Poll: How would you like the wildcard machines to be shared at KO3?

[hchien]

Please only vote if you intend to compete as a wildcard player (including the 8 online qualifiers).

Option 1 ensures that you will be able to play on the same machine each game.

Option 2 ensures that everyone will have an equal # of attempts.

A frequent misconception I hear is that option 2 will give you more playing time.  This is not true.  Some players will get more, some will get less.  Option 2 does not increase the amount of playing time as in both methods, all machines are occupied at all times.  Also keep in mind that with 10 available machines this year and 8 online qualifiers not playing on Friday, you will likely only be sharing the machine with one (at worst 2) players in option 1.

I personally would be in favor of a variation of option 1 or 2.  For option 1, I'd match players based on skill level.  So for example you could have 5 x 100K players sharing 1 machine and 2 killscreen players sharing another machine.  For option 2, I think players should only get placed back on the queue once their game is finished.  This ensures that all players will get an equal wait time, but doesn't necessarily guarantee the same # of attempts.  This distributes the actual playing time (not attempts) more equally.   (Suppose you die twice early, you may elect to end your game to get back on the queue earlier).

[ChrisP]

Something to think about: all of the 8 online qualifiers are necessarily going to be kill screen players, whereas this will not be true of most of the Friday qualifiers (but will be true for a few of them).

So you could stick the 8 online qualifiers, and the 2 highest Friday qualifiers, on 5 of the machines, and then put the faster-turnover players (the remaining 6 Friday qualifiers) on the other 3 machines.

[Milehighdt]

Last year option two worked well for the second day with players wanting the same machine just letting the next guy in line play until their chosen cab opened up

[danman123456]

You should play "Ready Golf" style. Once a machine opens up you play on that machine. This ensures the "fairest" (I hate using that term here but ok) distribution of the games. If player one Killscreens and takes 2.5 hours to play a game, then you get up and tank and play for 30 minutes, then the guy gets up and plays for 2 hours the next time well thats 5 hours gone by and you got ONE start so far. . Basically your getting screwed if the guy your paired with has the best DK day of his life. Meanwhile other folks have had 3 or 4 "Starts" to try and get a good game going to your 1 since player xxxx has taken 4.5 hours of the playtime.

You simply play in order. First 8 up and then the everyone goes in order. If you get "skipped" because your playing phenomenal and 15 other people just tanked well then you get to go next once done. This ensures EVERYONE gets an equal amount of attempts at the machines regardless of playtime. This shouldn't be about getting 4 hours on the machine its about attempts. IF you want to do that then just say "Ok we have 12 hours to play today. There are 3 people per machine. Player 1 you go from 12-4, Player 2 you go from 4-8 and player 3 you get to play from 8-midnight. Whatever score you get thats it even if the time runs out....

Sharing a machine with someone maybe easier to keep track off but doesn't make the playing field even. We all know how random this stupid game can be and getting 3 deaths by lvl 5 sucks

[hchien]

Chris, there are going to be at least 10 WC machines this year.  But yeah, I agree with you.  Basically you're suggesting my option 1 variation (match based on skill level and be able to play on the same machine every game).

[corey.chambers]

I personally want to use the same machine for all my games. The jump button position can influence my game if I jumped around.

[JCHarrist]

I'm with Dan on this one. We drew the short straws on the assigned machines last year and ended up only getting 2 attempts whereas some got as many as 5. I didn't particularly like the machine I was assigned to either.

[alumbrada]

I voted for the queue of players. I think it works better too, in the event someone comes in at 3pm and wants to play. Just add them to the bottom of the rotation. If you want the same machine then just let the next guy in line go until yours comes up, that's your call.

I'm a total hack but I do want to play. The number of attempts is equal in this method.

[marinomitch13]

Ditto what Dan said.

Corey, I think the aspect of having to play on variable machines that are not all the same condition should be an element of what the WC machines are all about (i.e. they are not equal to the top player's machines, since they've earned the special perk to have their own machine).

[up2ng]

I should probably butt out of this conversation since these issues pretty much only affect Wildcard players, but I can't help throwing my two cents in anyways. . .

So you could stick the 8 online qualifiers, and the 2 highest Friday qualifiers, on 5 of the machines, and then put the faster-turnover players (the remaining 6 Friday qualifiers) on the other 3 machines.

I actually don't think that this lines up with Hank's suggestion (and maybe it wasn't meant to, I'm not sure).  Hank was suggesting putting MORE lower skilled players PER machine together since their average length of game will be so much shorter and grouping a much smaller number of kill screen capable players PER machine into a seperate group.  Personally, I think there are a bunch of problems with trying to do it that way.

You simply play in order. First 8 up and then the everyone goes in order. If you get "skipped" because your playing phenomenal and 15 other people just tanked well then you get to go next once done. This ensures EVERYONE gets an equal amount of attempts at the machines regardless of playtime. This shouldn't be about getting 4 hours on the machine its about attempts.

I think that the "first available machine" method makes the most sense, despite some players wanting to stick to the same machine.  However, I don't think that Dan's description here is the best way to go.  In my opinion, when your game ENDS, you should then go to the BOTTOM of the queue.  This would even out the WAIT time for all players going through the queue which, when you think about it, is a lot more fair in my opinion.  With Dan's method, in theory you could get a player that plays ALL 2.5+ hour games and is always at the top of the queue when his game ends and actually gets to play the entire day WITHOUT EVER LEAVING HIS MACHINE.  This would be a big mistake with respect to Wildcard competition.  If you even out the wait time between each game in this manner, it's true that this very strong player would get fewer attempts during that day, but he would get slightly more TIME on the machine throughout that day (but not MASSIVELY more time on the machine than the weaker players).  I think that's the best balance.

Also, as suggested, if for any reason the player at the top of the queue is not available or wants to temporarily pass (if he doesn't like the machine that opened or he is waiting for a specific machine to open), his name should stay at the TOP of the queue until he decides to play.

IF you want to do that then just say "Ok we have 12 hours to play today. There are 3 people per machine. Player 1 you go from 12-4, Player 2 you go from 4-8 and player 3 you get to play from 8-midnight. Whatever score you get thats it even if the time runs out....

It should be ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE for anything like this to happen to ANY player who competes in the Kong Off 3.  In fact, this is one of many reasons why I am EXTREMELY concerned about the current Friday schedule featuring a break in the action at 5:00 for machine selection.  I can 100% guarantee that there will be multiple players who are 25 - 50% of the way to the kill screen when games will have to be halted for a reason that, quite frankly, isn't super high priority (machine selection IS important, but shouldn't be top priority) and there WILL be an uproar.  I'm actually quite baffled that more potential Wildcard players haven't expressed how bad that particular scheduling situation is going to be for their tournament, but I really do need to put my concern about it out there.  Again, I'm obviously not even really negatively affected by that schedule except that I have a very strong feeling that keeping it that way is actually going to RUIN the entire tournament.  I often have a sixth sense about these sorts of things and I know for sure that forcing a break in the Friday action is going to be total disaster.

The last point that I'll throw out here (and again, I'm amazed that this hasn't been brought up more often by potential Wildcard players) is that I would highly encourage this year's Wildcard structure to include a short "restart period" for all players.  I was originally thinking that players should be guaranteed about 20 minutes, but even just 10 minutes would seem very useful to players and would not significantly impact the tournament.  This would be slightly cumbersome for a ref to track, but I can already envision how a single referee who is committed to paying attention and doing a good job could handle the task.

This is how it would work . . . 

Let's say Player A has just finished his game on machine #8.  He gets up and immediately goes to the scorer's table and reports his score of 351,100 points (which is verified at the machine by a 2nd ref who is monitoring all games in progress).  His name and score are written on a seperate sheet of paper (which periodically is forwarded to a 3rd staffer who maintains the overall leaderboard, posts the data online, etc).  At the same time, his name is written onto the bottom of the queue.  Looking up past the top of the queue, his entry is now crossed out.  The ref tells him, "Good job.  Approximate wait time is currently running about 1 hour and 20 minutes if you want to check back later."  He leaves.  The ref looks at the top of the queue and sees the name of Player B.  "Ok, where is Player B?  Your machine is available!"  "Here."  "Ok, it's machine #8, do you want it?"  "Sure."  "Ok Player B, the time is 12:26.  Your last quarter drop for this turn is at 12:36."  "Ok, got it."  The ref writes down { #8 } and {12:36} in two columns next to Player B's name.  Now he glances up a couple of rows and notices that Player C, who began a few minutes ago on machine #4 at 12:18 is about to hit his 10 minute limit.  At 12:28 the ref calls out "Ok Player C!  No more restarts!"  "Oh, Ok!  I'm restarting right now!" (which should be allowed).  The 2nd ref wanders over.  "Hey, I just noticed Player D over on machine #9 is only on Level 1, has he been there long?"  "Let's see -- oh no, he just started 6 minutes ago, he's ok."  More players are notified that their restart period has expired.  At 12:43 Player E, on machine #1 finishes his game.  It's verified by the 2nd ref who calls out the score.  Player E reports to the scorer's table.  "126,300."  "Ok, nice job player E."  The ref writes his name and score onto that seperate sheet of paper.  He then also writes his name onto the bottom of the queue.  His entry for the game just played is now crossed out.  "Wait time has been running about 1 hour and 20 minutes, but you never know, it could be sooner."  The player leaves.  "Ok, where is Player F?"  etc.

At this point, at 12:43, the pad of paper would look something like this (assume 30 players and 10 machines):
NOTE:  The times recorded on the paper are 10 minutes AFTER they sat down.

(entries crossed out)
Player 1, Machine #5, 10:56.  (This guy has a sweet game going)
(12 entries crossed out)
Player 2, Machine #10, 11:18.  (A decent game in progress)
(3 entries crossed out)
Player 3, Machine #2, 11:31.  (good game going)
(1 entry crossed out)
Player 4, Machine #6, 11:41.  (in progress)
Player A, Machine #8, 11:47.  (This entry is now crossed out)
(2 entries crossed out)
Player 5, Machine #7, 12:01.  (in progress)
(1 entry crossed out)
Player 6, Machine #3, 12:19.  (in progress)
Player C, Machine #4, 12:28.  (Recently started.  Restart period has expired.)
Player E, Machine #1, 12:30.  (Recently started.  Restart period has expired.  This entry is now crossed out.)
Player D, Machine #9, 12:32.  (Recently started.  Restart period has expired.)
Player B, Machine #8, 12:36.  (Recently started.  Restart period has expired.)
Player F  (Top of the queue.  Has the option to take Machine #1 or wait for the next one)
18 entries -- players in the queue
Player A
Player E

[alumbrada]

when your game ENDS, you should then go to the BOTTOM of the queue.

Yes, this makes sense, equal wait time between attempts.

Nobody goes twice in a row.

[marinomitch13]

when your game ENDS, you should then go to the BOTTOM of the queue.

I'm not sure how far I want to apply my "The WC machines should suck in relation to the top 10/12 machines" principle. Part of me wants to say that Dean's idea of equal waiting time is best because it fits with this above principle, but part of me wants to say that Dan's idea that all people get the same attempts is good as well -since it ultimately creates a the-better-you-play-the-less-hindered-you-are-on-a-WC-machine scenario. I do think there is something to the fact that 700k players shouldn't be hindered so drastically that they have to wait the same amount of time as a 100k player.

[danman123456]

Overall putting your name in the bottom of the queue is inherently the same thing but all it really does is punish someone from doing well. Remember come Sunday everyone has a dedicated machine anyway.

1. Doing it in order makes the most sense to me. Everyone basically gets the "same" amount of attempts to play. Just because I get 600k one game shouldn't give a 100k scorer 3 attempts to play ahead of me. (Because lets be honest Allen can get 500k games anytime he plays but he may only get 100k one game. Same as any of us). The odds of FIFTEEN people rolling over before your next turn is very unlikely.

2. While saying "You can potentially play all day if you get nothing but killscreens. This maybe true but its going to work out to the SAME NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS. I would not want to penalize someone for doing well by saying "Hey great game now you need to go to the end of the line buddy...". Seems to be the exact opposite of what we are trying to do here. In this line of logic the people that do well take a penalty.  The penalty for this actually hurts the other players if you try and keep them on the same machine and not open it up to ALL machines. If its 2 people while we get the same number of attempts. You play for 2.5 hours, me 15 minutes, you for 2.5 hours, me for 30 minutes, you for 2.5 hours, me 1 hour, you 2 hours and were done. You got 4 tries and I got 3. I sucked and you didn't....Sure we got to try the same amount of times but people on the other 7 machines could get 5/6/7 attempts to try and get a 2 hour game in. While I got 3. Opening it up to all machines means EVERYONE gets the same number of tries to succeed or fail

3. Maybe I'm speaking of this so vehemently because as JC said he and I pretty much got screwed on our respective machines. Some people got 5 attempts and on that 5th attempt made the cutoff. Meanwhile we get 2/3 attempts.  This logic prevents that scenario from happening.

4. These are wildcard machines and moving around should be part of the format Corey. Why playing on the same machine gets you more comfortable its also the SAME handicap for everyone. Playing on the same machine is what the Top 12 get as a perk as well. You get that dedicated machine on Sunday. You should have to EARN that machine not just get it on Fri/Sat/Sun.

5. Dean I would never justify the 4 hour blocks I was pointing out tho if you want to give everyone the same amount of time on the WC machines that is reallllllly the only way to do it and I don't like that idea at all.

6. Once your done playing you have to get off the machine and IF you got skipped you get to go again on the NEXT machine. You don't just stay seated and play. I'll use 4 players for the example here.

2 machines - #1 and #2 seed start.
#1 plays for 30 minutes dies
#2 is still playing
# 3 takes the machine #1 died on plays for 15 minutes and dies
# takes the machine #3 died on and plays for 30 minutes dies.
# 2 is STILL playing his game now since its only and hour and 15 minutes.
#1 starts playing again. So now #2 has officially been "skipped".
#2 dies now while #1 is playing.
#3 starts playing again but #2 is at the TOP of the queue because he was skipped.
#1 dies , #2 takes his machine.
so on and so on. Its really not that difficult. Moving to the "bottom" means #3 gets a 2nd start ahead of #1. You pull this out to 16 people and its even more disparaging and even possible that you get skipped twice. Playing well should not be a crime here

I also like the idea of at least getting say 15 minutes to restart just in case you get realllllllly screwed

[danman123456]

Man my posts are too damn long

[Bliss1083]

Maybe if cab selection is at 5 they could halt full game play at 3 to allow any kill screen games to be played by running boards and really designate from 3-5 as 1-1 play in order to keep things on schedule.