Donkey Kong Forum
Streaming => Streaming Events => Topic started by: ChrisP on June 04, 2013, 11:43:13 pm
-
So just to update everybody, as of this evening Cat has my story about the format for the Wildcard Division at the KO3, and how the next three Wildcard Rematches will factor into it.
So I would expect it to be up on TG at some point within the next couple of days.
There will be much to discuss, so I'll just stick this thread here as a placeholder.
-
Aright, it's up now.
http://www.twingalaxies.com/article/2391/the-kong-off-3-starts-now-wildcard-division-qualifier-tournaments/ (http://www.twingalaxies.com/article/2391/the-kong-off-3-starts-now-wildcard-division-qualifier-tournaments/)
However, even though I'm probably just being picky and micro-managey, you might find it easier to read the mock-up version that I uploaded to my own webspace (the text is the same, but the image in the middle comes off more the way I intended, and I'm also not crazy about the low-contrast text color on the latest TG articles):
http://chris.psaros.com/tg-article/wildcard-qualifiers.html (http://chris.psaros.com/tg-article/wildcard-qualifiers.html)
I also wanted to say, for what it's worth, that Cat has been a lovely individual during this process. Just throwing it out there...
-
I was just reading that. That's all a pretty interesting concept. Is that official now and bought off as the KO3 wildcard tournament?
-
Yeah, that's John and Eric's plan, I just wrote it up for them.
-
At the Kong Off 2, with almost four times as many wildcard contestants as available machines
I think that should read over 4 times(2 cabs had 5 players and 2 had four)
I like the concept and have only one little problem with it. The player with the best qualifying score only gets to play one day :-[, but has to compete with players who had two days or effectively a day and a half since day 2 players share cabs. He gets a free pass as compensation but I would trade that for the extra day and choice of cabs. If I'm going to the Kong Off, I'm going to PLAY!
-
I thought about that too Jeff, and it's probably the weakest element of these rules. It's tricky, though. There's some trade-off going on. The champ starts with a disadvantage, because he has one fewer day to play, and everybody else's scores carry over from Round 2 while his will be zero.
On the other hand, not actually having to DO anything to get to Round 3 is pretty cool, since he gets to start at a point in the tourney where the majority of the players (4 out of 7) are guaranteed a prize. His odds of finishing in the money are extremely favorable.
Maybe the champ can choose to start on Round 1 and fight his way through anyway, in order to bank a score? And if he doesn't get through Round 1 or 2, he still has "immunity" and plays Round 3 regardless?
Since I've had more time to think about this than the rest of you, I've noticed some other things.
The Round 1 bye goes to the top 3 in each tournament, and any "repeaters" get the bye based on their highest-scoring tournament.
This means that some people can benefit, or get screwed, in interesting ways, based on how the tourneys play out.
Let's imagine that the standings end up like this (fake names - bolds get the Round 1 bye):
Tournament #1
1 Bob 990
2 Pete 950
3 Sam 880
4 Jim 860
5 Todd 830
Tournament #2
1 Bob 995
2 Alex 975
3 Joe 970
4 Ray 940
5 Matt 920
6 Ron 900
Tournament #3
1 Max 820
2 Dick 800
3 Jeff 795
In the second tourney, Bob improved his score by 5K, which means that Jim, who came in fourth during the first tournament, now qualifies with his 860K score because Bob's score in the first tourney no longer counts, which retroactively "upgrades" Jim to 3rd place for tourney #1.
But notice how Ray got 940K in the second tournament, which beat both Sam and Jim's first tourney scores by a lot, but Ray doesn't get a spot because he came in 4th in his tourney. Matt and Ron also get screwed here because they're ahead of Sam and Jim too.
The third tourney has weak scores, but that could happen. Maybe not as dramatic as my example, but it could. Could have a low turnout for some reason, or nobody has it together that day, or whatever, and the top scores in that tourney are significantly lower than in the other two.
Now Ray, Matt, and Ron are screwed even worse (and Todd from tourney #1 gets screwed too). Max, Dick, and Jeff in the third tourney get to qualify simply because the third tourney ended up being softer.
So Ray can end up being the fifth highest player overall by score, yet not be among the nine who get the Round 1 bye!
I don't think this situation is particularly unlikely either. In fact, odds are good that it probably WILL happen to at least one person, whose score will get caught in the gears in this way.
I pointed that out to John and Eric - that if you work from three independent score lists and just go by 1st, 2nd, 3rd on each it ends up being very possible for players with lower scores to take the "skip Round 1" spots from players with higher scores.
According to them though, they DID think about it, and it was intentional. And I can see the merit of doing it this way. It just changes the tournament strategy in certain ways, and adds a "twist" element.
It's also interesting that anybody in 4th, or 5th, is technically on "standby" until all three tourneys have played out, because any of the top 3 repeating in a later tourney (but with a lower score than their best) would bump the standby spots into the qualifier spot.
-
I thought of the same points you guys brought up, and great analysis Chris.
Yea Jeff, if you're gonna make the trip out there, most would want to play every day. I mean, you could go all out and put up 1.1M as a Wildcard, right?
As much as everyone might hate to admit it, an online version of the Kong Off is probably superior to the Kong Off, as far as the competition goes. Everyone playing at home, in their own environment, on their own machines...is much more of a level playing field than what the Kong Off is currently.
I'm not suggesting the Kong Off be replaced by any online Kong Off, but maybe a "DK Online Open" (played maybe 6 months after the Kong Off) where everyone is welcome to play, would be something that would get as much, or more attention than the Wildcard Rematch is getting currently.
-
In terms of the purity of the competition, you are right.
Honestly I think of the Kong Off first and foremost as a get-together/publicity event.
-
Another potential wrinkle is what if someone cracks the TG top 12 during one of these Wildcard events. Does he get a seat in the main event then? And what happens to the previous #12? Is he now out in the cold without even a wildcard spot?
-
I was thinking that also Jeff about what if I got knocked out the top 12, the only thing I can say, is I'm free to up my score any time from now until KO3.
I would think anyone who cracks into the top 12 would still have to have their score TG verified via their submittal process, so do all the proper recording to be safe. That is as long as the KO3 requirement stays "top 12 TG verified"
-
Yes! I'd thought about that too Jeff.
That would be pretty brutal if somebody in the 3rd tourney bumped one of the main-eventers down, that person suddenly finding themselves with just a couple of weeks to retake their position, being unable to do so, and then having to slum it in Round 1 of the wildcard division.
Ouch...
Also, I'm not 100% clear on whether verified necessarily means "TG verified". It didn't last year. You just had to be on the TG list OR stream your game, which is how Ben got in without actually having an official score.
Ben is actually in the mega-sweet spot. Since his score is considered qualification-valid, but isn't official TG, he gets to play in the rematches AND in the main lineup.
-
That would be pretty brutal if somebody in the 3rd tourney bumped one of the main-eventers down, that person suddenly finding themselves with just a couple of weeks to retake their position, being unable to do so, and then having to slum it in Round 1 of the wildcard division.
This is the just the outcome that movies are made for. A great player is shut out :'( and has to battle his way back through the ranks to raise the trophy once again ;D. Rocky..Rocky..Rocky 8). Now I envy the guy sitting twelfth. I give him at least a 90% chance to be playing on his own cab Sunday if he gets sent down.
-
Also, I'm not 100% clear on whether verified necessarily means "TG verified". It didn't last year. You just had to be on the TG list OR stream your game, which is how Ben got in without actually having an official score.
Ben is actually in the mega-sweet spot. Since his score is considered qualification-valid, but isn't official TG, he gets to play in the rematches AND in the main lineup.
This was something I was always confused about since the wildcard tournaments started. Wildcard came about as all the KO2 players who were not main contestants in KO2 saying "lets do it again online!"
If the eligibility for WC was basically anyone who is not eligible for KO2 main event, then I was curious about Ben's entry since he was in KO2.
So, technically if my 1.015M TG gets bumped out the top 12, and my personal best streamed score of 1.026M is still in the top 12, then that should be the score to go with. I don't know if TG is going to clarify that or not, but according to their statement, it's top 12 TG verified.
-
I posted this on Facebook anand some of what I originally posted has been covered here.
1. Friday is not a Kong-Off 3 day correct? ALL 20 machines will be available for that round! Think of this as the qualifier to get into the US Open in tennis. This is a GREAT setup and I think this is perfect to accommodate a large number of WC entries that did not place in the top 9. If they have 20 entries then everyone gets a dedicated machine! Even if you get say a crazy 40 more entries that still allows for a minimum of a half of a day of competition! Just draw numbers and go in order. 1 - 40. 1-20 play first and then when a machine opens up #21 plays, next machine #22, so on. Give you 5 minutes to show up when your "slot" appears and if you "miss" it you are skipped that time and then when you get back you get the next machine available (or just give you 10-15 minutes and if you aren't there you are skipped that "round". I think either work). All scores reset for Sat.
2. Personally I think the winner of the WC events should get a dedicated machine on Sat and Sun. That should be the prize for coming in first place over THREE tournaments. Your "lucky dedicated entry #13". There are several ways to make this happen but instead of 8 moving on only 6 move on to Sat.
a. This gives the #1 Seed a machine on Sat/Sun and the 2nd-9th+6 from Friday (14) swap on the next 7 machines free. Start with 2-8, then #9-How they placed score wise. Again when a machine opens up you play on it. That is better IMO then just dedicating 2 people per machine.
3. If not a dedicated machine then top 7 move on From Friday. Scores reset and then the #1 seed gets to compete on Saturday as well. The "prize" for winning the WC tournaments is no matter what your score on Saturday you get to move on to Sun. This also works pretty well and doesn't "penalize" you with only one day of a chance to put up a score in an 8 hour window. More I think about it this might even be better.
4. I think everyone should be able to play in the WC event regardless of top 12 rank. If your in the Top 12 at the time then your score is just a "possible" entry for KO3 but not eligible for any of the WC prizes. Should you get pushed out at the last minute because someone gets 1,040,000 in the WC event that person is now a "Top 12" person and 2-10 become the 1-9 entries. This means that the person who go "bumped" gets his WC score to count.
5. Those "top 9" also have to commit to going to the KO3 remember and some may not be able to make it so you just work down the list.
Overall this is pretty awesome and everyone knows exactly where the stand. I'm stoked!
-
I understand the thought process and whatever is decided is cool with me but why not a simple solution? Round 1 scores are just that. Round 1 scores scores do NOT place in the next 2 rounds regarding KO3 entries. Just for prize money and overall rankings when done. (So in your scenerio Bob gets to use his 995k as the Overall score he uses but it doesn't "count" for round 2 scores so in that case 2-4 would be 1-3 for KO3 entries. Round 2 - Top 3 do not place for Round 3 again except for prize money and "overall top 9 rankings". This way when you come in top 3 in ANY of the tournaments your guaranteed to place for the KO3. Scores in KO1 didn't count for KO2 so Round 1 scores shouldn't have anything to do with Round #2 and so on. I support whatever Eric/John and Richie/Jordan want to do but I do think the "If you qualified Round 1 your in and now we have the "next" batch of people able to try and qualify makes the most sense and is the "fairest" way to deal with this. Someone from a previous round score should not have the ability to move into the final 9 because someone who already posted a top 3 score got a "higher" score in a later round. It should be how you score in the final rounds not the first one. :)
I thought about that too Jeff, and it's probably the weakest element of these rules. It's tricky, though. There's some trade-off going on. The champ starts with a disadvantage, because he has one fewer day to play, and everybody else's scores carry over from Round 2 while his will be zero.
On the other hand, not actually having to DO anything to get to Round 3 is pretty cool, since he gets to start at a point in the tourney where the majority of the players (4 out of 7) are guaranteed a prize. His odds of finishing in the money are extremely favorable.
Maybe the champ can choose to start on Round 1 and fight his way through anyway, in order to bank a score? And if he doesn't get through Round 1 or 2, he still has "immunity" and plays Round 3 regardless?
Since I've had more time to think about this than the rest of you, I've noticed some other things.
The Round 1 bye goes to the top 3 in each tournament, and any "repeaters" get the bye based on their highest-scoring tournament.
This means that some people can benefit, or get screwed, in interesting ways, based on how the tourneys play out.
Let's imagine that the standings end up like this (fake names - bolds get the Round 1 bye):
Tournament #1
1 Bob 990
2 Pete 950
3 Sam 880
4 Jim 860
5 Todd 830
Tournament #2
1 Bob 995
2 Alex 975
3 Joe 970
4 Ray 940
5 Matt 920
6 Ron 900
Tournament #3
1 Max 820
2 Dick 800
3 Jeff 795
In the second tourney, Bob improved his score by 5K, which means that Jim, who came in fourth during the first tournament, now qualifies with his 860K score because Bob's score in the first tourney no longer counts, which retroactively "upgrades" Jim to 3rd place for tourney #1.
But notice how Ray got 940K in the second tournament, which beat both Sam and Jim's first tourney scores by a lot, but Ray doesn't get a spot because he came in 4th in his tourney. Matt and Ron also get screwed here because they're ahead of Sam and Jim too.
The third tourney has weak scores, but that could happen. Maybe not as dramatic as my example, but it could. Could have a low turnout for some reason, or nobody has it together that day, or whatever, and the top scores in that tourney are significantly lower than in the other two.
Now Ray, Matt, and Ron are screwed even worse (and Todd from tourney #1 gets screwed too). Max, Dick, and Jeff in the third tourney get to qualify simply because the third tourney ended up being softer.
So Ray can end up being the fifth highest player overall by score, yet not be among the nine who get the Round 1 bye!
I don't think this situation is particularly unlikely either. In fact, odds are good that it probably WILL happen to at least one person, whose score will get caught in the gears in this way.
I pointed that out to John and Eric - that if you work from three independent score lists and just go by 1st, 2nd, 3rd on each it ends up being very possible for players with lower scores to take the "skip Round 1" spots from players with higher scores.
According to them though, they DID think about it, and it was intentional. And I can see the merit of doing it this way. It just changes the tournament strategy in certain ways, and adds a "twist" element.
It's also interesting that anybody in 4th, or 5th, is technically on "standby" until all three tourneys have played out, because any of the top 3 repeating in a later tourney (but with a lower score than their best) would bump the standby spots into the qualifier spot.
-
1. Friday is not a Kong-Off 3 day correct? ALL 20 machines will be available for that round! Think of this as the qualifier to get into the US Open in tennis. This is a GREAT setup and I think this is perfect to accommodate a large number of WC entries that did not place in the top 9.
Well, hang on for a sec. Friday is also the opportunity for the Kong off top-12 players to to try out machines and make their machine picks also. I'm really glad they are opening up this wildcard event how they are and putting some structure to it, but at the same time there does have to be some respect for top 12 and what they have to do also.
-
I'd never even thought about the fact that all 20 machines will be clear for much of Friday.
12 main competitors + 9 later-round qualifiers takes 21 DK players off the table on that day.
Geez, how many will even be left to buy in to Round 1? Nobody enters from off the street (they know better), so that pretty much just leaves the members of the community here who are both going to Denver and willing to put up the $30 entry fee. I doubt more than 20 of us, and can't imagine 30. So yeah, there will be enough machines for everyone to have a lot of time to play, and time for the 12 players to do whatever they need to do.
The line between being in the main lineup and the wildcard division is getting seriously blurred...
In fact, I have to say, it's almost BETTER to be a wildcard right now. Eric and John are spoiling us rotten. ;D
-
How long does it take to pick out a machine? The event is Sat/Sun why would you need time on Friday to play/pick/practice whatever? Why does Friday matter if your ready and have been practicing ahead of time? Allow the WC players until 6pm on all 20 then from 6pm - xxx its just the 8 "WC" machines and the contestants get to setup/snag a machine. Having 12 machines sit around most of the day doing nothing makes little sense to me. Center Court and Court #1 in tennis doesn't get untouched until the finals.
Dan
1. Friday is not a Kong-Off 3 day correct? ALL 20 machines will be available for that round! Think of this as the qualifier to get into the US Open in tennis. This is a GREAT setup and I think this is perfect to accommodate a large number of WC entries that did not place in the top 9.
Well, hang on for a sec. Friday is also the opportunity for the Kong off top-12 players to to try out machines and make their machine picks also. I'm really glad they are opening up this wildcard event how they are and putting some structure to it, but at the same time there does have to be some respect for top 12 and what they have to do also.
-
As for the Friday night selection, I personally would not need much time, although a 1 or 2 hour practice session would be all I need to work out the jitters/get accustomed to the environment. However, you might want to ask Jeff Willms how important he thought his Friday night practice session was.
As for the remaining problems, here are my proposed solutions:
Problem #1: (As per Chris P) The 9 highest scores are not necessarily the 9 qualifiers.
Solution #1a: Have the 9 highest scores in all 3 tournaments combined be the 9 qualifiers.
Solution #1b: Have the top 3 people of each round ineligible for future WC tournaments (effectively guaranteeing them a spot and eliminating the possibility of multiple wins).
Problem #2: (As per Jeff Wolfe) The top seed in the WC only gets his high score for 1 day compared to everyone else's 2 day high score. This is actually a huge disadvantage. Sunday is usually a short day compared to Saturday (to allow people time to travel). Additionally sharing a machine with one person on Saturday is not a large disadvantage as I'm on break almost 1/2 the time anyway when I have a dedicated machine. It's simply not possible to play continuously for that long.
Solution: Have only 7 people advance from KO3 Round 1 or only 8 winners from the WC tournaments (maybe 3, 3, then 2... would work well with my Solution 1b above)
Problem #3: (As per Jeff H) What if the 12th seed gets knocked out of the top 12 at the last minute.
Solution: Have the cutoff date for the top 12 earlier than the WC tournaments. Now I realize many people are still trying to qualify so maybe it would be wiser to push back the WC tournaments rather than have an early cutoff date for the top 12 qualifiers.
-
So the top-seeded WildCard player gets the worst possible position in the KO3? You guys need to fix that situation.
Anyways, these new developments pretty much spoiled all my plans, and I will not be playing in anymore of these WCR tournaments.
I'll be qualifying the old fashioned way, and I'll try and do so as soon as possible so I don't completely fuck over the current 12th place.
I am incredibly annoyed that my hand is being forced. Details to follow on my blog.
-
Agree Hank - If you are Top 3 in Round 1 then all you can do is improve your "Ranking" for the KO3 WC division not actually change anything in Round 2. Basically your not eligible since you have already "placed" and only thing a Top 3 does is get you Prize Money. #4 is still considered Top 3 for KO3 qualifying.
Waiting until its all over and wondering if the score matters later is not the way it should work. The latest round/score should have more weight then the first does. What if Ross was to get 950/975 and then 1.05. You throw out Round 1 and Round 2 and bump up both 4th place? Then the guy who gets 4th in Round 3 gets screwed? Everyone gets to replay anyway so Round 3 4th place should take precedence over Round 1 4th place.
Agree Ross - They should either give 1st place overall a dedicated machine on Sat/Sun or you play on Sat with just the 16 (Top 7 from Friday and Top 9 from WC). You get to go first and then the other top 7 from WC start. Then everyone bleeds in based on score order and just plays on a machine that is open. I would argue that the Top 3 overall in the WC tournies are a guaranteed Sunday contestant if you want to really make these contests matter (and they should since pretty much anyone can do them). Then you get a chance to put a contest score up on Sat and still leaves Top 5 scores to duke it out for Sun.
As for the Friday night selection, I personally would not need much time, although a 1 or 2 hour practice session would be all I need to work out the jitters/get accustomed to the environment. However, you might want to ask Jeff Willms how important he thought his Friday night practice session was.
As for the remaining problems, here are my proposed solutions:
Problem #1: (As per Chris P) The 9 highest scores are not necessarily the 9 qualifiers.
Solution #1a: Have the 9 highest scores in all 3 tournaments combined be the 9 qualifiers.
Solution #1b: Have the top 3 people of each round ineligible for future WC tournaments (effectively guaranteeing them a spot and eliminating the possibility of multiple wins).
Problem #2: (As per Jeff Wolfe) The top seed in the WC only gets his high score for 1 day compared to everyone else's 2 day high score. This is actually a huge disadvantage. Sunday is usually a short day compared to Saturday (to allow people time to travel). Additionally sharing a machine with one person on Saturday is not a large disadvantage as I'm on break almost 1/2 the time anyway when I have a dedicated machine. It's simply not possible to play continuously for that long.
Solution: Have only 7 people advance from KO3 Round 1 or only 8 winners from the WC tournaments (maybe 3, 3, then 2... would work well with my Solution 1b above)
Problem #3: (As per Jeff H) What if the 12th seed gets knocked out of the top 12 at the last minute.
Solution: Have the cutoff date for the top 12 earlier than the WC tournaments. Now I realize many people are still trying to qualify so maybe it would be wiser to push back the WC tournaments rather than have an early cutoff date for the top 12 qualifiers.
-
This might be a good time in the thread to remind everyone that these wildcard tournaments have been, and continue to be, total freerolls, with prize money and hours of effort donated freely and selflessly by the organizers, on behalf of the community. They are a gift.
That being the case, while disagreeing, even strongly, is understandable, to disagree in a hostile tone is not only inappropriate, but counterproductive, and potentially harmful to everyone.
If one needs a few extra minutes to take a deep breath and adjust his approach to the argument such that it won't come off as an attack, I think Eric and John have more than earned those few minutes.
-
Hmmm... :-\
I hate to be a downer about something that people have obviously worked very hard at setting up and organizing, but I just think that this setup is kinda contrary to the whole point of having the 12 main players. It seems unfair to have the top 12 players earn their spots solely based upon their personal best in relationship to everyone else, and then have other people earn their spot based upon their score in relationship to a much smaller group of players that specifically doesn't include the current best players. It's one thing to earn the spots on the machines amidst the actual tournament (i.e. pay to play, then do it elimination style like last year -but even this I kinda think is still unfair to do too!), it is another thing to earn your spot to be in the tournament before the tournament even begins in a completely different way than the main competitors.
Yeah, there's a bit of nuance to how it's setup (as part of the elimination process under this method would happen during the actual tournament) but it's still a fundamentally different way of securing your own machine without necessarily fulfilling the same requirements as the top 12.
Besides, isn't it the point of the wildcard machine to give literally anyone, even the average Joe off the street, a chance to buy in and test themselves -while still giving the top 12 their just reward of being the only people with their own machine? I think the wildcard machines, by their very nature, ought to have not even the possibility of having the same perks as the top 12. The wildcard machines ought to be bitter sweet, and come with their own significant downsides -because everyone on them failed to meet the standard for having their own machine!
Again, I'm sorry I have to kinda be a party-pooper. Call me mean and hard-hearted, but I think the wildcard players deserve to be significantly handicapped (kinda like it was last year), since there ought to remain only ONE standard for getting your own machine: Get a ****ing top 12 score!
Man up, or don't, is my thinking on this matter. Don't change the rules of the game and make them different for different people.
Edit: Chris posted his post above as I was typing this. I stick to my guns on this issue though. I mean absolutely no disrespect to John and Eric for the effort and time they put into the WCRs, and I DO understand that they are a gift. For that I thank you guys. You have done an AMAZING job organizing these things. However, I still have to disagree on this issue as of now. My tone in this post, with all the italics and boldings, is solely meant to connote absolute seriousness, not anger or frustration. I merely have a strong opinion on this one, but I will not hold it against anyone if they disagree with me on this. I'm just putting myself in the shoes of the top 12 players, as well as I am coming into this discussion being the type of person that is HIGHLY competitive when it comes to serious competitions that I care about. In my mind, if we wanna keep the Kong Off significant, we need to keep the competition seriously tough. One consequence of this, in my mind, is having the top 12 machines come with serious benefits and making players REALLY want to earn them.
-
For the record, I think you phrased that perfectly respectfully.
-
Edit: Chris posted his post above as I was typing this. I stick to my guns on this issue though. I mean absolutely no respect to John and Eric for the effort and time they put into the WCRs,
Hope that's a typo Mitch :)
-
Agree Ross - They should either give 1st place overall a dedicated machine on Sat/Sun or you play on Sat with just the 16 (Top 7 from Friday and Top 9 from WC).
Just to be clear, I am certain that is the intention.
Eric and John are tops, and I did not intend to demean their efforts.
I have an infinite amount to say on the matter, which will come, in time.
-
I'm just putting myself in the shoes of the top 12 players, as well as I am coming into this discussion being the type of person that is HIGHLY competitive when it comes to serious competitions that I care about. In my mind, if we wanna keep the Kong Off significant, we need to keep the competition seriously tough. One consequence of this, in my mind, is having the top 12 machines come with serious benefits and making players REALLY want to earn them.
Thanks Mitch for your write up. That's all my opinions were before were looking at this from in the top 12. This should never turn into a rivalry of TOP12 vs. Wildcard. The top 12 is what everyone should still be shooting for. The scores haven't changed much in over a year (Steve Wiltshire played his way into it) and if you come up short, that is cool, that they have a wildcard situation to still give a chance at it. Like Mitch said, the wildcard scores are still going up against the main scores, but there is a small price to pay for not qualifying (no dedicated machine). But this event shouldn't turn into what Chris jokingly said earlier about it's almost better to be a wildcard instead of top12.
The Kong Off is one weekend of the year, and when it's over, we return home to our normal gaming lives and chat on the forums, etc.
It would be nice to just have fun tournaments throughout the year including everyone on the forums that we all met and know.
-
I don't think it'll ever turn into a rivalry between top 12 and Wildcard. I think it simply 'is how it is'.
The developments since KO2 can be summarized in a fairly logistical sequence:
Top 12 got all/most of the spotlight as far as the Kong Offs go. Wildcards made the same trip, love the game just as much, yet only got to play a fraction of the time top 12 did. Wildcards get together and form their own cool event, which excluded the top 12. Wildcard events gain popularity as there are more people involved and it is easier to play an online tournament than a live one. Top 12 start feeling left out, because there are all these tournaments going on that they are excluded from. It makes sense.
I think it's only natural, and would make perfect sense, to start up a "DK Online Open"...which allows everyone to play.
It would make sense to follow the format of the Wildcard Rematch series...probably a 1 day 24 hour streaming event.
Issues that would need to be worked out are first and foremost, whether or not to have a handicap system implemented...and what would be fair. Some will argue that handicapping is lame, but others will say...who will play when it's almost certain that someone like Dean or Jeff will probably win...and why would anyone with a PB of less than 700k even try? But then, is it not also 'lame' for someone to win by a few hundred points because of the handicap system? I don't know, hard to say. With an 'open', any newcomer could come in and play...with his reported PB of say 500k, even though he maybe has a PB of 900k...and puts up 920k on the day of the competition and blows everyone out of the water...takes whatever prizes were to be won...and fades away into the digital sunset.
Personally, I would say forget the handicap system...if you want to play, play your best, and have fun. This would be an 'open' tournament...not a sanctioned league, or intramural competition...it would be for anyone that thinks they have the skills to go up against the best, to compete with the best...in as fair of a setting as possible. No sharing machines. No traveling to remote locations. 24 hours of time to put up the best DK score you can.
I feel like this would squash whatever awkwardness there seems to be with Wilcards, top 12s, feeling left out on both sides, etc. Top 12s have the Kong Offs, Wildcards have the WCRs, DK Online Open meshes everything together for a day.
If anyone that isn't in the top 12 wanted a fair shot at competing against the top 12, this would be the only way to do it...becasue it's not happening at any Kong Off...and if any top 12s felt left out of these fun online tournaments, this might solve that issue, because it doesn't look like you'll ever get to play in a WCR tourney.
-
Yeah Mike, that does pretty much sum it up.
But, remember this, the Top 12 didn't make the rules or the Kong Off, so nothing should be held against those who qualified. Once the Kong Off is over, we're just like the rest of you guys who love to play and compete at DK.
As for the Kong Off, all we know is there was this event and a gauntlet was laid and we crossed it. Then the next year the bar was raised higher, and we crossed it again. If the bar was raised to say 1.05M for KO3, I'd stop my 1.1M quest, and go for that (which is a big drop off in game play to shoot for 1.05M+ vs 1.1M+). But the bar wasn't raised this year.
If they want to restructure the whole tournament to an open where scores are reset and it's top 12 of the year, that would be cool.
I don't believe in handicapping it at all, if one guy is good enough to win it 10 years in a row then let them have it.
-
Some will argue that handicapping is lame, but others will say...who will play when it's almost certain that someone like Dean or Jeff will probably win...and why would anyone with a PB of less than 700k even try? But then, is it not also 'lame' for someone to win by a few hundred points because of the handicap system?
Place me squarely in the "handicapping is lame" camp. Maybe it works well in golf or bowling; I wouldn't know, as I don't participate in either activity.
I'm far more interested too see how I stack up in a pure competitive setting as opposed to a handicapped one. Putting it another way, I'd rather play "straight up" and finish 35th, than to be awarded 1st place after an arbitrary score adjustment formula is applied. For me personally, it would be a hollow victory.
-
Oh absolutely. Hopefully nothing I say is coming off as hostile because that is no way the case. I support everything they have done and like my first post just wanted to be able to discuss it. If its one way or the other I will support that. This is for fun and people have put a lot of time / effort into it for free. :D
This might be a good time in the thread to remind everyone that these wildcard tournaments have been, and continue to be, total freerolls, with prize money and hours of effort donated freely and selflessly by the organizers, on behalf of the community. They are a gift.
That being the case, while disagreeing, even strongly, is understandable, to disagree in a hostile tone is not only inappropriate, but counterproductive, and potentially harmful to everyone.
If one needs a few extra minutes to take a deep breath and adjust his approach to the argument such that it won't come off as an attack, I think Eric and John have more than earned those few minutes.
-
Yeah I agree Ross. Eric/John you guys are cool don't take what I am saying as any disrespect please. :)
Just want to engage in an open discussion is all.. :)
Agree Ross - They should either give 1st place overall a dedicated machine on Sat/Sun or you play on Sat with just the 16 (Top 7 from Friday and Top 9 from WC).
Just to be clear, I am certain that is the intention.
Eric and John are tops, and I did not intend to demean their efforts.
I have an infinite amount to say on the matter, which will come, in time.
-
I vote we move this discussion back to the other thread but I do participate in quite a few sports where handicapping is essential. No offense to anyone but no one here would agree to play against Tiger Woods in golf straight up which is basically what a 200k player is being told. The Kong-Off event is the US Open and its for scratch people to play heads-up. Thats not what this should be about in my mind. Sports have handicaps for a reason and to be honest the handicap system works AGAINST the person with the handicap anyway if its anything less then 100% of xxx. Trust me I am a 220+ average scratch bowler and this came up all the time and handicaps work FOR the better person not against them. If a 300k max DK player gets the game of his life we are talking what maybe 500k? That still means he only hits 980k in a handicap setup against others who can legitimately get 1 million+. Its like asking a 30+ handicap golfer to play heads up against Tiger Woods every-time and just have to suck it up because THIS time I might have a shot at beating you. My attitude is do both. Have both handicap and scratch scores taken into consideration. :)
Some will argue that handicapping is lame, but others will say...who will play when it's almost certain that someone like Dean or Jeff will probably win...and why would anyone with a PB of less than 700k even try? But then, is it not also 'lame' for someone to win by a few hundred points because of the handicap system?
Place me squarely in the "handicapping is lame" camp. Maybe it works well in golf or bowling; I wouldn't know, as I don't participate in either activity.
I'm far more interested too see how I stack up in a pure competitive setting as opposed to a handicapped one. Putting it another way, I'd rather play "straight up" and finish 35th, than to be awarded 1st place after an arbitrary score adjustment formula is applied. For me personally, it would be a hollow victory.
-
The Kong-Off event is the US Open and its for scratch people to play heads-up.
Actually the Kong Off was originally created to emulate "The Masters" if you are using golf terms. It was an event made to put the best-of-the-best up against each other.
-
Haha yes Dave that would be a better assessment.
The IROC would be auto racing for the folks who don't follow golf. :)
The Kong-Off event is the US Open and its for scratch people to play heads-up.
Actually the Kong Off was originally created to emulate "The Masters" if you are using golf terms. It was an event made to put the best-of-the-best up against each other.
-
obviously there are some issues, but overall sounds like a great little tourney for the wild card players anyway, and will add more interest to the online WCRs...
8)
-
I'll just be happy to play in the tournament at a time that I'm starting to peak! Maybe the top players might have some rust to knock off and I have the game of my life and place. Always great to have a chance to do this and have some fun.
-
I'm sort of going the opposite of Mitch here.
I like that this new format blurs the line between the top 12 and the wildcard division in the "dedicated machine" sense.
I think it's a line that should be blurred because over the last year, the gap in skill between the best of the wildcard players and many among the top 12 has narrowed to the point of being imperceptible.
That being the case, we should be trying to mitigate, not exacerbate, the significant privilege the 10th-12th place players get over players who are only a few thousand points behind them in terms of personal best. Machine access should be more of a gradation than a sharp cutoff.
"Top 12" is just so arbitrary. Especially since a one-time personal best game (which also requires a bureaucratic verification process) is a highly-flawed criteria for KO qualification anyway. But that's a post in itself.
John and Eric's format gives the best of the wildcards a way of getting more time on the machines, which they deserve. Again, several of the wildcards are at least as good as some of the players in the top 12.
Does anybody really think that a player who manages to get almost a million in a single-day online tourney (which will probably describe several in the top 9), then goes on to defend his position in a 16-way standoff at the KO does NOT deserve his own dedicated machine for a single day, but meanwhile it's perfectly fair for somebody who got a little over a million, only one time, to get his own machine for TWO days?
Yes, they both did something different to get their own machine, but it's pretty close, especially with how high these wildcard scores are going. In fact, I would argue that the Day 3 wildcarders probably have a harder job.
I'm okay with the Kong Off itself being cutthroat, simply because it must be, but am a fan of machine access being more equitable, because it can be, and it should be.
Time to be blunt: "the 12 best" just doesn't reflect reality in 2013.
Personally, I see five categories.
1. Two megabeasts (Saglio, Willms)
2. Three superbeasts (Chien, Lemay, Wiebe)
3. This third group is a big group. This is a cluster of more than a dozen very good players who have gotten between 975K and 1050K, but who are mostly relatively close to one another (though there are definitely a few who are "captains" of this group and on the upper end of it).
4. Post-killscreen (or "doublehammer or bust") players who are well on their way into the "cluster" group and several of which will get there by KO3.
5. Pre-killscreen/singlehammer players.
And then there's Ross and Billy, who don't quite fit into any of the categories in this scheme for their own specific reasons... Ross is kind of an enigma (his PB comes nowhere close to reflecting his actual ability) and Billy deserves an eterna-machine simply because he's the reason any of this is happening at all.
As a collective, the five players in groups 1 and 2, quite frankly, totally outclass and dominate the rest of the field, and I'd go as far as to call the KO3 for one of those five (not sure which, but one of them) right now.
People always say "with the randomness, it's anybody's game." But after what I saw at the KO2, I just can't believe that anymore. There IS a level of difference. Wiebe got almost a million the first day, then did it TWICE the next day. Similar with Dean and Jeff. These guys were running circles around everybody else. Vincent and Hank were off of their best during the tourney, but we know what they can do. Again, any one or two of them might be off for a weekend, but the others will pick up the slack, making them totally unstoppable as a group. They're the Gang of Five!
As for the third group, there are now just too many players crowded into it, and more are on the way. There's too much intermingling of ability between some top 12ers and some wildcarders for it to be fair to exile so many of the wildcarders to a deep second-class status when they're starting to mash up with the first-class (especially since there's really a "super-first class" now that's crushing the "lower first class," and even more decisively than the lower first class is crushing the second class). It stands to reason, therefore, that there should be more of a mash-up on the machines too.
It's not like a 300K player would be surviving to Day 3 and getting his own machine. The dedicated Day 3 machines will go to players like Phil Tudose, who I'd easily put in a horse race against anybody below the "Gang of Five." People like that will be able to do serious damage on the leaderboard because (unlike at the KO2) they're actually going to be given the time and the space.
-
Thank you to everyone for your valuable feedback on the KO 3 and the Wildcard Division Qualifier Tournaments. You have all identified various concerns and troublesome scenarios regarding the format of the tournament :o. As such, we will be modifying the format to eliminate a majority of these concerns. As always, John and I welcome all feedback and we will tweak the format/rules to ensure that we put forth a fair tournament for the wildcard division at the KO 3. Stay tuned for the updated format and keep up the DK practicing! 8)
- Eric and John
-
Great post Chris, just wanted to say I agree with your opinions...and your posts are always well written and thought out.
-
Chris, the only flaw with interpreting the "line" at #12 is some of those that have been in there since last year have really increased their game, even if their PB hasn't increased yet. (A lot of the top 12 are not active streamers now, so it's a big mystery). Kyle Goewart has always been a mystery. He just pops up and submits a score. Kyle's a guy who puts up a killscreen at KO2 right after Wiebe and only 5K behind Steve's score and only gets a golf clap after hearing 10 minutes "Wiebe Wiebe Wiebe!!" when he did his. And also finished in the top 5. I didn't hear his name mentioned in the "Gang of 5". Who knows where his game is now.
Pace is such an over looked factor now, because it doesn't really show up unless you reach the killscreen. My PB, for example, went from1.015M to 1.026M. Doesn't seem like much, except my 1.026M game ended 45K before the killscreen, and my level of play has been increased even more than that now. So, if a new player comes along and killscreens at 1.025M, pointwise it looks like they are at the same level, but they arent yet. Making the transistion to 1.1M pace is quite a leap.
They are several in the "wildcard" group that are popping out. And of course I'll use Steve Wiltshire as an example again since he played his way into it. There are several more that I can see. If I had to make a prediction I'll probably go with Robbie Lakeman to be the next to crack into the 12. And then of course Ross could always do it, and a few more.
There's over 150 days left to do it. And you don't have to wait for a satellite tournament to do it. I wish more would jump in because maybe it would light a fire under my butt to start taking more focus on my games.
A line has to be drawn somewhere, just like in sports playoffs. (I know many don't like that analogy because they play a new season every year), but just saying there are always qualified teams with hunger and heart that miss the cut sometimes.
Between now and KO3, what are the reasons behind someone not cracking the top 12? Could be a couple of answers
(1) Well, my game isn't at that level yet but I still want to play in the kong off, anything can happen.
(2) My pace is there and so close, but keep getting screwed by fireballs! I know I can do it!
Well thats where the wildcard section comes in.
I do wish Jourdan or Richie would clarify the top 12.
-is it strictly top 12 (arcade) TG verified
-is it top 12 (arcade) TG and Streaming (MAME streaming too?)
-is it top 12 arcade and MAME TG verified
Because I have a feeling that we're going to some mixing up in the top 12 before KO3 and those trying to get in need to know.
-
Chris, the only flaw with interpreting the "line" at #12 is some of those that have been in there since last year have really increased their game, even if their PB hasn't increased yet. (A lot of the top 12 are not active streamers now, so it's a big mystery). Kyle Goewart has always been a mystery. He just pops up and submits a score. Kyle's a guy who puts up a killscreen at KO2 right after Wiebe and only 5K behind Steve's score and only gets a golf clap after hearing 10 minutes "Wiebe Wiebe Wiebe!!" when he did his. And also finished in the top 5. I didn't hear his name mentioned in the "Gang of 5". Who knows where his game is now.
Pace is such an over looked factor now, because it doesn't really show up unless you reach the killscreen. My PB, for example, went from1.015M to 1.026M. Doesn't seem like much, except my 1.026M game ended 45K before the killscreen, and my level of play has been increased even more than that now. So, if a new player comes along and killscreens at 1.025M, pointwise it looks like they are at the same level, but they arent yet. Making the transistion to 1.1M pace is quite a leap.
Excellent points, especially about Kyle. He's clearly very, very good, he was able to "bring it" at the KO2 and come within a hair of 4th place and doesn't get much credit for it.
And I would certainly put you into the category of player that's above (or at least in the top of) the big "cluster" group. When you cash in on one of your big-pace games, it will seal the deal, just as it will when Ross finally gets what's coming to him. But like you said, pace is a very tough thing for people to see and recognize unless they're looking for it.
And I actually see what Mitch is getting at. I wasn't dismissing his perspective by any means. There's something to be said for keeping the qualification more, I don't know, "cruel" ;D It forces people to try harder.
No easy answers though, that's for sure...
-
There really isn't a one answer fits all here. There are enough people that can put up big scores and yes I feel anything can happen over just 2 days that it truly is anyone's game. Yes some people are better then others its that way in EVERYTHING but they best doesn't always win because they have an off day and the guy under then plays outta his shoes.
There is always a problem with all of this when you don't have some type of yearly qualifier or contest like every other sport on the planet pretty much does :)
Pace is great but no one wins a tournament because "Well he was on a 1.25 pace thru 12 levels so he had the highest pace give him the trophy". So for now the "bar" is set with the PB / TG states and that is flawed because you are using ONE number put up typically over hundreds (maybe 1000's) of games played and got that one or 2 scenarios where everything worked right (The game was generous and you didn't make mistakes yourself).
At some level having yearly qualifiers for the Kong-Off Top 12 slots itself really makes the most sense to me. Giving the "Top 12" 4 qualifying tournaments to make it into the Top 12 seems a great way to validate the top players at that time and gives you enough of a sample to take some of the randomness out of it. It also validates Dave's argument against his score versus current Pace.
Again there is no perfect solution I think but so far it's being handled pretty well and it's great to see that there is an open dialog as well. :)
I think the wildcards add an interesting aspect to it all as that talent pool is getting respectable so who knows its possible one time that a WC'rd might just win it all. Hey it happens once in a blue moon in the NFL :)
-
So for now the "bar" is set with the PB / TG states and that is flawed because you are using ONE number put up typically over hundreds (maybe 1000's) of games played and got that one or 2 scenarios where everything worked right (The game was generous and you didn't make mistakes yourself).
This is exactly why we decided to to take the to 3 winners of the next 3 wild card rematches. To make it true tournament style qualification. In a tournament, you have to perform under pressure, on that day. The best "player" doesn't always win in a tournament. The best competitor does. It takes more than being the best at a the game to win a tournament.
I think people are confusing determining the best "player" with the best "competitor." There's no doubt in my mind that Ross is the best non pro "player" (basing pro being one who has his own machine at the Kong Off.). But Ross played just above average at KO2 (average based on Wild Card Division. (690K)). This is why we didn't go with taking the top 9 best scores from the last 3 WCR's to qualify. We wanted a true tournament qualification. And with it being 3 tournaments to qualify, EVERYONE gets 3 chances to step up their play. Also, if you don't pre qualify, you can still qualify live at KO3
But alas, I believe I may be the last of a dying breed... One who believes there are winners and losers...
In this day and age, it isn't "fair" to put people together and compete head to head and determine a winner. Because it just isn't "fair" to say one is better than the other. That's all "pace" is. An excuse to say you won when you really lost. "I died at 465k and came in 15th place. But I was on a 1.1 pace!" Give me a break....
The Wild Card Announcement last week was a preliminary announcement to get the ball rolling on the Wild Card Pre Qualification. Stay tuned for complete KO3 announcement.
-
So for now the "bar" is set with the PB / TG states and that is flawed because you are using ONE number put up typically over hundreds (maybe 1000's) of games played and got that one or 2 scenarios where everything worked right (The game was generous and you didn't make mistakes yourself).
I'm not completely sure what you're getting at here, but it kind of sounds like scores in the top 12 were a lucky break-through over 1000's of attempts and the gamer has trouble doing it again. And and that is just not true. For me, once I get a new personal best, I don't try duplicate it any more, you up your game to the next level, in my case (and many others in the top12) that new goal is 1.1M. It's a major change in game play to switch from low 1M to 1.1M.
The way things are now, there is no reason to even try to duplicate the current top12 score if you're already in it. As long as it's good, I (and others) can keep shooting for that 1.1M+ game. IF something happened and we had to play a 1.03M game to get our position back, well just revert back to the old style (which is becomes a little easier after playing 1.1M for a while) and reclaim a spot in the top12.
I still don't really see a flaw in having a baseline number to qualify for a top 12 dedicated machine. It's open for everyone over a one year period.
-
Agreed Dave.
Dan's statement goes right along with one of my points. The new world "it's not fair you're better than me" mentality.
I'm getting really tired of this way of thinking. I like to jokingly use the Billy Mitchell line, "There's a level of difference between people...", but it's true. These days the people who are on the lower end of that "level of difference" like to come up with excuses or reasons why they should get the same benefits as as the people on the upper end of that level, regardless if it's video games or everyday life. When it comes to DK, no one is going to get a magical 1M+ point game without having the skill to back it up. And those that have achieved that type of score deserve the preferential treatment they get.
Bottom line is EVERYONE has the opportunity to put up a top score. Only the elite players will do so. The Kong Off placement isn't flawed. The thinking that somehow those players don't deserve to be there is flawed. 1M+ scores don't come easy, and anyone who thinks they do are sadly mistaken.
Funny how the people who haven't come close to 1M have determined how easy or lucky is was for those who have achieved it.....
-
No way I wasn't trying to say it was "lucky break-through" and hope I wasn't coming across as one of the "its not fair" folks Dave/John as that was not my intent at all. I completely support the concept of qualifying with the Top 3 and I actually like that better then the "Top 9 overall" scenario. If you have the skill to put up a 1 Million+ score you absolutely deserve it.
Like I said some people are just better then other people. It's that way in everything we do and in a day when "everyone gets a trophy" I feel that as gotten a little lost in translation. I've always said that if your one of the Top Tier players you will qualify regardless of what the setting is.
Agreed Dave.
Dan's statement goes right along with one of my points. The new world "it's not fair you're better than me" mentality.
I'm getting really tired of this way of thinking. I like to jokingly use the Billy Mitchell line, "There's a level of difference between people...", but it's true. These days the people who are on the lower end of that "level of difference" like to come up with excuses or reasons why they should get the same benefits as as the people on the upper end of that level, regardless if it's video games or everyday life. When it comes to DK, no one is going to get a magical 1M+ point game without having the skill to back it up. And those that have achieved that type of score deserve the preferential treatment they get.
Bottom line is EVERYONE has the opportunity to put up a top score. Only the elite players will do so. The Kong Off placement isn't flawed. The thinking that somehow those players don't deserve to be there is flawed. 1M+ scores don't come easy, and anyone who thinks they do are sadly mistaken.
Funny how the people who haven't come close to 1M have determined how easy or lucky is was for those who have achieved it.....
-
Just my 2 cents, but the personal attacks on each other, specifically "new-world" BS, is not only in bad taste, but it's childish. Lets keeps things professional. I see nothing but valid critiques here that are being spun-off as personal attacks, and morality based qualms. Disagreement with ones opinions, in no way justifies the right to attack their moral value-scheme; The extrapolation of such grandeous linkages, based solely on ones' personal beliefs about tournament structure, are rather short minded and ignorant to say the least.
Also, as a final note.
Am I the only one who sees the irony of a 700k player telling another 700k player what is and isn't feasible with regards to 1m? :/
I guess we are just a bunch of testosterone crazed jocks...
-
Wasn't cracking on Dan. I know Dan from KO2. He's a very good guy, and I doubt he would have anything bad to say about me as well. It was reference to his comment in general, as it seems to me many of the comments on the qualifying structure are in regards to fairness.
You are correct there are many opinions on the subject and no one is right or wrong. I see the validity of all angles, and trust me Eric and I spent much time debating all the angles. But we are not perfect, and we did overlook some things. I also cannot stress enough that a final Kong Off 3 announcement has not been made. So keep your ears open this week.
I'm old school, pig headed and have absolutely no patience. These excellent traits, passed down from my beloved father, come out in all my posts. Sorry if anyone was offended. Specifically Dan, who I consider a true DK brother after going through the KO2 Wild Card pressure cooker together.
Am I the only one who sees the irony of a 700k player telling another 700k player what is and isn't feasible with regards to 1m? :/
That, my friend, was a smug, attacking comment. I would like an apology. I feel Dan deserves one as well.
One does not need to be a 1M point player to know what it takes to achieve such a score.
We've put much time, effort and $ into trying to create a tournament to benefit everyone else. Solely for the enjoyment of gaming. I get absolutely nothing out of it. And to be honest, I'm here doing this for the community and friendship alone. DK has never been my game of choice. I like the game and consider myself proficient at it, but there's a long list of games I'd rather play than DK. I'm 45 years old, and have been playing these games since they were new in the 80's.
P.S. My PB is only 667K. So I prob have no business even being on this forum..... ( That would be the "smart-ass" and "funny" trait :) )
Long live the users!
-
The point of that 1M statement was to highlight how hypocritical it sounds for someone to berate another's beliefs regarding the feasibility of a task to which both have a similar basis of knowledge. That's like saying my religion is right and your religion is wrong; we both have equivalent proof, yet still "know" our belief is right and the others' is wrong, just doesn't make sense. Shortsighted logic. Unfortunately, people have the right to interpret things as they choose.
Notice I've never made a comment regarding the "feasibility" of 1M, I know when not to talk. Nothing personal here, just a sociological observation.
Sorry Dan and John
-
I think we should settle this like they did in ancient Sumeria: Donkey Kong death match!
-
Am I the only one who sees the irony of a 700k player telling another 700k player what is and isn't feasible with regards to 1m?
I'm gonna have to agree with John on this one, Ethan. DK is the kind of game, that, after a while, you've basically seen it all. One you've reached that level, then it all becomes less about in-game skills, per se, and more about consistency, determination, focus and a bit of luck. Somone can know all the tricks and still only get 700k due to various non-knowledge-based reasons. Take me, for example: I'll be the first to admit it, when it comes to most games, my downfall is focus/patience/dedication -not usually knowledge. I think there is a point at which someone who at least knows how to execute, at a fairly consistent level, the skills that are needed for a 1m pace can extrapolate and 'know', to a sufficient degree, what it takes/will take to get the 1m+.
You are correct there are many opinions on the subject and no one is right or wrong. I see the validity of all angles, and trust me Eric and I spent much time debating all the angles. But we are not perfect, and we did overlook some things. I also cannot stress enough that a final Kong Off 3 announcement has not been made. So keep your ears open this week.
Again, John (and Eric), thanks a bunch for your time and energy spent putting something fun together for this community! I also thank you for calling on player feedback/input and being diligent in trying to think through the issues in a fair and logical way. I hope we here on DKF have been helpful and not hurtful!
As a final thought, I must admit that, even after waiting a while and putting a lot of thought in on my original post, many of the points you guys have made have caused me to amend several of my initial opinions.
1) I still think that the top 12 (or whatever number is set at as the limit for future KOs) players ought to get special perks due to their scores. This is meant both to 1) keep the KOs as significant events, where, as much as possible, the best players have the spotlight, as well as 2) to keep some balance between those people that get all the fun of being able to do the WCRs throughout the year and the top 12 players, who do not.
2) It would probably be best to figure out exactly, as much as we can, through majority opinion, what ought to be the place of the wildcard players in the KOs. I'm talking about setting up a method now that will basically be the same way it will happen in the future. A precidence needs to be set that is clear and constant (as much as possible). Whatever we come up with, we should think it through as though we want to apply it to all KOs from here on out. This won't be easy, but I think it is best, because it would allow players to know exactly what to expect and plan on. Too much change, or too many last minute suprises can make people feel like a wrench is being thrown into their plans/expectations that they've had for the least 'x' number of months/weeks.
3) Obviously, we need to balance giving the main 12 their time to shine, as well as facilitating there being a chance for any other people who want to try their hand. This is the whole issue. I realize now that by the logic of my original post, I would have had to conceed that any method of allowing WC players the chance to win the KOs is gonna be unfair in terms of how they were able to get into the competition in the first place -that is, in comparison to how the 12 main players got in. Essentially, the only two options are to either remove the wildcard machines all together and just make it the top 20 players with the highest scores, or assume that the method of entry of the contestants is gonna be unfair. Obviously (it seems), most people want there to be WC machines (just to be clear, I am also one who wants there to be WC machines), so we're gonna have to assume there is gonna be some level of unfairness going on in regards to meriting a spot in the competition.
As far as satisfying numbers 1-3 above, here would be my proposals as of now:
1) Only allow the top 12 players the privilege of their own machine. No method of allowing for WC player entry ought to end with them getting their own machine, either for one of the days or both of them. This seems to be the biggest perk that ought to be reserved only for the players who qualify solely due to their top score.
2) The method for limiting down WC players ought to only take place at the 1up itself, in the enviorment that the the best players will play in, and with all the WC players that will actually be at the competition. Limit them down there, in the same place, all at once. This would most likely be on the day before the actual KO tournament (friday). It is good to do it like this, as there will be many more machines available to accommodate if there ends up being like 40 or more WC applicants, and it also removes the possibility of people with lower scores getting in above people with higher scores (as Chris and others have pointed out earlier in this thread would happen under the current setup where we take the top 3 from each of the remaining WRCs). Whatever scores done on this day would not count towards either the actual KO standings nor could they bump out any of the current top 12 players from their spots (I believe, as last year, there was an actual cutoff date for qualifying for the top 12 spots...is it the same this year? when is it?)
3) The ratio of WC players to WC machines, for the actual tournament, should never be less than 2:1. The point of this is to go along with suggestion 1 -it basically is meant to make sure that only the top 12 ever have the perk of being able to restart after an early death or being able to start another immediate attempt while they are still 'hot' from a good game. It sucks, but, in my mind, the WC machines just have to be bitter sweet. They really have to be the 'underdog' machines if we're not just gonna, in effect, remove them all together and make it seem like it's the top 20 DK players that are competing, rather than just the 12. Maybe this isn't the perfect ratio to achieve this effect, but is the one that comes to mind (from my experience on the WC machines last year) as probably being the one that would do the job.
This is all I have for now. Sorry for the long post. Feel free to tear me apart and change my mind again. :) Hopefully there are no egregious typos this time! ;)
-
John, I think you might have read some things that weren't actually intended. In fact, I'm not even sure who you were directing some of that toward. But we all know by now that you're a pistol so it's no big deal either way. :)
In any case, I wanted to go a little more deeply into what I said about the current "Top 12" main lineup placement scheme being flawed. At least in 2013.
At the KO1, there was a pretty straightforward group of invitees. And except for Scott Kessler not being invited, I don't think there were any ruffled feathers.
For the KO2, the million qualifier was fine because nobody else that I can remember at the moment, except maybe Mike G., was even close. Ross could have put up a million, but in my understanding, he didn't have time to get it done. In any case, the KO2 cutoff was pretty smooth.
But there's a big problem right now in the player pool which makes the cutoff an issue that should be addressed. Too late to do anything about the KO3, but I'm thinking about next time.
If 12th place were 1,000,000 and 13th place were 950,000 it would represent a significant difference in ability, and there would be no problem. But that's not the way things are.
Much of the field right now is super-tightly clustered in the same area, which, unfortunately, happens to be right around the cutoff.
Check out spots 11-16 on our "unofficial" DKF leaderboard:
11 1,019,600 Steve Wiltshire
12 1,012,800 Kyle Goewert
13 1,010,400 Ben Falls
14 1,008,800 Svavar Gunnar Gunnarsson
15 1,007,600 Robbie Lakeman
16 1,005,700 Phil Tudose
That's six spots, with a TOTAL range of 13,900 points. A tiny little 1-2K separating each player from 12th to 16th. We're talking less than TEN POINTS PER SCREEN over a full game!
While John is absolutely right that there is a huge difference in ability between 850K and 1M (or 1M and 1.1M), there is literally ZERO difference in ability between this particular range of scores.
Nobody ever said that 1M+ came easy.
But the difference between 12th and 13th CAN come easy nowadays, especially given how random this damn game is. This is the problem I see with Mitch thinking that the wildcards should be (for lack of a better word) "punished". There's not enough of a difference in ability between all of the players hovering around the cutoff for 12th to deserve a massive privilege over 13th.
A few extra 800 smashes in a game that is played otherwise identically should NOT be what gets #12 into the main lineup and #13 tossed into the wildcards. There's no difference in ability there; only a difference in the randomness.
I agree with Dave when he says that "you have to cut it off somewhere." But the cutoff can be done more intelligently.
It really wouldn't be that difficult.
First, you give an auto-spot to anybody who is CLEARLY above the field (the 1,050-plus players). As of now, that's 7 people. No problem.
This would leave 5 spots, which is where you run into this massive pile-up of effectively identical personal bests between 8th and damn near 20th.
So what do you do? How do you make it fair?
Simple: you force 5 players from within that group to distinguish themselves from the rest in a way that's a little more solid than a single personal best score and you give KO spots 8-12 to those players.
There are several ways to determine those. You could have a tournament, or a series of tournaments. You could have each player submit 3 big games, and go by the average of these 3 scores (as opposed to just their PB). Etcetera.
Doing this would also force players to demonstrate consistency, which to me is WAY more important than an isolated personal best, especially when it comes to tournament play.
And if you don't wanna do that stuff, fine. Prove that you're better than the crush group and get 1,050. Even if you have to lower your pace to do it. That way players like Dave or Ross can shut down any accusations that they're "hiding behind high pace."
The fact that the cut-off is NOT more stringent is exactly why I LIKE the wildcard format this year, and why I think it's fine if the wildcards get a lot of time, maybe TOO MUCH time, on the machines. Some think it's unfair, but I think the opposite is what would be unfair, because the lower-ranked of the top 12 are not being asked to do enough to decisively differentiate themselves from the best of the wildcards.
I'm actually okay with the idea of a dedicated machine being a perk, and the wildcards being significantly disadvantaged, BUT only if all 12 in the main lineup truly earn that perk, and not just because 12th place managed to get a few extra timer ticks on a single pie factory that 13th place didn't.
Like Dan said, I would like to see qualification for the lower-ranked players move toward more of an aggregate model, relying on an actual sample size of multiple games and/or multiple tournaments, as opposed to a simple, one-dimensional "personal best." The personal bests are just too close!
Besides, we all know how random one game can be, not just for the bad, but for the good. Shaun Boyd himself, for example, openly admitted that his 1,037 game was "very lucky." Allen got 540K once. How many times has he gotten anywhere NEAR that since?
We should do more to respect the randomness of the game and consider it when thinking about qualification criteria. We also need to start placing more importance on consistency.
-
All this razzle dazzle with extra tournaments to get the "true" top 12 is where I start pulling out my hair.
We have a top 12 on TG. They all played the game and achieved the score. Exactly how it panned out in the game is irrelevant. To hold a tournament to try and weed out the players who may not have deserved their score because of "positive" randomness seems insane to me.
You may debate that you are not saying they don't deserve the score. But by not accepting their rightfull placement on TG board as qaification for the KO, and forcing them to play in a seperate tournament to prove there skill, you are saying just that...
If that happened to me I'd feel betrayed to the highest degree. Et, too Chris? ( I'm sure I didn't spell that correctly...)
Legit, tracked scores must be respected. A cutoff must be decided upon and followed. There's no other way without losing credibility. It sucks to be on the bubble of a cutoff point, but that alone should be motivation to up your game.
-
Well, I'll never have to get too riled up about this personally anyway. I'm never gonna push things past a flat million + whatever change is left over, and am therefore already out of the running for Kong Offs present and future since the bottom is soon to be 1,025 or so.
Even if I did get a higher score, I don't know if I'd want my own machine. ;D Way too much hanging out to do.
Wildcard division for life, yo.
-
Arggg I had a long typed out response and Chrome's backspace made it go "Back' and I lost everything so ill keep this short and sweet.
I totally see what was frustrating John and I wasn't trying to say the Top 12 isn't a feat worthy of recognizing. Totally get it. Forget a Top 12 qualifying tournament and just go with Top 7 scores of that year? (Because Billy and Steve are in if they attend, WR Holders are in and the returning Champ should be in as well which leaves 7 "Slots"). I understand the current setup and I don't hate it at all if that is how its coming across and completely understand if that is how Richie and Jourdan want to do the KO's. Its interesting if say #12 wins it all at KO3 and then gets pushed to #16 overall. Under the current system he is out unless he puts up a bigger score. I think the winner should probably be able to "defend his crown" so to speak. See my brain always wants to think of these what-if scenarios. Drives me up a wall sometimes. :)
-
Jocks play DK? Give me a break. You guys argue and bicker like a bunch of nancy-boys!
Just play the goddam game!
;D
-
There are way too any scenario's to account for when setting up a tournament like this. We can debate this forever. All points are valid, and in the end Chris nailed it. The Kong Off is more about hanging with friends.
It was really fun playing last year at KO2, but that was really the last thing on my list of things that made the event epic (Dell Taco with Foreman Frank at 3:00am).
Any ill feelings left from this debate will fade once the event is on and we'll all be laughing that we even took it this far. All this heated debate is because we all really care about the community and keeping it's integrity in tact. I think that's very cool.
We are getting a bit spoiled, though. Dan can tell you how disappointed many were last year, due to the way the Wild Card Division went down. Richie and Jourden were not prepared for the amount of wild card players that showed up. No fault of there's, since the wild card division at KO1 was a last second add on and there were only about 5 players. In Denver, there were some pissed off people that traveled pretty far and spent a good amount of money to play all weekend. When the last minute cutoff round was announced, there was some backlash for sure. Dan and I talked pretty extensively about it on Saturday at KO2.
The feedback for all the issues pointed out in this thread are very minimal and have already been addressed (announcement coming soon). The wild card division is organized very well, and no matter how many people show up to play, they will all get ample time to play and a fair chance to advance to the final rounds.
As riled up and pissy as my posts may have sounded, I'm cool with everyone and appreciate ever bit of feedback, hostile or not. That's kinda how things go sometimes on forums. You get smacked around a bit to wake you up a let you know your still alive.
-
Jocks play DK? Give me a break. You guys argue and bicker like a bunch of nancy-boys!
Just play the goddam game!
Word
-
Jocks play DK? Give me a break. You guys argue and bicker like a bunch of nancy-boys!
Just play the goddam game!
;D
It's DK though, without the drama, it'd be Congo Bongo or something.
-
Haha - Well said. I'm not pissy at all just a concerned citizen. It will be a blast at the KO3 im sure. Game on!!!
-
Yeah, it's always hard to determine someone's tone over the internet.
Richie and Jourden were not prepared for the amount of wild card players that showed up. No fault of there's, since the wild card division at KO1 was a last second add on and there were only about 5 players. In Denver, there were some pissed off people that traveled pretty far and spent a good amount of money to play all weekend. When the last minute cutoff round was announced, there was some backlash for sure. Dan and I talked pretty extensively about it on Saturday at KO2.
When you go back to KO1, the inception of the whole Kong Off, the wild card was nothing more than a spare machine with the attitude of "Step Right up folks and see if you can put up a score with these guys." Well, a few did come along and surprise with some decent scores.
At KO2 they sort of expected it to be the same way but it ended up getting overloaded majorly. This is one of the reasons I pointed out about it being cooler to be in the top10/12 for KO1 than KO2, KO2 was really diluted for the top12. The only "special treatment" we got, other than the dedicated machine, was getting a personal introduction at the very beginning. Afterwards, those who qualified to be in the kong off were on stage with all of the players that paid $30 to be in the kong off.
Wildcard has taken a life of it's own for KO3. Not sure if Jourdan/Richie are up to speed yet on what's going on with that yet other than Chris' article the other day. But, the kong off is Richie's baby, not sure if he's planning on changing the concept of it in the future or not. Sure would like to hear their opinions on it since it's their show, but haven't heard much yet. I hear something may be coming soon though.
-
I won't lie, Dave, being a WC player, I feel pretty guilty feeling like we WC players are stealing the show from the main competitors -hence why my posts have been the way they are. I agree with John and Chris that the KOs are about having fun, and for me personally, I'd be content not even playing DK at all and just hanging out with all my DK friends. To be SUPER honest, I kinda think the WC machine scores shouldn't be counted as part of the competition at all and that the entire event should be solely about the top 12 players (or 20, or however many they wanna host). However, I'm assuming that most people don't feel as I do, so there's not much I can do about that. Either way, I'll have tons of fun.
-
I think I just like making long posts.
-
Changes to the format have been posted at TG:
http://www.twingalaxies.com/article/2397/kong-off-3-wildcard-update/ (http://www.twingalaxies.com/article/2397/kong-off-3-wildcard-update/)
-
I think the changes were a pretty fair compromise. Thanks, John, Eric, and Chris.
-
See I was with John on this and I liked the concept of if you come in Top 3 you are in. While a Top 8 overall score is "Fairer" I like the competition aspect with the Top 3 finishes. I guess it could be said its similar to the Kong-Off in its the best score you get over 2 days but I really liked the cut-throat aspect of Top 3 for that day is in!
John /Eric I'm not busting on you here so please no offense :D
1. The overall #1 only getting Sunday. I liked what the concept was for as it was originally a perk for winning it all but they should have a chance to play on Saturday. That has now been "fixed" :)
2. Throwing out the lower score if you do better the next time and come in the Top 3 again. Later rounds should count more.
Not to throw any more logs on the fire but what about this as idea? Feel free tell me to Shuddup and mind my own biz too John/Eric its ok :)
First and 2nd place finishes in each WC Tournament are locks for the Saturday KO3 event. If the same 2 people win each tournament then its the next top 6 overall scores (Kinda like wildcard in football. The division winners make it and then its the top teams left).
This really works out well for both because it puts emphasis on coming in the Top 2. If 6 different people come in the Top 2 then it would be the remaining 2 highest scores from all three events make it. Odds are good that its going to probably work out the same either way but this does really make winning and 2nd place in each event more important and also prevents someone in "4th place" from the old setup with a lower score then someone else moving on. This "fixes" both issues. You win your in and then from whats left its the best score overall.
Again whatever you gentlemen do is all good with me! Thanks for everything sirs!
-
The main issue we had with the "top 3 from each tournament" scenario was duplicate winners. There was too much f'ing around swapping scores and moving players around after the fact.
It also seemed to me like the majority were down with top 8 overall, and that kinda sealed the deal. When weighing the pros and cons of both, we felt the top 8 overall really addressed most of the issues with the original proposal.
The "top seed" was pretty much axed shortly after the discussion started. Eric and I both had tunnel vision on that one. After playing in the KO2, and experiencing the stress an anxiety of having to "make the cut" we thought it was a no brainer to give the top seed a free pass to round 3. We never even thought about that player losing a day of playing. Once that was brought up, we knew it had to go.
Funny thing is, we already killed the top seed scenario while everyone was still complaining about it. :)
That's one of the disadvantages of being part of the KO3. We couldn't just start announcing changes until we had everything ironed out.
There will be no more changes, though. The update on TG is the final scenario, and I'm very happy with it.
Thanks to everyone for the input, and special thanks to Chris Psaros for writing 2 kick ass articles and helping with the final wild card scenario.
-
Are the qualifying rounds open to everyone? I'm not asking for myself, but more for the bottom few spots of the Top 12, which we all agree could change at any moment. If say the 12th ranked person gets excluded from the qualifiers, then gets knocked down to 13th place before Oct 25, he's basically left out in the cold.
Admittedly, the 13th ranked person probably would not have any problems getting past Round 1, but it seems a bit ironic that the 14-21st ranked people would get a free pass but not the 13th (in this situation).
I feel picking the Top 12 prior to picking the wildcards makes the most sense. It solves all the above problems and I believe most competitions are done that way.
-
Are the qualifying rounds open to everyone? I'm not asking for myself, but more for the bottom few spots of the Top 12, which we all agree could change at any moment. If say the 12th ranked person gets excluded from the qualifiers, then gets knocked down to 13th place before Oct 25, he's basically left out in the cold.
Admittedly, the 13th ranked person probably would not have any problems getting past Round 1, but it seems a bit ironic that the 14-21st ranked people would get a free pass but not the 13th (in this situation).
I feel picking the Top 12 prior to picking the wildcards makes the most sense. It solves all the above problems and I believe most competitions are done that way.
Right now, Estel is #12. He would be eligible to play because his score is just under a million. Anyone higher up on the scoreboard wouldn't be as the rules stand now.
-
Another question that shouldn't be forgotten is whether everyone in the top 12 is even planning to go.
Steve said in his seminar last week that he's going, but is Billy? What about Shaun, Kyle, and Estel?
Also Jourdan told me that he's gonna have a D2K, a Junior, DK3, and a Pauline.
Therefore, my suggestion would be, if one of the Top 12 gets knocked out at the last minute, just make it an "emergency" Top 13, and if they don't get a cab or two to go with their current 20, just convert one of the other Nintendo cabs to DK.
After all, the only reason that it's 12 is (as I understand it) because they have 20 machines and want at least 8 wildcard machines as one of the measures to correct for the too-many-wildcards problem that happened last year (all this qualifier tourney stuff being the other measure). 20-8 = 12.
But there's no particular reason or tradition establishing that the main lineup has to be 12. The first year it was 11, and last year it was whoever could get a million by the deadline. The only reason it wasn't 13 last year is because Estel (who Richie was crediting with the "honorary million") couldn't make it.
-
John - Nope its all good. Top 8 works and the swapping around scores was what was the sticky wicket there. For next year tho just consider the option that Top 3 are in and if there are duplicate winners its the remaining next highest scores. If the same 3 win its the next 6 highest scores. That covers both bases and I like the fact it puts emphasis on winning a round.
Thanks again and good luck everyone!
Dan
-
Although I do like the top 3 idea better, both have their merit, and it seems the community likes the "overall 8" idea better. We'll see how it goes.
One other thing that doesn't sit well with me, is if there are duplicate winners and we move down the list, someone who was not in the top 3 will "win", when they really didn't win. So now, the more I think about it, the scales are tipping toward me liking the top eight scenario better. There's no second guessing anyone who makes the cut.
-
My audio issues haven't been resolved. Is their anyway you might be able to make a hand gesture to be announced the day off the wildcard rematch where you know it's being played live. I have a terrible echo I have tried to get rid of but it just repeats every 2 seconds. I've muted everything but nothing changes.
-
I would try using a different broadcasting software if possible. OBS can be tricky with audio set-up, I know nothing of X-split. I do know that adobe flash media live encoder is pretty straight forward, one can easily select between the desktop/webcam mic inputs. The only time i've had issues with echo are if my OBS settings have "repeat captures" two sources both pulling audio (not the same time) or when i open my twitch page in a browser and forget to hit mute.
What type of computer, OS, and webcam?
-
Bliss - Your not watching your twitch stream are you when your testing the stream? You need to mute that too otherwise it will echo something fierce :)