RoSF RoSF feedback/ruleset discussion for future Tourneys

[Jedi]

Now as we come to the near close of RoSF, the first main smash tourney on Serenes in quite some time. http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=59561&page=1

I must ask the various players, do you feel anything should be changed? Like stages you feel we should try, some change to the rules, I'm willing to hear any number of possibilities, but they must make sense in a tournament context.

Also I'm already planning on hosting a future tourney not to long after RoSF finishes, now one of the main issues with this last tournament was... It took awhile to get to the point its at, and thats mostly my fault, as I didn't give clear deadlines, I felt being more chill was a good idea, I also started it early at the insistence of some others.

I'm thinking 3 days max for deadlines for a set, I know people have lives, but I want these to run smoothly and quickly, I want to be a good host, yet I also want things to progress at a nice rate, so people aren't left waiting for ages on their matches.

Overall how did you feel this went? I apologize for those I had to disqualify for whatever reason as well.

I'd also like to hear what timeframe people would be willing to sign up for, when we get this ball rolling. We've got alot to discuss and some time to do it, so lets get this going shall we?

Edited March 8, 2016 by Jedi

[Elieson]

Smaller brackets with easier signup fills please. I'd rather join in a 16p tourney and alt participation than sit in a 32 on standby for two weeks.

[DreadFighter]

Overall I think it was well run besides certain deadlines, but I feel like we should seed based on results of this past tourney as well as skill level.

[Jedi]

Smaller brackets with easier signup fills please. I'd rather join in a 16p tourney and alt participation than sit in a 32 on standby for two weeks.

16 people? It would restrict quite a number of people from joining, unless you suggest I run multiple at once.

Overall I think it was well run besides certain deadlines, but I feel like we should seed based on results of this past tourney as well as skill level.

Euk is actually going to take the results and base seeding more on the results from this one yeah.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Jedi

[General Horace]

deadlines are nice and all but from what I understood it was more the issue that the players just didn't contact each other for a week or so. It's ultimately up to the players to get their games done, especially in an online tournament environment.

not saying deadlines should be layed out (they should) but don't bother join if you're going to be unable to play or meet any deadlines in the first place. Tournament size isn't an issue if people don't have to wait two weeks to play a match.

ban bayonetta

Edited March 8, 2016 by General Horace

[Ema Skye]

16 people? It would restrict quite a number of people from joining, unless you suggest I run multiple at once.

Seconding Elie's idea to limit signups.

Smaller tournaments take less time so you can run multiple in succession.

Big tournaments are nice irl because everyone is in the same place at the same time. All big tournaments do online is lead to massive coordination issues due to trying, or not trying, to contact opponents.

[Jedi]

Seconding Elie's idea to limit signups.

Smaller tournaments take less time so you can run multiple in succession.

Big tournaments are nice irl because everyone is in the same place at the same time. All big tournaments do online is lead to massive coordination issues due to trying, or not trying, to contact opponents.

Limiting sign ups sounds good in practice but like... What if alot of people want to join and can't?

Also do I still do double elimination in a smaller one or what.

[General Horace]

Double Elimination is the way to go.

[Elieson]

16 people? It would restrict quite a number of people from joining, unless you suggest I run multiple at once.

Euk is actually going to take the results and base seeding more on the results from this one yeah.

You can probably run a 16p tourney once every two weeks, or a 32p once every month. Arguably, you could even stagger signups and events so that way the last few days of the 16p tourney overlaps with the Semis/Finals of each respective bracket in the first tourney, giving everyone some active stuff to do

Also if more people sign up then split then up into two simultaneous 16p tourneys and put the winner against the other side's winner for giggles

Edited March 8, 2016 by Elieson

[Jedi]

You can probably run a 16p tourney once every two weeks, or a 32p once every month. Arguably, you could even stagger signups and events so that way the last few days of the 16p tourney overlaps with the Semis/Finals of each respective bracket in the first tourney, giving everyone some active stuff to do

Also if more people sign up then split then up into two simultaneous 16p tourneys and put the winner against the other side's winner for giggles

That would be quite something, I'll highly consider it, I mean what you and Doof said have lots of merits...

[Serpent of Sheol]

however many supported the limited signups, i also support it

i thought it was well run, though i wish it lined up better with my schedule =(

[Alex95]

Make it so I make it into the winner's bracket

Overall, I think it went rather well from what I've seen. I will also be a supporter of the limited bracket, so it starts and ends quicker and so there's not a lot of people to coordinate with.

I'd help out if I could, but, due to certain restrictions (parental controls are the worst), I am unable to do so.

[Jedi]

however many supported the limited signups, i also support it

i thought it was well run, though i wish it lined up better with my schedule =(

Another for limited, yeah I wish it did too, sorry about that.

Make it so I make it into the winner's bracket

Overall, I think it went rather well from what I've seen. I will also be a supporter of the limited bracket, so it starts and ends quicker and so there's not a lot of people to coordinate with.

I'd help out if I could, but, due to certain restrictions (parental controls are the worst), I am unable to do so.

Thanks for the positive feedback ^^; and another for limited.

[Ema Skye]

Limiting sign ups sounds good in practice but like... What if alot of people want to join and can't?

If you get 17+, give them first dibs on the next tournament.

[Tsunami922]

I think it went pretty well!

Not sure how I feel about smaller brackets, but I'd be up for trying it in the next tournament.

[Jedi]

If you get 17+, give them first dibs on the next tournament.

This does make sense, and basically what Elie said ^^.

I think it went pretty well!

Not sure how I feel about smaller brackets, but I'd be up for trying it in the next tournament.

I think we can try it too, I mean at worst I can just run two tourneys.

[Batter the Beast]

I'm also for more small tourneys instead of a big one that might take a while due to complications (sorry)

On that note, a 5 day deadline or less for matches seems like a good idea

[Radiance]

Would a lottery suffice to see who gets in? Sounds reasonable if lots of people join

[NeedTheFriction]

I didn't get very far but it was very well run from what i could tell before and after i got knocked out, both deadlines and people it were flexible and far from unreasonable. i can see the appeal for 16 player brackets but i recommend getting all willing participants names down so you can have divisions of sorts. for example if 20 people want to sign up you take 16 and try to get 12 more for the excess 4 players waiting. other than that recommendation it was an overall satisfying experience even getting knocked out early.

[Dotty]

UCT as a counterpick, maybe?

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet, so perhaps there is something really wrong with it that I'm missing, but it seemed like a reasonable stage from what I played.

Maybe run a custom moves tourney as a side-event? It can be smaller, just for the people that like customs.

Also supporting sixteen-person regular tourneys.

[Jedi]

I'm also for more small tourneys instead of a big one that might take a while due to complications (sorry)

On that note, a 5 day deadline or less for matches seems like a good idea

(No biggie). Yeah deadlines will be a needed evil for this, so this doesn't drag like before.

Would a lottery suffice to see who gets in? Sounds reasonable if lots of people join

Well i'm not sure, considering we don't know how many people will sign up, I'd hate to punish people who signed up early.

I didn't get very far but it was very well run from what i could tell before and after i got knocked out, both deadlines and people it were flexible and far from unreasonable. i can see the appeal for 16 player brackets but i recommend getting all willing participants names down so you can have divisions of sorts. for example if 20 people want to sign up you take 16 and try to get 12 more for the excess 4 players waiting. other than that recommendation it was an overall satisfying experience even getting knocked out early.

I'll try to accommodate people as best as I can, I like this suggestion and i'm glad you enjoyed participating.

UCT as a counterpick, maybe?

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet, so perhaps there is something really wrong with it that I'm missing, but it seemed like a reasonable stage from what I played.

Maybe run a custom moves tourney as a side-event? It can be smaller, just for the people that like customs.

Also supporting sixteen-person regular tourneys.

Umbra Clock Tower, hmm I think we need a general discussion on it, wanna bring up what makes you think its reasonable? (I'm not doubting you I'm just asking for points). I've heard people be for and against it.

Custom Moves tourney could be arranged in the future yes.

Alright another for 16er's

[Dotty]

Umbra Clock Tower, hmm I think we need a general discussion on it, wanna bring up what makes you think its reasonable? (I'm not doubting you I'm just asking for points). I've heard people be for and against it.

Pros:

- no real hazards

- varied platform arrangements

- platforms that rise off the top force you to fall through them, so you'll never die that way (compared to, say, Kalos League)

Cons:

- potential for camping on a few transformations

- one walk-off transformation

- background can be distracting

It feels like it falls somewhere between Castle Siege and Town & City.

Overall, I'm not too fussed if we decide against it, but I don't think it'd hurt to try it out once.

[PKLucas531]

Another con is it's similar to Mario Kart (Wii U), in the sense that as platforms come in/out sometimes you will be stage spiked by something you may not have the foresight to tech against. It's not grossly offensive like most banned stages, but it has a common detractor.

The other side to it is "caves of life." I haven't played Umbra Tower in a while, but depending on where the platforms are they might passively hinder the match ie. "I won't go for this because my attacks launch to the platform, when they would kill otherwise." Depends on how many variations there are/how frequent something like this might come up.

On the plus side: once the platforms are in/out they're clearly in/out as opposed to a stretch of ambiguous terrain unless you've memorized the course in Mario Kart.

From what I remember it's a fine stage, though. Jedi just told me to post instead of letting me be LAZY AND INDIFFERENT.

edit: Asked jedi to c/p me the stagelist and, as is, UCT is pretty radically different from our really conservative counterpick list which sticks to mostly non-changing platforms. If our C/P list expands to Halberd/Delfino/CS then it'll fit right in. But that's a whole other can of worms!

Edited March 8, 2016 by PKLucas531

[Jedi]

Another con is it's similar to Mario Kart (Wii U), in the sense that as platforms come in/out sometimes you will be stage spiked by something you may not have the foresight to tech against. It's not grossly offensive like most banned stages, but it has a common detractor.

The other side to it is "caves of life." I haven't played Umbra Tower in a while, but depending on where the platforms are they might passively hinder the match ie. "I won't go for this because my attacks launch to the platform, when they would kill otherwise." Depends on how many variations there are/how frequent something like this might come up.

On the plus side: once the platforms are in/out they're clearly in/out as opposed to a stretch of ambiguous terrain unless you've memorized the course in Mario Kart.

From what I remember it's a fine stage, though. Jedi just told me to post instead of letting me be LAZY AND INDIFFERENT.

edit: Asked jedi to c/p me the stagelist and, as is, UCT is pretty radically different from our really conservative counterpick list which sticks to mostly non-changing platforms. If our C/P list expands to Halberd/Delfino/CS then it'll fit right in. But that's a whole other can of worms!

You bring up alot of good points, I think I'll put up a poll.

Maybe we should open that can of worms possibly in the process?

[Dotty]

This might help, he goes through every possible platform formation: