Conquer Club

josko.ri wrote:hmm, it sounds very interesting and competitive but I have suggestion about how to improve point system...

"1. Total points Player will get a total number of points based on their finish in each tournament so coming in 2nd in a 16 player tournament would garner .9375 points while a 2nd in a 64 player tournament would garner a score of .9844. Additionally larger tournaments will have a multiplier as its more difficult to win a 64 player tournament than it is to win a 16 player tournament and more difficult still to win a 128 player tournament. Thus the multipliers will be as follows: For tournaments with 16-31 players have a multiplier of 1, 32-60 would have a multiplier of 2, 61 to 89 would be a multiplier of 3, 90-130 would be a multiplier of 4, 131-220 a multiplier of 5 and 221 and over would be a multiplier of 6. In other words that 2nd place finish in a 64 player tournament would then be multiplied by 3 to garner that player a score of 2.95. There will be a running scoreboard with total scores for all players."

so basically a player who plays all 52 tournaments will probably be between TOP 20 because his/her points will grow up every week. I am not fun of PGA so I dont really know how point system there is, but I am fun of tennis (ATP) and I know very good how there is point system. I suppose on PGA is similar. my point is that Roger Federer is number one player in tennis by years but he plays very low number of tournaments. it can be chacked here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx. he has 18 tournaments while the others from top 10 have 25,26.

so, my suggestion is to make only one difference in point system: divide all players' points by number of tournaments played, and we will then get reliable ranking. to avoid that someone plays only 1 tournament and be high ranked, you may take 20 tournaments as a minimum played for getting full rank. so, points of the players who played less than 20 tournaments can be sum and divided by 20, and for the players who played more than 20 tournaments can be sum and divided by number of tournaments played. I think then you will get more representative ranking, at most because of fact that tournaments will be full very quickly, so many interested players will stay without some tournaments.

Kinnison wrote:
4> Lastly, given how long many of these will run, and the number of games, I suspect 20 tournaments completed to be a significant challenge. Some people who accommodate game loads I would consider INSANE (HA, for example ) will probably not have a problem with 20. I, on the other hand, keep a LOW game load for a premium player (under 25, heck, under 20 if it can at all be arranged), and think finishing 20 TPA tournaments would probably kill me.

barterer2002 wrote:I thought I posted this earlier but apparently it was somewhere else.

My general feeling is that in tournaments there are two reasons that people do not join their games. 1) they are unaware of how tournaments work and are generally not joining any more of them or 2) they have unexpectedly left CC for whatever reason. In either of these cases there doesn't seem to be much reason to penalize. Are there reasons to penalize someone that I'm not seeing?

Jace22 wrote:funny enough, the tournament tab has been useless for the past couple of weeks in this event. The tournaments have filled before they were added

Jace22 wrote:funny enough, the tournament tab has been useless for the past couple of weeks in this event. The tournaments have filled before they were added

poptartpsycho18 wrote:

Jace22 wrote:funny enough, the tournament tab has been useless for the past couple of weeks in this event. The tournaments have filled before they were added

Too bad we can't have a way to have the tournaments that are scheduled already up, with the thread locked until the sign-up date. That way anyone interested could bookmark and then sign-up right away. But that's not really an option so it's just going to have to stay a "first come, first served" kinda deal. It's good to have them be as popular as they've been though, it'll make for a repeat of this type of event.

Night Strike wrote:

poptartpsycho18 wrote:

Jace22 wrote:funny enough, the tournament tab has been useless for the past couple of weeks in this event. The tournaments have filled before they were added

Too bad we can't have a way to have the tournaments that are scheduled already up, with the thread locked until the sign-up date. That way anyone interested could bookmark and then sign-up right away. But that's not really an option so it's just going to have to stay a "first come, first served" kinda deal. It's good to have them be as popular as they've been though, it'll make for a repeat of this type of event.

Actually, I think keeping them OUT of the database until the normal update time is actually a better system. The benefit of having only one director check the forum once a day (and late at night) is that it rewards the people who still take the time to browse the forum for the tournaments they wish to join. The people who take the bit extra time to look through tournaments manually benefit by getting the first spots in a tournament.

Night Strike wrote:

poptartpsycho18 wrote:

Jace22 wrote:funny enough, the tournament tab has been useless for the past couple of weeks in this event. The tournaments have filled before they were added

Too bad we can't have a way to have the tournaments that are scheduled already up, with the thread locked until the sign-up date. That way anyone interested could bookmark and then sign-up right away. But that's not really an option so it's just going to have to stay a "first come, first served" kinda deal. It's good to have them be as popular as they've been though, it'll make for a repeat of this type of event.

Actually, I think keeping them OUT of the database until the normal update time is actually a better system. The benefit of having only one director check the forum once a day (and late at night) is that it rewards the people who still take the time to browse the forum for the tournaments they wish to join. The people who take the bit extra time to look through tournaments manually benefit by getting the first spots in a tournament.

jrh_cardinal wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

poptartpsycho18 wrote:

Jace22 wrote:funny enough, the tournament tab has been useless for the past couple of weeks in this event. The tournaments have filled before they were added

Too bad we can't have a way to have the tournaments that are scheduled already up, with the thread locked until the sign-up date. That way anyone interested could bookmark and then sign-up right away. But that's not really an option so it's just going to have to stay a "first come, first served" kinda deal. It's good to have them be as popular as they've been though, it'll make for a repeat of this type of event.

Actually, I think keeping them OUT of the database until the normal update time is actually a better system. The benefit of having only one director check the forum once a day (and late at night) is that it rewards the people who still take the time to browse the forum for the tournaments they wish to join. The people who take the bit extra time to look through tournaments manually benefit by getting the first spots in a tournament.

speaking of (not related to TPA), I posted a tourney Saturday at 3:30 in the morning, and I still am not in the system, nor has pengui contacted me in any way saying why I am not in the system. The tourney is perfectly legal also, so there's no reason why I shouldn't be.

In fact, the other tourney I posted that night, the MLB one, pengui didn't respond to either, you had to give me privis.

Here it is: JRH's Assassinator Tourney

Is he just having a busy couple of days or something?

Night Strike wrote:

jrh_cardinal wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

poptartpsycho18 wrote:

Jace22 wrote:funny enough, the tournament tab has been useless for the past couple of weeks in this event. The tournaments have filled before they were added

Too bad we can't have a way to have the tournaments that are scheduled already up, with the thread locked until the sign-up date. That way anyone interested could bookmark and then sign-up right away. But that's not really an option so it's just going to have to stay a "first come, first served" kinda deal. It's good to have them be as popular as they've been though, it'll make for a repeat of this type of event.

Actually, I think keeping them OUT of the database until the normal update time is actually a better system. The benefit of having only one director check the forum once a day (and late at night) is that it rewards the people who still take the time to browse the forum for the tournaments they wish to join. The people who take the bit extra time to look through tournaments manually benefit by getting the first spots in a tournament.

speaking of (not related to TPA), I posted a tourney Saturday at 3:30 in the morning, and I still am not in the system, nor has pengui contacted me in any way saying why I am not in the system. The tourney is perfectly legal also, so there's no reason why I shouldn't be.

In fact, the other tourney I posted that night, the MLB one, pengui didn't respond to either, you had to give me privis.

Here it is: JRH's Assassinator Tourney

Is he just having a busy couple of days or something?

He didn't do any updates over the weekend, so he should get to them tonight.

moldy780 wrote:in plz love this idea

like 500 people wrote:when you enter the individual TPA sponsored tournaments, you are automatically included in the TPA standings

jrh_cardinal wrote:

moldy780 wrote:in plz love this idea

sigh...

like 500 people wrote:when you enter the individual TPA sponsored tournaments, you are automatically included in the TPA standings

poptartpsycho18 wrote:

jrh_cardinal wrote:

moldy780 wrote:in plz love this idea

sigh...

like 500 people wrote:when you enter the individual TPA sponsored tournaments, you are automatically included in the TPA standings

Maybe he means "in" to make up a tourney for the TPA, in which case he'd have to talk to bart about that. But I could offer a early opinion on that being that he'd need more experience/tourneys under his belt first. But if he did mean "in" as in wanting to play...I'm not going to sigh, lol.