Jump to content

Maximum Number of Tournament Appearances Per Month


Recommended Posts

Due to the high volume of interest into every Official ran tournament, I feel there needs to be something in place to give everyone at least the opportunity to play every now and then. Everyone tournament less than one second in registration has filled and has up to 50 some reserves. 

 

Currently there are fields of 32(and some 64). Its time consuming for the officials to run this so I could understand why there isn't an expansion.

 

My recommendation for all Official tournaments would be have a maximum number of entries per month per user into official tournaments that have a player cap on it. This way everyone should be able to enter at least one tournament every now and then and be able to enjoy competition.

 

I feel like 5 or 6 maximum tournaments per month would be reasonable and would give more players opportunities to get in to one occasionally. 

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment

my mom used to tell me something when I was a kid, "get good at signing up yo". Some valuable advice

What I read from that is "the system is broken but instead of attempting to fix it just deal with it" 

 

Honestly though, what would you think is the best defensive argument against this?

Link to comment

This.

Even if you're tracking IP address to make sure this rule is followed, modifying one's IP isn't that hard.

I feel like the staff could always make players determine one player account for competitive play, submit it, and if a player were to use an alt to exceed a tournament limit have a harsh penalty in place.

 

The rule itself I would think would discourage most honest players from being selfish and abusing it, and a harsh penalty could discourage others who don't want a punishment.

Link to comment

I feel like the staff could always make players determine one player account for competitive play, submit it, and if a player were to use an alt to exceed a tournament limit have a harsh penalty in place.

 

The rule itself I would think would discourage most honest players from being selfish and abusing it, and a harsh penalty could discourage others who don't want a punishment.

Alright, let me make this easy for you to understand;

 

#1: This artificially heightens the barrier to entry for competitive play. Why? You have to somehow setup a "designated account" for competitive play, which I'm assuming has to be approved, etc. etc., in regards to your "anti-alt" idea.

 

#2: Difficult to enforce, anyone who gets around the rule is very rewarded with more tournament plays, more practice, more chances to win, etc; Also highly encourages coaching, and puts anyone who isn't in a big competitive team in even more of a disadvantage.

 

#3: This is fucking competitive play, not Weenie Hut Jr. This suggestion artificially lowers the quality of players in any given tournament, since it's likely the most active players will reach their "quota" fairly quickly, so most tournaments will consist of randoms. This makes usage stats less useful, lowers the player quality all around, and is just generally non-conducive to any serious competitive environment.

 

So, basically, no, no, and no. Get gud or get out. The rule doesn't work, but even if it did, it's a shitty solution which is terrible for everyone except for maaaaybe shitkids, but they're not winning anything even if the tournaments get worse. Hell, even they might have their growth stifled if they can only play a few officials every month to try and improve and aren't in a good team to teach them during tournament downtimes.

Edited by Senile
Link to comment

Alright, let me make this easy for you to understand;

 

#1: This artificially heightens the barrier to entry for competitive play. Why? You have to somehow setup a "designated account" for competitive play, which I'm assuming has to be approved, etc. etc., in regards to your "anti-alt" idea.

 

#2: Difficult to enforce, anyone who gets around the rule is very rewarded with more tournament plays, more practice, more chances to win, etc; Also highly encourages coaching, and puts anyone who isn't in a big competitive team in even more of a disadvantage.

 

#3: This is fucking competitive play, not Weenie Hut Jr. This suggestion artificially lowers the quality of players in any given tournament, since it's likely the most active players will reach their "quota" fairly quickly, so most tournaments will consist of randoms. This makes usage stats less useful, lowers the player quality all around, and is just generally non-conducive to any serious competitive environment.

 

So, basically, no, no, and no. Get gud or get out. The rule doesn't work, but even if it did, it's a shitty solution which is terrible for everyone except for maaaaybe shitkids, but they're not winning anything even if the tournaments get worse. Hell, even they might have their growth stifled if they can only play a few officials every month to try and improve and aren't in a good team to teach them during tournament downtimes.

I can understand a lot of that, fair points.

However being that there are, what, 16 Official competitive tournaments maybe in a given month, allowing 6 or even half of the total amount, I think most players wouldn't even get all of the appearances in, let alone fill them quickly, being that are double the registrations or more in every tournament from solely competitive players. This also assumes that every competitive player is available to play in every tournament, every month. 

 

I feel that the quality of tournaments wouldn't decrease. There are many good competitive players out there and seem like 72 or more are available to play, based on any Official tournament registration, any given day. PokeMMO has depth in that aspect imo. 

 

And Senile I hear everything you said, just wanna say though, respect goes a long way my friend.

Link to comment

Sorry to disappoint but this isn't a system that we feel would work successfully, it's too exploitable for the reasons stated and it doesn't seem fair to limit players from entering tournaments- that would basically be punishing players for something that we as staff are responsible for fixing/improving.

 

I do however appreciate that you took the time to think up some alternatives to the current system, I hope to see you in some tournaments in the future (there is a 64 man one coming up with a nice prize :)).

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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