=OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [Oversoul] >> Oversoul General Discussion



Message

Beck -> =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/30/2013 22:13:03)

Hello everyone! Now that the third forum tournament has concluded, I'd like to extend a heartfelt thank you to everyone that participated! It was tough sometimes to schedule duels, but most matches were completed, and we had some truly epic moments. It's been great to do this together with you guys, as a community, and we definitely want to have more tournaments in the future!

But before we get to the part where we ask you all for your inputs, let's see that Hall of Fame!

=OS FORUM TOURNAMENT HALL OF FAME=

quote:

ICE TOURNAMENT
1st Place = Lord Beck
Runner Up = DeathGuard

SHADOW TOURNAMENT
1st Place = The Finnish Phoenix
Runner Up = Lord Beck

FIRE TOURNAMENT
1st Place = Clintonian
Runner Up = Axel459


*confetti*

Alright, if you participated in the tournament, or just watched as it progressed, please comment and give us your feedback! General comments are fine, but please try to be as constructive as possible, to help us continue to develop our protocols and run the tournaments more smoothly in the future!

Here are some prompts:
What did you like the most about this tournament?

What did you not like as much about this tournament?

What did you think of the double-elimination style bracket? Good? Bad? Confusing?

What did you think of the time limit for the duels?

Is there anything you would change about the tournament setup?

Is there anything you'd like for us to keep doing?


Feel free to address anything else about the tournament as well. Thank you!


Before making a post, please keep this in mind.
quote:

Constructive Criticism

  • What is it?
    Constructive criticism is being able to process and offer your own thoughts and opinions in order to give courteous and friendly feedback. This is done by explaining what you like and dislike, while at the same time providing feedback that is useful. This is what separates constructive feedback from ranting/complaining and flaming.

  • Does it help? How?
    Yes! Constructive criticism helps because not only are you giving feedback about what you don't like about a quest/event, but you're also giving feedback about what you DID like in the quest. Feedback could include on such topics as statistics, more dialogue, more explanatory cutscenes, more fights - everything that quests or events would normally include. This gives the staff a better idea on future improvements.

  • Example of Constructive Criticism:
    "I didn't partularly like this war because it felt too empty. To have made it better, I think the staff could have had a 50% cutscene to unlock rather than just a shop to progress the storyline. As it was, I personally was a little dissapointed that this war felt more rushed than previous wars, however I do understand that the staff had a lot on their plate when making this release. That said, I greatly enjoyed the boss fight, the animations and art fit perfectly with the song that was playing in the background. So while not one of the best wars DF have done, I still enjoyed it. Thank you, DF staff!"

  • Example of Unconstructive Criticism:
    "I didn't like this war at all. What were the staff thinking? The items in the shop were ugly, overpriced and were bugged!! No cutscene? That was never done before and it is not how it should be done ever. Seriously, doesn't the staff ever listen to us?! The boss fight was too hard and took forever to beat :( And there was no sound. I dont think the staff even care anymore. Best war ever /sarcasm I hate this game D:<!"
    •



    Pennocki_ -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/30/2013 22:17:55)

    Congratulations to clinton [:)]



    The Jop -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/30/2013 22:30:20)

    Hm, I don't know what to improve. How about an after party? I do think it needs to feel more like a tournament since I only ever saw one person at a time.



    Gorillo Titan -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/30/2013 22:34:28)

    If they add 2 vs 2 battles in OS how will the tournaments run or will it just stay 1 vs 1?



    The Jop -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/30/2013 22:49:14)

    Maybe you'll be able to pick teams initially and then the last team standing will have to have a duel. I don't think we'll have to worry about that for a while though.



    BJEBLE -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/30/2013 22:49:21)

    @Gorillo I think it will stay 1v1, because then you would have a team winning instead of a person, so it just makes it more confusing.

    EDIT: I like the way it is, the double elimination provides a rise from the grave for some people.



    Riniti -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/30/2013 22:52:08)

    What did you like the most about this tournament?

    I enjoyed the shift to double-elimination style. Made for more game-play and more opportunities/competition.

    What did you not like as much about this tournament?

    I didn't particularly care for the lack of communication from partners with one another- while mine was (most of the time, anyway) fairly good, I know that it wasn't so great with others. That can't really be helped, unfortunately.

    What did you think of the double-elimination style bracket? Good? Bad? Confusing?

    I liked double-elimination, but it was a little confusing at first. I feel like it could have been explained a little better.

    What did you think of the time limit for the duels?

    The time limit is understandable and reasonable. It's not too short nor too long a time, so you can usually manage to figure things out.

    Is there anything you would change about the tournament setup?

    Is there anything I would change... I might change the rules a little to find the winner. Try doing 8 matches total, four of initiative to each player. Take the winner by the total difference in health of winner and loser, so that you can ensure that both sides get a fair shot at an even amount of initiative.

    Is there anything you'd like for us to keep doing?

    Stick with the double-elimination, I really liked this method.



    kakarot1123 -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/30/2013 23:32:54)

    Umm In a double elimination tourney if the person coming from LB beats the person coming from WB, it causes a bracket reset. Meaning Axel would have to lose two rounds to be out just like everyone else lol. It's only fair.



    BJEBLE -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/30/2013 23:43:10)

    @kakarot Then Who would be in the Winner's bracket, because LB would have clinton, and the WB would be Axel, then Axel moves to LB and no one is in the WB.



    Beck -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/30/2013 23:55:18)

    @kakarot
    Yes, that should be how double elimination tournaments work. However we never explained that part beforehand, and Mritha already announced and concluded that match, and the results were accepted by lots of people. So I'm sorry to say that we're gonna skip that battle.
    As Riniti and numerous other people have pointed out, the rules were a bit confusing, and not many people knew how a double elimination tournament works. We will explain it better next time, and prevent this sort of mix up from happening again.



    clintonian -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/31/2013 0:08:46)

    Thanks guys wasn't expecting to win this lol but yay :D and yea I kinda prefer the single elimination to double



    Axel459 -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/31/2013 0:32:33)

    I definitely prefer the single elimination tourney to the double elimination.

    I actually really liked the way the shadow tournament was set up it would be nice to see the next tournament set up like it.



    BJEBLE -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/31/2013 0:46:24)

    @Beck So Earlier you said that the next one is either going to be Earth or Neutral, have you decided?Because I really need to level up my character for both elements.



    Dragon Elite X -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/31/2013 1:18:40)

    Rule Proposal:
    The first duel request has to be sent to the lowest leveled player. Then from that point on they alternate. In the case that they are the same level the one further ahead in the alphabet sends the first request. They will then alternate request. Note: Numbers take precedence over letters in this rule.

    This will kill the bickering on who sends the first request for the duel.



    The Finnish Phoenix -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (10/31/2013 21:04:59)

    Thank you Beck, Mritha, and everyone involved in organizing and competing in this tournament. Even though I didn't compete, it was a very exciting spectacle to watch unfold and I commend the use of the forum to promote activity in the game by hosting such events.

    Just through observation I have a comment to make. At first I agreed that when players alternate in sending duel requests from one duel to the next, the "first-to-two-consecutive-wins" method of breaking a tie was fair, but in retrospect I now feel differently. The problem lies in that whoever receives the first request will have an advantage in the case of a 2-2 tie because that same player will have the first shot of winning consecutive games. In particular, if the player who receives the first requests loses the second and third duels but wins the fourth, their initiative on the fifth gives them a chance to end the match 3-2 when the other player gets no such opportunity. Dragon Elite X suggested that the first duel request be sent to the lower-leveled player, but this isn't an acceptable solution because players should not be rewarded for being of a lower level, let alone for having an alphabetically convenient username.

    Another consideration is that the consecutive wins tiebreaking method potentially makes the match too long. There have been numerous instances in which it has caused matches to drag on for seven duels or more, but with the other method of breaking a 2-2 tie wherein the player with the greater combined HP wins the initiative in the fifth tiebreaking duel, the match cannot exceed five duels. Shorter matches are better because they have less of a risk of being interrupted by computer crashes or by someone leaving in the middle of the match. This will be of particular importance for Water and Light tournaments because of the emphasis those elements place on healing and defense, where a single duel can take upwards of 15 minutes or more.

    In the same vain, single elimination tournaments would be preferable as they take less time and the stakes are higher for each match. Both of the finalists of this tournament, clintonian and Axel459, have posted on this thread that they prefer single elimination and I think this is of significance considering that they had the most success here and still prefer single elimination. Riniti and BJEBLE liked double elimination because it provided more competition/opportunities as well as a rise from the grave for some people. While these points are true, it is also true that there would also be more competition and opportunities for players to rise from the grave in subsequent tournaments if subsequent tournaments came more quickly as a result of single elimination. There's only one winner and one runner-up per tournament anyway, so most of the time in double-elimination, players who lose their initial match and keep going are just prolonging their eventual elimination. This tournament went relatively smoothly with an element as offense-oriented as Fire, but I don't like the implications of using it for elements like Water and Light. I would even go as far as to suggest that matches be made best two of three for the Water and Light tournaments with initiative being rewarded to whoever won with more HP in the case of 1-1 ties.

    Finally, it was surprising that this was a Fire tournament as the first and second tournaments corresponded with the order in which CC series had been made available, so it would've followed that would be Light if that pattern were maintained. It wasn't, and that in of itself isn't a problem, but I do think that the CC rotation should be a consideration in determining the element of upcoming tournaments so as to have packs available for at least part of the time during which the tournament takes place, so that players can focus on the tournament's element and buff their characters accordingly. Ideally, the next tournament would be announced with sign-ups available a few days before an update and use an element that would roll in that Friday as the sign-ups go down and the tournament begins.

    That's my two cents, I hope it helps make future tournments as successful as possible. :)



    Dragon Elite X -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (11/1/2013 1:34:47)

    I don't view allowing the lower level player to go first as a reward to them. I simply see it as an act of kindness. I have seen many times that a couple hundred HP can change the outcome of the battle. Allowing the lower level to go first is making the experience enjoyable on first sides. As far as the alphabetical placement. This is another implementation that will make for more organized battling. It leaves out a lot of room for ifs ands or buts, this allows us to once again have a more enjoyable experience.

    I also feel in relation to battle length the win by two MUST stand if double elimination leaves. I would rather lose a fight fair and square than have how much damage I did in a fight decide a tie breaker. Think of the rule from a losing end. To be on the reciprocating end of the lowest score rule would suck. Though I am all for single elimination tournaments. I also appreciate your idea of having tournaments be the same week as a new CC cycle. That would be a nice thing to see.



    The Finnish Phoenix -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (11/1/2013 8:02:06)

    It's not an act of kindness if it's forced.

    How much combined HP you have remaining in your wins doesn't directly decide the tie breaker but is used to determine who gets the initiative in the fifth and final duel, which is a considerable advantage that is earned fairly if each player went first twice to begin with. This is fair because both players are on the exact equal footing. However, in the consecutive wins tiebreaker, whoever gets the first duel request has a slight but lasting advantage just for receiving the first duel request, which isn't fair.



    Dragon Elite X -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (11/1/2013 10:23:14)

    If your argument is true, it is safe to say if a person with a higher level goes first they will have two advantages. They will have a higher level and the first move. What do you suggest for both sides to have an equal playing field in the beginning?

    I created the "Alphabetical Clause" because it in itself is a bit random if the two players are the same level. No one thinks, "I'm going to name myself based upon the alphabet so I can go first." I think it is a fair innervation. What do you suggest if you disagree?



    kakarot1123 -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (11/1/2013 12:12:38)

    I'd like to thank the TOs and everyone else who participated[:)] I had a lot of fun and got to meet new players, it was a great experience

    The tourney thread should stay open longer/not be locked to allow for congratulations, final words, discussion on CC, element, characters, the results, etc. It would be amazing to hear more thoughts on these things. Sadly, it's basically off-topic anywhere else.

    A tournament organizer could flip a coin to see who goes first each round to make things a more fair. I really don't like the "whoever has more HP" system because one missed turn is enough to do upwards of 2000 damage. Alphabetical and lower level going first is arbitrary and abusable. I also see getting two more wins over the opponent (I think that's what was proposed?) in the case of a tie-breaker as a poor solution considering neither player may ever achieve those conditions. Let's be real, time and deadlines are a real concern. A coinflip is a fast, easy, and fair solution.

    Regarding single or double elimination, they both offer something different with their own strengths and weaknesses. Single elimination is very fast paced and more manageable for some players' schedules. As a sidenote, single elimination would work very well with a single day or weekend tourney. On the other hand, double elimination gives players a better chance to show what they've got and is more flexible with longer deadlines and possible extensions. If people are interested in shorter tourneys I could see them doing pretty well, but they don't end up being that much shorter. Double elimination only adds about 2 rounds with the Loser's Bracket, but they do tend to have more entrants meaning more rounds. I'd like longer tourneys to stick around on the forums because they're more user-friendly with scheduling and present a smaller entry barrier, which encourages new players to participate. I don't think I have a preference about which to play, tbh, but it'd be smart to factor in upcoming holidays when considering which to run.


    The Finnish Phoenix has a good point about tourney and CC element rotation matching up. In addition to what he said about it giving players a chance to prepare, it would make it much simpler to know which tournament is coming next.



    The Finnish Phoenix -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (11/1/2013 18:43:52)

    quote:


    If your argument is true, it is safe to say if a person with a higher level goes first they will have two advantages. They will have a higher level and the first move. What do you suggest for both sides to have an equal playing field in the beginning?


    Having a higher level is an earned advantage, it is not something that should be evened out because players' investing time and/or money in their characters grants the naturally integrated advantage of increased HP and CC resources, that's why they bother levelling their characters. If there were a way of seperating the money aspect from that I would jump to it, but there are F2P players with high-levelled characters and paying players with low-levelled characters alike, the way in which the staff so dramatically reduced the effort for paying players is the point of this game I find the most unfortunate. Either way, even F2P players have had more than time enough to level their characters of choice to 20 and as a Level 20 has won each one of these tournaments, players using lower-levelled characters really ought to know the risk involved in their choice.

    As for first turns, I'm not saying that the higher levelled player should be automatically granted first turns, but that because there are an odd number of duels, the tiebreaking match, if it's necessary, should be decided based on the players' performance in their previous duels rather than based on external and irrelevant factors outside the players' control.

    quote:


    I created the "Alphabetical Clause" because it in itself is a bit random if the two players are the same level. No one thinks, "I'm going to name myself based upon the alphabet so I can go first." I think it is a fair innervation. What do you suggest if you disagree?


    Randomness is not necessarily fairness. Defining justice has historically been a notoriously difficult task, but applied to this context I consider it more just to penalize a player for having been outplayed than based on random chance. My suggestion was granting whoever had the greater combined remaining HP in their two wins the first turn in the tiebreaking match because it rewards the player who outplays the other.

    quote:


    because one missed turn is enough to do upwards of 2000 damage.


    I don't know if they're all that common any more, but in the case of a missed turn that duel should really be re-done because it glitched, same for freezes/crashes in general.

    quote:


    A coinflip is a fast, easy, and fair solution.


    While it's true that awarding the first turn in the tie-breaking match with a coinflip is fast and easy, so is calculating who had more combined remaining HP in their wins, which is more fair than a coinflip because a coinflip is completely outside the players' control and remaining HP is a manifestation of the players' difference in skill.

    quote:


    I also appreciate your idea of having tournaments be the same week as a new CC cycle. That would be a nice thing to see.

    quote:


    The Finnish Phoenix has a good point about tourney and CC element rotation matching up. In addition to what he said about it giving players a chance to prepare, it would make it much simpler to know which tournament is coming next.


    Thank you! I'm glad there's something we can agree on right off the bat. :)

    As for the points where we disagree, Dragon Elite X and Kakarot1123, I hope we can reach agreements eventually. I respect your rights to your opinions and I want to help to structure these tournaments in a way that is as fair, fun, and friendly as possible for everyone involved like you do.



    Gorillo Titan -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (11/2/2013 12:34:12)

    The best part of the tournaments has to be the fact when it recycles from the beginning and all the new character we will see people using. I didn't take part in the shadow tournament but at least 15 new characters have come out for it imagine all the different strategies necessary to win now.


    Also have you guys decided on which element will be next I think it will be pretty boring if its one of the lesser elements like lightning that has like 13 character every one would use hex void engineer priest and wolf.



    Mritha -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (11/2/2013 17:06:23)

    First off, thank you all for your comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism. I can address some of them now, others are still being discussed.

    A good many of you like the double elimination style, a good many preferred single elimination and there were valid reasons for both sides. Double elimination is something I personally prefer, I like the thought of a possible twist at the end with a loser coming back and taking the victory. But as The Finnish Phoenix pointed out, this style would take forever to do with elements that specialize in healing and shielding, such as Ice and Light. So to please both sides, elements that are known for heavy damage like Fire and Shadow can be double elimination from now on, and defensive elements can be single elimination.

    I also liked reducing the number of duels per round for the defensive elements to 3 instead of 5, my only concern is with so few duels won't be enough to learn the playing style of their opponent. There could be a practice duel fought just before the others are, and won't count to the total wins and losses. This would be optional.

    We had originally planned to follow the CC releases, but knew that Light would take a long time regardless of what style tournament we had in place. As has been said in feedback threads for the other tournaments, most everyone doesn't like it to drag on for too long. Since we are still playing with different kinds of elimination to find what works best, we decided to skip Light and move to Fire. Partly because, being offensive, Fire would hopefully progress quickly and partly because at the time the tournament began, Fire CC was out and we hoped to promote the pack. Before we do offensive elements, I'd like to settle on a style of tournament that wouldn't take as long and when we have a good system, follow the CC packs from that point on.

    I would prefer not to leave the deciding factor of who gains the initiative for the tie breaking duel up to luck. A coin toss is easy and simple, as is using the player's name, but whether or not you have the initiative can on its own determine the fate of the duel. While we all struggle with the "luck of the draw", a skilled player can use what he is given and still win a duel, or come very close to doing so. As such, I'd like to keep the determining factor an act of skill if possible, how much combined HP each has, how much total damage was dealt, or something else like that.

    As for what element will com next, that hasn't been decided. If you guys want, we can announce the next element at least a week before opening sign ups for the next tournament to give more time to level characters and practice.

    quote:

    The tourney thread should stay open longer/not be locked to allow for congratulations, final words, discussion on CC, element, characters, the results, etc. It would be amazing to hear more thoughts on these things. Sadly, it's basically off-topic anywhere else.

    This can be easily done. Next tournament thread will remain open for about a week, that should be plenty of time to discuss what happened. We do have a Battle Strategy Discussion thread where what CC were used, etc. can be discussed long after the tournament has ended.



    Igneous -> RE: =OS= Third PvP Forum Tournament Feedback (11/6/2013 23:08:24)

    @Axel - did you lose 2 sets of matches?
    if not you should duel Clintonion a final death match - win 5 at least by 2

    My Take on a good format would similar to tennis* scoring
    - *instead of first to 11 winning by at least 2
    - first to 5 win by at least 2 - forcing an equal number of starting initiative per player
    It could take longer - but all the better
    and "double elimination" or basically a "Round Robin" should stay the same
    and yes everyone has to lose 2 match sets to be out so the question is



    Page: [1]

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.125