Tournament Ideas

First, I have not talked to Blu Manchu about any sponsorship of these ideas.
Second, these ideas may never come to fruition.

That being said, I wanted to gauge the possible participation for either of the two tournaments ideas I have:

1. Kyburz Kalamity: your team is limited to items that can be bought at Kyburz Market; you don't have to actually purchase them from there (how would I know?), but they have to fit the requirements of being eligible to be sold in everyone's favorite market.
2. My spin on Peasant (untested, buy hey)....Destitute Derelicts. This could be either:
   1. Any item rarity, but no tokens.
   2. Peasant rules apply, but with an additional handicap of no tokens.

Obviously, these could be solo or team (guild?!?!?!??!!?!?) tournaments. If anyone thinks these might be worth a try, let me know. Also, let me know what you think about these ideas.

Thanks.
Merci.
Domo Arigato.

 

Both sound fun!

 

A guild tournament sounds nice. That's a different form of competition.

I'd have issues with "Any item rarity, but no tokens" without further restrictions. It's suuuuper legendary heavy if you want to win.

 

I think any sort of team dependent format delays and puts realization at risk all together.

 

Valid points, everyone. Things to take into consideration if I am ever able to find time to engage a project like this. Restrictions are hard for me, as it can be very hard to judge those things without a number of volunteers helping out.

Also, I would jokingly want the prize from Kyburz Kalamity to be something like 1000 common chests instead of pizza and epic chests. But I digress.

 

lol

 

@gulo gulo If i can somehow help to get this going, let me know.

 

I'd really like to see a guild vs guild tournament where each guild puts forward it's 3 best players for co-op. Co-op MP is fun as hell and isn't seen as often as it should be, imo.

 

i would rather encourage formless challenges among 2 guilds, if they fancy that idea. Maybe you can register that "out of the ordinary" challenge with Farbs or Flax and he provides a few chests for the winning team.
But dont mix coop up again with the tournament plans, that amount of coordination wont suceed.

 

I wasn't saying it was feasible, just that I'd like to see it
Thanks, as always, for being a negative nancy

 

I acknowledged your point, though it was already brought up earlier in this discussion, even made a very reasonable suggestion to meet the obvious demand for guild events.
Maybe you werent around for Rainingrecons attempt at organizing a coop-tournament, but it would be refreshing if we could take away a lession for a change instead of starting over with "you know what would be nice?"

 

You can actually make a very decent tokenless burrft deck, I realize, but it's more of a tokenless Flash Of Agony deck, which is still strong.

 

I would like to see a plain and simple 1v1 peasant tournament happening and help orchestrate it without shutting myself out from participating.

So from the top of my head, let's collect what has to happen:
Capped number of participants. There has to be a sign-up phase, then there have to be accepted dates for the matches.
We need to settle on a format, i think that swiss style has proven itself as superior over KO-style progression.
Battlefields need to be choosen and it needs to be decided if they are used randomly or if they are known to players ahead of the whole event.
There has to be clarification of rules beyond peasant, maybe more items (and dwarves) blacklisted, other things included, as it was done last peasant tourney with rares that got no rare cards on them.
A player's party composition needs to be registered, eventually allowing a small sideboard of extra items. To control it we need...
A bunch of helpers acting as referees. Then maybe promoters, announcing and commentating matches in the lobby. Noone likes to be left alone with the task of running everything.
Twitching/Twerking/Youtubing or whatever, not my concern.
There needs to be a price structure, but i guess that is a nobrainer.

So registering parties, scheduling and volunteers seem to be the biggest obstacles?
Correct me if i am wrong @Flaxative , but werent helpers rewarded too in past events?

 

Yes, though there's some variance.

 

So Rob, which parts are you volunteering to do?

I've been wanting to run another tournament myself but peasant tourneys aren't my style. I certainly agree that swiss tournaments are a better format for CH although I used single elimination because I felt that would be easier to organise in regard to timezone clashes.

I'd also like to mention that picking appropriate prizes is something I wish I had spent more time doing. As a hint for whoever runs the next tournament, I think rare costumes (ones formerly given away as league prizes) are the ideal way to go.

 

I didn't think i needed to spell it out, but peasant format means ofc its accessable for everyone. Rare figures being attractive to the old boys is no suprise, but again, this pitch is not aimed exclusively at them, nor do i feel like encouraging too heavy veteran participation. If you start to think about individual proficiency the whole thing crumbles anyway. The usual chest prices would be fine. If you want to support a peasant tournament instead of hosting another PoF gig you can step up as sponsor and offer some of the pizza codes your farming crew keeps grinding in.

How could the workload be splitted, good question. I could see someone take over...

General Registration - Coming up and carrying out a system that manages the enrolling procedure, keeps track of applicants and allows to compensate for players that have to drop out unexectedly. I would like to go big with this, is 16 players too ambitious? If it gets that big, then this is a big chunk.

Build Vault - Players use the same build for the whole event. Once the participants and substitutes are registered, they send their build to someone that validates the builds according to the specific rules and feedbacks if theres something off. Everything has to be confidental.

Flexible Scheduling - In Coordination with general Registration, participants are approached, with the usual tools, waves of matches are set as swift and with as little hassle as possible.

Record of the results - Someone who posts who won and keeps track of whatever is relevant for tournament progression.

Referees - A few players present during all the matches, double-checking ingame that the builds used are indeed peasant / the registered ones. They report the results beyond doubt to the one keeping track of the tournament progression.

People that just advertise each match in the lobby, so everyone online gets that something is going on and what that something is. Maybe its enough if the Referee invites specating, but i remember having someone doing commentary can be good fun.

If you read this and can see yourself doing any of this, PM me right away.

 

I think we tried that with the bounty hunters tournament. (and it was refused).

 

I've been thinking about the opposite for some time now: fast regular tournaments. No pre-registrations, max 8 players, shorter time controls (10 min to both?), tournament is played at once from start to finish, only purple (1500+) players allowed. Possibly if we have 7, time runs out and there's no 8th, anyone could fill that 8th slot. But these are details. Also if 9+ ppl want to play the 8 with the highest rating would get in. This rule might also get some exceptions. A true PoF-style tournament series
But I'm playing other game atm, so can't run these myself. If I happen to dedicate myself to CH once again, I might give this idea a try

 

@Robauke
I think I can handle general registration, build vault, occasionally refereeing, and recording results.

 

Noted, timeracers.

The problem is that you still got a massive, timeconsuming thing in one go, while a extensive event has those chunks of one or a few games whenever it can happen.
I think getting one round done, even when done parallel, still will ask for 30-45 minutes. And the builds used will just mirror whatever is hot in ranked.