Liz's post was for no other purpose than to "flame" (or whatever you want to call it) Dubs. Dubs' made a substantive rebuke of that. There's a valid distinction there. And I don't point this out simply because I take Dub's "side" in this interaction. After all, I've criticised Dubs for her behaviour in the past. If she's making a concerted effort to act like a grownup—and not only demonstrate that, but put it on the others who aren't to live up to that standard—I don't understand why that should be discouraged (unless, of course, it gets way out of hand).
*****
A few last bits regarding the value of my input into particular game modes or tournaments in which I don't participate, especially for you fortress fanatics to read:
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 721#p36721
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 063#p45063
http://playfortress.wordpress.com/2009/ ... nostalgia/
Ironic, huh?
You guys better stop playing fortress and those tourneys since, clearly, half the input on which they are based was utterly worthless.
LMS Tourney?
Moderator: Light
-
Phytotron
- Formerly Oscilloscope
- Posts: 5042
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
- Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
- Contact:
Re: LMS Tourney?
Now, back on the topic of this Last Player Standing/Free For All/Deathmatch/Whateveryouwannacallit Tourney.
I really do think you all should use a Cup format, as in Mario Kart (no teams). The type of tournament bracket that you're familiar with is more designed for one team versus one other, or one individual versus one other, with the winner advancing and the loser knocked out. It also only involves a single server. That doesn't work if you want to have a handful of individuals, all playing against each other at once as in a typical FFA game.
Now, I don't follow actual car racing, so my main reference is Mario Kart, heh. But anyway, the Cup would be comprised of 3-5 different server Configurations*, analogous to tracks. This would cut down on the ruminations and bickering over server settings as well, by the way, although I would keep the servers within each circuit of a general type. All participants enter the server (I think 4-8 players is optimum). Play a match (or three, if you want to liken it to laps), then change to the next server configuration. At the end, determine the winner. How's that done? There are a few options:
1) The simplest would be to keep note of the scores (core dumps) through each match, and carry those over. At the end of the Cup, tabulate each player's combined score, and that will determine your finishing placement (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). To make this legit would require normalising the scoring system in each server. I think the "standard" system of SCORE_KILL 1, LIMIT_SCORE 10 would be best. This would be one match per server configuration.
2) More like Mario Kart, instead of noting the scores in each match, you note the placement at the end of the match. Then meta Cup Points are awarded based on the placement in each match only—actual number of core dumps is irrelevant, only relative position. Using Mario Kart's scoring, the winner of a match gets 9 points, 2nd place gets 6 points, 3rd place gets 3, and 4th gets 1. Anyone below that gets zero. The same holds for each match, then you tabulate these meta-points at the end of the Cup. Doing this, each server could retain its own scoring system, since the actual number of core dumps is irrelevant.
3) A combination. If you had more than one match per server config (analogous to laps per track)—let's say 3 matches per each of 4 configs. The scores for the three matches in one config would be summed, then you look at the placement and give Cup Points based on that (same 9, 6, 3, 1 would work) per config. Repeat for the next 4 configs. Then combine the Cup Points for each config and you have your overall totals and placements.
Understand? There are pros and cons to each of these approaches; I'll let you all work those out. And, of course, this could be easily modified for teams of two.
* Obviously, you should use a single actual server, and just have the separate server_name.cfg files in the var directory, then just enter "INCLUDE server_name.cfg" when ready to switch. Just be sure that they're complete, remembering that whatever is in that file is only what changes from what was previously there.
I really do think you all should use a Cup format, as in Mario Kart (no teams). The type of tournament bracket that you're familiar with is more designed for one team versus one other, or one individual versus one other, with the winner advancing and the loser knocked out. It also only involves a single server. That doesn't work if you want to have a handful of individuals, all playing against each other at once as in a typical FFA game.
Now, I don't follow actual car racing, so my main reference is Mario Kart, heh. But anyway, the Cup would be comprised of 3-5 different server Configurations*, analogous to tracks. This would cut down on the ruminations and bickering over server settings as well, by the way, although I would keep the servers within each circuit of a general type. All participants enter the server (I think 4-8 players is optimum). Play a match (or three, if you want to liken it to laps), then change to the next server configuration. At the end, determine the winner. How's that done? There are a few options:
1) The simplest would be to keep note of the scores (core dumps) through each match, and carry those over. At the end of the Cup, tabulate each player's combined score, and that will determine your finishing placement (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). To make this legit would require normalising the scoring system in each server. I think the "standard" system of SCORE_KILL 1, LIMIT_SCORE 10 would be best. This would be one match per server configuration.
2) More like Mario Kart, instead of noting the scores in each match, you note the placement at the end of the match. Then meta Cup Points are awarded based on the placement in each match only—actual number of core dumps is irrelevant, only relative position. Using Mario Kart's scoring, the winner of a match gets 9 points, 2nd place gets 6 points, 3rd place gets 3, and 4th gets 1. Anyone below that gets zero. The same holds for each match, then you tabulate these meta-points at the end of the Cup. Doing this, each server could retain its own scoring system, since the actual number of core dumps is irrelevant.
3) A combination. If you had more than one match per server config (analogous to laps per track)—let's say 3 matches per each of 4 configs. The scores for the three matches in one config would be summed, then you look at the placement and give Cup Points based on that (same 9, 6, 3, 1 would work) per config. Repeat for the next 4 configs. Then combine the Cup Points for each config and you have your overall totals and placements.
Understand? There are pros and cons to each of these approaches; I'll let you all work those out. And, of course, this could be easily modified for teams of two.
* Obviously, you should use a single actual server, and just have the separate server_name.cfg files in the var directory, then just enter "INCLUDE server_name.cfg" when ready to switch. Just be sure that they're complete, remembering that whatever is in that file is only what changes from what was previously there.
Last edited by Phytotron on Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: LMS Tourney?
Or even better: CONFIG_ROTATIONPhytotron wrote:...then just enter "INCLUDE server_name.cfg" when ready to switch.
Re: LMS Tourney?
Wow, I really like that idea. I would like to say it's original (I know it's not) but it feels that way ^_^
Whoever actually organises this, since I doubt I; a) have the resources or b) the time, will seriously consider that setup. It's a nice idea, a lot more fun than putting everyone into "brackets" for sure.
------
@ Z-man; I wasn't trying to start an argument, I'm pretty sure if I hadn't said anything one of you mods would have anyway...... ;)
Whoever actually organises this, since I doubt I; a) have the resources or b) the time, will seriously consider that setup. It's a nice idea, a lot more fun than putting everyone into "brackets" for sure.
------
@ Z-man; I wasn't trying to start an argument, I'm pretty sure if I hadn't said anything one of you mods would have anyway...... ;)
"You may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one;
I hope some day you will join us, and the world can live as one"
“Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around.”
I believe that to truly love is the ultimate expression of the will to live.
I hope some day you will join us, and the world can live as one"
“Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around.”
I believe that to truly love is the ultimate expression of the will to live.
Re: LMS Tourney?
Phytotron, your ideas are great, but I think they would work much better for a tournament that involved multiple game modes (ie. a tournament which involved ctf, fort, and chico's brakeboost syball).
I'm not sure how many servers would actually be needed for an LMS tournament(compared to ladle) since LMS is best played with like 6 or 8 players to avoid ridiculously long rounds with people backdooring in a giant arena; but since the LMS tournament servers that are currently online have smaller arenas(thank god) I think 4 players per server would be ideal.
As for placement and scoring have first person to 'x' amount of points move on, followed by the next top scorer(or not, depending on the brackets).
Would be interesting to put all of the players in one server, if there weren't more than 15 competitors and just do first to 'x' wins.
I'm not sure how many servers would actually be needed for an LMS tournament(compared to ladle) since LMS is best played with like 6 or 8 players to avoid ridiculously long rounds with people backdooring in a giant arena; but since the LMS tournament servers that are currently online have smaller arenas(thank god) I think 4 players per server would be ideal.
As for placement and scoring have first person to 'x' amount of points move on, followed by the next top scorer(or not, depending on the brackets).
Would be interesting to put all of the players in one server, if there weren't more than 15 competitors and just do first to 'x' wins.
Re: LMS Tourney?
even if was 80, put em in the same server, have the last one standing be the winner
edit: forgot to mention that the grid needs to be just wide enough to spawn the people without them dying.
edit: forgot to mention that the grid needs to be just wide enough to spawn the people without them dying.
Re: LMS Tourney?
pru had a deathmatch tourney a few months ago. It was a good tourney, except for one detail: People camped/ran away so much that it ruined the fun and prolonged rounds.
What's the best way to prevent this? A round end zone, a deathzone, rules+referees? I prefer the middle option. Referees really shouldn't be needed.
@Phytotron: I like the mario kart version. How would you deal with ties?
E.g.
Player 1: 10
Player 2: 7
Player 3: 7
Player 4: 5
etc.
-------------------------
8[-12] players in a server seems ideal to me. More than 12 would be awesome if it wasn't for lag. To win, you'll (hopefully) have to both survive in very crowded areas and win 1v1 situations at the end. With 4[-7] players, it isn't crowded enough.
So let's say 48 people sign up (am I being optimistic?
), you need either 6 or 4 servers depending on how many people play in one match, and there's a bracket where the top 4 players move on as Phytotron suggested*. Sounds good?
*I'm pretty sure that isn't what Phytotron actually suggested, but his methods would still work.
What's the best way to prevent this? A round end zone, a deathzone, rules+referees? I prefer the middle option. Referees really shouldn't be needed.
@Phytotron: I like the mario kart version. How would you deal with ties?
E.g.
Player 1: 10
Player 2: 7
Player 3: 7
Player 4: 5
etc.
-------------------------
8[-12] players in a server seems ideal to me. More than 12 would be awesome if it wasn't for lag. To win, you'll (hopefully) have to both survive in very crowded areas and win 1v1 situations at the end. With 4[-7] players, it isn't crowded enough.
So let's say 48 people sign up (am I being optimistic?
), you need either 6 or 4 servers depending on how many people play in one match, and there's a bracket where the top 4 players move on as Phytotron suggested*. Sounds good?*I'm pretty sure that isn't what Phytotron actually suggested, but his methods would still work.
-
Phytotron
- Formerly Oscilloscope
- Posts: 5042
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
- Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
- Contact:
Re: LMS Tourney?
OK, I just typed up this long response, because you guys really didn't understand what I was trying to describe. Then I realised that I was probably misusing the term "circuit," when I perhaps should have used the term "cup." That's the term Mario Kart uses, anyway, but my brain pulled the wrong one. A cup is made up of X number of circuits/tracks. Bah, terminology. So I'm going to go back and edit that in, then I'll come back later and go over it again. I may do a walkthrough example, with graphics!
In the meantime, here are a few points I want to reiterate:
- My proposal is an alternative to brackets. There would be no brackets, and there would be no elimination. Get it? Brackets only make sense if you're going to have 1-on-1 (individual or team) games and you're going to knock out the losers. By contrast, in typical FFA, you have multiple players in a match all playing against one another, vying for first place, just as in a race—except in Arma only 1st place matters. This would potentially change that. Conceivably, a player wouldn't even have to win any of the individual matches to win overall.
- When I use the term "placement," I'm not talking about placement in a bracket and players getting knocked out and moving ahead. I'm referring to the place one finishes in a race—or in Arma terms, that would be where one finished in scoring at the end of the match. Position is another word for it.
- For Arma, you would use only one actual server, and just change the settings configuration (i.e., Shrunkland is a config, BiH is a config, etc.) between matches (or set of matches).
- The total number of players participating in each Cup would be limited (say, eight), and all would participate throughout; no elimination. Now, if you get to where a great deal more than 8 players are participating, then you could start looking at elimination and consolidation, but wait to cross that bridge until it's reached.
- Of course, you wouldn't have to do multiple configs. You could just get the same 8 people in a single server, play 5 matches, and tally the scores at the end. But I don't see much point in that for something organised, and it's boring. Rather, select a handful of similarly themed servers, put them together as one circuit, and you get some variety to see who is the winner overall.
- "Would be interesting to put all of the players in one server, if there weren't more than 15 competitors and just do first to 'x' wins." How is that any different than a regular match?
*****
How would you deal with ties?
E.g.
Player 1: 10
Player 2: 7
Player 3: 7
Player 4: 5
Whatever those points reference, Player 4 is out. Players 2&3 share second place. That's common in sports.
To your first question: Better settings. Not high rubber BS, and no "open" BS, either.
In the meantime, here are a few points I want to reiterate:
- My proposal is an alternative to brackets. There would be no brackets, and there would be no elimination. Get it? Brackets only make sense if you're going to have 1-on-1 (individual or team) games and you're going to knock out the losers. By contrast, in typical FFA, you have multiple players in a match all playing against one another, vying for first place, just as in a race—except in Arma only 1st place matters. This would potentially change that. Conceivably, a player wouldn't even have to win any of the individual matches to win overall.
- When I use the term "placement," I'm not talking about placement in a bracket and players getting knocked out and moving ahead. I'm referring to the place one finishes in a race—or in Arma terms, that would be where one finished in scoring at the end of the match. Position is another word for it.
- For Arma, you would use only one actual server, and just change the settings configuration (i.e., Shrunkland is a config, BiH is a config, etc.) between matches (or set of matches).
- The total number of players participating in each Cup would be limited (say, eight), and all would participate throughout; no elimination. Now, if you get to where a great deal more than 8 players are participating, then you could start looking at elimination and consolidation, but wait to cross that bridge until it's reached.
- Of course, you wouldn't have to do multiple configs. You could just get the same 8 people in a single server, play 5 matches, and tally the scores at the end. But I don't see much point in that for something organised, and it's boring. Rather, select a handful of similarly themed servers, put them together as one circuit, and you get some variety to see who is the winner overall.
- "Would be interesting to put all of the players in one server, if there weren't more than 15 competitors and just do first to 'x' wins." How is that any different than a regular match?
*****
How would you deal with ties?
E.g.
Player 1: 10
Player 2: 7
Player 3: 7
Player 4: 5
Whatever those points reference, Player 4 is out. Players 2&3 share second place. That's common in sports.
To your first question: Better settings. Not high rubber BS, and no "open" BS, either.
-
Tank Program
- Forum & Project Admin, PhD
- Posts: 6712
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:03 pm
Re: LMS Tourney?
While theoretically the simplest LMS tournament that could be done, I don't think it would give a very representative result of player skill... if that makes any sense. I can be playing in the same server with people, loose 8 matches, win 8 matches, then loose 8 more, or any combination like that. I like Phytotron's idea of jumping around from server type to server type (on the same server) as a way of mixing it up. I think that would counterbalance the tendency for people to get on a roll, and instead would help give some measure of the flexibility of players.Mecca wrote:Would be interesting to put all of the players in one server, if there weren't more than 15 competitors and just do first to 'x' wins.
Re: LMS Tourney?
@tank: Well, switching settings or not it represents each players skill relative to their competitors; but I understand what you are saying.Tank Program wrote:While theoretically the simplest LMS tournament that could be done, I don't think it would give a very representative result of player skill... if that makes any sense. I can be playing in the same server with people, loose 8 matches, win 8 matches, then loose 8 more, or any combination like that. I like Phytotron's idea of jumping around from server type to server type (on the same server) as a way of mixing it up. I think that would counterbalance the tendency for people to get on a roll, and instead would help give some measure of the flexibility of players.Mecca wrote:Would be interesting to put all of the players in one server, if there weren't more than 15 competitors and just do first to 'x' wins.
@titan: CTF style deathzone would probably be the best way to end the round; and to encourage players not to camp/run maybe a timer that announces how long until the DZ kills everyone would be useful?
@Phytotron + tank: If the goal is to measure the flexibility of the competitors, high rubber is a LMS mode which I think should be included if the server were to be switching between LMS modes. Maybe even a LMS sumo config should be used as well, as long as everyone is in one circle.
Re: LMS Tourney?
I know it's a (very) minor thing, but I'm gonna go ahead and clarify what I meant since I wasn't making myself clear to begin with.
Phytotron wrote:Using Mario Kart's scoring, the winner of a match gets 9 points, 2nd place gets 6 points, 3rd place gets 3, and 4th gets 1. Anyone below that gets zero.
Titanoboa wrote:How would you deal with ties?
E.g.
Player 1: 10
Player 2: 7
Player 3: 7
Player 4: 5
etc.
So basically, Player 1 gets 9 pts, Players 2&3 get 6 points, ([nobody] gets 3 points), Player 4 gets 1 point. (Players 5-∞ get 0) :] ?Phytotron wrote:Whatever those points reference, /.../ Players 2&3 share second place.
-
Phytotron
- Formerly Oscilloscope
- Posts: 5042
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
- Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
- Contact:
Re: LMS Tourney?
OK, you were giving the score (core dumps) at the end of a match, and you want to know what the Cup points would be. My brain wasn't working well last night, and I was thinking of that as the final points, or something—I don't know.
Anyway, in the match score example you gave, Cup points would be 9, 6, 6, 1, respectively.
Now, if it was...
Player 1: 10
Player 2: 7
Player 3: 5
Player 4: 5
Player 5: 3
...then Cup points would be 9, 6, 3, 3. Or, if it was...
Player 1: 10
Player 2: 10
Player 3: 6
Player 4: 6
Player 5: 4
...the Cup points would be 9, 9, 3, 3, stop. The tie always takes up two positions, and skips/removes the lower of the two. So, in this last example, you have a tie for 1st (second is dropped) and a tie for 3rd (fourth is dropped), see.
Of course, it wouldn't have to be a top four. It could be a top three or whatever, depending on how many players were involved. But at the outset you determine that only the top however-many will be awarded points.
Anyway, in the match score example you gave, Cup points would be 9, 6, 6, 1, respectively.
Now, if it was...
Player 1: 10
Player 2: 7
Player 3: 5
Player 4: 5
Player 5: 3
...then Cup points would be 9, 6, 3, 3. Or, if it was...
Player 1: 10
Player 2: 10
Player 3: 6
Player 4: 6
Player 5: 4
...the Cup points would be 9, 9, 3, 3, stop. The tie always takes up two positions, and skips/removes the lower of the two. So, in this last example, you have a tie for 1st (second is dropped) and a tie for 3rd (fourth is dropped), see.
Of course, it wouldn't have to be a top four. It could be a top three or whatever, depending on how many players were involved. But at the outset you determine that only the top however-many will be awarded points.
Re: LMS Tourney?
Why would you get points for killing people? This is a LAST MAN STANDING tournament.
Shouldn't points only be awarded for being the last man standing?
Shouldn't points only be awarded for being the last man standing?
Re: LMS Tourney?
everyone would try to camp thenMecca wrote:Why would you get points for killing people? This is a LAST MAN STANDING tournament.
Shouldn't points only be awarded for being the last man standing?
Re: LMS Tourney?
kinda agree with that a little, points should be distributed at the end of the round to the person who is last alive, imo ~ maybe we need a kind of anti-camping/rim-hugging solution.. maybe a size_factor that's small enough not to really allow any kind of camping.. hmmMecca wrote:Why would you get points for killing people? This is a LAST MAN STANDING tournament.
Shouldn't points only be awarded for being the last man standing?
"You may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one;
I hope some day you will join us, and the world can live as one"
“Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around.”
I believe that to truly love is the ultimate expression of the will to live.
I hope some day you will join us, and the world can live as one"
“Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around.”
I believe that to truly love is the ultimate expression of the will to live.