New tourney

A place for threads related to tournaments and the like, and things related too.

Moderator: Light

User avatar
Luiso
Average Program
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:27 am

New tourney

Post by Luiso »

Hoi guys, I've had an idea to make a new tourney. The tourney would be a mix of wst and fort.
How would it work?
Each team would have 6 players + subs. That 6 players would be divided in 2 different teams of 3 players.
Each team of 3 players play a WST match, and if they didn't win/lost both matches, the 6 players will play together in a fort match.
Example:

CT vs KS
1st match (WST)
CT: Woned, Wap, Beer vs KS: Concord, liz, Gazelle. KS WIN
2nd match (WST)
CT: Gonzap, Soska, Dawgg vs KS: Quantic, Mister, 3B. CT WIN
3rd match (FORT)
CT vs KS. WINNER GOES TO THE NEXT ROUND.

If any team wins the first 2 matches they automatically pass to the next round, no fort match would be played.
In finals we can maybe think in having more matches or in a different way so we make sure sumo and fort is played.
Note: The same players who play in wst must play in fort, no changes allowed if there isn't a major reason (huge lag, disconnections, etc).

With that format each round would need 2 servers, which isn't a problem imo since only 1 match has to be played in fortress and the teams would be already made (remember,no changes between sumo and fort allowed). Also not all the rounds will need the fortress match so the same server can be shared.

What's your opinion? Do you like it? Do you have any idea to improve it?

PS: if you guys like it, I don't think I would be able to organize the tourney, but if there isn't any volunteer I would try to do it.
I am not responsible for the content of this message ;)

User avatar
orion
Match Winner
Posts: 782
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: New tourney

Post by orion »

its similar to ISL adding fort, also i think i proposed something like this a while ago. Yes, I like it

Consider make it 1 day playing, whole weekend playing didnt work at all.

I think all 3 games should be played even if the match is already 2-0. If there is an scoreboard with Matches W/L then you have to play it all
Image

Tadd
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:13 pm

Re: New tourney

Post by Tadd »

If you play the fort match first, you can settle the WST teams by score points.
-->top 3 players of CT play against top 3 players of ks
-->bottom 3 players of CT play against bottom 3 players of ks

A bit crazy would be if you have this Fort fight with your clan/team and
--> top3 players play against 4-6
--> 7-9 play against 10-12
So you're mixing up the clans/teams and you have no clue who you play with.

Next match will be WST winners of both matches team up to play the next fortress.
This lineup would be for example: 3b, Wap, blondie, Gonzap, Woned, Gazelle

User avatar
Luiso
Average Program
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:27 am

Re: New tourney

Post by Luiso »

orion wrote:its similar to ISL adding fort, also i think i proposed something like this a while ago. Yes, I like it

Consider make it 1 day playing, whole weekend playing didnt work at all.

I think all 3 games should be played even if the match is already 2-0. If there is an scoreboard with Matches W/L then you have to play it all
By playing only 2 matches if the same team wins you make the tourney faster, so 2 days wont be needed, also imo it has no sense to play a match when you already know that you have won/lose
I am not responsible for the content of this message ;)

User avatar
Luiso
Average Program
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:27 am

Re: New tourney

Post by Luiso »

Tadd wrote:If you play the fort match first, you can settle the WST teams by score points.
-->top 3 players of CT play against top 3 players of ks
-->bottom 3 players of CT play against bottom 3 players of ks

A bit crazy would be if you have this Fort fight with your clan/team and
--> top3 players play against 4-6
--> 7-9 play against 10-12
So you're mixing up the clans/teams and you have no clue who you play with.

Next match will be WST winners of both matches team up to play the next fortress.
This lineup would be for example: 3b, Wap, blondie, Gonzap, Woned, Gazelle

Sounds fun but then fortress match will lose all the importance, will end being a sumo tourney.
I am not responsible for the content of this message ;)

User avatar
Nanu Nanu
Core Dumper
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:20 am
Location: Witty comment about location here

Re: New tourney

Post by Nanu Nanu »

Luiso wrote: Sounds fun but then fortress match will lose all the importance, will end being a sumo tourney.
If you just have 6 really good sumoers play together, doesn't your original idea end up becoming a sumo tourney?
Last edited by Nanu Nanu on Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Prema wrote:The second match starts, a new beginning,
Nanu and Prema, Sui and Ninja,
versus those same old hoes grinning.

Tadd
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:13 pm

Re: New tourney

Post by Tadd »

I thougt it includes more fort...

If you play your way, a fort match doesn't have to take place.
If you play my way, you play a fort match every round.

User avatar
Luiso
Average Program
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:27 am

Re: New tourney

Post by Luiso »

Nanu Nanu wrote:
Luiso wrote: Sounds fun but then fortress match will lose all the importance, will end being a sumo tourney.
If you just have 6 really good sumoers play together, doesn't your original idea end up becoming a sumo tourney?
Maybe, but they have to win. If a clan decide to put only the sumoers playing and they lose a sumo match they will be ******.
Also we can avoid it by putting the fort match first as Tadd said, but it will make the tourney dependent of more servers.
I am not responsible for the content of this message ;)

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6214
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: New tourney

Post by sinewav »

This is an interesting idea. I wouldn't mind seeing a version with three different games instead of Sumo-Sumo-Fort.

User avatar
Luiso
Average Program
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:27 am

Re: New tourney

Post by Luiso »

sinewav wrote:This is an interesting idea. I wouldn't mind seeing a version with three different games instead of Sumo-Sumo-Fort.
Wouldn't that make the tourney dependent of too many servers?
Maybe we can have an admin which can include the different settings between matches, but I don't know if it would affect to the server stability.
I am not responsible for the content of this message ;)

User avatar
Light
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1657
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: New tourney

Post by Light »

Luiso wrote:
sinewav wrote:This is an interesting idea. I wouldn't mind seeing a version with three different games instead of Sumo-Sumo-Fort.
Wouldn't that make the tourney dependent of too many servers?
Maybe we can have an admin which can include the different settings between matches, but I don't know if it would affect to the server stability.
If you set the configs up correctly, there wouldn't be an issue. You could also go a step further and just make it run off of a script. When it comes to a tourny though, having someone include them is probably safer. If you don't have enough mods, you could always give team leaders or something the ability to include them.

I haven't really read this thread to know if there are TL's or anything, but just wanted to comment that the server and settings would work perfectly fine including different settings. Just make sure not to leave anything out that you use in other settings, and that you restart the match.

User avatar
vov
Match Winner
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: New tourney

Post by vov »

Styball or the new hold the flag thing come to my mind (forgot its name). The hold the flag thing because it actually uses quite similar physics as sumo/fort and would probably be more appropriate. And styball because styball. Both of those can be played 3v3s.

And about what light said, we should probably test the configs and the includings but then it's no problem. I just know how often some small detail sometimes doesn't change back and makes small differences (I ran one of those multimode servers once).

User avatar
Nanu Nanu
Core Dumper
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:20 am
Location: Witty comment about location here

Re: New tourney

Post by Nanu Nanu »

Oh oh, CTF! Always a good choice :D
Prema wrote:The second match starts, a new beginning,
Nanu and Prema, Sui and Ninja,
versus those same old hoes grinning.

User avatar
Luiso
Average Program
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:27 am

Re: New tourney

Post by Luiso »

vov wrote:Styball or the new hold the flag thing come to my mind (forgot its name). The hold the flag thing because it actually uses quite similar physics as sumo/fort and would probably be more appropriate. And styball because styball. Both of those can be played 3v3s.

And about what light said, we should probably test the configs and the includings but then it's no problem. I just know how often some small detail sometimes doesn't change back and makes small differences (I ran one of those multimode servers once).
Mmm that CTF thing would be interesting, not many people is familiar to it I think (I have never played there), but who cares, I'd like wst+fort+that capture the flag thing with sumo/fort physics :P

Would it be a hard thing to add all the setting in one server? (talking to servers owners, I have no idea about it).
I am not responsible for the content of this message ;)

User avatar
Light
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1657
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: New tourney

Post by Light »

Luiso wrote:Would it be a hard thing to add all the setting in one server? (talking to servers owners, I have no idea about it).
No. CT (I think) has a file with default settings you can include at the beginning of each of your configs. Then you'd just have the settings below that. Then you just include it from the game when you want it to change.

Having a way to kill everyone, and start a new match is useful. I would use a script for that though, but you could use delayed commands in the config, or manually kill. Delayed commands sometimes mess up and not set the rubber back, so I might avoid that one.

Post Reply