Hi.

MorFar and I are organising a new Nexuiz 1vs1 deathmatch tournament on a new site (using a different script this time) with the help of a few others like [-z-] and mkzelda. We are still working on some texts and graphics before we can get this public.

However, before the signups can start, we need your opinion about this:
As you know, there have been mixed tournaments where players all over the world, primarily EU and North American players, have played together/against each other in one tournament. This caused several issues, such as

• ping problems, you had to play on different servers located in different countries etc.
• time problems, people living in different timezones which makes it hard to agree on a time to play the match

On the other hand, we've also had US tournaments only (NA frenzy), and it showed that these didn't lack any activity either, even though the player base was divided.

This is why I'd like to know what you guys think should be done

• First poll option: Create only one tournament again and let all players participate in it. The servers used in this tournament would then consist of both EU and NA servers, as well as possibly other servers in other regions.
  Advantage: Greater number of participants
  Disadvantage: Ping and timezone problems
• Second poll option: Create two independent tournaments that run side by side. The only difference of these 2 tournaments is the serverlist, as one will contain only NA servers, while the other one will contain only EU servers. When a player wants to participate in the tourney, he can choose whether he wants to join either the NA or the EU tourney. This will also allow players from other regions than EU or NA to play, they simply have to decide which one of the tournaments they choose.
  Advantage: Most likely no timezone issues, as the participants most likely live in the region of the tournament they chose (EU or NA), most likely no ping issues either
  Disadvantage: Division of the player base into 2 halfs

Feel free to comment on this issue, also suggest other pro/con arguments for either of these options (the ones above only express the thoughts I had so far).

Run them side by side.

However , have the winner of the NA tournament play the winner of the EU tournament.
Like a Nexuiz World Series!

EDIT: While I was writing this, vomit already made a similar suggestion .

I don't really know how you organise the tournament, or how many players will participate, but when I read your post I wondered: Why don't you merge the two options?

My idea is a world tournament with 2 stages:

Stage 1 (Poll option 2)
Regional Tournaments. The player signs up for one, either EU or NA, and competes for the title of the EU or NA champion.

Stage 2 (Poll option 1)
World Finale. The best 50% (25%, 10%) of the EU and NA tournaments are qualified for the world championship and can participate, if they want.

I like sev's idea - running them side by side, then having the top players from these eligible for a unified tourney. Should reduce the risk of that tourney stalling due to players not showing up or being unable to find the time to play.

The second tourney would have no more than 16 players, possibly as few as 8, so it doesn't drag out for too long.

Well, the script won't allow us to do that, sorry. Of course, we could to it manually. But still, I'd suggest that both tourneys are played until the end, so we get the rankings. Then the top4 or top 8 of each tournament can signup for a new tournament which is dedicated for these 8 (or 16) players only, hence only the applications of these 16 players will be accepted by the tourney admin.

GreEn`mArine wrote:Mortar and I

a weapon organize it ?

..

anyway run it side by side like the others said above

GreEn`mArine wrote:But still, I'd suggest that both tourneys are played until the end, so we get the rankings. Then the top4 or top 8 of each tournament can signup for a new tournament which is dedicated for these 8 (or 16) players only, hence only the applications of these 16 players will be accepted by the tourney admin.

That's what I was trying to explain. Of course Stage 1 would have to be finished before Stage 2 could start.

sev wrote:Stage 2 (Poll option 1)
World Finale. The best 50% (25%, 10%) of the EU and NA tournaments are qualified for the world championship and can participate, if they want.

I hope you will understand my dirty english. sry for that.
I got 3 ideas that fucking rocks. (Normal its me)

1- We can do 2 tournaments side by side. Anyway, worldwide competition is impossible.
The Winner of EU and the winner of NA plays in Fucking Super Awsome Nexuiz World Champion Final !!!!1!!11ONEHUNDREDELEVEN. (FSANWCF OMFG =) )
We finaly know who is da best world Nexuiz Player.

2- At the end of the tourney, we can do a country ranking ex :
- France winner : Cuizi
- UK : kojn , ... , ...
- Ger : ??? , ...
This rankin could be done with when the player loose the tournament (half final < final)
If 2 players of the same country loose in the same "part" of tournament, we can add a match to know who is the better. There is some chance that happen with Germany ranking.

3- Allow spectators during Game. (Max ppl ?). And record them all from the both players. Maybe another view (free cam) can be nice. Is the server recording demo is running ?
Then, somebody can do a Nexuiz World Tournament Movie.I can't do it because I'll begin the FOTY in 1 week.

What do think ?

Qz

This could become an awesome fragmovie
I wanna edit!

GreEn`mArine wrote:Well, the script won't allow us to do that, sorry. Of course, we could to it manually. But still, I'd suggest that both tourneys are played until the end, so we get the rankings. Then the top4 or top 8 of each tournament can signup for a new tournament which is dedicated for these 8 (or 16) players only, hence only the applications of these 16 players will be accepted by the tourney admin.

I vote for that.

I don't know if its been done before but I think it'd be really cool if we have a seperate tourney for NA and EU and then another tourney where the best of the two compete.

GreEn`mArine wrote:
Well, the script won't allow us to do that, sorry. Of course, we could to it manually. But still, I'd suggest that both tourneys are played until the end, so we get the rankings. Then the top4 or top 8 of each tournament can signup for a new tournament which is dedicated for these 8 (or 16) players only, hence only the applications of these 16 players will be accepted by the tourney admin.

the only problem I see with that is that the less good players from NA wont have the chance to play with the less good players from europe and vice versa. so i voted for the world wide tounament and the ping and timezone problems that come with it. maybe a solution to the ping problem could be : make 2 games , 1 on euro server and 1 on NA server and the total of the scores from the 2 games determine the winner.

run EU and NA tornaments side by side

pros:

* the duration of the tornament will be shorter

* reduced time zone/ping issues

* game will be played simultaneously (for example, in play-off stage EU players wont have to wait for NA players to finish their matches and vice versa) its like watching the UEFA Champions League with 3 games played at the same time - same thing

cons:

* even in EU players might struggle to find a mutually suitable time for a battle especially on workdays

and good luck organising it

Is it possible for a spectator of a nexuiz match to send his nexuiz output to a video stream and so allow live unlimited coverage of kojn thrashing his american counterpart in the final? xD
I think that the separate tournaments idea is the most workable, where the best 8 or 16 play in a mixed tournament.

side by side!!!


GreEn already mentioned the problems with one tourney for all.
Since i have personally experienced all the problems in the past, there is only one choice for me:
Two seperate Tourneys.

Though i really like the idea of the winners playing against each other

wow. while having a look at the vote results I can already see in which direction it is headed . And most of you guys expressed what you would like most just in different words: having 3 tournaments, while we first play 2 tourneys side by side and then a 3rd one. Of which players this 3rd tourney exists can still be discussed at a later point of time, the possible options as suggested until now are:

• not really having a 3rd tourney, but only a super-grand-final between the euro winner and the NA winner
• picking either the top 2, top4 or top8 of both tournamts and let them play against each other
• creating a country rating (this wouldn't really be a 3rd tourney, but rather a few individual games), which means that probably a few games between players of the same nation have to be played (if they dropped out of the tourney at the same stage)

Rad Ished wrote:Is it possible for a spectator of a nexuiz match to send his nexuiz output to a video stream and so allow live unlimited coverage...

Of course this would be possible. However, someone would need the equipment and the time, and I'm quite pessimistic about this to happen. A radio-stream could be more successful and it would be easier to do.

I know this is early, but do you already have plans about the rules? Single/double elimination? Do players get to pick the maps (from map pool) to be played ie: 1 player picks 1st map, the other picks 2nd map, 3rd one picked by you (if needed)?

Also, will you allow spectators?

Heh, sorry, but I'm excited. I know in NA there are 4 or 5 players that are very close in skill, I can't even imagine what the results will be, especially with those matches being "official", with the pressure and all.

The rules are already done, bascially. The new system will allow us to have group matches first. This means: first an arbitrary number of players signs up and the admins rate them, then the script creates groups that consists of 3 or more players each (based on the ratings, so the groups should not consist of more than 2 good players). Then everyone plays against everyone else in his/her group. Then the top2 of each group advance into a double elimination bracket. The placement of the players for the double elimination is also done by the script alone, and is not based on the rating points anymore, but on the results of the matches of the group stage. It will also try to avoid that players who have already played against each other will play again against each other too soon.

The only thing that is not 100% clear is the thing with the maps:
Basically, each player chooses one map, and these 2 maps are played. If one map is won by each player, or if there was at least one draw game on these 2 maps, a 3rd map has to be played. I have not setup any rule yet what this 3rd map is. I would like the players to agree on one. If this is not possible, I could also enforce a map, but this is a rather bad solution. When 2 players face each other that had to use different servers for each map (EU + NA player) one could agree on this: one player chooses map, other player chooses the server (but only if the 2 players agree on this kind of solution).

And, iirc, it is allowed to have a draw in games of the group stage, but not in games of the bracket stage (of course not, there has to be a winner). This means, that matches in the group stage where each player won a map, or where both maps were a draw, can be considered a draw in the tourney script as well. However, matches where one map was won and one map was a draw also require to play a 3rd map. If this third map is then won by the other player, the game is a draw (because if you look at all three matches you have one map for player x, one map for player y, and one draw map). Otherwise it's a win for the other player.

I agree with all of this. There's just one thing, except that it's probably not possible unless I'm not aware of this feature in nexuiz, it's about games that draw. IMO it has no place in a tournament. Instead, there should be overtime ie: if score is a draw when timelimit hits, 2 minutes of overtime should automatically be added, or something like that. That would rule out having to play more than 3 maps.

Well, there is a sudden-death overtime feature in nexuiz, where you can specify how many minutes to add as overtime, while the first kill in the overtime ends the match. But first of all I haven't tested this feature (I don't know whether it will repeatingly add overtime or not, or whether it still works after the timelimit has been dynamically extended due to ready-restart in v2.4) and also I didn't consider it, because I would actually like to use the normal ladder servers where a draw is absolutely possible. The only thing I would consider is to first test whether this feature still works and whether it works the way it is needed, and then create additions to the ladder-server-configs so that the overtime mode is votable on ladder servers, too. This would then allow to switch the overtime mode dynamically by a vote call.

Well personally I'd rather have draw games than overtime with first frag winning the game which kinda suck IMO. If a player got killed a few seconds before timelimit hits and it gets into overtime, it's a bit unfair because he most likely will get killed right away again, having just respawned. Frags just happen way too fast for sudden-death. So maybe it's better to stick with what you had planned.

Rad Ished wrote:Is it possible for a spectator of a nexuiz match to send his nexuiz output to a video stream and so allow live unlimited coverage of kojn thrashing his american counterpart in the final? xD
I think that the separate tournaments idea is the most workable, where the best 8 or 16 play in a mixed tournament.

Firstly, IM BACK! \o/ although this internet has a usage allowance gah!

and i know tChr has the know how of how to do a live-video stream, so in my oppinion you should ask him about doing such a thing.

nifrek wrote:Well personally I'd rather have draw games than overtime with first frag winning the game which kinda suck IMO. If a player got killed a few seconds before timelimit hits and it gets into overtime, it's a bit unfair because he most likely will get killed right away again, having just respawned. Frags just happen way too fast for sudden-death. So maybe it's better to stick with what you had planned.

I disagree, thats what makes a game great and the epic feel about it, nothing better then an opponent closing down the frag lead when there behind and taking it to over-time.

I may have to start another poll then, to decide whether to "forbid" draw games by using this option, or not. But let me test the currently existing overtime feature first (this weekend). If this feature doesn't work, we won't have any option anyway. Unfortunately I'm not having the time these days to extend the tourney mod myself to create any of such features.

Ok. I've tested the overtime feature. It basically works as I expected. You can specify the amount of time by which the current timelimit gets extended. In our case it would make sense to set it to a high number, like 60 or so, which would mean that the current map is extended by 60 minutes which should really be enough . If a frag happens within these 60 minutes, the game ends immediately. Otherwise it will end (with a draw score) after 60 minutes as well, but it shouldn't take that long to get one frag/death anyway

I will soon create 2 new polls for you guys to decide about the 2 following things:

• How and when to use overtime feature: The advantage of using this would be that we can clearly say that we are using the "normal" Best-Of-Three system. When not using it, we are kinda using a custom system (I explained it in the 18th post already)
  a) don't use it at all (will allow draw games and can make matches longer because sometimes more maps have to be played).
  b) use it only for the bracket games, but not yet for the group games.
  c) use it already in group matches and also in bracket matches
• How the map selection process works:
  a) Both players are allowed to pick a map on their own, and have to agree on a 3rd map. The problem involved here is that probably quite a few of unpopular maps are never played, and that the players might have difficulties finding a 3rd map they both like. As advantage you could say that, if the tournament was a big one with EU and NA players together, you can clearly say that the map picked by player X is played on the server player Y likes better. This won't be this easy in option b).
  b) The tournament admins make full use of the mappool and define the maps to be played for each round. As there will be several rounds in the group stage (the number of rounds depends on the size of the groups) and bracket stage (like ..., WB quarter final, LB quarter final, WB semi final, LB semi final, ..., these would all be considered as a "round", too) the admins of the tournament would define three maps for each round. Example: Round 1 is Aggressor, Runningman, deciding map: Toxic. Round 2 will use the deciding map of round 1 again as a regular map. Example: Round 2: Toxic, Soylent, deciding map: Warfare.
  The question is: how to exactly choose which maps are in which rounds, and also what to consider to be a round and what not. The advantage is that you won't have the trouble of having to agree to a 3rd map. However, if NA and EU players were together, they would have to agree which map should be played on the EU and which on the NA server. I wouldn't know how to do this...

While I can easily create the poll about the overtime thing (as we already know the options) I am still hesitating to create the poll about the map selection process.

Please discuss what you think about the map selection process, its possible options, advantages, disadvantages.

One thing I'd like to see is for the match schedule to be fixed before the tourney starts - players should be able to work this out and communicate exactly what times they can play before the tourney starts. If a player doesn't show up for whatever reason, match is won by walk-over.

Lets not let this tourney drag on into infinity...

I suggest this for map selection:

player1 picks 1st map, player2 picks 2nd map.

If a 3rd map has to be played and both players CANNOT AGREE on which map to play, refer to the tournament website where each round will have a map selected by an admin.

ie:

3rd map to be played if needs be:

Round 1 = aggressor
Round 2 = soylent
etc.

The only problem I see with this is that, this 3rd map might already have been chosen/played during the first 2 maps, the player that won that game might as well just disagree with any map the losing player suggests so they'll end up playing that same map again. I do not have a solution for this. Any suggestions?


One more thing, not related to this, that I'm concerned about... The crylink. During friendly duels most players tend to not use it unless they have to because it's just too strong. At least I do and I know a lot of players that do the same. But during a tournament, I don't think anyone will refrain from using it. That's going to suck pretty bad imho. But I don't see what could be done about it, heh.

kyre wrote:One thing I'd like to see is for the match schedule to be fixed before the tourney starts - players should be able to work this out and communicate exactly what times they can play before the tourney starts. If a player doesn't show up for whatever reason, match is won by walk-over.

Lets not let this tourney drag on into infinity...

Thats understood . I haven't decided how many days to give for a round. Either 7 days, or maybe less. No idea. Maybe for the group stage (where you can actually play against all the opponents in your group in whatever order you like) we give a fixed duration in which all matches have to be played (e.g. 2 weeks for 4 matches). Then for the bracket matches, there have to be fixed schedules, of course.

@Nifrek: Interesting map suggestion system. Maybe as an additional rule one could define that both players may not choose that decider map. So if in first round Aggressor is chosen as deciding map, both players would not be allowed to choose it as their map.

About the crylink: I can not do anything about it. I don't want to change the vanilla Nexuiz gameplay, neither for the ladder, nor for the tourney.

GreEn`mArine wrote:@Nifrek: Interesting map suggestion system. Maybe as an additional rule one could define that both players may not choose that decider map. So if in first round Aggressor is chosen as deciding map, both players would not be allowed to choose it as their map.

That sounds reasonable to me.

I think that, too. Of course, people could argue that, when doing it this way, they would not really be able to pick their "favorite" map. But when assuming that all players have 2 maps in their repertoire at which they are at least somehow good at, it won't be bad, since the player can just choose his 2nd best map and rest assured that if he does't win both maps, he may play his favourite map as decider. So there are advantages for both players.

And other than that, most of the players will be affected by this anyway, since some time everyone (who is still left) will have the "bad luck" that his map is not choosable.