[Denied]No maximum participants for officials (maybe at least until UU/NU are back)

[semjon]

At the moment, we just have one Tier - OU. So everyone, who wants to participate one, has to be very lucky, cause everyone who plays comp wants to.

This could be a time restricted change, until we have uu and nu back.

Hope others think as me :D

 

And sry, if such a thread already exists.

Edited February 9, 2015 by semjon

[OldKeith]

You are basically asking staff to host an extra round (possibly an hour or more longer). It is a pretty hard job to host 32 men already, I have been in a 64 man and the effort is huge, it takes 7-8 hours.

[semjon]

Hmm... that might be true, but also could help find out whose pokes are used often, (so the tiers could be made easier?)

And also imo it'd be fair, to give everyone the chance to test his/her new pokes in comp, especially after hoenn is out.

 

And soon, the old 32 people tournaments could be back.

Edited February 9, 2015 by semjon

[OldKeith]

I agree in a way that the sign up system does not really work now, since if you sign up one second too early, you  are most likely out of the official. It seems like the automation of duels now works pretty well so that it does not really require CMs to spectate each match individually. If the cap is at 64 participants, 4 CMs can call 8 matches at the same time, and a disqualification will happen if the people do not start their match, or one is missing. With the AFK rule, this can work smoothly and allow more people to compete, although making a bracket would take ages, and role call should not even happen.

[Noad]

As OldKeith has pointed out, it is very difficult to host a 64 man bracket because of the time that it takes to finish it. I live in the GMT time zone and I usually start my tournaments at 10pm so that it gives a chance for people in America and Canada to take part. On nights I host 32 participant tournaments I usually don't get to bed much before 3am, this isn't a complaint just an observation- I love hosting tournaments. 

 

If I was to host a 64 man tournament I would have to start the tournament a lot earlier than 10pm GMT / 5pm EST and this would prevent a lot of American and Canadian players from participating. Most people would not be able to make a tournament at 3pm on Friday evening. 

 

Last weekend we had a 32 participant OU tournament every day (here, here and here), that gave anyone that wanted to participate in a tournament 3 chances to do so. I believe there are plenty of chances for people to join an official tournament as of late. On top of this, most of the time I'm not even sure that we get 64 sign ups regularly (I could be wrong about this, I would have to check.)

[Munya]

Perhaps with Tournaments being litterally only a day or less apart lately, give priority to players who weren't in the previous days, that would sadly take more work from staff involves so idk.

[Noad]

Perhaps with Tournaments being litterally only a day or less apart lately, give priority to players who weren't in the previous days, that would sadly take more work from staff involves so idk.

I'm not against considering something similar to the "UU Weekend" that was hosted a while ago- I will have a look through it all later.

I agree in a way that the sign up system does not really work now, since if you sign up one second too early, you are most likely out of the official. It seems like the automation of duels now works pretty well so that it does not really require CMs to spectate each match individually. If the cap is at 64 participants, 4 CMs can call 8 matches at the same time, and a disqualification will happen if the people do not start their match, or one is missing. With the AFK rule, this can work smoothly and allow more people to compete, although making a bracket would take ages, and role call should not even happen.

Role call is something that I want to continue to do for my tournaments because if in the small chance that someone is not there (an emergency arises for them or their computer breaks ect) I can give that spot to someone who is and really wants to take part.

[Robofiend]

If I was to host a 64 man tournament I would have to start the tournament a lot earlier than 10pm GMT / 5pm EST and this would prevent a lot of American and Canadian players from participating. Most people would not be able to make a tournament at 3pm on Friday evening. 'm not even sure that we get 64 sign ups regularly (I could be wrong about this, I would have to check.)

 

Not to mention that people on the West coast already have to battle time problems with most tournaments starting at 2-3pm PST

[semjon]

Startingtime will allways be bad for some people... but this shouldnt be that big argument imo.

I'm from germany and mostly its near midnight, when tournaments start. A friend of me is from russia (2 hours later there). And we also have to manage to participate.

 

 

But I don't even know, if a 64 people tournament would be full. I can only say, that 4 or 5 guys from my team couldnt participate, cause they were full, so they didnt even wrote their names for reserves.

Edited February 10, 2015 by semjon

[Deejaye]

Startingtime will allways be bad for some people... but this shouldnt be that big argument imo.

I'm from germany and mostly its near midnight, when tournaments start. A friend of me is from russia (2 hours later there). And we also have to manage to participate.

 

 

But I don't even know, if a 64 people tournament would be full. I can only say, that 4 or 5 guys from my team couldnt participate, cause they were full, so they didnt even wrote their names for reserves.

But you can potentially get knocked out in the first round and can go to bed immediately, whereas a host and helping refs have to stay for the full duration.

Plus as I see it, as a competitor, staying up for some tournaments isn't bad because it's potentially rewarding - you get a prize for 1st and 2nd if you make it that far, whereas host/refs staying up for multiple tournaments get literally nothing from it except maybe a pat on the back for

 

--

 

back in the ol' days, 64 mans were a lot easier to fill up. But that was back in the 4v4 days and correct me if I'm wrong, I think we generally had more refs as well. so they were more doable because it went by a lot quicker. (I think they took 3-4 hours for 64 man.) As for now, I don't really see this working out. Don't really know about the playerbase now so don't really know if the bracket could be filled, but either way, if a tournament takes up more than like....4 hours, then that's way too much time invested by the staff who probably have other things they need to do. (8

[semjon]

I can understand the points you're writing about, but in a game, where the final goal is comp play, there should be a way to make it possible to everyone to participate, even when theres only one tier.

Atm registration is luck based. 1 sec too early, youre out, 1 sec too late, youre out too...

 

I know that hosting tournaments is much work, and I am glad, that there are many hosted ;)

[ThinkNice]

I actually don't know why matches should be heavily reffed anymore? The automated rule system does everything anyway. If a banned move is used it can either be reported by the player or it can be disabled from tournament mode completely (like Rain Dance (bug) and Baton Pass). Banned Pokés and tiers are already regulated, literally a 'ref' can just call 8 players and have no problem hosting them. The system does everything for you anyway.

 

Then you have the case of render errors, well a ref does not need to be spectating to tell you, you need to provide a screenshot. If you can't you lose, if you can you get a rematch. This does not change when a ref is or is not watching a tournament. Then you have the case of player A winning by a large margin certainly having it in the bag but then player B having a render error, well refs always gave a rematch for this anyway how bs it might've been so this will always stand.

 

With the new ruling of AFK timing refs don't need to pay attention to that either. So the system is perfectly set up for refs actually not having to ref. Which means you can have as many players play as you want because it doesn't matter.

 

So by knowing all this I think it'd be kinda stupid to have a 'cap' on participants anyway. Just let everyone that signs up enter, yeah some will get byes but w/e, if they think it's unfair they can just fuck off. One tourny you get a bye another tourny you don't, so again it doesn't matter.

 

tl;dr: matches don't have to be reffed, remove cap on participants

[Emlee]

x.X 64 man used to be pretty standard. They don't take 6 or 7 hours though unless things have gotten even slower? Might be nice to host 64 mans occasionally, but not all the time. They can be tiring but I dunno, if you have a lot of refs then it makes things go pretty fast and if you fill that sort of bracket then there is a lot of hype for the final rounds. 

[Munya]

x.X 64 man used to be pretty standard. They don't take 6 or 7 hours though unless things have gotten even slower? Might be nice to host 64 mans occasionally, but not all the time. They can be tiring but I dunno, if you have a lot of refs then it makes things go pretty fast and if you fill that sort of bracket then there is a lot of hype for the final rounds. 

 

Some matches are stupidly slow still, but not an hour and a half like we had at times.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Munya

[fredrichnietze]

also i would like to point out with the addition of choice band, the physical special split, and hoen pokes, games are much less wall based and more hyper offensive. i havent even seen a match go past 30 minutes since the last update(which is not to say it cant happen just much more rare). also we do have time clause for troublesome lengthy matches. worst case senario a 64 man would have 6 matches *rounds and if all of them took 45 minutes thats 4.5 hours or 270 minutes. as a worst case scenario thats not much worse then 32 man were 6-12 months ago.

Edited March 13, 2015 by fredrichnietze
Removed quotes of removed content