Forums Kongregate

The Official Kongregate Competitions/General Forum Games Chit-Chat Thread. page 3

103 posts

Flag Post

I think you should have played in a certain number of forum competitions before signing up to host one, so that you are familiar with how they work (and particularly the time and commitment involved).

 
Flag Post

I agree with racefan.

 
Flag Post

A: Must have 500 forum posts (To make sure you’ll check the forums regularly. Was thinking of 100 but…)

B: Must be level 20. (To ensure you know a fair bit about games)

C: Must have been in at least 2 previous competitions. (Same reasons as racefan)

 
Flag Post

@sellyme
A: Spam till you get to 500.
B: What if a user has been at Kong for a long time and plays games all the time, but is only level 5 because they don’t play badged games very much?
C: Join 2, don’t post a score for the first round.

 
Flag Post

Requiring participation in at least one competition? That could work, I suppose.

I definitely don’t think a post count requirement would work out. Like Bab said, people will spam one word posts everywhere. And I know plenty of people that are intelligent enough to successfully host a competition, but don’t exactly frequent the forums. Same thing applies to my opinion on a level requirement.

 
Flag Post

Just make sure they paticipate, and don’t just submit a score for the qualifier and never show their face around the competition again.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by racefan12:

I think you should have played in a certain number of forum competitions before signing up to host one, so that you are familiar with how they work (and particularly the time and commitment involved).

This is probably the best possible idea,since a level requirement can be gained merely be spamming ratings,or referrals,and post count just is BAD written all over it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by racefan12:

I think you should have played in a certain number of forum competitions before signing up to host one, so that you are familiar with how they work (and particularly the time and commitment involved).

Originally posted by sellyme:

C: Must have been in at least 2 previous competitions. (Same reasons as racefan)

Originally posted by Babadingldoo:

Just make sure they paticipate, and don’t just submit a score for the qualifier and never show their face around the competition again.

Completely. I agree 100%. And, countering what Goog said, if those people don’t frequent the Forums, I don’t really think they would want to host a tourney. They might, but it would be a rare case, and exceptions would probably be made? I dunno. Beats me. :P

 
Flag Post

Originally posted by Glomple:

And, countering what Goog said, if those people don’t frequent the Forums, I don’t really think they would want to host a tourney. They might, but it would be a rare case, and exceptions would probably be made?

I wanted to host a tourney before I had very many posts, and I still don’t really have a lot of posts now. :P

 
Flag Post

@Baba
A: Well, I wouldn’t participate in a competition started by james123193, would you?
B: Okay, you’ve got me here, but if they play games all the time they would have surely rated/commented a lot and that could be checked easily.
C: Already been answered, easy to check.

Ukos, when you started the tournament you had over 500 posts, and I’d say you frequent the forums. You may not post in everything, but you still read them often enough amirite?

But I honestly wouldn’t trust a 50 poster to be in the forums regularly enough to host a competition.

EDIT: Also, how about a 6 (or 4) month account age requirement?

 
Flag Post

Why was the sign-up thread unstickied?

 
Flag Post

Epic bump ^

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by King_Matt:

Epic bump ^

Well, it isn’t a bump if you contribute.

 
Flag Post

Well, the only reason I’m ‘bumping’ this is due to the fact that the sign-up thread is not for discussion.

So, I have a few ideas for my tournament, but I want to know what you lot think about them. After BC’s recent tournament, it’s become apparent to me that, while original ideas are great, they can fall victim to other problems.

Here are a few of the things I had planned. In your opinion, would they work? Would they be fun? Another thing that I should mention is that this tourney would not be elimination-style, but rather points based. Somewhat similar to my failed, miniature tourney, King of Kong.

1. A round, later on, in which there would be teams of 4 or 5 (teams would be chosen by either the participants or a random generator. Likely the latter, due to the fact that players would rush to team up with the best). Anyways, the average score of all of the team members would become their score for that round.

2. A round in which these points could be… wagered. I plan on making the tournament have a game show-like atmosphere. Players could wager a certain number of points, and if they were to succeed, they would double their current points.

3. A round in which several games were taken, and one’s average score from these games would become their score for their round.

Of course, there is much to flesh out. But these are a few ideas that I came up with earlier today, and I was wondering what your thought of them was.

In other words, I’d like your opinion.

 
Flag Post

I think that any innovative ideas can be made to work, as long as you’re careful about how you apply them.

I would suggest against letting players pick their own teams though: choose randomly or based on ranking in previous round.

Just be prepared for your tournament to be very difficult to run. I think people have recently been underestimating the amount of work required to run a tournament, and the amount of preparation it takes to prevent the majority of public complaints.

Also, be ready for basically any round to not work like you had planned, and have a backup thought out ahead of time. That way, if it happens, you’ll already have a solution ready, and won’t have to scramble for a way to fix it.

Just some thoughts.

 
Flag Post

I remember King of Kong. It was good, but it failed because you were inactive.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Fogfun:

In other words, I’d like your opinion.

The problem with wagering points is, it’s to the players’ advantage to wait as long as possible to wager, to see what the other people have wagered. Especially if this is late in the tournament and people can see what they might need to get in front of someone. I know people already snipe with scores, but at least with scores there’s the high scores table that people can look at to see if someone is going to snipe.

If you’re going to have teams for one round, you might need a “cut” round immediately before that. So, if you have 100 players, maybe only the top 80 can make the cut and advance to the team round. (Anyone ranked #81 or worse after several rounds really isn’t going to place well anyway.) This might help in that you’ve reduced the field before the complicated part of your tournament starts, and you don’t overburden your spreadsheeters. Less people that you need to get a wager from, less people in the multiple-games round, etc. It also has the effect that when you get the inevitable early round dropouts, you’ll still have an even number of players (otherwise you end up like “OK, we have 91 left, so we’re splitting into 13 groups of 7!”) and ensures any really bad players who made it past the qualifier won’t drag their team down TOO far.

Also for the team rounds, I’m not sure if random seeding is the best. You may want to do seeding based on the rankings so far. You could team up 1 2 3 4 together if you wanted to give an advantage to the people who were ahead, or you could make the team like 1 40 41 80 if you didn’t. (The problem with random is, you might GET 1 2 3 4 paried together even if you didn’t want that.)

Also, you should be up-front about the general format. I think one problem with BC’s tournament is that we did not know until partway through the first round what kind of tournament it was going to be. Had it been known in the qualifiers, those who did not wish to participate in that type of tournament would not have signed up.

Also… I don’t know why your previous tournament “failed”, but make sure that whatever issue came up doesn’t happen again!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Fogfun:

Well, the only reason I’m ‘bumping’ this is due to the fact that the sign-up thread is not for discussion.

So, I have a few ideas for my tournament, but I want to know what you lot think about them. After BC’s recent tournament, it’s become apparent to me that, while original ideas are great, they can fall victim to other problems.

Here are a few of the things I had planned. In your opinion, would they work? Would they be fun? Another thing that I should mention is that this tourney would not be elimination-style, but rather points based. Somewhat similar to my failed, miniature tourney, King of Kong.

1. A round, later on, in which there would be teams of 4 or 5 (teams would be chosen by either the participants or a random generator. Likely the latter, due to the fact that players would rush to team up with the best). Anyways, the average score of all of the team members would become their score for that round.

2. A round in which these points could be… wagered. I plan on making the tournament have a game show-like atmosphere. Players could wager a certain number of points, and if they were to succeed, they would double their current points.

3. A round in which several games were taken, and one’s average score from these games would become their score for their round.

Of course, there is much to flesh out. But these are a few ideas that I came up with earlier today, and I was wondering what your thought of them was.

In other words, I’d like your opinion.

A few comments:

On (1), I would expect some discontent from top players; if not immediately, then after players were assigned to teams. If there’s no fail-safe mechanism to prevent them from being eliminated based on the underperformance of a teammate, I would imagine they’d be hesitant to go along with the idea. It’s neat in concept, though, although random team assignments would absolutely be necessary.

I don’t see anything wrong with (2), at least in theory. It’s an interesting idea which adds additional elements of risk and strategy into the round. I also like the proposed theme.

(3) is also a workable idea, but comes with a caveat: you’d have to make sure the score ranges for the selected games are relatively similar; otherwise, games allowing for higher scores will be disproportionately valued.

 
Flag Post

Most people seem to overlook this possibility when it comes to multiple games (and I’m not sure why): Instead of averaging scores, you can assign points based on results (For example: 10 points for 1st, 8 for 2nd, 6 for 3rd, and so on, scaled based on the number of players you have), and then simply see who has the most total points. In this format, the score ranges for the games will no longer matter.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by racefan12:

Most people seem to overlook this possibility when it comes to multiple games (and I’m not sure why): Instead of averaging scores, you can assign points based on results (For example: 10 points for 1st, 8 for 2nd, 6 for 3rd, and so on, scaled based on the number of players you have), and then simply see who has the most total points. In this format, the score ranges for the games will no longer matter.

I like this idea, but it does remove the “margin of victory” component somewhat. There’s no difference, for example, between being first by a point and doubling up second place. I doubt anyone would have a problem with that, though.

EDIT: I suppose there are ways to work around the above concern, but it would take a lot of effort. It’s probably not necessary, anyway.

 
Flag Post

I’m pretty sure my tournament will have that scheme anyway. Still have something to plan for it tho. On another issue, why drovoxx still hasn’t started his own?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Danaroth:

I’m pretty sure my tournament will have that scheme anyway. Still have something to plan for it tho. On another issue, why drovoxx still hasn’t started his own?

He probably just hasn’t gotten on since BC rage quit.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Fricknmaniac:
Originally posted by Danaroth:

I’m pretty sure my tournament will have that scheme anyway. Still have something to plan for it tho. On another issue, why drovoxx still hasn’t started his own?

He probably just hasn’t gotten on since BC rage quit.

Don’t know about that. I had the tournament spreadsheet chat open, and I noticed an anon had said “Giggity” sometime after the rebellion had occoured.

 
Flag Post

Well, the rebellion happened long before BC rage quit. Plus, maybe Drovoxx is just giving the working class time to simmer down or they’re just going to lynch the next dictator that steps up too.

 
Flag Post

One idea I like is making people get a score based on the difference from the average score for the game, measured in secret, going to use on my tourney