Streaming Tournament for Everyone?

[JCHarrist]

I'm for no handicap also.

Jeff, problem with a KO type event is the majority of the TOP 12 don't stream and some don't even visit this message board.

Quite a few people learned how to stream because of the Wildcard Rematch Tourneys.

12 of the 16 1M+ players on the DKF list are active members here and Billy Mitchell and Tim Szcerby would be the only 2 that I don't know how to contact.

[LMDAVE]

I'm for no handicap also.

Jeff, problem with a KO type event is the majority of the TOP 12 don't stream and some don't even visit this message board.

Quite a few people learned how to stream because of the Wildcard Rematch Tourneys.

12 of the 16 1M+ players on the DKF list are active members here and Billy Mitchell and Tim Szcerby would be the only 2 that I don't know how to contact.

Yeah, I was mainly pointing that the people who weren't allow in WC (top 12), majority don't stream. Hardly ever, or not likely

KO2 Contestants who stream:

Dean: Yes
Hank: Hardly ever
Vince: It's been a while, but would probably do something for a tournament.
Jeff: Yes
Steve W: Not likely
Billy: Not Likely
Mark: Yes
Shaun: He plays regularly, but not sure if he streams.
Dave M: Yes
Kyle G: Not Likely
Ben: Allowed in WC
Eric H: Eligible for WC but hasn't been playing much



Not saying the other wont stream,  just basing it on recent stream activity mainly in 2013.

[danman123456]

Wow I love the competitive spirit but wow I do see some real bias towards handicaps here.
This isn't the PBA Championship/Masters or Kong-Off we are talking about here. Think of this as a Pro-Am.  Should an amateur not be allowed to win a Pro-Am because he was using a handicap? Of course not. Let's not be so serious here everyone.

1. Everyone needs to stream to participate just like the WC events. It's not hard to setup and a lot of Top 12 players do already.
2. Have a category for both scores. How you place via Handicap and how you place in the "serious" Straight up division.

It's all in fun and I think we can even get some prizes wrapped around it for everyone. Come on what have you got to lose?

[xelnia]

I'd like to offer the perspective of a player who's best is only 415k and has yet to even make it even halfway through the game (almost! 11-6!):

Why not, instead of handicapping, create a tier-based tournament? I would set it up as follows:

Tier 1: 1M+ players
Tier 2: 900k and/or KS players
Tier 3: Everyone else

A cut-off date before the tournament would be established and players could decide which tier they want to compete in by that date. Players can only choose to compete in tier at or above their current level. There is no way I could ever compete with Dean or any other 1M+ player at this point and I don't want my own score to be handicapped in a way that would misrepresent my own skill level (though my current score would fall into the 0 handicap level).

This method automatically pits all the 1M+ against each other and they'll have to decide the appropriate strategy for them: shoot for 1.1M? Stick with a score around their PB? etc.

Tier 2 players can decide if they would rather play within their own comfort level or play balls-to-wall and join the 1M+ tier. I don't believe this puts Tier 3 players at any sort of disadvantage since players of that level are probably still playing with enough inconsistency. Besides, Tier 3 might be a more "exciting" Tier to watch due to that inconsistency. A Tier 3 player is more than welcome to compete in Tier 1 or Tier 2, but the results are predictable.

Once a player chooses a tier, they are locked in at the cutoff date. Any Tier 2 or Tier 3 scores that overlap the higher tiers at the end of tournament are NOT considered "higher" scores than those of other tiers.

Let's say the tournament plays out like this:

Tier 1:
Player A: 1.1M
Player B: 1.05M
Player C: 995K

Tier 2:
Player D: 1.00M
Player E: 900K
Player F: 870K

Tier 3:
Player G: 875K
Player H: 600K
Player I: 500K

In this example, Player D has a higher score than Player C, but by choosing to play in Tier 2 Player D will win that tier. A similar situation occurs with Player F vs. Player G. Remember, players can only choose to join a tier at or ABOVE their current best. Player C would have been at 1M+ before the tournament and therefore should have a higher expectation to gain a 1M+ score. Player D would have had a PB below 1M prior to the tournament and gets rewarded for having the game of his life.

I believe a setup like this offers the right balance of risk-vs-reward for players of all levels. Players like Ethan and Corey are killscreeners and inching ever closer to 1M. They could choose to compete in Tier 2 and have a good shot of winning that Tier, or they could risk a Tier 1 entry and see how they stack up. Players like Danman, Shane, and Allen (oh yer) are inching ever closer to killscreens and could have a shot at winning Tier 3, but maybe they want to join Tier 2 and win it with their first killscreen. Other players have yet to reach 900k or a killscreen but are now playing a point-pressing style. They also could have a break-out game and win Tier 2.

Rewards and bounties can be scaled for the different Tiers, if need be.

At the end of the day, we all know Tier 1 players are the best. We don't need a tournament to sort that out. But creating an environment where players of all levels have a chance to succeed will be best for the community.

[marinomitch13]

My vote would be no handicap, but I'm kinda liking the tier idea.

[danman123456]

Interesting concept with the "Tier" setup. Basically tho we are talking 3 different tournaments. Yes its insane to think someone who has 200k PB is going to even come close to winning with no-handicap. I really like the concept of having both count. Basically that gives you  Tier - A and then a Tier B/C all at the same time. It's all how you perceive it. Tiers in this scenario are really nothing more then "reverse" handicapping by saying "You are too good to play here" go to Tier A only aren't they?

[ChrisP]

I'm wary about a handicap system, for a lot of reasons, but the tier thing is definitely intriguing! That's the direction to move toward, I think...

[tessler1134]

ATTENTION !!!   

Important new announcement: https://donkeykongforum.net/index.php?topic=327.0

 

[corey.chambers]

I think that Xelnia has a good idea. Allow me to propose a structure for a tournament that I had been thinking about lately. It is more based on the model used in Chess Tournaments. Let's say about 50 people all payed in about $10 for registration. That would give about $500 to spread around. We could have a structure like this. Each division would be based upon the players present score on the High Score List. And, yes, hopefully people are not going to be sitting on any good scores just to get into a lower division. Update your scores when they come and be honest about it.

1) 1.1M to 1.2M
                        First: $35
                        Second: $20
                        Third: $15
2) 1M to 1.09K
                        First: $35
                        Second: $20
                        Third: $15
3) 900K to 999K
                        First: $35
                        Second: $20
                        Third: $15
4) 600K to 899K
                        First: $35
                        Second: $20
                        Third: $15
5) 400K to 599K
                        First: $35
                        Second: $20
                        Third: $15
6) 200K to 399K
                        First: $35
                        Second: $20
                        Third: $15
7) 0 to 199K
                        First: $35
                        Second: $20
                        Third: $15

Obviously this is just an idea for a structure. This is more like what Chess tournaments do which I like. That is, you are ranked together with people of similar skill and then you can compete with just those people in a single division. Since it only costs $10 to get in, everyone would have a chance to win an equal amount of money no matter what division you are in. And since we don't just have one or maybe just two people putting up money, we are all contributing to the pot. $10 is not really a lot, and given the potential of maybe only having three people registered in your division, you may already be guaranteed money... though not sure how to address these cases due to lack of participation unless they get put together with another division and you spread the money out over the top six scores there. It may take different forms based on who was registered and it would take some time and effort on the part of one or two people to manage, or even more, if we rotate perhaps. Chess people have tournaments like this almost twice a month if you know where to go for the next tournament in the area. It is not a lot of money to win, but it makes it fun, and it pushes us to do better in the heat of competition, and to move up into higher divisions as time goes on, like Chess Ratings. Though maybe a rating system can be created to based on our high score and is modified based on tournament scores. That way, if one personals high score is a freak of nature, they will slowly drift to a lower level helping them get a chance. Obviously I don't expect people to exploit this and purposely do badly in tournaments because after all it costs $10, lol. Just an idea. I know that we have a lot of number type people that could have a lot of fun with a rating system, and monthly tournaments that we can all play at and enjoy. Any thoughts?