Please post any questions you have about the KO3 format here

[hchien]

It's still eight! Those 8 advance to Saturday and meld with the 8 online qualifiers for a total of 16 Saturday wildcard players. Even though there are 10 WC machines, 8 is still the number. I would say it's too late to change that.

If 8 advance from Friday to Sunday, that means 16 people will be sharing 10 machines.  I don't think it makes sense to "share" a machine if there are fewer than 2 per machine.  I'd rather see either:

- 12 WC advance from Friday to Sunday (so 20 people share 10 machines on Sat)
- top 14 getting dedicated machines (so there would be 16 people sharing 8 WC machines)
- top 12 + top 2 online qualifiers getting dedicated machines (again 16 WCs sharing 8 machines)

This would give either more people a chance to play again on Saturday or more good players getting dedicated machines.

I like the idea of a restart period for Friday and Saturday, under one condition: that it not be a hassle, or referee-intensive.

Agreed.  It's not like the 1-up has dozens of employees they can devote to refereeing the restarts.  That would be a waste of personnel in my opinion.  The only way this would work is if it's peer refereed.  There's also the potential for quarrels happening.   "Hey you restarted at 10:01!"  This is why they probably didn't allow restarts last year.  It's simple and there's no potential for arguments.  The other choice is to have it as a set # of restarts.  Say you're allowed 2 restarts (3 games) max.  If you go past say 3-1 (where lots of restarts happen), you must play it out or forfeit your attempt.  Might be easier than managing stopwatches but it might not be fair if someone dies on 1-1 3 times in a row.

[hchien]

What constitutes "submitted"? 

I haven't submitted a score under the new TG, but it seems similar to the old TG where you have to submit online first.  I'd say that would have to be done before midnight Oct 25 (say Mountain time) and then send the tape in within a reasonable amount of time (say the next day or 2).  I don't think anyone would disqualify your top 12 score if you did that.  If you happen to have a good game on Oct 25, then you should probably call someone at TG anyway to let them know you're submitting a top 12 score.  I'd think it'd only be fair to whoever is getting bumped to 13 to get this info out ASAP.  Anyone want to have a streaming party on Oct 25?  We could all title our streams "DK Cramming" or "Last Chance Dance."

Also, I don't know how anyone else would feel, but would the community like or dislike moving the deadline date for qualifying for top 12 to an earlier date...for future Kong Offs?

Ask Ross Benziger this question

I think the deadline is set appropriately.  3 weeks is about the right time frame to set a deadline like this (since it's about the right amount of time needed to make travel arrangements).  You're only thinking about it this way because you're on the bubble now.  Next year you could be #13 (not picking on you but just saying hypothetically) and want those extra few days/weeks to try to qualify.  I think it's the right time frame for the community as a whole, but yeah if I were you, I'd wish the deadline was yesterday.

[ChrisP]

Correct me if I'm missing somethinng, but I don't see any particular reason why there has to be symmetry between active vs. sitting out players on the WC machines.

If it's 16 players on 8 machines, you have 8 playing and 8 sitting out. If it's 10 machines, you have 10 playing and 6 sitting out. There doesn't have to be a 1-to-1 correlation between active and out does there? Again, unless I'm missing something in your logic, what's wrong with 1.6 players per 1 machine? It would better-reward those players who survived the qualifying rounds by giving them more time, rather than adding more Friday players who don't have to put up nearly as big a score.

The online qualifiers are already having to hustle a lot more to secure the Saturday spot than the Friday qualifiers, simply by the nature of the player pool. By the time WCQ#3 is over, you might need 900K to qualify online, but at that point so many of the better players are gone that the lowest-scoring of the Friday live qualifiers might squeak into Saturday with 400K or less. If you increase the number of Friday players advancing to Saturday, you're exacerbating that disparity even more, and making qualifying online less of a "win." You're taking a cut out of the online qualifiers' machine time for the benefit of the live qualifiers, who didn't have to work as hard as the online qualifiers to get to play on Saturday.

As for the player queue and how best to physically handle it, we don't need a ref. I'm thinking we'd have like a whiteboard with the list of names, and every time it's your turn, you start by going to the whiteboard, erasing your name from the top and writing it on the bottom, then you go to your machine, leaving the "next up" player at the top of the list. Makes sense? It would be even easier with a magnetic board with magnets that you could just move into position.

And to let people know when they're "on deck", we could send them a text or whatever so that they can come back to the machine area and get ready.

Also Hank, a simple "3-2 rule" (once you're on 3-2, you can't abort) is a really, really good idea, and much simpler/easier to police than a timer. Maybe it could be 4-2, or even 4-4?

[hchien]

Correct me if I'm missing somethinng, but I don't see any particular reason why there has to be symmetry between active vs. sitting out players on the WC machines.

No, there doesn't need to be symmetry between players and machines, but the way I look at it is: when I'm playing, I'm on break almost 50% of the time anyway.  So if you have fewer than 2 players sharing 1 machine, I bet there are people who would want a longer break.  Think: during the online qualifiers (when you had a dedicated machine) how many hours of the available time did you actually play?  No one can play DK for that many hours without needing a break.

All I'm really saying is: that extra time could give more WC players an opportunity to play a 2nd day or could be given to a player as a dedicated machine.  I think you've heard too many horror stories from the WC players last year when there were 4 or 5 per machine.  Yeah I'd have PTSD too if I shared a machine with 4 players.  2 per machine is fine (especially 2 per machine with a queue system).  In fact, one year at Funspot, Dean, Eric Howard and I were all sharing a machine and we were not fighting for the machine at all (and we were all playing seriously).

It's not really my decision, nor does it affect me this year (unless something catastrophic happens!), but that's just my opinion.

[ChrisP]

While you were replying, I added a paragraph that you might have missed.

(To sum up: Increasing the number of Friday qualifiers is sort of unfair to the online qualifiers, because it further decreases the reward of qualifying online, which is significantly harder than qualifying live will be.)

[up2ng]

Just thought I'd jump back into this conversation for fun.  :-)

(To sum up: Increasing the number of Friday qualifiers is sort of unfair to the online qualifiers, because it further decreases the reward of qualifying online, which is significantly harder than qualifying live will be.)

I'm not sure I get the logic with this.

First, the reason for the question was because when the number of players moving through to Saturday play was set at 8, the number of machines was also set at 8.  The number of machines has now been increased to 10.  So, bumping the number of Saturday WC players up to 20 would not really be increasing the ratio at all, it would be bringing it back in line with the original intent -- and the question came about because perhaps that was just an oversight.  It seems reasonable to assume that the increase in the number of machines was meant as a way to handle a larger number of players.

Second, I don't really follow the argument about it being unfair to online qualifiers.  Qualifying online is a major advantage as it eliminates the possibility of having to play on Friday where there could potentially be almost no time to play and if you happen to have 1 or 2 bad games your tournament could be over.  Qualifying to play on Saturday guarantees that all players will have a decent amount of time and also ensures that they will be listed on the final scoreboard.

But, again, however you guys want to do it will be fine I'm sure.

Also Hank, a simple "3-2 rule" (once you're on 3-2, you can't abort) is a really, really good idea, and much simpler/easier to police than a timer. Maybe it could be 4-2, or even 4-4?

Well, unless this is combined with some sort of limit on the number of restarts, this is actually a pretty terrible idea.  In the last 2 weeks alone I've had 3 different DK sessions of between 2 and 3 hours each where I never saw a pie factory.  This can happen if you're playing like a maniac and it can also happen if you are a less skilled player.

So, who is going to referee an exact number of allowed restarts per attempt?  To me, that's actually MORE of a headache for a ref than a timer for multiple reasons.

As for the player queue and how best to physically handle it, we don't need a ref. I'm thinking we'd have like a whiteboard with the list of names, and every time it's your turn, you start by going to the whiteboard, erasing your name from the top and writing it on the bottom, then you go to your machine, leaving the "next up" player at the top of the list. Makes sense?

Actually, in my opinion, this is the second best way to go, and it's a distant second.  This lines up pretty closely with what Dan had suggested.  In my opinion, it would be significantly better to be added to the bottom of the queue when your previous game ENDS. 

I actually explained in detail how a ref would keep track of this queue WITH a 10 minute restart period in an extremely easy and straightforward manner.  Did nobody read that post?  Was it too long?  lol

But again, if everyone wants to do it that way then that's how it will be I'm sure.



I just hope that however the tournament is run will cause the least amount of complaining, "bad tastes", and poor experiences for everyone who makes the trip.  I'm already extraordinarily concerned about the Friday schedule and how that could potentially ruin the entire event for most people, but so far nobody else seems to care about what will happen (and I KNOW what will happen).  If we manage to get through all of these details and everyone is still having a good time then that's a good measure of success.

[alumbrada]

It would be even easier with a magnetic board with magnets that you could just move into position.

In my opinion, it would be significantly better to be added to the bottom of the queue when your previous game ENDS.

Just take your name magnet to your cab, and when you're done put it back on the board?

[homerwannabee]

What constitutes "submitted"? 

Can we play a game on Oct. 25, burn it to DVD, put it in the mail the next day postmarked Oct. 26?  Or does it have to be postmarked by Oct. 25, no later?  Or by submitted, do they mean it has to have been shipped and in the hands of Stephen Boyer by Oct 25 to qualify as submitted?

Also, I don't know how anyone else would feel, but would the community like or dislike moving the deadline date for qualifying for top 12 to an earlier date...for future Kong Offs?

My guess is this.  They said "Submitted, and not verified".  I think an argument could be made that they mean submitted to the Twin Galaxies website.  So I am thinking that you could get a score accomplished on Oct. 25.  Submit the score to their website, and than mail it off the very next day on October 26th.   I would definitely advise anyone to mail off their score the very next day if they submit on Oct. 25th.  If you hold onto it for two weeks, and mail it off right before the competition, don't be surprised if you don't qualify.

[hchien]

Well, unless this is combined with some sort of limit on the number of restarts, this is actually a pretty terrible idea. 

My original idea was to have 2 restarts max (3 games max).  This would actually be a lot easier to ref.  You could just put in 3 credits into the machine, lock the coin door, strip search everyone for quarters (only kidding... it's actually quite simple to disconnect the coin door wiring from the main board) and walk away.  A lot easier than dealing with 5 stopwatches IMO.  I only mentioned 3-1 as a point of no return.  Chris was just emphasizing the part about having a point of no return.  3-1 is convenient because:

- a lot of "unavoidable" deaths happen there
- it takes maybe 5-6 minutes to get to 3-1 (running boards) and combined with 2 restarts max, that's a max of 12 minutes for restarting

In my opinion, L4 restarts shouldn't be allowed.  L4 barrels are significantly easier than L3 barrels because of the steerability.  Also even when playing for safety, I'll grab the bottom hammer on L4 to stall for 33 seconds.  If you have a reasonable hammer by the time the hammer expires or shortly after, you should be clear of L3 type wild barrels.  Also if we allow L4 restarts, now we're talking 15 mins PER restart-- theoretically 1/2 hour just to start a game.  That would significantly increase wait times.

[danman123456]

Wow everyone is just jamming this thread love it

1. I think the once you reach 3-2 the no restart rule applies is perfect. At that point you have passed pretty much all the cheese wild barrel boards.
2. I think you get ONE restart period to keep the games flowing Friday/Saturday. If you get a cheap lvl 2 death you get to try again but otherwise that should be it. Plus that is very easy to peer police.
3. I understand what Dean is saying but I just feel that putting your name at the end of the list AFTER you play is penalizing "good" play. Someone starts after I do and ends before me then they will be on the list ahead of me to play again. All of this it likely wont make too much of a difference either way but I fail to understand as a player if I have an "ok" game that means I get skipped to someone who didn't in the process? That is what caused some angst last year. People qualified for day 2 on their FIFTH attempt while others only had 2 or 3 tries. I think the amount of times you get to start a game plays more in the chance of getting a big score versus if you have an ok game where you play for 30-45 minutes.

Dan

[marinomitch13]

I understand what Dean is saying but I just feel that putting your name at the end of the list AFTER you play is penalizing "good" play. Someone starts after I do and ends before me then they will be on the list ahead of me to play again. All of this it likely wont make too much of a difference either way but I fail to understand as a player if I have an "ok" game that means I get skipped to someone who didn't in the process? That is what caused some angst last year. People qualified for day 2 on their FIFTH attempt while others only had 2 or 3 tries. I think the amount of times you get to start a game plays more in the chance of getting a big score versus if you have an ok game where you play for 30-45 minutes.

This. Everyone should get closer to the same number of attempts as the priority -not time. WC players last year recognized that if someone had a good game, they earned the extra time they got. The real annoying thing was/would be if you just got off a great game and were in the zone, but you had to wait for several lower level players to get in their attempts when they are taking like attempt 6-7 and you are only on attempt 2.

I, however, am against restarts for the WC players. This is for the same reason as I've said before: WC players should be severely hindered so that the KOs remain, in a very significant way, about the top 12 players. Even 1 restart is not much different than the perks of the designated machines, since most KS players could get used to a machine in 1 restart's time as well as if they actually got a good game (like 1.5hrs+), many people would want to take a break afterwards anyway -just like top players will around 25% of their time, even though they have unlimited restarts.

[hchien]

3. I understand what Dean is saying but I just feel that putting your name at the end of the list AFTER you play is penalizing "good" play.

I can make a strong argument for putting your name on the list AFTER your game ends:

- if you happen to have a long game, you're going to want to take a longer break anyway.  In your system, if you have a long game (or even mediocre game) you could potentially be "up" again as soon as your game ends.

- By my estimates on Saturday (if there are 16 people on 10 machines), the wait time will only be 36 minutes (+5 min if restarts are allowed).  So if your game lasts more than 36 (or 41) minutes (which is very likely for a lot of players) you'll be up again before your game is even finished.  This is also another argument for why there should be 20 players for Sat.

- If you are a casual 100K player on Friday (many of whom are not on these forums and can't voice their opinion) and you pay the same $20 as everyone else to enter just for fun, your experience will be markedly diminished by your method.  If you allow this player (whose games only take 10 minutes) to get a few more attempts in, his/her experience will improve a lot, with very little added wait time for the better players.

I want to make one (not so final) comment.  I feel like a lot of the suggestions/opinions being thrown out are based on last year's experience or to benefit themselves.  You have to keep in mind the broader picture.  I actually think no matter what system is used this year the experience will be much better just based on the fact that the machine:player ratio will be much higher this year.  Also the point of the wildcard machines is to get more players involved and to have fun.  Yes it's a competition and yes a wildcard would win or place but that's not the main point IMO.  If you do not want to get people involved, we should just make it the top 22.  The new players are what's going to keep DK alive and the event successful.  If you enter as a casual WC player on Friday and only get 2 or 3 10 minute games because those killscreeners are hogging the machine, you're not going to enter or even come to the event next year.

[mikegmi2]

What constitutes "submitted"? 

I haven't submitted a score under the new TG, but it seems similar to the old TG where you have to submit online first.  I'd say that would have to be done before midnight Oct 25 (say Mountain time) and then send the tape in within a reasonable amount of time (say the next day or 2).  I don't think anyone would disqualify your top 12 score if you did that.  If you happen to have a good game on Oct 25, then you should probably call someone at TG anyway to let them know you're submitting a top 12 score.  I'd think it'd only be fair to whoever is getting bumped to 13 to get this info out ASAP.  Anyone want to have a streaming party on Oct 25?  We could all title our streams "DK Cramming" or "Last Chance Dance."

Also, I don't know how anyone else would feel, but would the community like or dislike moving the deadline date for qualifying for top 12 to an earlier date...for future Kong Offs?

Ask Ross Benziger this question

I think the deadline is set appropriately.  3 weeks is about the right time frame to set a deadline like this (since it's about the right amount of time needed to make travel arrangements).  You're only thinking about it this way because you're on the bubble now.  Next year you could be #13 (not picking on you but just saying hypothetically) and want those extra few days/weeks to try to qualify.  I think it's the right time frame for the community as a whole, but yeah if I were you, I'd wish the deadline was yesterday.

Yea I wasn't bring up the point on any personal level, but just in general for planning/travel type purposes.

I know some have said they would or wouldn't go to the Kong Off depending on if they qualified for the top 12, or upped their personal best, or for other reasons that are based on putting up a score by the deadline. 

The closer the deadline is to the event, the harder it is for an individual to plan accordingly.

The same type of craziness will happen if the deadline is 2 or 3 months before the event, but the planning and travel arrangement craziness would be all but removed from the equation.  Especially considering the 3 month cheapest flight thing you pointed out Hank = )

[danman123456]

Oh yeah Hank I think we want to encourage people to play. When I play out the scenario it works out to be the same almost always. Going after you play of before you play. Unless we think 10 people will be playing for 1 hour+  that same situation applies doesn't it? With more machines and less chance of getting 5 on a box its going be much better playing experience overall. I just hate to see a scenario where someone got 10 chances and gets a KS on his last play and because you were doing 400k games you got 4 tries. It's an issue either way.

[hchien]

After reading Dan's reply, I thought of another good argument for going back on the queue AFTER you finish.  I mentioned this earlier... but suppose you are a killscreen player and you die 3 times before L6.  Now most people on a dedicated machine in this situation would restart.  However if you know your name is already on the queue and you will have to wait anyway, you might just play the game out.  However, if your name is NOT on the queue, you might want to end your game earlier so you can get back on the queue earlier.  In fact, I would say knowing your name is not on the queue and that the wait time is only 36 mins (for the 16:10 scenario) is enough incentive to end the game early.   This actually BENEFITS EVERYONE.  Not playing out dead-end game would lead to even faster turn around times for everyone.

And BTW 36 mins is not even enough time to eat lunch (unless your name is Mitchell Elliott).  Vote for Pedro, I mean 20:10.