Need ideas for point based Tournament.

[Jimbo_G]

Due to the lack of official grand tournaments in my area and the abundance of average to moderately skilled players, I've decided to help my local tournament providers organize a Brawl tournament that is a 4-player Free For All based on a points system rather than a bracket. Think something along the lines of the point system used in Mario Kart.

I was thinking of some sort of system where you gain points and lose points depending on what place you receive in a match, and being kicked out of the tournament when your points reach 0. This way, players can lose a number of matches and still be in the tournament as long as they have points remaining. However, before I start number crunching and coming up with a plan by myself, I wanted to see what the community thinks and take into consideration any ideas or concerns mentioned that I would not think of myself. So, please feel free to suggest anything and everything to this experimental tournament idea, and let me know if you have a system that might work.

I would like to note that it's obvious that this tournament will be less competitive than a normal bracket tournament, but that's also kind of the idea; to have a more fun based tournament rather than a technical tournament, but still allowing skill and ability to shine through. Also, items are still going to be off for this tournament unless a crazy idea seems appealing.

EDIT: This tournament will be based on Time, not Stock.

 

[jyuuberu]

If it's stock base it off kills rather than place because some people will just camp to get first. If it's time then basing it off of place is fine.

 

[Jimbo_G]

Yes, one thing I forgot to mention was it was time based, not stock. Thank you for pointing that out! What that time limit should be has yet to be decided. Suggestions?

 

[MK26]

Why not try...
Everybody starts out with a specific amount of points (lets say 10)
You lose 3 points if you come in last, 2 if you come in third, and one if you come in second
Everybody plays random opponents each round
If you lose all of your points you're out

Say there are 32 people...that's 8 matches per round, and 6 points lost per match
There are 320 points to begin with...that means there are 80 points left after 5 rounds, split among whoever hasnt lost all 10 of their points

From here, you have several options:
Whoever is left over gets seeded according to points, then you play 1v1
Or they're seeded and you play ffa's, and whoever comes in last is eliminated
Or everybody who's left is reset to 5 points and you continue
or you take the top 16 people, have 4 ffas, the winner of each plays in the finals; you could have 2/3 rounds for each group and make the scores aggregate

Just throwin ideas out there

 

[Jimbo_G]

Those are wonderful ideas indeed! Thank you so much, this is exactly the type of thing I was looking for! However, I just thought of a possible problem. Although they're rare, what should be a solution to a possible tie in a match? I'm thinking they should both be equally punished for whatever place they get because I want to avoid a 1v1 sudden death or rematch as much as possible, but I'm afraid that might unbalance the points. Any thoughts on this issue?

 

[MK26]

Why not do a tiebreaker? The tie would be broken according to:
Most KOs in total
If that is tied, Least SDs (not times KO'd)
More KO's against the person you are tied with
More damage given
Less damage taken

The tie should be broken by then
If its still tied, you might as well just credit them both...they're pretty close
There could be some other criterion i missed that you could add

 

[Jimbo_G]

Oh, I didn't think about it that way! I was originally going to base it only off the points you got as a whole, but using the specific KO points and the SD points to determine tiebreakers is a perfect idea! Thank you for that. I've been running some pseudo tournaments with CPUs to get an idea of how this will work, and I've been worried about ties since there's been a lot of them and crediting them as both 1st place has really been dragging on the tournaments.

 

[Vyse]

I wonder if there was some way you could do a swiss tournament for 4 way FFA.
*strokes chin*

I can't think of any software, so the point based system would have to do.

 

[Jimbo_G]

I'm afraid I don't know what a Swiss tournament is, but I'll look it up and see if I can't apply anything to what I already have.

 

[MK26]

Warning: incredibly long post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_system_tournament

A swiss tournament is used in games where players are paired with others of the same skill level/ranking

I tried to combine the Swiss system, a point-based system, and an elimination-style playoff...and came up with this:

The Canadian System :D (Name Pending)

All players start off with 10 points, and when you fall to 0 you lose
Try to avoid having two players play each other more than once, but it might be impossible to avoid
Ties are broken by total KO's, then SD's, KO's against the person whom you are tied with,
Each of the players are paired randomly with 3 others for the first match
4- and 3-player matches are time, 2-player matches are time-and-stock (you pick times, 3 stock)
Point spread for 4-player matches: 1st loses nothing, 2nd loses 1, 3rd loses 2, 4th loses 3
Point spread for 3-player matches: 1st loses nothing, 2nd loses 2, 3rd loses 3 - occasionally varies to optimize matchups for later rounds (note: trust me, I tried to avoid changing the spread, but it was impossible - if I ever ended up with 5 players at a point level, I couldn't continue...round 4 was hell to prevent any point levels from having 5 players)
Point spread for 2-player matchups: 1st loses nothing, 2nd loses 2
Once 16 players have been eliminated (after the lightning round), the remaining 16 go into an elimination playoff. If you have the time, you can do double-elimination, but I included a single-elimination playoff. The playoffs will be best 2-of-3, and the semis and finals can be best 3-of-5.

Notation notes:
'A' denotes a player with 10 points
'>' denotes the results for a matchup. Ex. 4444>4321 means a ffa among players with 4 points. Regardless of the order of the combatants, the winner will end up with 4 points, second with 3, third with 2, and last with 1
'-' denotes the number of players at a point level. Ex. 8 - 6 means that there are 6 people with 8 points
'(X - 1)' denotes that a player with X points is the only player with that many points, and so he has a bye until the elimination round. 2 people will get a bye after round 3, one after round 4, and 2 after round 5
'*777>765*' denotes an irregular point spread - instead of 2nd and 3rd losing 2 and 3, they lose 1 and 2 respectively
'Av1' denotes an elimination-round match between a person with 10 points and a person with 1 point
'(A1)v(43)' denotes an elimination-round match between the winner of the match Av1 and the winner of the match 4v3

Spoiler

DISCLAIMER: It's not my fault if it's too long or it makes no sense to you. It makes perfect sense to me.

Now...on to the actual tournament. It's 32-person:

Round 1 – 8 matches

AAAA>A987
AAAA>A987
AAAA>A987
AAAA>A987
AAAA>A987
AAAA>A987
AAAA>A987
AAAA>A987

A – 8
9 – 8
8 – 8
7 – 8

Round 2 – 8 matches

AAAA>A987
AAAA>A987
9999>9876
9999>9876
8888>8765
8888>8765
7777>7654
7777>7654

A – 2
9 – 4
8 – 6
7 – 8
6 – 6
5 – 4
4 – 2

Round 3 – 10 matches

AA>A8
9999>9875
888>865
888>865
7777>7654
7777>7654
666>643
666>643
5555>5432
44>42

(A – 1)
(9 – 1)
8 – 4
7 – 3
6 – 6
5 – 6
4 – 6
3 – 3
2 – 2

Round 4 – 10 matches

8888>8765
*777>765*
*666>654*
*666>654*
*555>543*
*555>543*
444>421
444>421
333>310
22>20

(A – 1)
(9 – 1)
(8 – 1)
7 – 2
6 – 4
5 – 6
4 – 6
3 – 3
2 – 3
1 – 3
0 – 2

Round 5 – 9 matches

77>75
6666>6543
555>532
555>532
444>421
444>421
*333>321*
222>200
111>100

(A – 1)
(9 – 1)
(8 – 1)
(7 – 1)
(6 – 1)
5 – 4
4 – 3
3 – 4
2 – 6
1 – 4
0 – 6

Round 6 – 6 matches

5555>5432
444>421
3333>3210
222>200
222>200
1111>1000

(A – 1)
(9 – 1)
(8 – 1)
(7 – 1)
(6 – 1)
(5 – 1)
(4 – 2)
(3 – 2)
(2 – 5)
1 – 3
0 – 14

Lightning Round
Only one of the bottom-ranked players can advance; they must play and the winner moves on

111>100

A – 1
9 – 1
8 – 1
7 – 1
6 – 1
5 – 1
4 – 2
3 – 2
2 – 5
1 – 1

Elimination round – 15 matches

Av1
9v2
8v2
7v2
6v2
5v2
4v3
4v3

(A1)v(43)
(92)v(43)
(82)v(52)
(72)v(62)

(A143)v(7262)
(9243)v(8252)

(A1437262)v(92438252)

whew...that was long

tl;dr: read up to the DISCLAIMER

Disclaimer: It isn't too long

 

[Jimbo_G]

Ahhh, so your version of a Swiss tournament is basically a Seeded Point tournament, where those with the most similar points are pitted against each other instead of randomly? (Minus the first round) That's a good idea, I may want to incorporate that. However, it doesn't seem very fair near the end of the tournament where you pit those with the highest points against those with the least. Could you possibly explain why it's constructed that way?

 

[MK26]

You mean the elimination round? The highest seed is always paired with the lowest seed in an elimination round...

<_<

I've never seen a seeded elimination round where 1st plays 2nd, 3rd plays 4th, and so on. 1st always plays last. The point of the ffas is to seed the top 16 players, so they are ranked when the elimination round starts

 

[Jimbo_G]

Oh, I understand. Well unfortunately, an elimination round that is 1v1 is not desirable for the tournament structure I'm hoping for. However, the whole concept of pairing matches based on points has got me interested. Technically the matches are still random, and you're consistently paired against someone of your skill, according to the points. I'll will definitely consider this for the tournament over pure random matches. However, I still have not decided what to do later in the tournament once the points start dwindling. It basically comes down to how many people show up, it looks like. I'm leaning towards the concept of once half the players are eliminated, the points will restart to 5 and continue. With some tweaking, I think that will allow the most matches and overall variety.

 

[MK26]

I like the idea of resetting at 5 points...but eventually you'll have to go 1v1s, at least in the finals...unless you want a 4 player ffa for the finals...I just dont like the idea. A 1v1 elimination round is IMO the way to go.

EDIT: Resetting at 5 points:

Round 1

5555>5432
5555>5432
5555>5432
5555>5432

5 – 4
4 – 4
3 – 4
2 – 4

Round 2

5555>5432
4444>4321
3333>3210
2222>2100

(5 – 1)
4 – 2
3 – 3
2 – 4
1 – 3
0 – 3

Round 3

44>42
333>310
2222>2100
111>100

(5 – 1)
(4 – 1)
(3 – 1)
2 – 2
1 – 3
0 – 8

Effectively halved

EDIT 2: Resetting at 3, doing 1v1s, whereby if you lose 3 matches you're out, unless you come last in a 3-for-all

R1

33>32
33>32
33>32
33>32

3 – 4
2 – 4

R2

33>32
33>32
22>21
22>21

3 – 2
2 – 4
1 – 2

R3

33>32
22>21
22>21
11>10

(3 – 1)
2 – 3
1 – 3
0 – 1

222>210
111>100

3 – 1
2 – 1
1 – 2
0 – 4

Halved once more, now down to four

 

[Jimbo_G]

Well, the whole point of this tournament at it's core is to avoid 1v1. We've been having problems with more traditional tournaments since the game came out, with the same people winning every tournament and kind of discouraging people from coming back. I'm constructing this alternative tournament structure to help balance out the odds and make it more fun for everyone. As I posted in the opening post, I understand this does to an extent lessen the competitive aspect of the game, but that's kind of the goal. Under the basic system we've been developing thus far, it's possible for someone to make bottom 4th place in every match, and STILL play up to 4 matches. That's simply more fun for everyone, participators and onlookers alike. That's what I'm shooting for, and I want to keep it as 4v4 as much as possible, including to the very finals.

 

[MK26]

Ahh...now I get what you're saying

But really, once you hit 8 people, theres not much you can do except matches against random opponents, where you lose points based on rank...and 1v1s

4444>4321
4444>4321

4 - 2
3 - 2
2 - 2
1 - 2

44>42
33>31
22>20
11>10

(4 - 1)
(3 - 1)
2 - 2
1 - 2
0 - 2

22>20
11>10

4 - 1
3 - 1
2 - 1
1 - 1
0 - 4

And so on...now it's down to four and seeded for two semi-finals; or you could have one ffa and each player gets X points...play matches until one is down to zero, then reset and play until another is down to 0, and then play best-of-five finals

Or you could just do one final, winner take all

 

[Jimbo_G]

Yeah, but I love your ideas so far! You've for the most part completely made this tournament idea possible, and I really appreciate you putting so much effort into all of this! I'm almost done making up the official rules, and everything you post is giving me the ideas to make it smoother and more organized every time. You've been a huge help in this whole thing. Please feel free to keep the ideas coming. If this works out as well as it's looking, the store sponsoring the tournaments and I may have our own popular thing going here in little old middle Tennessee. XD

 

[MK26]

I suppose the question now would be how to do the final, and at what number of players left (if ever) to switch from the point system to something else...

For the final:
1) Single ffa
2) Aggregate-score ffa
3) Single-elimination tournament
4) Double-elimination

Take your pick...all have their pros and cons

For the switch-over:
No earlier than at 8 people...I personally think that's the right time to go to an elimination-style tournament...it'd be unfair if you got into the final 4 off of a little bit of skill, knowledge of how ffas work, and some dumb luck. That would be an insult to the more skilled players.

 

[Jimbo_G]

Actually, here's a thought. Once we reach 8 people, we could go into special semi-final rules, where the two groups of 4 fight best out of 3 for who gains the most points based off of rank. 1st wins 3, 2nd wins 2, and 3rd wins 1. The top two to have the most points from each group after 3 battles go on to the Finals to determine who wins the tournament.

Special Note: We're prepared to offer prizes to the top 4 players based off of placement, so having a 4v4 Final is not a problem.

 

[MK26]

Actually, here's a thought. Once we reach 8 people, we could go into special semi-final rules, where the two groups of 4 fight best out of 3 for who gains the most points based off of rank. 1st wins 3, 2nd wins 2, and 3rd wins 1. The top two to have the most points from each group after 3 battles go on to the Finals to determine who wins the tournament.

Special Note: We're prepared to offer prizes to the top 4 players based off of placement, so having a 4v4 Final is not a problem.

That is a very good idea.

So, there's 2 semifinal ffas...they play 3 matches each...point system...top 2 in each group advance to the ffa final

Tiebreaker - single match if 2nd and 3rd are tied
2 matches, aggregate score if there is a 3-way tie
If there's a 4-way tie...then what?

How about...for the ffa final, top 2 play a best of 3 or 5 1v1 to determine the winner, and bottom 2 play best of 3 for 3rd

We're making pretty good progress here

 

[Jimbo_G]

Like I said, 1v1 is DISCOURAGED, but you're right, we're really getting somewhere here. But how about this in response to tiebreakers:

If there's a three-way tie breaker, then we'll have one more match with the 3 tied players, having the forth untied player eliminated. If we continue to have a tie after that, then we simply follow tie breaking rules to decide who places where, checking total KOs, SDs, and total damage output.

If there's a two-way tie for either place, we also use tie breaking rules immediately to determine places, and proceed to the finals from there.

EDIT: A 4-way tie will be impossible because we're going by an odd number of matches, so the only possible turnout would be at max a 3-way tie handled as explained above.

 

[Jimbo_G]

Whoops, double posted. I'll save this spot for my next response. XP

 

[MK26]

OK, scratch the 1v1...

Your tiebreakers sound good

Is the ffa final 3 matches?

And if you have a total of 64 people, what should you do?
I'd suggest splitting into two groups of 32, then once the rounds of 32 and rounds of 16 are done, morege the remaining 16 into another round of 16, and playing from there
Or you could keep them split, play ffa finals for each group of 32, and the top 2 in each final go to the grand finals 4 player ffa

 

[Jimbo_G]

Sounds great! As for having 64 people in the tournament, that's probably not likely since our biggest turnout since the game has been released has been about 38 people, give or take.

And yes, the Final FFA will be either best of 3 or 5, but probably 3.

 

[MK26]

Alright...let's recap

Round of 32: Canadian System :D
Round of 16: Canadian System :D
Round of 8: FFA semifinals, aggregate-score point rankings; top 2 in each grouping advance
Final (4 people): FFA finals, aggregate-score point rankings

Have I got that right?

Hold up...for the 2-person tiebreaker...how do we check total KOs over a span of 3 matches?

 

[Jimbo_G]

Canadian system sounds catchy enough. I think I'll stick with it if you don't mind. XD So far that looks right. And as for total KOs in a tiebreaker, I was only considering the KOs for that particular match, not all three of them combined. You think that's good enough?

 

[MK26]

Hmmm...I can see probles arising, somebody claiming they had more KOs overall or something like that...person a comes 1st, 2nd, and last; person b comes 2nd, 3rd, and 2nd. Person a beat person b in 2 of the 3 games, yet person b advances. Its not fair. Heck, its not fair if you just striaght out give it to person a.

You might as well just have a 1v1 tiebreaker if you need to. You just cant complain

Is 1v1 really discouraged so much to the point that you wont even do 1v1 tiebreakers?

Also, how are you doing counterpicking (stage/character) in the ffas?

 

[Jimbo_G]

Hmm... It does seem like that could be a problem... Yes, we're trying to avoid 1v1 as much as possible, but I suppose if we absolutely have to and the two players agree to it we could still do it. After all, this is still an experimental tournament setup that will likely have some unforeseen problems no matter how long we sit and analyze it.

However, for the situation you provided above, you have to remember that there are still 2 other players affecting their scores. Player A may have gotten a higher place throughout the 3 matches, but Player B could have gotten most of his KOs from the other players, possibly resulting in Player A and B having very little to do with each other's scores, so to compare who did better against the other isn't really relevant since everyone had a part in the scores. Do you know what I mean? I'm sorry if that sounds a bit confusing.

As for the stages and counterpicks, I was going to have every match have random stages consisting of all the neutral and counterpick stages plus a few more if desired. Every player every match can choose whichever character they want. However, for the Semi-Finals , only the two lowest players may switch characters. As for the Finals, should I have only the 4th place person change character, or the two lowest?

EDIT: For the sake of the Finals, I'll probably also let the 4 players decide on a stage of their choice, or randomly select from only the neutral stages.

 

[MK26]

Hmm... It does seem like that could be a problem... Yes, we're trying to avoid 1v1 as much as possible, but I suppose if we absolutely have to and the two players agree to it we could still do it. After all, this is still an experimental tournament setup that will likely have some unforeseen problems no matter how long we sit and analyze it.

True. Very true

However, for the situation you provided above, you have to remember that there are still 2 other players affecting their scores. Player A may have gotten a higher place throughout the 3 matches, but Player B could have gotten most of his KOs from the other players, possibly resulting in Player A and B having very little to do with each other's scores, so to compare who did better against the other isn't really relevant since everyone had a part in the scores. Do you know what I mean? I'm sorry if that sounds a bit confusing.

I get what you're saying...

But if the two players did very little fighting against each other...why should they be compared to each other? Conversely, if the two players fought against each other almost the entire match, and came out even...we need a tiebreaker, and comparing stats might be good...but only if you have the stats for all 3 rounds. I still think that just deciding with a 1v1 is the easiest way.

As for the stages and counterpicks, I was going to have every match have random stages consisting of all the neutral and counterpick stages plus a few more if desired. Every player every match can choose whichever character they want.

What happens if two players just keep switching back and forth between characters on the selection screen, each trying to counterpick the other? If that happened, you'd probably have to do double-blind picks for the round.

However, for the Semi-Finals , only the two lowest players may switch characters. As for the Finals, should I have only the 4th place person change character, or the two lowest?

You mean the two players that placed lowest in the previous match? Good idea, keep it like that for the finals

EDIT: For the sake of the Finals, I'll probably also let the 4 players decide on a stage of their choice, or randomly select from only the neutral stages.

For the fist match of the semis, do the stage-strike system...each person picks a stage to strike, and whichever one isnt stricken is used. After that, do random picks.

 

[Jimbo_G]

I get what you're saying...

But if the two players did very little fighting against each other...why should they be compared to each other? Conversely, if the two players fought against each other almost the entire match, and came out even...we need a tiebreaker, and comparing stats might be good...but only if you have the stats for all 3 rounds. I still think that just deciding with a 1v1 is the easiest way.

Hmm... Well, technically, all their actions and accomplishments in past matches are accounted for by which place they received, even through a tie breaker. If they tie later on, they've already been credited for their past accomplishments, and thus are irrelevant to the proceeding matches. So, if they tie a second time in later matches, that's the match that deviated from their respectfully earned points and is the only one that should have its numbers crunched. The past points were earned properly and thus the match they tie in is the only one we should look at to break the tie, which puts us right back to my original suggestion.

What happens if two players just keep switching back and forth between characters on the selection screen, each trying to counterpick the other? If that happened, you'd probably have to do double-blind picks for the round.

I actually meant to type in there that each match will be Quadruple-Blind, so counterpick wars don't occur. ^^;;;

For the fist match of the semis, do the stage-strike system...each person picks a stage to strike, and whichever one isnt stricken is used. After that, do random picks.

I've never heard of that system, but that sounds like it would work great! If two people choose to Strike the same stage, then we could also just randomly choose between the remaining stages as well.

 

[MK26]

Hmm... Well, technically, all their actions and accomplishments in past matches are accounted for by which place they received, even through a tie breaker. If they tie later on, they've already been credited for their past accomplishments, and thus are irrelevant to the proceeding matches. So, if they tie a second time in later matches, that's the match that deviated from their respectfully earned points and is the only one that should have its numbers crunched. The past points were earned properly and thus the match they tie in is the only one we should look at to break the tie, which puts us right back to my original suggestion.

But... if it's a best of 3 aggregate series...you'll need the info from all 3 of the games. I mean, the KO tiebreaker could work, but it requires added effort on your part to keep track of the stats after each match. 1v1 single match tiebreak is my preference, but pick whichever one you want.

I've never heard of that system, but that sounds like it would work great! If two people choose to Strike the same stage, then we could also just randomly choose between the remaining stages as well.

They strike stages in order. Person who came first chooses the stage he wants to strike. 2nd place picks the stage he wants to strike of the remaining 4. 3rd place picks the stage he wants to strike of the remaining 3. 4th place picks the stage he wants to strike of the remaining 2. Whichever stage is not struck (stricken?) is played on.

Then do random picks for the next rounds.

======

I'm tired. Whatever you post will not be replied to until a minimum of 12 hours from now.

 

[Jimbo_G]

But... if it's a best of 3 aggregate series...you'll need the info from all 3 of the games. I mean, the KO tiebreaker could work, but it requires added effort on your part to keep track of the stats after each match. 1v1 single match tiebreak is my preference, but pick whichever one you want.

Actually, now that I think about it, with only 2 Semi-Finals going on and about 4 store officials running the tournament, it shouldn't be very difficult to record everyone's KOs, so that's actually feasible!

They strike stages in order. Person who came first chooses the stage he wants to strike. 2nd place picks the stage he wants to strike of the remaining 4. 3rd place picks the stage he wants to strike of the remaining 3. 4th place picks the stage he wants to strike of the remaining 2. Whichever stage is not struck (stricken?) is played on.

Then do random picks for the next rounds.

Ahh, I understand. That should be no problem. That's a pretty straightforward idea.

I'm tired. Whatever you post will not be replied to until a minimum of 12 hours from now.

Lol, me too man. This post will be for you when you get back on tomorrow. XP

 

[MK26]

Ah well, I suppose 12 hours was a little bit of an understatement...

It looks like we've ironed out all of the theoretical kinks in this tournament system, now you just have to run the tournament, see what goes wrong, and makes sure that it doesn't happen again.

For the final, I'd suggest seeing if the players can come to an agreement on the stage before picking randomly among the neutrals.

I dub this entire tournament system...

The Canadian System™

Unregistered Trademark by MK26; Tuesday, October 21, 2008; licensed for use by Systalis, co-creator and beta tester.

:D

That is all.

 

[Jimbo_G]

Lol, very nice. My only concern about the name, however, is I don't live in Canada. If I call it the Canadian System, I'm positive I'll get some weird looks. So, for use at least by me, I nickname it...

The Gladiator System

Job well done, my friend. The tournament will probably commence in a few weeks. I'll let you know how it all goes, and if it has some major flaws, I'll make sure to contact you to help resolve them!

 

[MK26]

If you played a chess tournament in the US using the Swiss System, would you call it the Gladiator System? I think not.

How about you don't call it anything just yet. If it fails miserably, you can call it whatever you want, it's your system. But if it's a success, then you call it the Canadian System.

/thread