Ladder Site Online...

[TheMasterOfBattle]

Sorry I haven't been around much lately guys, I will try to do my job better.

However, I am wondering what the opinion is for having a tournament everyonce in a while for the ladder players. Not sure what the format would be yet, World cup format maybe. If you have ideas or suggestions, please post them or send them to my e-mail given on the ladder website.

[hiro hito]

Sorry I haven't been around much lately guys, I will try to do my job better.

However, I am wondering what the opinion is for having a tournament everyonce in a while for the ladder players. Not sure what the format would be yet, World cup format maybe. If you have ideas or suggestions, please post them or send them to my e-mail given on the ladder website.

Tournament need to be controled and managed by reliable admin or a seconded admin...
Don't take it to hard, but one of the last topic of this thread was about have an admin for the ladder itself!
I think it's a bit amazing to speak about a ladder tournament (which need implication) while there are still some questions to answer about the ladder.....

[Rigor]

a competition with random opponents that is independent of the rating is exactely the thing the ladder needs as a regular highlight.

something like the olympic games of the ladder, but more often.

i like your idea very much and even though the maintenance is a bit of an efford i dont think it will be too hard to pull it off.

[TheMasterOfBattle]

Tournament need to be controled and managed by reliable admin or a seconded admin...

I intend on becoming reliable again, I was just swamped with work before. However, I have considered the possibly of a few more admins to avoid what happened again.

i like your idea very much and even though the maintenance is a bit of an efford i dont think it will be too hard to pull it off.

I have software on my computer that can manage tournaments.

[eyerouge]

...am wondering what the opinion is for having a tournament everyonce in a while for the ladder players.

Tournament sounds like a really great idea: It could have the benefit of spicing things up and at the same time actually add an element to the ladder where skills are measured as exact as can ever be done, if not taking league, all vs all into account here. (On a sidenote, as I've mentioned in the past, we will release tournament and league support in the ladder code sooner or later, but not until we first solve the team-ladder support. Until then arranging the tournaments in the good old way is a perfectly good idea.)

I'd like to suggest that you consider the following:

• Give info about the tourney and rules etc both here and on the news section at the LoW. Have a 2-3 week long period where people, anyone that is registered at the ladder, can announce that they'll participate as a contender by mailing the tourney contact person.
• Use rules for the tourney which are compatible with the ladder rules: That way people's games will still be ranked and accounted as ladder games, while at the same time also being valid for the tournament. (You should however maybe see to it that everyone gets the same amount of time, thus using fixed timer settings for all games could be an idea.)
• Insure that there is at least one official tourney observer so each game has at least one witness, and that the game can be observed to begin with.
• See to it that all use the same version of Wesnoth - so all games are played with the stable branch (or dev one, if you for some reason should opt for that, which I also think would be unwise..)
• A very very important thing in my mind is that each player gets to play his opponent in a best-of-3. Given that Wesnoth has some random elements and also many players perception of it's meaning for games, I think it would be the wisest to always insure that whoever won actually could repeat it at least once more over his opponent, and that it wasn't due to some jinxed RND.
• Allow those that want to change leaders & factions, also within the best-of-3 set of games.

A thought that also comes to mind is that the ladder supports custom titles, right below a players nick in the profile. I suggest that the players that come 1:st to 3:d get a custom title as a prize, to make their glory permanent (if they accept it of course). Something along the line of, for example: #1 LoW Open 2009

[TheMasterOfBattle]

I was thinking more that a replay would be mandatory and all games must be on official server with observers allowed. That way, I or whoever would check such things could compare it with the replay given in the replay archive so that someone would not have to be on all the time.

[Death]

Hells yea! Tournaments are fun.

Plus, you don't even have to seed anybody, it's already done.

[Eskon]

A ladder tournament would be an all-around great idea in the concept, and of course extremely hard to execute.

If I were holding one, it would look as follows:

1. Signup through the ladder site: A button that players can click within a certain time period (four weeks sounds fair) that registers them for the tournament. There are already several possibilites here.

- Restricted to players with a minimum of ladder games. 10 is a good baseline, as this the number of games we deem sufficient to let the players enter the ladder. I would actually require this, since those new to the ladder get four weeks of time to get these ten games under their belts. If they really want to take part, this is easy to do.

- Restricted to players above a certain rating. I would not like this a lot, since I would want to include as many players as possible. Set this too high, and players will feel left out and figure "screw this, if I'm not good enough for them, then the ladder can suck my ballpen". Set it too low and you might as well not use one at all, and if you set it at a reasonable value you encourage players to cheat around it, while if you set none at all the bad players will be eliminated quickly enough.

2. Tournament mode: There is the choice between a pure KO stage, and having a group stage somewhere. I wouldn't do a group stage, if at all, until the very last stages of the tournament, i. e. using four groups of four players each. The idea is that the players that got this far deserve to have a stage where luck has less of an influence. It's not obligatory though, a full KO tournament would work well too.

The hard questions to answer are the following:

- Who plays whom? Probably a system akin to Tennis tournaments and chess tournaments would be fairest - i. e. using seeds, so that top players don't knock each other out in the early stages.

- Under what conditions are the matches played? The obvious parts are "default era, mainline 1vs1 maps". Then we get to the pretty obvious parts "all maps except Cynsaun Battlefield, standard Ladder time settings obligatory".

Then to the not very obvious parts: How are the maps and races determined? My gut feeling would be to allow both Random and choosing a certain faction, and to determine the maps randomly using the respective packs - in my book "Random(All)", as this is a Wesnoth tournament, not a Freelands tournament.

Next question: How many rounds? Does a match consist of only one actual round? I don't think this would be fair, what with the influence of luck - best of three sounds like the minimum to me. Akin to Snooker tournaments or chess championships in earlier times, the number of rounds per match would increase during the latest stages of the tournament. I. e. best of nine in the final, best of seven in the semis, best of five in the quarterfinals and the finals before that or something.

Minor question: Who goes first? I would say a coin toss decides in the first round, then the loser of each round is given the choice to be first or second.

3. Scheduling

Then the real trouble of it all: WHEN are the matches going to be played?

I think really the only sensible solution is to set matches to certain dates. The weekends are where players are most likely to be free to play. To keep the thing within the timelimits, I think we must ask each player to play their matches on a given weekend. In an ideal world we would be able to have a referee for every single match available; I think we have to settle on referees being available in the lobby for whispers, in shifts during the tournament weekend, and failing that lots of reliance on people's honesty and judging "after the fact" using replays and reports by the arguing parties.

Organizing it all should work through the ladder site, if the coders find the time! It would then display a roster just like the one shown above. Then a set procedure with hard limits for reports; for instance the match results need to be posted by both players by Tuesday, GMT. If the reports of the match result match, or only one player has reported, the result is finalized, otherwise decisions on that are made until the next round is on the second next weekend - I'd calculate two weeks per any of the early rounds, and possibly increase the speed later.

Communication between the players as to when to play their rounds should be organizable somehow - require players to have their email address listed so they can write each other when they'd like to play. If the schedules for that weekend are irreconcilable, players can agree to play on a date different from the tournament weekend, if they can find a referee to observe them, as long as they have played their matches before the deadline. Either player can request mediation by a referee; the referee will then try to find space within each player's schedule to play the rounds - it should be made clear that mediation is a last resort. Players are still encouraged to play on the tournament weekend, if possible, as to provide spectators with more excitement.

Rounds with best of five or higher I'd play on two (consecutive) weekends, and the best of nine final on three. I wouldn't go beyond three rounds per weekend as a rule of thumb.

This would give a fairly decent tournament speed - around three months. It remains a major affair, but that is to be expected. I wouldn't hold something like this more than once a year anyway.

EDIT: Maybe I'm thinking too much... With no tournament code in a nearby timeframe Organization is going to become a major load. Still, I'd love a ladder tournament a great deal!

[Cackfiend]

a competition with random opponents that is independent of the rating is exactely the thing the ladder needs as a regular highlight.

I perfectly agree with this. Although some ladder tournaments could easily have rating requirements as well. Like there could be a tournament for only 1500-1800 ranked players, or 1800+, etc.


Mini-tournaments would really spice up the wesnoth multiplayer action... key word here is Mini. Letting 36 people into a tournament is going to take too long and not get anything accomplished. I would start with small tournaments with a very limited signup (start the first one with 16 players maybe? maybe even just 8?) and you could then also run more than 1 mini-tournament at a time too if there is a demand for it.


think of it like online poker tournaments

[silent]

This seems like a great Idea, in terms of fun

one thing that I seem to be missing from the above posters is time zone problems, for example 2 players reach a point where they play off, but are on opposite sides of the world making it almost impossible to schedule a match.

In terms of the 3 match idea, this I like, but the set times for matches I dislike as that awful thing called the real world has a habit of constantly changing playing times

I think, each round should last a week, allowing players to play 3 games with their immediate opponent during that week. Rules can be made in the event of 3 games not played, etc.

[Rigor]

thanks at all for your different and constructive suggestions, organizing this will be super easy with ppl like you.

i also want to add some ideas of my simplistic-viewpoint, why hard when its a lot easier:

about the players:

this should be a free choice for the ladder players, i will see it this way: ladder players who participate are just taken more seriously afterwards. about limiting the elo score - a possibility to abuse the system is that someone is trying to toss high scored players down a lot winning with a low score, im not sure if a 1200 elo points limit is acceptable to everybody but i guess that should be fine (still hurts).

about the number of players:

our admin has got a tournament software so why should it not be possible to let everybody participate? i dont see a big problem there.

about observers:

in one sentence: i dont think obs are neccessary for all the first games, really.

i dont know why you are so fond of that point. do you want to be the one who should be 24/7 online to watch games? i dont think that its neccesary at all, obs will join the game anyways and about the whispering problem: those games are all online anyways, so in retrospective this is found out sooner or later. i think this problem should not be taken so seriously.

best-of games:

a super good idea ! 3 is a magic number, i suggest we take it for the first games? for the half finals / quarter finals / finals i also think raising this number might add some excitement.

titles:

i dont see a reason to limit the ranking of the tournament to the first 3 places. if a player should want to have a permanent reminder that he was 47th in 2009 i think its ok from my point of view - for instance in the players profile.

about the tournament mode:

i am unsure how this group stuff will look like. you want to give them more than 3 games already? thats quite a lot already, i want to remind you of that. KO systems are faster and easier to manage, i think sticking to that for the first time is a good idea.

seeding: im not sure if you want to give better positioned players this possibility. i think ladder players who have a good score should be able to kick out other equally skilled competitors early. in the end, this is a luck based game and a certain chance to do this should prevail.

about maps, player 1 and race:

use the random map pack, its really useful, and let the opponents pick their race or go random. i dont know if u can pick being a certain race and have a random position, but im sure one of u can explain this better than me.

about scheduling:

im really not sure how many players there will be so my first guess is this will take longer than a month. you see, we players are to a high percentage visiting the school, university and/or working already. mostly we are young =) with all its problems, so if one of us has got a test where you need to learn over 2 or 3 weeks, a tournament is not the thing you wish to have when you come home all tired. i think defeating one player with 3 matches could sometimes take longer than a week, concerning the things above plus something called different timezones. why should this tournament which seems to be really huge, not entertain us for 4 month, when its played only once a year? i am well aware this is an unusual suggestion and im curious about your responses.


best regards R

[TheMasterOfBattle]

Okay, I'll do my best to digest this.

about the players:

this should be a free choice for the ladder players, i will see it this way: ladder players who participate are just taken more seriously afterwards. about limiting the elo score - a possibility to abuse the system is that someone is trying to toss high scored players down a lot winning with a low score, im not sure if a 1200 elo points limit is acceptable to everybody but i guess that should be fine (still hurts).

I was just thinking everyone who wanted to could participate, if we get too many players we can break it down based on elo rating. And also by Timezone.

about the number of players:

our admin has got a tournament software so why should it not be possible to let everybody participate? i dont see a big problem there.

Basically, I have the ability to do this single or double-elimination style. Round Robin would take too long.

On a more interesting note, the software I have also has the ability to do seasons, so if we ever wanted to add more fun such as people wanting to play ladder games while battling for division leads to lead to a playoff, that could be done to. However, I don't think I would have the time to mange much more then a tournament.

about observers:

in one sentence: i dont think obs are neccessary for all the first games, really.

i dont know why you are so fond of that point. do you want to be the one who should be 24/7 online to watch games? i dont think that its neccesary at all, obs will join the game anyways and about the whispering problem: those games are all online anyways, so in retrospective this is found out sooner or later. i think this problem should not be taken so seriously.

Observers wouldn't be necessary, but it would have to be required that observers were allowed in the game, and that a replay must be uploaded to count, this way, a replay also gets stored in the replays archives, meaning that I or whoever would be looking at the replays would not have to be present at the time the match was played.

best-of games:

a super good idea ! 3 is a magic number, i suggest we take it for the first games? for the half finals / quarter finals / finals i also think raising this number might add some excitement.

titles:

i dont see a reason to limit the ranking of the tournament to the first 3 places. if a player should want to have a permanent reminder that he was 47th in 2009 i think its ok from my point of view - for instance in the players profile.

3 would be the number of games for the early rounds, then probably bumped up to 5 for the quarter and semi-finals, then 7 for the finals. As for the titles, I think only the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishers should get that, one who finished in the top ten would get top ten finisher added, and maybe the rest would get 2009 tournament participant

about the tournament mode:

i am unsure how this group stuff will look like. you want to give them more than 3 games already? thats quite a lot already, i want to remind you of that. KO systems are faster and easier to manage, i think sticking to that for the first time is a good idea.

seeding: im not sure if you want to give better positioned players this possibility. i think ladder players who have a good score should be able to kick out other equally skilled competitors early. in the end, this is a luck based game and a certain chance to do this should prevail.

I have not yet decided how this would be done. Actual seeding would probably be best, instead of random seeding.

about maps, player 1 and race:

use the random map pack, its really useful, and let the opponents pick their race or go random. i dont know if u can pick being a certain race and have a random position, but im sure one of u can explain this better than me.

I think what would be best is to choose the map order for each round beforehand, creating an even playing field.

about scheduling:

im really not sure how many players there will be so my first guess is this will take longer than a month. you see, we players are to a high percentage visiting the school, university and/or working already. mostly we are young =) with all its problems, so if one of us has got a test where you need to learn over 2 or 3 weeks, a tournament is not the thing you wish to have when you come home all tired. i think defeating one player with 3 matches could sometimes take longer than a week, concerning the things above plus something called different timezones. why should this tournament which seems to be really huge, not entertain us for 4 month, when its played only once a year? i am well aware this is an unusual suggestion and im curious about your responses.

[/quote]

Obviouslly this would take a long time to be completed, that is why I would think a one month sign-up time would be necessary, so that people would know if they would be able to participate for the whole tournament. As for different timezones, as I mentioned already, we may need seperate brackets for the different timezones.

[Cackfiend]

I want to remind everyone that there has already been plenty of Wesnoth tournaments in the history of Wesnoth. Personally I participated in a 1v1 and a 2v2 tournament and the foundation and rules have already been figured out for them. Theres no need to start from scratch. The best minds of wesnoth have already put together the best ideas and only a little tweaking would be required.


But honestly, thats only if you were running a Wesnoth Tournament. What TMOB wants to do is have an "occasional tournament for the ladder players". I don't want to see a ONE MONTH signup window for an occasional tournament. If you want to set up one big tournament then fine (even though i'm quite certain Doc Patterson is going to be running a TOC soon), but an Occasional tournament should be able to be set up on the fly. 8 player and 16 player mini-tournaments would be very easy to do and add a lot of fun to the ladder.


Again, a big tournament would be great with a big signup period and a week for players to complete their matches for each bracket etc, but if you want to do occasional mini tournaments this is not the way to do it. We can certainly do BOTH and I would be very happy if it was done.


Can someone write up software for the ladder site that lets players sign up for mini tournys? I don't think it would be hard to do. Could let them name the tournament as well, so if a group of friends wanted to create their own little 8 man tournament and name it "Champion of Europe" or whatever then they could (and the winner could get the title of that tournament winner under their ladder profile).




To be clear, I am very much in favor of a big tournament with 36 or more players involved but also very much in favor of smaller tournaments that would really make the ladder and wesnoth multiplayer more fun.

[Rigor]

thats a good idea as well, make random tournaments where the asked people can take the challenge or refuse.

if u do it smart enough you could test virtually all interested players while still being representative.

however, id prefer a giant tournament because it just looks cool to defeat a lot of people to reach the top. having both is certainly the best suggestion.

[nani]

however, id prefer a giant tournament because it just looks cool to defeat a lot of people to reach the top.

That smells a bit like the ladder principle itself.