'Tournament Priority System' Poll / Applications are now open!

[Earthworm]

There has been recent discussion about a number of problems with the way tournament signups occur, and the Tournament Directors have been trying to come up with a new way to make things fairer for everyone. Below you will find what we have come up with, but before such a system is implemented, we decided it would be a good idea to get an idea of whether or not the public would want or be interested in such a system.

The system below is not in operation yet.

Tournament Joining Priority

Due to Tournaments filling up quickly recently with the same people over and over, the Tournament Directors have decided to introduce a system that should reduce difficulties for those in timezones that are missing out with the current system.

NOTE: This system only encompasses the Simulator section of Tournaments; Wi-Fi counts separately.

The system will operate as follows:

• Everybody that participates in Tournaments automatically has a priority assigned to them, which is based on how many tournaments they are currently in and have recently been in.
  • Priority 1: Currently in 0 or 1 non-official tournaments.
  • Priority 2: Currently in 2 or 3 non-official tournaments.
  • Priority 3: Currently in 4 or more non-official tournaments.
• Hosts must now keep their signups threads open for at least 36 hours to allow players from all timezones to post their signups.
• When a player signs up for a non-official tournament, they must post their current priority.
• When hosts go to collect players from their signups pool, they must take, in order of signups, each Priority 1 player until the tournament is filled up. If it isn't filled up after the list has been exhausted, the host must then take Priority 2 players, and so on.
• After you successfully join a tournament, your priority is affected until you are eliminated (or win) AND one of these three things happen (whichever comes first):
  • Three weeks pass.
  • The tournament progresses two rounds from the one you lost in.
  • The tournament ends.
• Dropping out of tournaments counts as if you were eliminated, and so cannot be used to increase your chances of joining a tournament.
• Any player found misrepresenting their priority may face warnings, infractions, or being banned from joining tournaments.
• Similarly, any host found to deliberately have allowed a player of Priority 2 or Priority 3 over Priority 1 will be banned from hosting tournaments, and may face an infraction.
• Substitution in tournaments is unaffected by priority and substitutes can be freely chosen by the host amongst anyone who is or has not already participated.
• Invitational tournaments do affect your priority, but hosts may ignore priority when choosing players.
• Live tournaments are outside the scope of this system (priority has no effect on them).

The Official Tournaments are currently: official Smogon Tournaments, Smogon Tours, the Smogon Frontier, and the World Cup of Pokémon. These do not count towards your priority at all.

Please read over the new system carefully, and determine your priority before joining any new tournaments.

Please read over this and vote 'Yes' if you would like this system implemented, and 'No' if you would not like it implemented. This thread can also be used to discuss ways the system could be modified for the better, or the pros and cons, etc.

---

Also, Tournament Applications for Simulator Tournaments are now open again!

 

[jumpluff]

I don't like priority personally. I would be happy enough with 'reservations' (say, 10% of the tournament, rounded down), and randomised players frrom 24 or 48 hour sign-ups. But either way I believe such a system is necessary so I'd be happier with priority over nothing. If priority is implemented, I think priority 1 should just be 'in 0'. There are a large amount of tournament sign ups and not so many tournaments relative to the length they take, so I think this gives players a fairer chance to be in at least one tournament.

Reservations aren't even necessary and may lead to favouritism, but nonetheless I think it is the host's prerogative to have at least a few players they definitely want in their tournament.

 

[zorbees]

I voted yes for priority, but I would like to add one minor thing to it.

I would like to see a list of future tournaments, similarly to the games listing in Circus, so that you can go "Oh, Tournament X is coming up so I don't want to waste my priority of Tournament Y" or something to that extent.

I believe priority is the most fair way to implement tournaments, as I do not think it is fair for people to be in practically every single tournament and take spots away from others. It also helps with the timezones issue a bit.

I also wouldn't mind P1 being just "in 0 tournaments" like Jumpluff suggests.

 

[jumpluff]

I agree with zorbees. If we have to pick and choose what we need to wait for, a future listing would be very useful. It'd be useful regardless imo so people can know what to look forward to.

 

[DJXO9]

I agree with zorbees. If we have to pick and choose what we need to wait for, a future listing would be very useful. It'd be useful regardless imo so people can know what to look forward to.

Definitely. I'm not sure I like the priority system. I do agree something should be done though. I'd like to know what alternatives would be.

 

[jumpluff]

I already raised one ;)

 

[askaninjask]

I know I don't play in tournaments very often, but I do play in mafia games a fair amount and I am fairly familiar with the priority system. The priority system seems good until you notice its biggest flaw:

Some people will be inclined to throw games so that their priority will be raised for another tournament. This forces the system to be very restrictive when it comes to people who have lost. Making people wait three weeks or two whole rounds after a loss is a necessary restriction to stop people from throwing games.

This actually makes the entire system unfair toward people who have lost and did not throw their games (i.e. 99.9% of all people who lose in tournaments). It allows in more 10 post people (who are more likely to be inactive) and leaves out more of the distinguished battlers in the community. Even those 10 post people, many of which will lose in the first round, will have trouble getting into their second tournament.

So yeah, I voted no, and that's why.

 

[Engineer Pikachu]

Also, I think I asked something like this in SQSA, but it would be nice if it were possible for you to be able to have reservations/sign-ups for applying to host a tournament... Anyway, I completely agree with DJX09 here that a priority system may not be the best idea, but it's the best so far, so my vote would be yes, on the condition that it would be like a pilot run.

 

[The_Chaser]

I don't particulary like the tournament system since it can lower the quality of the participants because usually the better players last longer in tournaments. I think it would be fairer if after 36 hours all people who signed are entered in a random draw and the first x number of people revealed get into the tournament (this isn't my idea someone on stark said it and I liked it).

 

[Slyguy46]

I think it would be fairer if after 36 hours all people who signed are entered in a random draw and the first x number of people revealed get into the tournament (this isn't my idea someone on stark said it and I liked it).

Seconded. I actually had that idea too, using a random number generator to determine who gets in to the tournament, making it so that the first person to respond doesn't always get in or the last person to see it doesn't always get rejected.

 

[zorbees]

I don't particularly see what is wrong with letting people that are "less likely to be active" in tournaments. That is what subs are for. It is at the host's discretion when to sub people in and out, so if a tournament isn't running smoothly due to inactivity, it would be fair to blame the host. I don't really see what is wrong with the priority system. I think if we were to abolish it in Circus, it would be a terrible decision, and I think not allowing it in Tournaments would be just as bad a decision.

 

[undisputed]

ok i mistakenly voted "yes" but i meant "no". In anycase, I definitely dont think there should be reserved spots in a tournament. I have found that tournaments are an excellent way to get yourself out there. it lets people know that you are good, and i would find it difficult and frustrating to be denied a chance at competing just because i dont have the name Philip7086 or Reachzero has. I would not be opposed to reserving a couple "hand picked slots," but making tournaments all priority would seriously discourage anyone that is interested in the competitive aspect of Smogon. A quality of Smogon that i really appreciate, and i think many others too, is that it is open to anyone willing to give some effort into the community. if they want to be a in tournament, then its really defeating the point of being a "pokemon community" by denying them. idk about others, thats just what i think.

 

[reachzero]

Aside from the obvious reality of wanting to play in as many tournaments as possible, I think there are several really huge issues with a priority system. The biggest is that certain tournaments take forever--if you suffer a r1 exit, you could end up p2 for literally months waiting for the tournament to end. As a result, I think that if a priority system ends up in place, there will need to be stricter rules regarding activity and participation--for instance, a cap on tournaments at 64 players max, one-week instead of two-week deadlines, and a tougher stance on extensions.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I would like to see a list of future tournaments, similarly to the games listing in Circus, so that you can go "Oh, Tournament X is coming up so I don't want to waste my priority of Tournament Y" or something to that extent.

I definitely think that this would be necessary if the priority system is implemented. Furthermore --

As a result, I think that if a priority system ends up in place, there will need to be stricter rules regarding activity and participation--for instance, a cap on tournaments at 64 players max, one-week instead of two-week deadlines, and a tougher stance on extensions.

This is critical. If these rules were forced with more emphasis, priority would work wonderfully. I am a firm believer that a week is plenty of time to schedule and perform a match. There definitely needs to be a fixed deadline for each round of a tournament; I feel such a deadline would be a week exactly.

After you successfully join a tournament, your priority is affected until you are eliminated (or win) AND one of these three things happen (whichever comes first):

• Three weeks pass.
• The tournament progresses two rounds from the one you lost in.
• The tournament ends.

I feel as though the 'and' is unnecessary. I recognize that this is to prevent people from immediately dropping out of some tournaments to join others, but let's face it. You join a tournament to win. If you drop out, it is counterproductive to joining in the first place. If you ask me, your priority should automatically adjust upon elimination from a tournament or victory in it.

I would vote yes to the proposal if the first two quotes above were accepted and if at least some level of discussion were given to my last point. For now I will hold my vote until more discussion is had.

 

[Philip7086]

Personally, I'm not a fan of this priority system. Restricting how many tournaments someone can play in is pretty lame, and not only that, it pretty much punishes those who do well in tournaments, as the longer you stay in, the less other tournaments you can participate in.

Anyways, I was talking to EW on IRC earlier, and proposed this alternative to him:

If people living in different timezones not being able to sign up in time is the concern, then why not just have sign ups be open in hourly chunks? For example, in a 64-man tournament, only allow 16 people to sign up every 6 hours from the time the sign up thread is posted. This way, everybody in different timezones have an equal opportunity to sign up, and you don't have to limit the number of tournaments any one person can be entered in at a time.

Let us know what you think about this idea.

 

[Eternal]

Personally, I'm not a fan of this priority system. Restricting how many tournaments someone can play in is pretty lame, and not only that, it pretty much punishes those who do well in tournaments, as the longer you stay in, the less other tournaments you can participate in.

Anyways, I was talking to EW on IRC earlier, and proposed this alternative to him:

If people living in different timezones not being able to sign up in time is the concern, then why not just have sign ups be open in hourly chunks? For example, in a 64-man tournament, only allow 16 people to sign up every 6 hours from the time the sign up thread is posted. This way, everybody in different timezones have an equal opportunity to sign up, and you don't have to limit the number of tournaments any one person can be entered in at a time.

Let us know what you think about this idea.

I don't think this is a good idea at all. You are basically randomly opening sign ups every six hours. It's not as if you would open the sign ups in an announced time (every six hours). This would be very difficult to do for anyone. While it also requires luck to get in. Not only that, some timezones like EST have a much higher population than a timezone in Australia. So why should the smaller population have equal chance? This makes sense as if 80% of the members are in one timezone and 20% of the members are in another timezone. All this makes that system flawed.

The priority system makes the most logical sense. Although it does negate members from joining future tournaments without being foretold on a future tournament coming up. Like if I joined an Uber tournament and then an OU tournament sign ups just started. I have a high chance of missing that OU tournament because of my priority usage. Thus, that system is also somewhat flawed.

 

[Philip7086]

I don't think this is a good idea at all. You are basically randomly opening sign ups every six hours. It's not as if you would open the sign ups in an announced time (every six hours). This would be very difficult to do for anyone. While it also requires luck to get in. Not only that, some timezones like EST have a much higher population than a timezone in Australia. So why should the smaller population have equal chance? This makes sense as if 80% of the members are in one timezone and 20% of the members are in another timezone. All this makes that system flawed.

The priority system makes the most logical sense. Although it does negate members from joining future tournaments without being foretold on a future tournament coming up. Like if I joined an Uber tournament and then an OU tournament sign ups just started. I have a high chance of missing that OU tournament because of my priority usage. Thus, that system is also somewhat flawed.

If it's every 6 hours, how is it randomly opening up? Anyways, good point about the uneven distribution of players per region. That's easy to account for, though; just make give weighted slot openings for different sign-up times. In other words, maybe give the slot open during regular EST hours a few more reserved positions than other less crowded times. This method would cover every downside.

 

[Earthworm]

I don't have a problem with making the list of upcoming tournaments public in a thread. I'll try to get it done once I ask the other TDs.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I really think that if there weren't a delay period between ending one's participation in one tournament to the priority adjustment for a next tournament, this would work great. Furthermore, if there are enough tournaments, you likely wouldn't run into any problems with P1 users dominating every tournament.

I will go ahead and vote yes, since all-in-all I do really like the organization this would elicit. I still really want to emphasize the above point, though, that there shouldn't be such a harsh time-lapse between leaving one tournament and the adjustment to your priority.

 

[Eternal]

If it's every 6 hours, how is it randomly opening up? Anyways, good point about the uneven distribution of players per region. That's easy to account for, though; just make give weighted slot openings for different sign-up times. In other words, maybe give the slot open during regular EST hours a few more reserved positions than other less crowded times. This method would cover every downside.

Well, opening it in every six hours means that whomever is assigned to open the thread MUST be able to fulfill that duty without delay. Obviously, one person won't be able to open the thread every six hours. While if that person assigned to open the thread at that time doesn't open it, then that will piss A LOT of people who have waited for it to open (even if it's a 30 min delay, I wouldn't be happy). While if there is a delay, then how will we know when the sign ups will open? While if it's randomly opened 10 mins later than the six hours, I might miss the sign ups as 50 people are waiting for it to open and only the first 16 are permitted in. And yes, there will be A LOT of people trying to get a spot in because you have already announced that the sign ups will open in another 6 hours. But, of course if you believe that you able to execute this method successfully, then go for it.

 

[tripe]

Tournament priority is one the major problems in tournaments, but only should be applied for official tournaments. Most other tournaments on Smogon are gimmicky, and with some luck, anyone can win. Invitationals don't exist for the most part, but even then there could be some complications, such as who out of the invited gets to play. Infact, my tournament is the only invitation I've seen since I joined.

About how players are eliminated, there's no real solid format that doesn't take forever. I do agree that consistency should be measured, and best of 1 match doesn't really work. Best of 3 with the same player and the same tier gets monotonous, just like the Ubers ladder, it comes down to major prediction and luck. However, for the gimmicky tournaments, Best of 1 is just fine, since luck/team matchup is almost the key factor that determines who advances. The problem with a swiss format is that the tournament takes forever, and there could be bias in the matchups, such as seeding, a lot of players claimed I was biased in seeding players with a similar "ranking" in the tournament.

 

[tophway]

Like if I joined an Uber tournament and then an OU tournament sign ups just started. I have a high chance of missing that OU tournament because of my priority usage. Thus, that system is also somewhat flawed.

I think the fact that people wont be able to join all or any consecutive tourneys is kind of the point. If the goal of a new system is to more evenly distribute the limited amount of tourney spots, it only makes sense that someone else has to be screwed out of participating. The difference here is that you aren't getting shut out because of your unfavorable time zone/schedule, but rather because the priority system is in effect holding a spot open for someone who hasn't just played. I guess it could suck to find out a tourney you really wanted to participate in just opened and you have a high priority number, but this list that EW thinks he can do should help mitigate this.

Does this make sense or am I missing the boat?

 

[Rising_Dusk]

It makes perfect sense. What you're saying is why I find it so great. It makes you think about joining tournaments if you want to join some other one coming up. The only flaw in my opinion is the one I've ranted about enough to not keep repeating myself.

 

[Philip7086]

Well, opening it in every six hours means that whomever is assigned to open the thread MUST be able to fulfill that duty without delay. Obviously, one person won't be able to open the thread every six hours. While if that person assigned to open the thread at that time doesn't open it, then that will piss A LOT of people who have waited for it to open (even if it's a 30 min delay, I wouldn't be happy). While if there is a delay, then how will we know when the sign ups will open? While if it's randomly opened 10 mins later than the six hours, I might miss the sign ups as 50 people are waiting for it to open and only the first 16 are permitted in. And yes, there will be A LOT of people trying to get a spot in because you have already announced that the sign ups will open in another 6 hours. But, of course if you believe that you able to execute this method successfully, then go for it.

Huh? Nobody said the topic had to ever close. Just after the allotted number of spots have filled up for the 6 hour slot, don't accept anybody else who signs up until the next 6 hour mark begins (which will be exactly 6 hours from when the OP is made). What's so hard about that? Posts can be deleted too, to keep things clean, and a moderator can post after the allotted slots have filled up to notify users that nobody will be accepted into the tournament until *enter specified time*.

 

[jc104]

If people living in different timezones not being able to sign up in time is the concern, then why not just have sign ups be open in hourly chunks? For example, in a 64-man tournament, only allow 16 people to sign up every 6 hours from the time the sign up thread is posted. This way, everybody in different timezones have an equal opportunity to sign up, and you don't have to limit the number of tournaments any one person can be entered in at a time.

I remember suggesting this on another stark thread and getting completely ignored. I quite like the idea, although it may mean slightly more work for the tournament organiser. I think it might also be difficult to gauge fairly exactly what proportion of tournament-participating Smogon users come from which time zone; this would probably need to be standardised as well.

The priority idea seems a good one too. I think there is one thing we can all agree on: at least something needs to be done. In my opinion, the priority system is better than nothing so I voted for it.