Jump to content
  • 29

Event Suggestions & Feedback


Strych

Question

As you all know, we enjoy running events. We try to come up with as many new and exciting ideas for them as we can, whilst also attempting to cater to our broad player-base.

Have we run a particular event that you'd like to see again? Perhaps one that you didn't like so much?
Do you have an idea for an event that you'd like to see happen? We're interested in your feedback and ideas, so feel free to post them in this thread.


Please keep ideas within the realm of possibility. I realise "if X is implemented, Y could be a great event", but lets try to work with what we have.



Note: This thread is for the discussion of official events (like those posted in PokeMMO Official Events).

Link to comment

Recommended Posts

  • 0

isn't swiss basically round robin, except the match ups are based on wins? I don't really see a point in doing round robin since it takes forever with pointless matches of a 0-4 person vs a 1-3 person. I guess swiss is similar, but more condensed

Swiss simply does not work in a tournament with 16 players. Swiss is designed to weed out the lesser players in a large scale tournament and is then usually followed by a double elim knock out or a best of 3 knock out, or in games where there is little rng involved a simple knock out tournament. Swiss conflicts when players get similar results when there are less than like 32 players. In RR this doesn't happen and the tie breakers are fair in RR because in RR everyone played everyone while in Swiss you can get 'unlucky' by getting matched round 1 with a person that would always lose making your win mean less in the long run while you still won that match but still lose by tie breaker.. As demonstrated in the Masters Invitationals.

Link to comment
  • 0

Swiss simply does not work in a tournament with 16 players. Swiss is designed to weed out the lesser players in a large scale tournament and is then usually followed by a double elim knock out or a best of 3 knock out, or in games where there is little rng involved a simple knock out tournament. Swiss conflicts when players get similar results when there are less than like 32 players. In RR this doesn't happen and the tie breakers are fair in RR because in RR everyone played everyone while in Swiss you can get 'unlucky' by getting matched round 1 with a person that would always lose making your win mean less in the long run while you still won that match but still lose by tie breaker.. As demonstrated in the Masters Invitationals.

Swiss works, but maybe not in the way you were hoping. In 16 player swiss, after 1 round, there are 8 1-0 people, then after 2 rounds, 4 2-0 people and so on. I mean round robin is more fair as you said but its not always practical. 

Link to comment
  • 0

Swiss works, but maybe not in the way you were hoping. In 16 player swiss, after 1 round, there are 8 1-0 people, then after 2 rounds, 4 2-0 people and so on. I mean round robin is more fair as you said but its not always practical. 

You just said Swiss works like a knock out. If you think Swiss works in small tournaments I really can't say anything else.

Link to comment
  • 0

Swiss works, but maybe not in the way you were hoping. In 16 player swiss, after 1 round, there are 8 1-0 people, then after 2 rounds, 4 2-0 people and so on. I mean round robin is more fair as you said but its not always practical. 

mfw this statement isnt even true

 

player1: 1-0

player2: 1-0

player3: 1-0

player4: 1-0

player5: 1-0

player6: 1-0

player7: 1-0

player8: 1-0

player9: 0-1

player10: 0-1

player11: 0-1

player12: 0-1

player13: 0-1

player14: 0-1

player15: 0-1

player16: 0-1

 

round2:

player1: 1-1

player2: 1-1

player3: 1-1

player4: 1-1

player5: 1-1

player6: 2-0

player7: 2-0

player8: 1-1

player9: 1-1

player10: 1-1

player11: 1-1

player12: 1-1

player13: 1-1

player14: 0-2

players15: 0-2

player16: 1-1

 

you can also have 8 players with 2-0 etc

 

There's a 1 round difference between 16 man and 32 man swiss, I don't really know what you're getting at. 

That Swiss and RR and Knock Out have different uses.

Edited by ThinkNice
Link to comment
  • 0

mfw this statement isnt even true

 

player1: 1-0

player2: 1-0

player3: 1-0

player4: 1-0

player5: 1-0

player6: 1-0

player7: 1-0

player8: 1-0

player9: 0-1

player10: 0-1

player11: 0-1

player12: 0-1

player13: 0-1

player14: 0-1

player15: 0-1

player16: 0-1

 

round2:

player1: 1-1

player2: 1-1

player3: 1-1

player4: 1-1

player5: 1-1

player6: 2-0

player7: 2-0

player8: 1-1

player9: 1-1

player10: 1-1

player11: 1-1

player12: 1-1

player13: 1-1

player14: 0-2

players15: 0-2

player16: 1-1

 

you can also have 8 players with 2-0 etc

 

That Swiss and RR and Knock Out have different uses.

you do know that if after round 1, 8 players are 1-0 and 8 are 0-1, in the second round the 1-0's get matched with each other and the 0-1's get matched with each other, right?

Link to comment
  • 0

you do know that if after round 1, 8 players are 1-0 and 8 are 0-1, in the second round the 1-0's get matched with each other and the 0-1's get matched with each other, right?

lel I forgot rip, still swiss is flawed in 16 man. Just look at the complications that arose in the masters.

Link to comment
  • 0

lel I forgot rip, still swiss is flawed in 16 man. Just look at the complications that arose in the masters.

yeah, but that was cause the masters had like 5 rounds but only 8 players lmao. 16/32 Man swiss tournaments would honestly be fine.

 

...at least, they WOULD be, but Time Clause can very easily fuck shit up because formats like Swiss kinda poop all over themselves in cases like that. #TimeClauseRuinsFuckingEverything

Link to comment
  • 0

yeah, but that was cause the masters had like 5 rounds but only 8 players lmao. 16/32 Man swiss tournaments would honestly be fine.

 

...at least, they WOULD be, but Time Clause can very easily fuck shit up because formats like Swiss kinda poop all over themselves in cases like that. #TimeClauseRuinsFuckingEverything

We'll need to test it with some tournaments. But yeah LF counter and better handling of time clauses

Link to comment
  • 0

We'll need to test it with some tournaments. But yeah LF counter and better handling of time clauses

I mean, the thing is, they literally cannot use something like Swiss and have time clause. Literally they can't. The way they deal with time clause now is they just mark one person the winner, and in the next match, the "winner" is just marked as a loser. This works fine in double/single elimination, aside from having a misleading/untruthful bracket, but due to the point system in Swiss and the way players are matched up, they literally cannot do that or they will break the tournament.

Link to comment
  • 0

I mean, the thing is, they literally cannot use something like Swiss and have time clause. Literally they can't. The way they deal with time clause now is they just mark one person the winner, and in the next match, the "winner" is just marked as a loser. This works fine in double/single elimination, aside from having a misleading/untruthful bracket, but due to the point system in Swiss and the way players are matched up, they literally cannot do that or they will break the tournament.

That's why every time clause should be looked at case by case. But we don't have staff that 1. follow the battle (or all battles, I nkow some staff members actually watch) 2. do not have enough knowledge to deduct the outcome or 3. it's a stalemate.

Link to comment
  • 0

That's why every time clause should be looked at case by case. But we don't have staff that 1. follow the battle (or all battles, I nkow some staff members actually watch) 2. do not have enough knowledge to deduct the outcome or 3. it's a stalemate.

I'm guessing that by "case by case" you mean "declaring a winner", and while it's a neat idea, I've seen a LOT of games where I'm 100% sure one guy will win and lol other guy won; Especially when it comes to PP stalls, since you just don't keep track of that shit, especially if you're not the one playing. Declaring a winner is honestly not that easy, and a lot of times, it won't turn out how you expect; Not only that, but having a staff member monitoring every battle this closely will probably end making tournaments take longer anyway, negating the point of Time Clause to begin with.

 

ofc beyond all this, you can just imagine the rage and salt whenever time clause happens. Plus, arrangements like this can easily promote stall play, as they can keep a consistent lead throughout the game; A good stall team won't fall apart until late in the game if played well, meaning that offense can easily look like they're behind 45 minutes in when they can make a comeback.

Edited by Senile
Link to comment
  • 0

I'm guessing that by "case by case" you mean "declaring a winner", and while it's a neat idea, I've seen a LOT of games where I'm 100% sure one guy will win and lol other guy won; Especially when it comes to PP stalls, since you just don't keep track of that shit, especially if you're not the one playing. Declaring a winner is honestly not that easy, and a lot of times, it won't turn out how you expect; Not only that, but having a staff member monitoring every battle this closely will probably end making tournaments take longer anyway, negating the point of Time Clause to begin with.

 

ofc beyond all this, you can just imagine the rage and salt whenever time clause happens. Plus, arrangements like this can easily promote stall play, as they can keep a consistent lead throughout the game; A good stall team won't fall apart until late in the game if played well, meaning that offense can easily look like they're behind 45 minutes in when they can make a comeback.

Those are fair points, and I have seen enough of those games myself. Although I'd figure GMs have access to information as moves and PP left and stuff.

Link to comment
  • 0

Weekend tournaments please

The every Saturday and Sunday trend is awesome guys, keep it up.

 

 

If the suspect test on Bliss and Lax go through, I propose an Uber tournament to be held after about two weeks. I think the ubers list is pretty extensive and this would help to calm the few in the community that might not appreciate having a meta without lax or bliss. 

Yea I like the test, but my OU roster is shallow. I'm going to be pretty shit, some Ubers would be nice during the test period if it occurs.

Link to comment
  • 0

Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.

Link to comment
  • 0

Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.
Dear staff, give creative media some love.

 

You'd like us to create an event around the Trade Corner section? Alright, no problem.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.