It is time for a Masters of Rambit Castle Blood FFA event. I am hoping to get it started some time in July, no specific date yet, but first the settings need to be made clear and for that I am asking feedback from YOU!
The rough idea is that players register themselves to compete with others on a virtual scoreboard in which the 3 highest players will receive an award. Each game will award a certain amount of points for every player depending on the death order, obviously the winner (last man standing) in each match would receive the highest amount of points in this virtual scoreboard.
However, I am not sure yet, if only 8 player games should count, or if only the games should count where all players have registered to take part in this event or maybe the minimum should be 50% of the players must be atleast signed up for their match to award them points on this scoreboard.
Also, how many games per week should be held to accurately determine the best RCB FFA players? And should they be only held on Saturday and Sunday to have more players and what times?
OR perhaps I should enforce a strict set of dates and times when the games are to be played?
Give me your ideas!
PS! No Gary's are allowed.
[21:41] [Eot_]DOpEy___ says:
and no gary's allowd. it should all go very well.
Edit!
Another idea is to setup the tournament with groups and rounds.
Each group will play maximum of 4 games to determine 4 players who will play in the next round. Let's say that in round 1 you have 4 groups of 8 players. The winner of first game will advance to the next round and the remaining 7 will now play another game. The winner of the game with 7 players will also advance, and so will the winners of the 6 player and 5 player game.
This way you will get 4 players from each group to advance to the next round that will then have 2 groups of 8 players. The format continues and 4 winners from both groups will advance to the final round in which 3 games will be played to determine the 1st, 2nd and 3rd place players.
first of all, order of death doesnt mean anything at all, usually the biggest threats (aka good players) are likely to get teamed on and killed first.
secondly, do i see this right, that this isnt held like a regular tournament? so the players can play whenever they want? so the guy with the most games has the biggest chance to gain points?
also, if this is the case, noobhunting will become an issue.
first of all, order of death doesnt mean anything at all, usually the biggest threats (aka good players) are likely to get teamed on and killed first.
secondly, do i see this right, that this isnt held like a regular tournament? so the players can play whenever they want? so the guy with the most games has the biggest chance to gain points?
also, if this is the case, noobhunting will become an issue.
Won't know if it will work or succeed until we try something.
it's better than having nothing at all.
this is all for the love and fun of this game.
Getting teamed on and 3v1,4v1,5v1..etc... it will always happen regardless. That's just part of the game.
first of all, order of death doesnt mean anything at all, usually the biggest threats (aka good players) are likely to get teamed on and killed first.
This means you misplayed, if you rush Harald and expect noone to want you dead and then expect to get more points than other players when you actually die first.
secondly, do i see this right, that this isnt held like a regular tournament? so the players can play whenever they want? so the guy with the most games has the biggest chance to gain points?
This is one of the reasons I want feedback. I understand that there needs to be criteria set, if I do not enforce set dates and times for the matches.
For instance, perhaps 50% of players have to be signed up in this event and the game has to be atleast with 6 players? And maybe only up to 7 games per week will be giving you points on the scoreboard?
This kind of setup is tricky to achieve, so maybe go the old fashioned way and set up dates and times?
This means you misplayed, if you rush Harald and expect noone to want you dead and then expect to get more points than other players when you actually die first.
This is one of the reasons I want feedback. I understand that there needs to be criteria set, if I do not enforce set dates and times for the matches.
For instance, perhaps 50% of players have to be signed up in this event and the game has to be atleast with 6 players? And maybe only up to 7 games per week will be giving you points on the scoreboard?
This kind of setup is tricky to achieve, so maybe go the old fashioned way and set up dates and times?
i agree with fugs anyway, ffa can be favourtism, it can be personal hate, it can be that one player excelling and owning the game so all team up on him and kill him early, kill order literally means **** all
even in normal circumstances, for example if im owning a game, i just got mid power and and no1 can take mid from me, ill kill the threatening players 1st, and leave the noob with no hero til last..
does that mean the noob with no hero is 2nd? NO haha
i agree with fugs anyway, ffa can be favourtism, it can be personal hate, it can be that one player excelling and owning the game so all team up on him and kill him early, kill order literally means **** all
even in normal circumstances, for example if im owning a game, i just got mid power and and no1 can take mid from me, ill kill the threatening players 1st, and leave the noob with no hero til last..
does that mean the noob with no hero is 2nd? NO haha
Sure, same thing can happen with 2v2v2v2.
how about some 3v3 and 4v4's?
how about giving points for having the most kills in the game?
even if you get teamed up on, you could still receive points for having the most kills?
I imagine if you get 4v1/5v1 etc, you should have a significant amount of kills.
Of course you get more points for winning the game, but should get points for having the most kills. what do you guys think?
i agree with fugs anyway, ffa can be favourtism, it can be personal hate, it can be that one player excelling and owning the game so all team up on him and kill him early, kill order literally means **** all
even in normal circumstances, for example if im owning a game, i just got mid power and and no1 can take mid from me, ill kill the threatening players 1st, and leave the noob with no hero til last..
does that mean the noob with no hero is 2nd? NO haha
That is why a great number of games would be played, so to get a more accurate scoreboard. The hate killings and etc would be insignificant overall.
This means you misplayed, if you rush Harald and expect noone to want you dead and then expect to get more points than other players when you actually die first.
this is totally missing the point, i never said anything about harald. people team regardless of what you take, how would you win a 4v1 with khan vs 2 other khans and 2 martel?
this will happen, just because one player has most kills.
that guy might be leading for now, because he fought well, but he still dies first of those 5 people. either that or he wins. absolutely no way to get a second place out of it, although he did best.
if you go haralds early, well, stupid you, then you deserve to die first and get 0 points.
Quote:
This kind of setup is tricky to achieve, so maybe go the old fashioned way and set up dates and times?
i guess... but then maybe only give the winner a fixed amount of points. and then some "special achievements"
so let's say:
10 points for winning. (winning locks all other achievements for that player, so you can only gain 10 points per game, not-winning players cant gain more than 8 points per game)
5 points for reaching 2k kills first. (or when somebody dies while leading kills)
1 point for killing an opponent (alone, a teaming defeat shouldnt be rewarded)
and so on...
would require to watch all the games and count, which might be lot of work.
i prefer make some groups of sign uped players,each group play 2/3,who win 1 game of each group go for final round which have top2/3 players of each group,and then points used or most winner of some set of games
using points is bit unfair in ffa games
i guess... but then maybe only give the winner a fixed amount of points. and then some "special achievements"
so let's say:
10 points for winning. (winning locks all other achievements, so you can only gain 10 points per game, not-winning players cant gain more than 8 points per game)
5 points for reaching 2k kills first. (or when somebody dies while leading kills)
1 point for killing an opponent (alone, a teaming defeat shouldnt be rewarded)
and so on...
would require to watch all the games and count, which might be lot of work.
The points to be given usually in FFA have been the following for an 8p game.
12 - the winner
9 - 7th to die
7 - 6th to die
5 - 5th to die
4 - 4th to die
3 - 3rd to die
2 - 2nd to die
1 - 1st to die
I suppose special points could be given out for certain milestones like the 2000 kills you proposed, perhaps even for heroes owned?
The rough idea is that players register themselves to compete with others on a virtual scoreboard in which the 3 highest players will receive an award. Each game will award a certain amount of points for every player depending on the death order, obviously the winner (last man standing) in each match would receive the highest amount of points in this virtual scoreboard.
However, I am not sure yet, if only 8 player games should count, or if only the games should count where all players have registered to take part in this event or maybe the minimum should be 50% of the players must be atleast signed up for their match to award them points on this scoreboard.
Also, how many games per week should be held to accurately determine the best RCB FFA players? And should they be only held on Saturday and Sunday to have more players and what times?
OR perhaps I should enforce a strict set of dates and times when the games are to be played?
Give me your ideas!
PS! No Gary's are allowed.
[21:41] [Eot_]DOpEy___ says:
and no gary's allowd. it should all go very well.
Edit!
Another idea is to setup the tournament with groups and rounds.
Each group will play maximum of 4 games to determine 4 players who will play in the next round. Let's say that in round 1 you have 4 groups of 8 players. The winner of first game will advance to the next round and the remaining 7 will now play another game. The winner of the game with 7 players will also advance, and so will the winners of the 6 player and 5 player game.
This way you will get 4 players from each group to advance to the next round that will then have 2 groups of 8 players. The format continues and 4 winners from both groups will advance to the final round in which 3 games will be played to determine the 1st, 2nd and 3rd place players.
PS! No Gary's are allowed.
[21:41] [Eot_]DOpEy___ says:
and no gary's allowd. it should all go very well.
hope to get a lot of players involved. I will keep inviting and notifying players about this.
first of all, order of death doesnt mean anything at all, usually the biggest threats (aka good players) are likely to get teamed on and killed first.
secondly, do i see this right, that this isnt held like a regular tournament? so the players can play whenever they want? so the guy with the most games has the biggest chance to gain points?
also, if this is the case, noobhunting will become an issue.
first of all, order of death doesnt mean anything at all, usually the biggest threats (aka good players) are likely to get teamed on and killed first.
secondly, do i see this right, that this isnt held like a regular tournament? so the players can play whenever they want? so the guy with the most games has the biggest chance to gain points?
also, if this is the case, noobhunting will become an issue.
it's better than having nothing at all.
this is all for the love and fun of this game.
Getting teamed on and 3v1,4v1,5v1..etc... it will always happen regardless. That's just part of the game.
This means you misplayed, if you rush Harald and expect noone to want you dead and then expect to get more points than other players when you actually die first.
This is one of the reasons I want feedback. I understand that there needs to be criteria set, if I do not enforce set dates and times for the matches.
For instance, perhaps 50% of players have to be signed up in this event and the game has to be atleast with 6 players? And maybe only up to 7 games per week will be giving you points on the scoreboard?
This kind of setup is tricky to achieve, so maybe go the old fashioned way and set up dates and times?
tho i do think maybe making 2v2v2v2 teams could work better, in a similar way maybe counting 2v2 2v2v2 and 2v2v2v2
This is one of the reasons I want feedback. I understand that there needs to be criteria set, if I do not enforce set dates and times for the matches.
For instance, perhaps 50% of players have to be signed up in this event and the game has to be atleast with 6 players? And maybe only up to 7 games per week will be giving you points on the scoreboard?
This kind of setup is tricky to achieve, so maybe go the old fashioned way and set up dates and times?
i agree with fugs anyway, ffa can be favourtism, it can be personal hate, it can be that one player excelling and owning the game so all team up on him and kill him early, kill order literally means **** all
even in normal circumstances, for example if im owning a game, i just got mid power and and no1 can take mid from me, ill kill the threatening players 1st, and leave the noob with no hero til last..
does that mean the noob with no hero is 2nd? NO haha
even in normal circumstances, for example if im owning a game, i just got mid power and and no1 can take mid from me, ill kill the threatening players 1st, and leave the noob with no hero til last..
does that mean the noob with no hero is 2nd? NO haha
how about some 3v3 and 4v4's?
even if you get teamed up on, you could still receive points for having the most kills?
I imagine if you get 4v1/5v1 etc, you should have a significant amount of kills.
Of course you get more points for winning the game, but should get points for having the most kills. what do you guys think?
even in normal circumstances, for example if im owning a game, i just got mid power and and no1 can take mid from me, ill kill the threatening players 1st, and leave the noob with no hero til last..
does that mean the noob with no hero is 2nd? NO haha
That is why a great number of games would be played, so to get a more accurate scoreboard. The hate killings and etc would be insignificant overall.
this will happen, just because one player has most kills.
that guy might be leading for now, because he fought well, but he still dies first of those 5 people. either that or he wins. absolutely no way to get a second place out of it, although he did best.
if you go haralds early, well, stupid you, then you deserve to die first and get 0 points.
so let's say:
10 points for winning. (winning locks all other achievements for that player, so you can only gain 10 points per game, not-winning players cant gain more than 8 points per game)
5 points for reaching 2k kills first. (or when somebody dies while leading kills)
1 point for killing an opponent (alone, a teaming defeat shouldnt be rewarded)
and so on...
would require to watch all the games and count, which might be lot of work.
using points is bit unfair in ffa games
so let's say:
10 points for winning. (winning locks all other achievements, so you can only gain 10 points per game, not-winning players cant gain more than 8 points per game)
5 points for reaching 2k kills first. (or when somebody dies while leading kills)
1 point for killing an opponent (alone, a teaming defeat shouldnt be rewarded)
and so on...
would require to watch all the games and count, which might be lot of work.
The points to be given usually in FFA have been the following for an 8p game.
12 - the winner
9 - 7th to die
7 - 6th to die
5 - 5th to die
4 - 4th to die
3 - 3rd to die
2 - 2nd to die
1 - 1st to die
I suppose special points could be given out for certain milestones like the 2000 kills you proposed, perhaps even for heroes owned?