even starts. Making the draw boring really doesn't help that at all. You can seed the top 16, maybe even the top 32, to ensure that the majority of decent players have a fair chance of making the final stages, and that the final isn't one-sided, but there's really no need to avoid making the rest of the draw random. Maybe it'll make some people lose in the second round when maybe they should have gotten through to the third, but who cares until the final round. If we want to try and encourage people to stick around, be part of the community, and improve themselves, then we need to give them a tournament that's interesting and where they at least have a fighting chance of winning the first game if the draw is kind to them.

At the very least full-field seeding and double elimination are unnecessary. They both exist to serve the exact same purpose at heart, and the only reason you'd want double elimination would be if you either had no seeding, or your seeding system was crap. And if your seeding system is crap then there's no point in applying it to the whole field anyway.

Half of the people are going to be eliminated in the first round. People are going to have more difficult games that others. You can't really do a huge amount about either of those, but you can at least try and stop them having such a large impact on people's enjoyment of the tournament. Until you start offering prices for places beyond the top 16, then there's really no need to seed much further than the top 16. Even with a simple seed system and a lot of randomness in the initial draw, the best players will still win their games and make it to the end.

People here seem far too bothered about everything being 100% as fair as possible, and I really think some people need to take themselves down a notch and realise that even with prizes, the majority of the people are playing for fun. If I'm not going to win a prize either way then I'd rather have some interesting matches and get knocked early than get one round further because I've had three easy opponents and then been slaughtered by my fifth one (not referring to the TTO, just before anyone might get offended). At the end of the day there'll always be another tournament for me to make up for it.


Second point would be the match times. I'm perfectly fine with match times being set without any input from the players, because really it's the only way things can work. It'd be impossible to expect 128 people to be able to contact another 128 people and arrange match times effectively. With a time that is set beforehand then no-shows are black-and-white. People either show up at the time they were meant to, or they don't, and there's no arguing or possible issues with that.

However, when it's meant to be a global tournament I think that it's horribly awkward and unfair to shove all the matches within the same three hour space, which is conveniently late afternoon and early evening for the USA, but fairly early in the morning for Japan and fu**ing late at night in Europe.

There is no single time that is going to be convenient for all three regions and all the games in the tournament - it's totally impossible, but there are at least three blocks that will offer one that's convenient for any given match. 5am PST is early afternoon for Europe and mid-evening for Asia, 2pm PST is mid-afternoon for the USA and mid-evening for Europe, and 9pm PST is in the evening for the USA and early afternoon for Japan. Sure, those time slots will still not be entirely convenient for every single competitor just because they'll have other commitments, but at least you're not asking them to screw around with their sleep schedule just to compete.

If, on the entry form, there was some sort of input to choose either Americas, Europe or Asia/Australia as the location, and then have match-up times be set at the overlap time of the timezones for both players, then you could still have a fairly rigid scheduling system, but it'd at least be much fairer to the players. I know that at the very least I'd play a lot better in a match starting in the middle of the afternoon than one in the small hours of the morning when I'm tired, or when I've just gotten up.


And back to the game choice, it's fairly simple. If you want a huge tournament with large coverage, TTC paying for the prizes and giving free advertising for HD, as well as plenty of new players, then you go with TF. If you don't mind it being mostly limited to competitive players, and nobody in the wider world having any clue that it exists, but would prefer it to be stronger in terms of gameplay, then go with Nullpo or something else.

For the record I think that TF gets excessive hate. Lag isn't going to make a great deal of difference when you're playing first to 15 wins, and is only really going to be a factor on the really close games (where other things such as the tiredness/condition of the players, etc, can have just as much an impact). And sure, the DAS is a tad slow, and the garbage maybe isn't as scrambled as it could be, but neither of those are necessarily bad when you look objectively. It just means that efficiency and t-spin/combo abilities are rewarded a bit more than blazing speed and epic downstacking (at least when compared to BB, not so much TOJ/Nullpo).

[Caithness]

People here seem far too bothered about everything being 100% as fair as possible, and I really think some people need to take themselves down a notch and realise that even with prizes, the majority of the people are playing for fun. If I'm not going to win a prize either way then I'd rather have some interesting matches and get knocked early than get one round further because I've had three easy opponents and then been slaughtered by my fifth one (not referring to the TTO, just before anyone might get offended). At the end of the day there'll always be another tournament for me to make up for it.

For many people when something's not fair it's not fun. That's why I tend to prefer 1-on-1 over free-for-all in games that have targeting.

[Paul676]

on tf, targetting isn't fair, but if targetting were fair (i.e. it applied to all equal times) then I would be ok with targeting.

But nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly with all the points Rosti made.

I suggest limiting all official harddrop.com tourneys to official games, and collaborating with TTC. Maybe have it once a year. Then we can have smaller in-community tourneys on other games like we already do.

[Paradox]

on tf, targetting isn't fair, but if targetting were fair (i.e. it applied to all equal times) then I would be ok with targeting.

I still don't think thats fair because you could receive more or less garbage by luck. For example people could not send lines for the time period it targets you, but one person might receive two attacks from two different people. Its because we don't usually consciously control when we send our lines, it comes at inconsistent intervals.

[Profane]

First off Targeting isn't suppose to be fair.  If it was 'fair' then it would be pointless.  The purpose of targeting is to add another strategy to the game and give someone who wouldn't have a chance at winning to compete.  With that said i don't like targeting because i like to either win fairly or lose fairly.  

Secondly you could fix the seeding and match times by simply dividing the signups into regions.  you could offer 4 match playing times which would cater to different parts of the world.  All you would need to do was take the winner from each bracket and the second place finisher then seed winners vs losers randomly for the top 8.  At that point you would have considerably less contestants to deal with for time.  It would make it so the best players would still be at the end and it wold eliminate time excuses.

[Pikiwedia]

Off topic: Alright, I just felt the need to say that after reading rosti's post(s) I am quite positive that I like you.

[mippo]

How about giving the top 8 , 16, 32 or whatever numbers makes the most sense from the last TTO some sort of pre-qualifiying advantage that they only start playing against people in the 2nd or 3rd round? Didn't work out the numbers for that but I'm sure it can be done you probably just need a different number of entrants.

That way the first round(s) should be more competitive and fun for people and the player's advantage wouldn't just be based on sprint.

[lmartins]

Just throwing this out there...

What if there was a ranking system done using only tournament results.  It would probably be a different ranking for each game (tf, np, toj, bb, etc) but it would be great for seeding tournaments.

So for instance if we would start with TTO then the seeding for the next TF tournament would be #1 Hebo, #2 Blink, #3 Kenny, etc.  Of course we could go back and use data from previous tournaments also if the data is available.  I think maybe the ATP does something like this?  not sure.

Anyway, just an idea.

[dkorn725]

I could be a commentator before July 1st that is