Moving Forward with Official Tournaments v.2


#1

Stealing is Illegal - Tournament Plenary

I know this is a couple of days late, but I’d just like to say congratulations to @Alpha for winning the “Stealing is Illegal” tournament on Sunday! The game was very close with myself, @Kronches and @Zai coming in close 2nd, and @Line only 2 survivals off that. Thanks to everyone who watched the stream, participated, practised in custom rooms before the tour and generally made the tour amazing! Check out the recording of the finals here. (Thanks to @44FrenchFries for doing such a great job of editting!)

If anyone wants to do something with the recordings I took, please look here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GU4-EFeH76K48Bf3Wzo-2Z1ZzQRnFKNb?usp=sharing

"The feedback part"

With this last tournament I’ve tried to make something which appeals a bit more to those in the community who came from curve fever 2 and 3, with the small twist of including curve fever pro powers. I hope that the cf2 and cf3 players among us enjoyed this. :slight_smile:

Unfortunately this last tournament lasted far longer than expected due to the huge number of players and general “slowness” of this purely survival based gamemode. Off the back of this, how do you feel about the idea of splitting tournaments into mini-qualifying tournaments and “Grand Final” Tournaments? Tournament winners from the qualifying tours might get a smaller coin prize while the Grand Finals have fewer players, and have the same normal qualifiers. The conditions for entering the “Grand Final” tour would be something like, “Ranked in the top 50 worldwide” and/or “Reached the semi finals in one of the last 3 tournaments”. One thing this might help with is having some smaller easier tournaments for lower level players to enjoy and win prizes in. It would also allow us to spend more time on the top matches of the tournaments to make sure that we have some level of “fairness” by being able to aggregate several games’ worth of results each round.

Other than this additional suggestion, most of my feedback points are similar to last time: What powers would you like to see? What about a Curve Fever Pro League? What in general do you think should be the future of CFPro’s Official Tournaments?

Thank you again,
OwI

P.S: The December tournament is going to be something a bit different :3 More info coming soon… (mwahahahhaa…)


#2

i would like to be in the grand final, but if i continue in this lose streak (-185) i wont be enought high ranked xd


#3

and i beg you!!! do it the 29th december (or the 22th but i prefer 29)


#5

cool idea owl,u could make another parallel tournament rank,like the atp tour (tennis) or something,that rank will determinate who ones enter to the next tournament to make upcoming tours simpler ,with qualifying rounds for lower ranked players @Owl i’ll help u with all of this as long as u dont have enough time :slight_smile:


#6

I wasn’t in the last tour, but I feel that it was good, except the length.
I would very much like a special event on Christmas day, that would be fun, but I don’t know of thats how devs want to spend day off.


#7

do u imagine guys some succulent prizes for signing up to xmas tournament,would be cool


#8

The idea of different tours sounds great, but I think that everyone will play the smaller tours for the mini-coin prizes and even if you r top 50 or already qualified for the Grand Final u will still play for the coins and thereby taking someone elses spot for the Grand Final.

League sounds interesting. But it is kinda hard to go through with it imo.

What about having a idk 6month/12month ranking:

  • you get a certain amount of points for the placement u reached in the tour.
  • this points are summed up and at the end we have one big overall winner.
  • maybe you could add points for the in game-rank at the end of each month as well but that
    would most likely favor cheating ones rank up in customs.

cheating ones rank up in customs

I have seen a lot of players doing this :joy: i have got an eye on you cheaters :joy:


#9

Hey Owl, thanks a lot for the tournament! I enjoyed it a lot except for the (not necessary) loooong time. What I think can be reduced:

  1. The number of rounds. I played with each Line, Alpha and Kronches at least 2 times (and 2 games each time) and if I would be one position higher in the semi I could play even more in the final. What for? That makes first rounds almost useless
  2. The number of games in the round. I feel that one is enough. It feels better to be concentrated for 2-3 important matches rather than to keep your concentration for 4 hours. Besides it’s clearer who is winning and you don’t have to count each round.
    Also you should keep in mind that not everybody lives by CET. It was already 2am by my time when the tour was over. I mean that what seems to be possible in general (to play till midnight) may be quite unfair to others.

What I liked and what I would propose:

  1. about 70 registered players is a success! I think it’s mostly because it’s close to cf2-3 playing style, but maybe it’s also because it’s newbies (and smurf :smile:) friendly. I think you should keep it in mind at least for a couple of next tourneys.
  2. I like that there is an option to use different modules from proposed group. Isn’t it cool to see so different tactics? Like speed+jump, hide+jump or brake+thin. That’s much more interesting than mines tourney
  3. Here are possible ideas of modules I find cool for next tournaments:
  • Side-, Multi-, One-, Scatter-, Double-shots (maybe with a possibility of adding any def module). It’s quite newbie-friendly since you can easily get one- or side-shot from the beginning and it’s not a bad combo already!
  • Fevers spam only! It’s also relatively newbie-friendly since you can get at least thick and Lorez soon.
  • Speed+Speedy. That’s not so newbie-friendly, but it’s going to be super entertaining!

Maybe that can be three good steps to make people involved in the game more. I don’t like the idea of qualifiers since the official tournament should be an important event which is open for everybody. People would probably not be interested in playing some second-tier events. It’s better to balance the real “big” tourney by proposing newbie-friendly modules and good (not very long) schedule. Also you can announce it really in advance making it possible for others (specially newbies) to prepare right modules.

And the last: the idea to give tourney a special title is cool :wink:


#10

Hi @Owl, thanks for organizing, it was a truly great tour! :slight_smile:

Especially thumbs up for devising a good schedule for 5-FFA, I know from experience how devising tournament-kind ladders can be way more interesting/challenging than it looks like, and for an odd number of players (with such high overall number of them) it must’ve been exceptionally hard to come up with a sensible design. But the result was great, and IMO it was a way better ladder (apart from length, which can be solved in other ways like you said) than the more “standard” ones like September tour.

  1. I think the idea of splitting tours is good, however it must be devised to reflect the fact that some good players might want to play just one tour, e.g. good CF2 players might’ve had great time on this tour but are not interested in other tours. So it should not be something like “almost all slots in Grand Final are for the selected ones, and there are few spots left for the winners of qualifications” - it should be reasonably easy to qualify into Grand Final just by entering the qualifications “from scratch”, if someone is good in this (and only this) type of gameplay (e.g. CF2/3 players)

  2. I don’t think slots in Grand Final allocated due to top50 is a good idea. Getting to the peak of leaderboard is a great feat (imho being in top6 is more of a feat than getting to a tour’s final for example, though both are truly extraordinary - but just my opinion), but I would not mix those two too much. Some top players simply don’t care about ranks, and it’s not beneficial for the overall community to force them to grind for rank if they don’t want to (more rank grinding by top players = more frustrated lower-level players. I don’t have anything againt rank-grinding to clarify, but we shouldn’t incentivize those who don’t grind to start grinding). Not to mention that it’s not hard to simply cheat rank by playing with take accounts.

So for this reason, I think a much better idea is if “secured slots” are allocated due to successes in previous tournaments, rather than rank. I think

might be a bit too little, cause it’ll to large extent be the same players in all 3 tours. So I would extend this category further to catch more than only top-best players, e.g. a player does not need to qualify to a tournament if A) they reached semi-finals in one of the last 4 tournaments, or B) they reached quarter-finals in the vert last tournament in which they participated. And I would delete the “top 50” category completely. [Of course, the definition of “semi” and “quarter” might vary depending on each tour’s ladder, but conceptually what I have in mind is “semi” is the round in which about 10-12 best players are left, and “quarter” as the round in which about 20 best players are left. This in particular means, that the player who never gets to the top, but plays strong in each tournament tours consistently, always reaching top 20, would not need to qualify to the next one as long as his always keeps his/her tour-top-20 level. And I think it’s good that such people would not discourage low-ranks by playing in qualifications. The rules of each tour can simply specify which positions get these benefits.]

  1. I think the concerns

will not be valid as long as this is handled well regarding communicating the intent to community.

If every month it is advertised as that there is one tournament, and Stage A takes place on day XXX and Stage B a week later, nobody will feel “excluded” by needing to play Stage A. And nobody will have problems with that someone can get a spot in Stage B by having successes in previous tours either, cause that’s a well-established situation in many sports. As long as (like already addressed in #1), stage A indeed gives a reasonable amount of slots qualifying to stage B of the same tournament, I don’t think low players will have a problem with this. If on the other hand it is advertised in a way that looks more like as two connected by in-principle different “1st tier tournament” and “2nd tier tournament”, then indeed @NICK’s concerns are probably valid. (It does not exclude a possibility that once in a while a “True 2nd tier tournament” could take place, e.g. only for gold 2 and lower players, like you discussed such a prospect too).


#11

I think this is exactly the reason there should be no qualifiers. Those who play sports usually get money for this. It’s clear that then you know everyone participates because it’s their job. But here you need to motivate people somehow. Taking part in something important and the opportunity to play with all the best is the motivation, but even then a lot of people disappear after registration. If they don’t get these opportunities then they’d probably just not appear.
But that’s just my opinion. Maybe it will work well. I mean that just if I would be newbie I would see no reason to participate in qualification: you need to spend two evenings if you want to try to win (instead of one) and you would not try yourself with the best players: you would see that the best are in another league and it creates even bigger barrier between newbies and experienced players. Personally I don’t like that :wink:


#12

Well, yeah, maybe, but I don’t think I’d agree, cause the prospect of playing with a top10 or top20 might certainly be appealing to a high gold player for example, but among low golds or silvers those would be really exceptional situations that someone really wants to try themselves directly against the best person in the world. Of course, in the end asking low-ranks would be best :smiley: Also, I don’t think it’s not common in the amateur sports either.

Again, IMO it just comes down to how many slots to Stage B are to be won in Stage A. If Stage B is mostly reserved for the best and “an occasional player lucky enough to win Stage B”, then I agree with you. If the players have a feel they will indeed have reasonable chance to get good in Stage A and advance further, IMHO this is already a “motivation and an opportunity to play with the best”.


#13

Well, let’s see! Anyway it’s Owl who decides :wink:


#14

Thanks a lot @NICK and @takisobiedebil for your comments so far. Honestly I’m going some troubles irl at the moment so I can’t spend time to write a proper explanation of everything, but I’ll try and give some more of my own insights.

When it comes to the qualifiers idea, the idea was just to say that a few players (like 10-20%) would have a “free pass” into the tournaments but that most would have to get in via qualifiers. These players wouldn’t be allowed to play in the qualifiers as they would have already qualified.

My hesitation is that I feel most people would rather play one 3hr tour than two 1.5-2hr tournaments. But in terms of organisation, I feel it would be easier and nicer to have qualifying tournaments. I’m not going to decide either way as of yet. Hopefully I’ll get some more feedback.

I’m sorry I can’t respond fully regarding this atm. I’ll be back to discuss these things properly soon. For the moment though the more ideas and input I get, the more the me and the rest of the mod team has to work with in order to ensure that tournaments work well
:slight_smile:


#15

Thanks a lot to everyone else as well :heart:


#16

I like your ideas… only one with rank in top 50 i think isnt good cause than some good players wont be allowed to play in grand-finals… I just think the best way is to make less rounds and only 1 game for round so its not that long. Its hard to say about qualification rounds. Maybe a lot of top 50 wont play what then? Maybe u can make tours at 19.00 so they would finish quicker…
And i would rather December tour on22th or 23th December cause I am on ski holidays from 26th to 30th… Or christmas tour-thats good idea too! :smile: And u need to thing a little more about organisation and qualification. I know that a lot of people who are little worse (bronze, silver, maybe some gold) want to play against the best player here (like me… I am really bad) but if they would be out already in qualification they wont see the real tour and they will actually think that they werent part of it. Cause worse player who want to see how are tours going are really exciting and happy to play on tour and to see who are the best… maybe if they play with the winner, they can see how to improve their playing… So try to get new and new ideas and we will try to think what is the best too, and share with us ur ideas cause u know-maybe community will like them or no. But I think u r really good tour-moderator and keep this really, really, really good work :grin::wink::smile:


#17

Green speed only tour, or red speed only tour