Jump to content
Leif_3GHP

Thoughts on tournament formatting~

Recommended Posts

I'm just going to throw out a couple of loose thoughts here and see what everyone's response is...

We don't know if Square is going to host any sort of championship series, so if we want to make sure we are the main tournament hub and are taken seriously, we need to have an infrastructure in place and ready before the game releases. Otherwise we run the risk of like...FF Peasants or that FB group being seen as the go-to place to play Dissidia, and then our game will never be taken seriously by the wider tournament community.

So, leading up to release, I think we should be prepared to launch the first tournament season or a Dissidia League. Something that will be structured and ongoing that gives the community a sense of legitimacy, direction, and ranking. To further that end, one idea I had was the encouragement of crews.

Dissidia is a 3v3 game, so even if we only hold Dissidia Community tournaments once or twice a month, or even less, making sure your whole team is available on a certain day(s) can potentially be a big problem for a lot of people. So I was thinking that if players participated in crews of 6-10 players, we could alleviate that problem a bit. I'll use TNB as an example to illustrate. Let's say Dragon, Chandela and I enter the season as a team(call us TNB | DCL). We play two tournaments together, but Chandela is unavailable for the third. Within the crew rules, we would be able to sub in Dimitri and still keep our title as DCL and have our performance count towards DCL's ranking. This helps avoid having to keep individual player rankings(though you still could) and allows us to handle seeding in the normal fashion. So, say Dimitri is part of TNB | PDD (Poiman, Dimitri, DJ). When he played with us, it would have no bearing on his base team. That's why I suggested 6-10 players. That way, with at least 6, no one would ever have to just sit out for lack of enough members in the crew. As it's extremely likely that everyone won't be available every weekend, I think it is a system that could work. Finally, any given team would need to play more games than not with it's complete original roster. Meaning if I played one tournament with DCL, but had to play the next three tournaments with subs, it wouldn't make sense for DCL to receive ranking credit for those wins. The overall result would be a hard ranking per static team, just like if we were all single participants, and a sort of "soft ranking" by crew for use where applicable. You could still participate as a static team without a crew, but you'd have to deal with circumstances that could otherwise be mitigated.

So with this system, seeding would look something like:
Known Static Teams
Known Crews
Teams with no results.

That took longer than I thought to explain, so I'll end it there. Please share what you think, add suggestions, ridicule me endlessly. After this gets some feedback I'll make another post. I have a bunch of topics to cover.

(P.S. To the members of TNB, I understand that this changes the idea of crews from us having a good time, to something that holds more importance, so I understand if you don't want anything to do with it.)

  • OMKefka 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I talked with Hexacoto and Jaghancement and found some points to clarify.

First, is that any type of rankings and qualifying would be based on static 3 person teams. I'm not suggesting a crew war or anything like that.
The point of the crews(which I'm going to call clans from now on) is ONLY to provide available subs when necessary and be able to keep seeding for an individual tournament.
So, if Wheelz, RDF, and Dart were considered the number 1 seed. They wouldn't have to take last seed just because they had to sub in JT for Dart. The expectation is that a clan practices together and represents at the very least  a cohesion of strategy. If there was a tournament at the end of the season that required qualifying, Wheelz, RDF, and Dart would had to have played at least 3/4 of their tournaments with their full team, or whatever other amount we decided.

Edited by Leif_3GHP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most added his input and said we should just focus on teams.

You would just need to make sure your team was all available. Jag said it wouldn't be a big deal to miss a single tournament. Because you'd still get qualifying points at other times if we were running that type of series.

Personally, I just don't want to sit out any tournaments, though. GrumpBez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so the current working idea in this regard is

Have qualifier tournaments leading up to evo in august. That way,  your team simply needs to win a tournament, or place high in specific high profile qualifier tournaments, that would in turn gain you points towards the big event. That prevents the need for you to be able to show up week after week with your full team. But tournament placings would still be used for your teams ranking and possible seeding at IRL events not ran by DC. That pretty much covers all the areas of concern.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PsYkiiiK said:

Should all maps be available? What about time limits? What about Max HP? What about 1v1 and 2v2? 

Yes they will be on the full game and all the characters except the new ones that havent been announced yet.

Max HP is 3500

Yes you can make matchs of 1vs1 or 2vs1 etc only in the "Room" online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just meant for tournaments. You think some maps might be too big? Especially if you turn the time limit up or something. Do you think all the maps, time limit, and the set HP limit would be best for this game at a tournament level? I remember 012 with 9999 HP made adhac real fun but time consuming. This is assuming you can even change the health in the custom matches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would new characters being released be treated? (I did see what you said Kengreg but it is something that needs to be a bit more detailed than "cannot use")

Typically if a character is made playable within two weeks to one month of a tournament (varies per event or event owner) that character is banned for the event due to how character knowledge is extremely limited (no idea how to play matchups, avoid setups, mechanics knowledge, etc.) at that point and anyone who uses that character could have a very big advantage over other players.  Would that be the case or would it just be "anything goes?"

9 hours ago, PsYkiiiK said:

I just meant for tournaments. You think some maps might be too big? Especially if you turn the time limit up or something. Do you think all the maps, time limit, and the set HP limit would be best for this game at a tournament level?

In regards to maps, timers, and life most games nowadays are balanced so that the default life, timer, and stage settings are tournament setting (except when something beyond ridiculously powerful such as legit infinite combos that guarantee death with absolute ease) and would be the default way to run tournaments.  I agree that some maps in DFFNT do seem a bit big but you have tools available to cross stages in a fairly good amount of time.  Right now the only character that has a big advantage of absolutely huge open space is Cloud with his Cherry Blossom HP attack because (I think) it is the only truly global HP attack in the game.

The individual parts can be modified per event but is completely up to the discretion of the event runner (for example someone comes up with a Blitz themed tourney where there is only one minute rounds to get as many Incapacitations as possible and whichever team has more wins at the end of that round).

Coming from competing in fighting game tournaments I've rarely seen changes to New Game Default settings rulings at events that game developers themselves haven't patched in (for example in DOA5 the original "Normal" health values were 270 and have since been patched so the "Normal" values are 300).  Team Ninja is really good at balancing their games so what they have now is how they've balanced the game to play.  1v1 and 2v2 would be neat to see but the game isn't really balanced for those modes and while you can still run them you are still being limited to 3v3 mechanics (I would love to see TN make a legit 1v1 or 2v2 mode that acted like the other Dissidia games, mostly with blocking).

Edited by Nichol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the closest example we have (competitive brawler, same as dissidia)  is super smash brothers. They've changed the timer and most stages are banned. Remember, although I disagree on some levels, most people will say that brawlers aren't fighting games. I say they're a branch off of fighting games like army is a branch off military. I've played a lot of 2d fighters as well and they're a lot more straight forward and to the point with their game design. 

Edited by PsYkiiiK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to bring up the Smash games.

Half rant in spoiler

 

The community has modified too many rules both in game (and has multiple different rulesets for several different events) and in the physical world too much to want to begin to talk about it and the game still has balance issues on its own because of past rule sets.  The stages I get for the most part but having the base tournament level play being limited solely to Final Destination and Battlefield stages I can't agree with.  They basically have said "I don't want to have to think about adapting to more than just taking damage and three parts of a stage" and that doesn't sit right with me.  Imagine NT only being played on the FF8 flower field stage, it eliminates a lot of stage positioning and adaptation thought power and would alter how powerful characters are just for being on that stage.  Vanguards would have one hell of a time fighting, Marksmen would have clear shots at everything, and assassins wouldn't have as many "hidden" approaches to targets, and all you have to worry about is how close to a wall you are.  You can argue some stages are like that already but for the most part having knowledge of stage positioning and the terrain around you plays a big part of how you move around.

As is NT seems well off.  HP would be the biggest debatable item and after extensive tests having a higher HP pool could lead to specific increases in time (like an extra 30 seconds per 1000HP over 5000HP for example).  There were times in the beta I felt 3500HP wasn't enough because of how easy it is to get bravery when hitting someone with a lot of it.

Edited by Nichol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All maps will be available. The only question is whether the players will choose them or if they will be set on random. The mostly likely choice is random, as that is the current tournament format in Japan and there's no reason to try to go about striking with 15 stages.

The only option you can change in the lobby menu is time and we won't touch that either. The default rules is the game are how is played in arcade and it is a very good balance.

The game isn't made for 1v1 or 2v2. It's fine to do, but no one will ever run a serious event for it. The game balance is destroyed completely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe stages should be random but losers can choose after game 1. Seems pretty standard in fighting games. They can make a difference. 

Edited by PsYkiiiK
Misspell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea i think stages make a lot of difference too. It's just a pretty contentious point. Like stage choice might take Firion out of the game entirely if players know that winning game one will guarantee that they go to The Rift game two as a counter pick. Or sending Cecil to the FFXI stage. He's a bit more flexible though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think finals should always be on the Promised Meadow, as it's just a field? Or is it not such a neutral stage as it may seem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stages should stay random through the entire series.  If something happens where a stage comes up twice in a row and both teams agree to re-random a stage then that should be acceptable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stages should be picked tho, since stages have a big role on winning or losing a game, you can’t just play a game by chances but by skillls you know.  Letting stages random is like winning or losing the game gambling.  The idea is to have an advantage using the stages available.  Giving the game 1’s Losers have an opportunity for a comeback right?

About time limit and HP...well that should go to the TO’s judgement right?  I mean sometimes default HP and Time (open beta) wasn’t just enough.  But have to keep in mind that bravery it’s easily increased with a wall rush combo so...imo it’s just for the TO’s saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the average match time, Best of 3 should be played, if not even Bo5. At least Top 16 / Top 8 should be Bo5 minimum if there should be any tournament running bracket. 

Also what Gmac said:

On 4.2.2018 at 5:56 AM, Gmac_da_6god said:

Stages should be random first round.  

Loser picks type format. 

and for the time being also implement the rule that the team who can pick a stage may not choose a stage on which they have won already unless Gentleman's rule takes place ( both parties mutually agree on the pick ) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.