TO Mass Game Creating Engine

[GioDuce]

This will scare of new TO's,

I think it is a very good idea for TO's that won't to organize very big and different tournament, and a learing process will be needed.

The possibility to do everything on the way that is provided now should also be open. This for the new and people who prefer this way.

Overall it is a very good idea and TO's WILL put LESS time in organizing and more in enjoying/looking/ following the tournament.
I also follow Robes in all the things he says @ the last of his 1st post.

[GeneralJestix]

Isn't it quite obvious that I as a new TO taking over a massive tournament like this would have to pair myself with an experienced game-creating TO in order to avail myself of the game creating engine that I am seeking? I am the first to admit that I had NO idea how time consuming running this tournament would be.

This is why I did not take it over, only offered to help create some games.

I ran an NFL league 1 year and never again as it took way too much time. In fact I pretty much quit making any tourneys because I started running some complex tourneys and got burnt out. This burn out caused me to not buy a premium combined with me wanting to spend my money better. I only have my premium because Robespierre bought it for me as a friendly gift. I am back to enjoying CC again, but will not make any more tourneys because I would rather not get burnt out.

I will also not be helping with NCAA next season as it still took more time than I would have liked to spend on it.

Robes, if your fatherly skills are the same as your CC skills, youre a pretty shitty father

[Metsfanmax]

As far as this specific suggestion goes, I understand that it could be useful in certain circumstances. However, a large part of deciding which suggestions go and which ones don't is balancing developer time against community benefit. While this would have some benefit for a limited group of users (Tournament Organizers), this would require a substantial amount of time to develop, and I believe that time could be better used elsewhere within tournaments.

Your analysis is incomplete. Robes is arguing that there is more benefit than to just TO's. By making the lives of TO's easier when it comes to complex and interesting tournaments, you likely encourage more of those interesting tournaments to occur, which will enhance the tournament scene.

[Hath]

I don't see how this could take THAT much time to implement. You could have a rigid format, with required fields in a required order, and if they don't match, kill the import. Parse the csv file and pass in to your game creation function (shouldn't be hard). Pass back out a file with the game #'s created in the last column. Seems simple enough to me.

You could make the page only available to TO's who specifically requested it, to prevent overwhelming new TO's (who wouldn't know better), or inform those whose tournament seemed like it might benefit from the functionality. This would limit the exposure, as well as the potential for mass game creation and deletion from mistakes. I think this is of benefit to more than just this one tournament, too. It would encourage more tournaments to be run with choice of home map, 1v1 or otherwise.

I've created a reasonably large percentage of games for the NCAA tournament, and as much as I love clicking through the UI, this would be so much easier. I understand different things have priority though, so if you want to table it, that's fine. But to outright reject it on the notion of too much work involved...that's probably overboard.

[SirLindsley]

The number of people benefiting by this proposal is not limited to the few organizers who would use it but, includes the many players who would get the benefit of having more of these complex tournaments. My vote is with Robo.

[seechster]

I also agree with Robes, now I have only organized 1 tourney and this is the reason. It was extremely time consuming. On the same token as a player I would also like the ability to join all game invitations at once.

Seech

[DoomYoshi]

This has been rejected, although I do disagree with the decision. I suggest we try to figure out a way for a third-party developer to do something to this effect.

REJECTED

[jon_snow]

I'm opposed to automated tournaments because it's not CC's job to run tournaments for organizers.

I'm opposed to this suggestion for the reasons in the 3rd post of the thread: a lot of coding work to integrate such a feature that only a few people would try to use and even fewer people would be able to use correctly.

To your first point - I don't think the Robes__ is asking CC to run the tourney, just make it easier for him to run.

To your second point - There may only be a few people that use it to create tournaments, but many users would benefit from it. The NCAA tourney is the only reason I am a premium member, and I know of at least one other member this is true for. This tourney created over 5,400 games which doesn't seem insignificant. If the suggested tool was in place, maybe more users would try to run a tourney of this size, resulting in more CC games for the site.

I agree with Robes__'s assertion that the number of abandoned tourneys would decrease.

[JJ41375]

I have never created a tournament, but have played in my share. I have to agree anything that would make the TO's job easier is a benefit to the site as a whole. I believe a way to help TOs create more complex tournaments will ultimately lead to more players being involved in tournaments...either as players or TOs. I know somebody would need to develop the coding for this and there are other priorities, but I think this should at least be considered for something down the road.

That is my two cents for what it is worth.

JJ

[ViperOverLord]

This seems to be a lot of coding work to assist only a few people who would be able to and would use it correctly. And if mistakes happen, that could mean a lot of games that have to be gone back to and deleted.

Only a few people? It seems like it could be used in virtually every tournament.

[Jackofalltrades]

Greetings all. First and foremost thanks to each of the TO and assistants/rescuers that operate on this site. I've helped to organize a single clan war in my 7 year tenure here and it was a bit of work between my family, job, and domestic things that need to be done on the daily. That said i remember a few of my most favorite tourneys: Mapblaster from many years ago when there were about 130 maps where they were all 8 man escalating games with i think about 8 or 10 groups of 8 ppl (lotta spreadsheets/scoring), some that Bartender/Nightstrike/Quert/Gilligan have setup in past and now the NCAA basketball tourney. I'm not a huge sports fan but frankly it was the more complex format and range of potential maps that i would be exposed to that excited me and keep me interested in the tourney. I wish it would have been something easier to implement because I would agree that it does provide a better experience and enjoyment for the general site user.

With regards to abandoned tourney why do they get abandoned??
Mostly 1. TO having severe family issue and has to bail.
or 2. The lack of updating/ slow game creation due to the shear amount of work involved. (Thusly, i respect each TO in the past)

In the end, quality products take time and lots of effort to create generally. Hopefully we can bear this as the focus in mind going forward.

Respectfully, JOAT

This seems to be a lot of coding work to assist only a few people who would be able to and would use it correctly. And if mistakes happen, that could mean a lot of games that have to be gone back to and deleted.

Only a few people? It seems like it could be used in virtually every tournament.

In a way yes but creating mass amount of games wouldn't be applicable in most of the smaller tourney as NS and GO stated. Mainly this would be to help the organizers of larger tournements which unfortunately will not make it a large enough priority for the "Masses". Heres to hopin an indepentant script writer comes up with something to ease the pain of those few TO's.

[shoop76]

I know first hand how much it takes to run this tournament and how much Robes did to make it successful. I also don't think anyone here doubts that. I also believe that anything that can be reasonably done to ensure that tournaments run easier and smoother should be considered. There will be better tournaments for all of us to enjoy and more people willing to organize these.

I also don't understand why this was rejected so quickly. If it was due to its complexity, ok, that sounds fair. If it was due to several tournament directors being against it that makes no sense and quite frankly gives them way too much power. I though one of their roles was ensuring that tournaments run smoothly. But yet they are not willing to consider changes that would allow this.

[DaveH]

Wow - such a lot of opinions! I understand and support the need to bring some automation to the running of tournaments. As others, I have picked up many dropped tournaments that were grand in scale and needed a lot of TO work to keep them going - possibly causing the TO to then drop out. Some sort of upload to CC from Excel would bring about a much needed simplification.

The greatest workload is on the invites; as you know I have written many articles on the use of spreadsheets, and although you can automate the creation of text for invites using Excel and then send it to players by pm's with auto-invites, many players do not respond to pm's. I therefore spend a lot of time checking games still requiring invites and then inviting directly. However, until the present bug is fixed, this is made harder by the additional steps of getting back to the invite page. Even then, you get back to the start of the page; not the place where you last were, so you have to search down to get to the next game that needs a direct invite. Very tedious.

(Just adding that the above is where you are able to create games with the same settings. I agree with Robes that having individual maps and settings is an added complexity that any means of automating this process is desirable)

I'll spend more time on this when I have it - but I need to check my tournaments now......

[DaveH]

What we seem to be considering is a page allowed access by the TO when approving a tournament, into which the code for game creations can be copied from a spreadsheet. Individual codes will be in the format used in the game creation script and there might have to be a limit on the number of sequential game scripts allowed per submission. Not too much work to consider I would have thought?

However not many people seem to have access to the information behind the game engine, so it would be useful if CC could publish further information that would allow possible developers to look into this. Or perhaps this info is already available?

With regards to greenoaks' comment about the majority of work is with getting the results published, I agree with him where the tournament has the same settings throughout, though results can be automated to some extent using the Tour Stats info downloaded into Excell with macros or scripts to extract the required data.

The recent updates are a step in the right direction though and several things that have been rejected or sidelined years ago have been implemented (to our overwhelming approval!). Anything is therefore possible and I hope Robes' suggestion is given proper consideration. Obviously this facility would not have to be used by all TO's and could be made available by individual approval of the TD's.

[Night Strike]

I'm opposed to automated tournaments because it's not CC's job to run tournaments for organizers.

I'm opposed to this suggestion for the reasons in the 3rd post of the thread: a lot of coding work to integrate such a feature that only a few people would try to use and even fewer people would be able to use correctly.

To your first point - I don't think the Robes__ is asking CC to run the tourney, just make it easier for him to run.

To your second point - There may only be a few people that use it to create tournaments, but many users would benefit from it. The NCAA tourney is the only reason I am a premium member, and I know of at least one other member this is true for. This tourney created over 5,400 games which doesn't seem insignificant. If the suggested tool was in place, maybe more users would try to run a tourney of this size, resulting in more CC games for the site.

I agree with Robes__'s assertion that the number of abandoned tourneys would decrease.

I'm aware Robes wasn't asking for automated tournaments.....I was replying to some one else's comments (the one you removed from within your quote of my post).

And actually, your comments about new users trying to run large tournaments using this feature is exactly why I'm opposed to it. There are not very many people on the site who would be able to probably build a spreadsheet that could then be properly parsed by a site feature in order to create all the desired games. That will lead to one of two problems: continually getting error messages that frustrate the organizer, or continually having to delete games and make new ones which was what the suggestion was trying to simplify in the first place. It's better to have a system available that all people will be able to manage quickly than coding a very complex system that most people will not be able to use correctly.

This seems to be a lot of coding work to assist only a few people who would be able to and would use it correctly. And if mistakes happen, that could mean a lot of games that have to be gone back to and deleted.

Only a few people? It seems like it could be used in virtually every tournament.

Only a few people could build a proper spreadsheet that could be parsed by the site to create all the correct games. Even if it could be used in every tournament, that doesn't mean the organizer could make it work.

[DaveH]

Only a few people could build a proper spreadsheet that could be parsed by the site to create all the correct games. Even if it could be used in every tournament, that doesn't mean the organizer could make it work.

I understand what you are saying, but only a few TO's can manage a tournament as complex as Robes and a few others run. Besides which, a formatted Excel spreadsheet with macros could ensure the format was exactly as required, and could be managed by anyone with basic spreadsheet skills.

The other point is that Robes was specifying the type of tournament with player-set maps and settings - which is why most TO's avoid such interesting tournaments. For these types of tournament the above type of system would open up such tournaments to other TO's who do not have the time nor temperament to manage them under the present system

It would not be required to be used in every type of tournament, so I agree that it would possibly be better as an add-on - if possible.

Cheers

Dave
(If you do have reference to further information, I would be interested in looking into it in more detail.)

[patrickaa317]

I'm opposed to automated tournaments because it's not CC's job to run tournaments for organizers.

I'm opposed to this suggestion for the reasons in the 3rd post of the thread: a lot of coding work to integrate such a feature that only a few people would try to use and even fewer people would be able to use correctly.

To your first point - I don't think the Robes__ is asking CC to run the tourney, just make it easier for him to run.

To your second point - There may only be a few people that use it to create tournaments, but many users would benefit from it. The NCAA tourney is the only reason I am a premium member, and I know of at least one other member this is true for. This tourney created over 5,400 games which doesn't seem insignificant. If the suggested tool was in place, maybe more users would try to run a tourney of this size, resulting in more CC games for the site.

I agree with Robes__'s assertion that the number of abandoned tourneys would decrease.

I'm aware Robes wasn't asking for automated tournaments.....I was replying to some one else's comments (the one you removed from within your quote of my post).

And actually, your comments about new users trying to run large tournaments using this feature is exactly why I'm opposed to it. There are not very many people on the site who would be able to probably build a spreadsheet that could then be properly parsed by a site feature in order to create all the desired games. That will lead to one of two problems: continually getting error messages that frustrate the organizer, or continually having to delete games and make new ones which was what the suggestion was trying to simplify in the first place. It's better to have a system available that all people will be able to manage quickly than coding a very complex system that most people will not be able to use correctly.

This seems to be a lot of coding work to assist only a few people who would be able to and would use it correctly. And if mistakes happen, that could mean a lot of games that have to be gone back to and deleted.

Only a few people? It seems like it could be used in virtually every tournament.

Only a few people could build a proper spreadsheet that could be parsed by the site to create all the correct games. Even if it could be used in every tournament, that doesn't mean the organizer could make it work.

Make people earn the privilege of using such a tool then. Sure some organizers can't get it to work but don't reject it because of that.

[greenoaks]

I'm opposed to automated tournaments because it's not CC's job to run tournaments for organizers.

I'm opposed to this suggestion for the reasons in the 3rd post of the thread: a lot of coding work to integrate such a feature that only a few people would try to use and even fewer people would be able to use correctly.

To your first point - I don't think the Robes__ is asking CC to run the tourney, just make it easier for him to run.

To your second point - There may only be a few people that use it to create tournaments, but many users would benefit from it. The NCAA tourney is the only reason I am a premium member, and I know of at least one other member this is true for. This tourney created over 5,400 games which doesn't seem insignificant. If the suggested tool was in place, maybe more users would try to run a tourney of this size, resulting in more CC games for the site.

I agree with Robes__'s assertion that the number of abandoned tourneys would decrease.

I'm aware Robes wasn't asking for automated tournaments.....I was replying to some one else's comments (the one you removed from within your quote of my post).

And actually, your comments about new users trying to run large tournaments using this feature is exactly why I'm opposed to it. There are not very many people on the site who would be able to probably build a spreadsheet that could then be properly parsed by a site feature in order to create all the desired games. That will lead to one of two problems: continually getting error messages that frustrate the organizer, or continually having to delete games and make new ones which was what the suggestion was trying to simplify in the first place. It's better to have a system available that all people will be able to manage quickly than coding a very complex system that most people will not be able to use correctly.

This seems to be a lot of coding work to assist only a few people who would be able to and would use it correctly. And if mistakes happen, that could mean a lot of games that have to be gone back to and deleted.

Only a few people? It seems like it could be used in virtually every tournament.

Only a few people could build a proper spreadsheet that could be parsed by the site to create all the correct games. Even if it could be used in every tournament, that doesn't mean the organizer could make it work.

Make people earn the privilege of using such a tool then. Sure some organizers can't get it to work but don't reject it because of that.

and now we have come full circle. this suggestion affects so few people that it is not worth the effort.

we have limited resources folks.

[denominator]

I know they're two older posts and that they are only tangentially related to this suggestion, but I have a major problem with the following:

Fastposted by NS:

NS, why are you opposed?

I'm opposed to automated tournaments because it's not CC's job to run tournaments for organizers.

I'm opposed to this suggestion for the reasons in the 3rd post of the thread: a lot of coding work to integrate such a feature that only a few people would try to use and even fewer people would be able to use correctly.

I would wholeheartedly disagree that it is not CC's job to run tournaments. CC has, over the past couple of years, specifically moved towards running tournaments itself (Any of the Conquer Cups, the recent Havoc Boards or Freedom Awaits tournaments, and the CC-sponsorship of the TPA tournaments). If CC has shown us anything over the past couple of years, it is that they wish to run official tournaments.

I do not think this move is a bad thing - it is actually great for the site. I think the TDs should be there to support TOs and provide better tournaments. This is a smart business play because most of your long term customers here are involved in either tournaments or clans.

That being said, I would agree that from my uneducated point of view regarding the coding, it seems like a lot of work for something that few organizers use. However, I would also state that I tend to prefer the long, more detailed tournaments over the quick single-elimination bracket-style ones we see more of lately. To this end, I think instituting a 1-year cap on tournaments was a step backwards.

Fastposted by NS:

NS, why are you opposed?

I'm opposed to automated tournaments because it's not CC's job to run tournaments for organizers.

I'm opposed to this suggestion for the reasons in the 3rd post of the thread: a lot of coding work to integrate such a feature that only a few people would try to use and even fewer people would be able to use correctly.

I will say we have no plans to automate all tournaments, nor do I have any desire to automate all tournaments.
I do believe that tournaments could benefit from a few automated features, mainly the upkeep of a signups list, however automating tournaments both removes the fun from tournaments and removes all room for creativity on the part of the organizer. I stand beside NS's opposition to a fully automated tournament system.

As far as this specific suggestion goes, I understand that it could be useful in certain circumstances. However, a large part of deciding which suggestions go and which ones don't is balancing developer time against community benefit. While this would have some benefit for a limited group of users (Tournament Organizers), this would require a substantial amount of time to develop, and I believe that time could be better used elsewhere within tournaments.

On that note, I Officially Reject this suggestion.

As per above, I think you are limiting your view of it as Night Strike is. The suggested feature would not only benefit the tournament world, but be immensely helpful in the Clan circles as well. In fact, a feature like this may have been able to prevent Qwert from resigning as director of CL5. Further, although the Callouts section is not as populated as it used to be, frequent players in that area could also benefit from such a suggestion. I suspect it could also be used to have helped avoid the fiasco of multiple game creation and inviting deadbeat players to the Havoc Boards and Freedom Awaits competitions.

I think there are flaws in what Robes has suggested, but I do not think they necessitate a flat-out rejection. I don't have the coding skills to be able to offer any assistance in implementing this, but I suggest that it is in CC's best interests to help support development of this. If Night Strike is worried about game creation errors, help work through the beta testing on it via a third party script before implementing it as hardcoding. Then you can help walk new TOs through their first use of it, instead of just throwing it at them and letting them screw up (as you seem to be suggesting will happen).

If medal awarding is truly at issue here... so be it. I know some players play for medals, others do not. I know some TOs organize for medals, others organize to play in a competition they would be fun. You can write in a rule based on the level of automation for what will allow a medal to be awarded - too much automation and no medal.

[patrickaa317]

and now we have come full circle. this suggestion affects so few people that it is not worth the effort.

we have limited resources folks.

two questions for you.

IF this was implemented, would more tournaments by organized? (Hint: there is proof in this thread that it would)

If Yes, will more tourneys not benefit more people by giving them more options to join? Thus possibly getting more people into the site? Tournaments got me here. I'm sure they did others as well. Clan scene is too daunting for noobs, no real place to go when you have less than 400 games.

I understand limited resources, i don't understand shelving this because a select few don't want it.

[greenoaks]

and now we have come full circle. this suggestion affects so few people that it is not worth the effort.

we have limited resources folks.

two questions for you.

IF this was implemented, would more tournaments by organized? (Hint: there is proof in this thread that it would)

If Yes, will more tourneys not benefit more people by giving them more options to join? Thus possibly getting more people into the site? Tournaments got me here. I'm sure they did others as well. Clan scene is too daunting for noobs, no real place to go when you have less than 400 games.

I understand limited resources, i don't understand shelving this because a select few don't want it.

i rescue tournaments and what i see regularly are the complex scoring ones get abandoned. my pov is based on that.

the longer and more complex a tournament is, the more likely it is to be abandoned. dropouts become a factor. recording results (from my limited experience as one of the most prolific rescuers) is they are a pain in the ass to maintain. creating the games are straightforward. recording results is not.

i do not support a system that encourages novice TO's to create those tourneys and limiting it to a select few when we have very limited resources to make any changes on CC is not good business sense.

[patrickaa317]

and now we have come full circle. this suggestion affects so few people that it is not worth the effort.

we have limited resources folks.

two questions for you.

IF this was implemented, would more tournaments by organized? (Hint: there is proof in this thread that it would)

If Yes, will more tourneys not benefit more people by giving them more options to join? Thus possibly getting more people into the site? Tournaments got me here. I'm sure they did others as well. Clan scene is too daunting for noobs, no real place to go when you have less than 400 games.

I understand limited resources, i don't understand shelving this because a select few don't want it.

i rescue tournaments and what i see regularly are the complex scoring ones get abandoned. my pov is based on that.

the longer and more complex a tournament is, the more likely it is to be abandoned. dropouts become a factor. recording results (from my limited experience as one of the most prolific rescuers) is they are a pain in the ass to maintain. creating the games are straightforward. recording results is not.

i do not support a system that encourages novice TO's to create those tourneys and limiting it to a select few when we have very limited resources to make any changes on CC is not good business sense.

Of course complex ones are the ones abandoned. A simple 8 or 16 person/team bracket are shorter and simpler to run, less time consuming and daunting. It doesn't mean they are better tournaments unless you are just looking for higher percentage of completion. And again more people are likely to dropout because in a standard bracket, half are eliminated each round.

Keeping novices from creating those types of tournaments is completely fine. However, that is not a reason to not keep the tournament creation for the experienced, more technical organizers so backwards. I would have ran at least twice as many tournaments if i didn't have such a tedious UI for larger tournaments. And again I get the very limited resources but as I mentioned, tournaments draw more people into the site. You can only play so many pickup games and the clan world can be tough or daunting; tournaments are a good in-betweener.

If it's truly a large effort to get this in place, then let's hear that from the team rather and possibly place this on hold rather than straight up rejecting it so quick.

Maybe we should work on some sort of tool within CC to help record results first to reduce the abandonments. There is the tournament stats add-on that works great, along with the Watch this game add-on. Might be a good suggestion to throw out there and once those are in place, then we can discuss something like this to help with the frontside of tourneys as the backside would be smoother.

[greenoaks]

we have heard from blake that this is a no-go. far too many other things for the limited resources available.

WTG is a great add-on. i use TourStats to check the results i've recorded in my Best At Betas but it is of no assistance calculating the bonus points. it is great for my Doodle Crack's and USA At War as i wait for the round to finish and enter the results straight into the bracket.

i have rescued or created tourneys that give points for:-

• defeating the same opponent all 3 times
• eliminating multiple players in a single turn
• first to cash spoils
• successfully attacking 2 territories in a single turn
• successfully attacking a Neutral territory
• successfully attacking 2 or more players in a single turn
• successfully attacking 5 or more territories from the same player in a single turn
• finishing the game by a certain round or it's a draw
• comparing total rounds to win vs rounds to lose
• the finishing order, 1st/2nd/3rd/4th etc

that's all i can think of off the top of my head. some very fiddly ones in there. has anyone seen any others ?

[patrickaa317]

we have heard from blake that this is a no-go. far too many other things for the limited resources available.

You are really set on the limited resources argument, (which again I understand) but that is the reason for the submitted suggestions backlog so it can be reviewed in the future when those limited resources catch up on other suggestions and become not so limited.

[agentcom]

......