This topic contains 8 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Willis 13 years, 1 month ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #2774

    Willis
    Participant

    While watchin the pool sharks today at school I was go figure thinking about scorched, typicly because I can grab in an hour of two of scorched each day, its the “hows my shooting been going” thinking. Today been pretty damn well but thats irrelevent . . .

    I was thinkin how it would be cool to host a Scorched 3D Tournament.

    Heres the base concept as is:

    Players are randomly paired on a hierarchy chart as they sign up, wether or not to do some method-to-maddness (ie like avoide puttin newbs against pro’s) I dont know, for now I was thinking now, we just let the chips fall where they lye.

    Players participate on a 1 v 1 game, with 3 spectators. 3 spectators are the JUDGES, they dont give advice, or correct a person on a mistake (like the comment – buy chutes). If anything their on a speak-unless-spoken-to rule. They will remain as spectators and never enter the playing arena.

    Games will consist of the following Server Stats:



    Main:::

    20 Rounds
    8 Turns / Round
    Buy Time: 30sec
    Shot Time: 30sec
    (Alright well, it IS only 1v1 so it should be simple)

    Eco:::

    Starting money will be 15,000
    Percent Interest will be 30%
    Buy on round 2
    Money per Hit: 100
    Money per kill: 500
    Money per Round: 5000
    Scoring: Most Wins
    Economy: FreeMarket

    Yes : Money Awarded Health Taken

    (Alright the above I didnt think out much, just winged it)

    Env:::

    Random Winds, change on Round, Small Weapon Scale, Arms Level 6
    (Questionable about Arms Level however… )


    Yes this is different then what we’re used to on the servers, but this is so that it is CHALLENGING.

    Now however, you may or may not win your GAME, but to win your tourny match, your not playing for kills or rounds won or cash at end of game, (ok techniqly you are because thats good) your ranked on Credits.

    Credits are earned, or deducted, by gameplay and skillplay, for the most part you can only increase by credits, the only way you can seriously be revoked of credits is a self kill.

    Here is my sketch up of how credits are earned:



    Hits:
    2 Credits Per Hit

    Kills:
    5 Credits Per Kill
    – 50 per SELF kill
    – 5 per backlash Kill (ie – opponent funkies.. not this is only 5, its not same as SELF kill.)
    – 10 per Resign

    Kill/Shot Bonus’s:
    8 per First Shot Kills
    3 per seccond Shot Kills
    1 per 3rd shot kills

    Round Results:
    5 credit per win
    0 credit per tie (both die)
    -5 credit per tie (both live)

    Cash Theory:
    *TCSDG* (Total Cash Spent During Game)
    TCSDG / 30,000 = VALUE
    VALUE (round up to whole number)
    VALUE * -1 = Credit Deduction

    Shots Theory:
    *TSDG* (Total Shots During Game)
    *THDG* (Total Hits During Game)
    TSDG – THDG = VALUE
    VALUE / 5 = SUB
    SUB * -1 = Credit Deduction

    Difficulty:
    (IF KILL WITHIN FIRST 4 MOVES)
    Judges Determain by map and winds how difficult a kill is.. decision is out of a value of 10. 10 being the hardest. Judge Votes Totaled then Divided by 3. Getting an average of votes out of 10. Average is rounded DOWN to whole number.

    Lets call this average == DiFF
    Kill = DiFF * .5
    RoundWin = DiFFF * .5

    IF Kill / RoundWin not Whole Number, Round UP.

    Style:
    (IF WITHIN FIRST 4 MOVES)
    Similar to Difficulty, Judges will judge a kill based on its flare and style, . . maybe the person baby missiles, maybe the person death heads. . Judges will vote either a 0 or a 1… 1 being good.

    If 2 outta 3 votes = 1
    +5 Credits.



    Whoever has the most Credits at the end of the game will win, if Opposing Credit totals are within . . well judging by how easy it is to aquire them 50 apeart, Judges will vote themselves if the standings (who has more) accurately show who the winner should be.

    I hope I covered all the aspects, we got basic wins shots kills cash, then some things to consider the challenges and such.

    How all of this would be recorded I havent pre-determained, maybe thats another responsibility of the judges *shrugs*. . this is just my alpha version so feel free to comment. Especially if things feel out of proportion on credit increments.

    #12763

    Ebonite
    Participant

    interesting concept. gimme a day or so to mull it over…

    #12764

    Anonymous
    Participant

    I like the concept of a tourment 😈
    but the credits are a little confusing to keep track of mabe more simple like who has the mist wins after 20 rounds

    #12765

    Willis
    Participant

    That is a flawed attempt unfortunatly, becuase at best a person could play and win the first 10 games, and poof its over the pure chance of the other person winning is next to impossible. Besides this does nothing to account for skill. Dumb luck even has a good role in Scorched.

    I want to see tournys that not only need to last the whole 20 rounds, but account much higher on a persons skills then the “who can hit who first”. Now if it was a 20 round baby missile thing MAYBE. But that just wont be the case.

    #12766

    Gooseberry
    Participant

    a tournaments a good idea, but the stuff you were talking about willis is overly complicated. i’m maybe tired, but I didn’t understand any of it. but i’m not that smart either

    #12767

    Ebonite
    Participant

    Sorry for the delay, been busy all week. Finally got some time at work last night (shh 😉 ) but crashed as soon as I got home. But now I’m awake, so that means I can post and stuff. I like the idea of a tournament for “unofficial” skill comparison. With the current ranking system based on total kills, ranks are weighted towards the people who spend more time playing.

    Since it is still in conceptual mode, I’m merely posting my thoughts and comments, rather than a “critique.” My first thought is the one vs one nature will expose me for the fraud I am, and thus I would do rather poorly. 😛 And now, the rest of my comments, in no particular order.

    JUDGES
    Volunteers from the player base, obviously. I’d recommend players with a ranking in the top 100. I’d prefer players in the top 50, but that’s just me. The higher ranked players are demonstrating they have the extra time to spend judging multiple matches a week. Basically, you’ll want people familiar with the game; weapons, angles, wind, slopes, walls. Having three judges per match is a good idea, too. Judges should be able to be tournament participants, as well as judges.

    PLAYERS
    The tournament should be open to all. Since players don’t often hit the forums (just the stat pages), there should be announcements in all the Scorched and Apoc servers, once things are ready to go. Since nothing is in place yet, it would be pretty pointlees to start advertising now. For fairness, all players should play in the same nuumber of matches. Ideally, this would be accomplished through a round-robin format, where every player plays against every other player once.

    ORGANIZATION
    SERVER
    There should be at least one server available, set up with tournament rules. Two would allow more than one match to be played at one time, provided there are the players and judges available. This server (or servers) should be passworded while a match is in progress, so random players (seeing five people in a server) don’t join up and ruin the entire premise of the tournament.

    FORUMS
    There should be some dedicated forums fo the tournament. Probably one for General posts, one for Schedules and Announcements, and a Judges forum, preferably private. This could be handled on the Scorched forums here, which would certainly help Gavin’s traffic counter 😉 , but it’s going to get really cluttered in here, really fast.

    SCHEDULES
    There are several ways to approach scheduling. The most logical, and tedious, way would be to have every participating player and judge submit their available times. Someone wil then have to compile all that info and schedule every player a match, making sure that they also schedule three judges at every match.

    Alternatively, one cuold compile just the Judges schedules, and post times when at least three judges are available. Two players can then “sign up” for the available times. Or another way would be to let players and judges sign up for game slots, two payers and three Judges per slot, though care should be exercised to ensure every player plays the right number of matches, and against the right people.

    Some methood will have to be devised for dealing with missed or canceled matches (i.e. family emergencies) and reschedules.

    FORMAT
    A few games should be played before the tournament with the tournament rules to get a feel for how long each match could last. Before the schedules start being made, players (and Judges) should know how much of a time commitment they will have to make per match. Since a lot of players will likely be joining, from both normal and Apoc servers, so a decision will need to be made on whether to use standard weapons or Apoc weapons. I forsee an imminent need for the proposed game recording feature, as I’m sure some players will question the score given by the Judges. Without it, it will probably have to be that the Judges’ word is final, though in the future, the game record could allow for some sort of scoring arbitration to be set up, maybe with a panel of five or seven judges giving the final score or ruling.

    SCORING
    Going by credits or point totals could be one way to rank players. However people want to score in a credit system will probably be fine, as long as all or most of the participants agree. For Judges scoring, I would be partial to sometihng similar to Olympic Figure Skating, where they judge technique and style, separately, and then average the two.

    For this example, Technique could represent Accuracy, Adaptability, and Effectiveness. Style could represent Weapon Choice, Weapon Usage, and use of walls and accesories. Other things that could be rated are Consistency, Sportsmanship, and Planning.

    More than two areas could be designated, and either straight or weighted averages can be used. This way, High scores could be kept separately for Total Average, Technique Average, Style Average, and Best Single Game, for example. Averages could be updated after the completion of each match, or after everyone has completed the current round of matches.

    CONCLUSION
    That’s all I got now. Not too many details, since it’s still a concept. If this does get off the ground, I would be glad to volunteer as a Judge. I will be sure to abuse, err, USE, my powers accordingly.

    kthxbye

    #12768

    Willis
    Participant

    Looking back I can forsee the complexity of my credit theory, but I still belive that standard scoring of kills/wins is a bit weighted. Because as one wins they gain in cash, and gain and gain and gain. Soon enough that person will have a over abondancy while the opponent has nothing left to even by chutes or batts with.

    Now ok maybe if that was the case, the later person deserves to loose.. but I wont be debating this logic battle now. . .

    Ebon I like a lot of what your suggesting, your covering much that I neglected as far as preperation and advertising. The only thing that stands right out to me is the idea of a round-robin tournment style. Yes that is much moreso fair, and yet if we had a couple hundred players sign up, it would take forever. (The “common” players alone thats at least what the top 50?)

    Elimination style would be more swift and efficent, maybe we should break things down by “class”…

    Players will be paired, judged by thier current ranking status. Those within the top 50 will be grouped, 51->100 grouped, and so on, and so on.

    If there becomes an odd man out, one lucky fellow may get a BAI (sp?) and move onto round two. Or if there are too few group per class, neighboring classes will be grouped. Sort of like an advanced version of sports, where there be east and west .. except in this case its many more then that.

    As rounds advance, so would players skills; and because this game is very easy to pick up and understand, within a few simple rounds of the tournment a lower classed player should be an opposable force to say a higher skilled player.

    The main reason besides speed that I like this style of tourny, is that there are certain groupings of players I would like to see taken down right away. I don’t have any hate twoards them and if one such person would succeed in a tourny I’d be pleased, but people like those who do not use chutes, and can easily be killed by diggers… these people I would be pleased to see ridded from the tourny ASAP. I understand when someone runs out of chutes, but to never use them is merely begging for death wishes.

    #12769

    hobbesme
    Participant

    Ebonite, I loved all your ideas; they were well-thought & clearly described.

    My only concern is with two aspects of judging :

    @[PDX]Ebonite² wrote:

    JUDGES
    Judges should be able to be tournament participants, as well as judges.

    SCORING
    For this example, Technique could represent Accuracy, Adaptability, and Effectiveness. Style could represent Weapon Choice, Weapon Usage, and use of walls and accesories. Other things that could be rated are Consistency, Sportsmanship, and Planning.

    1. Although I would want judges to be able to participate in the tournaments, I think that judging a game while also playing in the game may NOT be feasible since a player will just NOT have time to both PLAY well and also JUDGE well.

      Also, judges playing in their own games is a strong conflict of interest. 🙂

    2. The game mechanics / camera mechanics do NOT easily lend themselves well to accurately judge all players’ shots.
      1. Since Ebo suggested scoring based on accuracy, technique, creativity, difficulty, etc.; judges MUST be able to accurately watch or follow the shots. The best way to do this is with the first-person, shot follow-cam — but one player (or spectator judge) can’t follow another player’s shots (can they?).

        Therefore, the best that judges can do is to use the wide-angle cameras & zoom-in manually as needed.

        Ideally, a game feature would allow for the presence of game judge spectators who could on a shot-per-shot basis select any player to follow their shot-cam.

      2. I had another sub-point which I’ve forgotten momentarily — will try to remember & post after I go play tennis! Sorry! 🙄

    Other suggestions for tournament rules might be to provide an etiquette for the players to talk during the game & for the judges to communicate to the players during the game :

    1. Judges may need to provide instructions to the players
    2. Judges may need to declare points or events
    3. Judges may need to warn players regarding breaches of etiquette / game conduct (i.e. profanity, etc.)

    This etiquette or communication may NOT be needed in every game, but without SOME form of pre-arranged communication etiquette, games & judging could become frustrated. It’s always better to aim high & have the law, than to find out in mid-tournament that rules/regulations are needed.

    Which leads to another possible game need — the need for judges to disconnect or banish players that are ABSOLUTELY breaking tournament rules while playing (either excessive profanity, unsportsmanlike behavior, who knows?). But some form of punitive measure should be provided to judges.

    I realize that some of these requests require game features which may not even be available in the upcoming V38. But these are just my brainstorming ideas. Whaddya think?

    #12770

    Ebonite
    Participant

    Willis
    I forsee scoring as being a very contentious issue. Best to get as much input as possible, and maybe take a vote or something. Those were just some of my ideas.

    Playing format: yeah, I see the unfeasability of a round-robin with a large number of players. Brackets would be simpler, of course, but for one thing. Players on the Apoc server won’t have very high ranks on the normal scorched stat board, if they have ranks at all. They will unfairly be placed in the lower brackets, unless two tournaments are set up, one for normal and one for Apoc. Then again, players who play both will be lower in both stats than those who play mostly one or the other.

    hobbesme
    any and all input is welcome, so feel free to post what’s on your mind.

    As far as judges, I didn’t intend for it to be interpreted as people both playing and judging themselves at the same time. You “clarification” (point #1) is exactly what I meant. 😀

    A spectator with the subcamera view in “Action” should be able to follow the shots adequately. This is proposed as a 1 vs 1 format, so there are only 2 shots the judges have to follow at a time, and they will have whatever time the players take to make a shot to examine the previous shot.

    Any rules that are enacted for the tournament should be clearly posted in whatever host forums are used, and I think it should be the player’s responsibility to be aware of and follow them. As far as dialog etiquette, the “t” key should work just fine. 😉

    If the Judges feel that a player should be banned or otherwise disciplined, perhaps allow them to take their complaint to some tournament official or a vote by all judges or something. The worst that could happen would be elimination from the tournament. The Judges are going to have to be given a lot of discretion, at least until game recordings can be made and some arbitration proceeding is set up.

    Keep thinking guys, this is still a concept, so everything is on the table. Details can and will change, so don’t take anything as canon until it’s done.

    #12771

    Willis
    Participant

    If in the event judges would feel it best to remove an individual from the Tournament, I think we need two root elements:

    1) A basis or guideline upon the judges must follow in if they CAN or CANNOT remove an individual. This should be very common sense and easy to figure out, but as hobb’s said best: It’s always better to aim high & have the law, than to find out in mid-tournament that rules/regulations are needed

    2) Judges MUST (At least 1, if not all 3) come to the forums and post in best explination what action was taken place, and why. I would like to see all three in the event it was a split decision of 2/3… For then that 3rd judge can fairly give his input on why not.

    With following shots, if we were to as commented have judges who were within the top 50-100 of rank, there should be little need to worry over how a shot is watched. In my opinion anyone with this sort of status certainly knows how to observe a shot and realize how the shot should be corrected. Myself simple example I play in what I think is called spectator cam, Any movement or zooming by the camera is done by me and my mouse.


    Agreed more voices will make this a lot more team effort decided. Not that 3-4 people is a bad thing 😛 gcamp or Bobirov making comment one of these days wouldn’t hurt, especially if in the future there be any actual game features that would assist in the design of a tourny. (That we are unaware of..)

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.