Conquer Club

Now to be honest I am sick of looking through these threads and finding knock-out after knock-out, I know having run one myself, they are not fun to run, the people making them are doing them for the badges. I don't care if you like running them, if you want to run them make them best of 3 or more, but too many tournaments are being run which only require 15 games. It dwarfs the effort of people like NS who has made 296 games already for CC olympics and Army Of Achilles who will be making 1785 games for Ultimate All Maps 1x1 Tourney. Now lets be frank, even I have made 376 for one of my tournaments, and I will have far much effort with the same medal reward. So I'll ask politely, Please can TOs stop making short tournaments, and instead work on ones that require more games than just 15. If you don't a vigilante may be coming to a village near you...

max is gr8 wrote:Now to be honest I am sick of looking through these threads and finding knock-out after knock-out,

If you are sick then perhaps leave the forums? Drink tea, eat chicken soup and honey, might make you feel better

max is gr8 wrote:I know having run one myself, they are not fun to run, the people making them are doing them for the badges. I don't care if you like running them, if you want to run them make them best of 3 or more, but too many tournaments are being run which only require 15 games.

They aren't fun to run? If you don't enjoy running them doesn't mean that others don't. How can you tell what other like or not like? Are you Stalin of these forums?
Perhaps some people are doing them for "badges" but so what? If the medals are sooo important to them then go ahead. It's an internet game and medal is 30x45 pixel picture. Are you jealous at people getting them?

max is gr8 wrote:It dwarfs the effort of people like NS who has made 296 games already for CC olympics and Army Of Achilles who will be making 1785 games for Ultimate All Maps 1x1 Tourney.

How does it "dwarf" the effort? Yes, medals are the same (30x45 pixel pics) but this is how the system is done. Who brought examples from the biggest tournaments but what about the midsize tournaments... should people also give up on them because they won't reach into hundreds of games?

max is gr8 wrote:Now lets be frank, even I have made 376 for one of my tournaments, and I will have far much effort with the same medal reward.

Is medal a reward from you? Not the satisfaction coming from the knowing that you've run a great tournament? Or the kind words from players?

max is gr8 wrote:So I'll ask politely, Please can TOs stop making short tournaments, and instead work on ones that require more games than just 15. If you don't a vigilante may be coming to a village near you...

Finally, Mr. Max, why should I drop my idea because you (or somebody else) just don't like it? Or why should anybody else do it?

Last I checked, I'm pretty sure you have been guilty of flooding the create/join forum yourself in previous times, max.

amazzony wrote:

max is gr8 wrote:Now to be honest I am sick of looking through these threads and finding knock-out after knock-out,

If you are sick then perhaps leave the forums? Drink tea, eat chicken soup and honey, might make you feel better

This made me lol

amazzony wrote:

max is gr8 wrote:I know having run one myself, they are not fun to run, the people making them are doing them for the badges. I don't care if you like running them, if you want to run them make them best of 3 or more, but too many tournaments are being run which only require 15 games.

They aren't fun to run? If you don't enjoy running them doesn't mean that others don't. How can you tell what other like or not like? Are you Stalin of these forums?
Perhaps some people are doing them for "badges" but so what? If the medals are sooo important to them then go ahead. It's an internet game and medal is 30x45 pixel picture. Are you jealous at people getting them?

I did say I didn't mind if they like running them and suggested other alternatives, rather than a simple 15 game version, I know medals are miniature, but some people who all of a sudden start organizing tournaments, again or otherwise, are not doing it for fun. I'm not jealous just I find it annoying, luckily JR has yet to start making them then I would be worried

amazzony wrote:

max is gr8 wrote:It dwarfs the effort of people like NS who has made 296 games already for CC olympics and Army Of Achilles who will be making 1785 games for Ultimate All Maps 1x1 Tourney.

How does it "dwarf" the effort? Yes, medals are the same (30x45 pixel pics) but this is how the system is done. Who brought examples from the biggest tournaments but what about the midsize tournaments... should people also give up on them because they won't reach into hundreds of games?

I never said the 100s of games are necessary just that tournaments sub-20 games can be fun, but with not very imaginative tournament rules etc. they are useless

amazzony wrote:

max is gr8 wrote:Now lets be frank, even I have made 376 for one of my tournaments, and I will have far much effort with the same medal reward.

Is medal a reward from you? Not the satisfaction coming from the knowing that you've run a great tournament? Or the kind words from players?

I will take it you mean that a medal is a reward for you not from you. Of all of the tournaments I have run, up to 3 or 4 posts have been made with praise, so it can't come from that. The thing that rewards me is the satisfaction I have done something imaginative, and not followed the standard format for a tournament.

amazzony wrote:

max is gr8 wrote:So I'll ask politely, Please can TOs stop making short tournaments, and instead work on ones that require more games than just 15. If you don't a vigilante may be coming to a village near you...

Finally, Mr. Max, why should I drop my idea because you (or somebody else) just don't like it? Or why should anybody else do it?

I'm not saying they should drop it, which partly shows you have not read, they should adapt, simple brackets have a place and that is for experience, but such a small tournament with usual rules etc. are not what good TOs are made of.

For example you as a TO, The Scroll is interesting and follows standard league styles.
European Wars, you added a preliminary, which makes a big difference, not to number of games, but to the imagination required
Freaky Freestyle, 2V2 and 32 players. And it was great, you found a niche and exploited it, TOs require that skill

And of all of your tournaments you have run 2 or 3 bracket tournaments. And of those very few are similar to each other.

Lol I pressed send before I went and did my homework but OP post *evils*.

OP, I would beg to differ, I have not flooded with the same Idea over and over again, I have several tournaments in sign-ups and several ongoing continuously. Very rarely are 2 of my tournaments similar, exceptions are DTTL (but that is a different tournament for different styles of play each style). Doubles Elimination (that's taking sign-ups for its third) and Unanimous, (but both are reasonably unpopular)

Max I see no reason to go out and try to insult people here. You may be right that some of the newer tournaments with the 15 game formats are just here for the medals. So what? I didn't see you complaining when people started playing terminator games to get those medals, or assassin or speed did you. The truth of the matter is that its a good thing to bring more people into the tournament forums. What is the worst thing that can happen here? A poorly run tournament? It isn't like those aren't out there already and they're not all 16 player either. Tournament organizing takes time and sometimes learning just how much effort it takes can make someone appreciate the TOs more. Furthermore, sometimes a player can intend to come for one and get the medal but gets the bug for organizing and becomes a great organizer.

A 16 player single elimination tournament may not be your cup of tea. I enjoy running them and will continue to do so for as long as I enjoy them. Most of mine may be 3 game series but in reality there is no difference. The fact that you don't enjoy them and don't want to run them or play in them does not invalidate them and its insulting to tell those of us who do enjoy them that they're worthless and only for the medals. Lets be clear here. I could start 100 more tournaments or 0 and my medal count would be unaffected. Once my currently running tourneys are done then there are no more medals for me yet I will continue to run the Championship Series and if you don't like it don't play.

Actually I do disagree with players playing a different type of game for a medal, if they continue playing them it's different, I don't personally think that medals added to tournaments was a good idea, and barterer2002 I have not once insulted the tournament organizers, I have said the tournaments are unimaginative, and that isn't what being a TO is about. Also I note you haven't read my post fully or you may have misunderstood me, here is what I think you misunderstood -

I said (in the first post):

I don't care if you like running them You missed this I think, You just ignored this part completely
if you want to run them make them best of 3 or more, but too many tournaments are being run which only require 15 games.

& Elaborated in the second post

I'm not saying they should drop it, they should adapt, simple brackets have a place and that is for experience Again you ignored this all yours are standard KOs, I'm saying people should adapt them.

You said (comments in bold):

A 16 player single elimination tournament may not be your cup of tea. Correct
I enjoy running them and will continue to do so for as long as I enjoy them. That's good
Most of mine may be 3 game series but in reality there is no difference. No Difference? They make a massive difference, you are making 30 more games, may still be standard but will show the best player more accurately
The fact that you don't enjoy them and don't want to run them or play in them does not invalidate them I never said they were invalid, I never said that you misunderstood I said that they should be changed, they should be imaginative, not just a normal tournament
and its insulting to tell those of us who do enjoy them that they're worthless and only for the medals. Lols, I never said they were worthless and only for medals, I said that they are less work for the medals.

Good to see this has got attention (Notes to self, if want people to read put a controversial title

And this is a far better way I think of getting opinions than a poll people have to discuss...

My favorite part of this entire conversation is the underlying opinion by max is gr8 that the most successful and most popular tournament franchise in CC history is "useless."

I'm just saying is all. Don't pay attention to the robot chuckling in the corner.

What makes it even funnier is that I was the one to start the problem in the first place.

Yes you should be ashamed of yourself

So what is the most successful and most popular tournament franchise in CC history?

Point Grabbers

max is gr8 wrote:Yes you should be ashamed of yourself

So what is the most successful and most popular tournament franchise in CC history?

ZOMG, you don't know Point Grabbers??

Longer post coming tomorrow or something, I'm having my lazy hours right now

Didn't anyone see the wink?

If folks want to run them, and players want to play them, then let them be.

Let's not try to take away from anyone's idea of fun, just because it is not in line with ours.

It is not hurting anything, so let it be.

max, you know what. I cant seem to find lots of tournament from the tournaments with minimum games and players. Sure, there are a lot of 16-man tournaments, lots coming from you yourself max, but not many with 15 games.

Most of those people who makes tournaments with the 16 players and 15 games is new to tournament organizing. For most people its good to start off with making a small tournament, perhaps even making 2-3 to get the hang of all the things around tournament organizing. You don't have to be like Army of Achillies, who for his first tournament had a 128-player tournament with loads of games. He did the tournament with great success, but that was becuase he took the time to take care of the tournament. Updating it often and keeping track of everything smoothly. Most people wouldn't be able to handle making such a big tournament for their first. So why not start small and work yourself up?

Also, you should know that Tournament Organizing, for most people, isnt about getting medals. I'm a successfull tournament organizer. I don't do it for the medals. Sure, it's a nice bonus. But i wouldn't stop organizing tournaments if i wouldnt get medals for it.

Though, its quite funny that you come out and almost insult people for doing this when most of your tournaments have the minimum players required for them. Sure, you have many games for some of them. But still, just having many games doesnt mean its more time consuming than having lots of players.

and another thing.. Point Grabbers.. do i have to say more?

why is point grabbers the most successful tournament? i've seen far better tournaments than yet. Andrewb always draws the class players and most of them are'nt usual tournament players. I think someone is blowing their own trumpet

hulmey wrote:why is point grabbers the most successful tournament? i've seen far better tournaments than yet. Andrewb always draws the class players and most of them are'nt usual tournament players. I think someone is blowing their own trumpet

You do realize that Point Grabbers was ran by OP and not White Moose

blakebowling wrote:

hulmey wrote:why is point grabbers the most successful tournament? i've seen far better tournaments than yet. Andrewb always draws the class players and most of them are'nt usual tournament players. I think someone is blowing their own trumpet

You do realize that Point Grabbers was ran by OP and not White Moose

Who really cares which organizer it is? Shouldn't matter in point of view at all.

hulmey wrote:why is point grabbers the most successful tournament? i've seen far better tournaments than yet. Andrewb always draws the class players and most of them are'nt usual tournament players. I think someone is blowing their own trumpet

Any organiser who has either high rank or some experience could do it. And the fact how fast tournaments fill or who play in them isn't showing how successful the tournament is. Well, it is part of the package but IMO there are more important things. How fast the tournament moves, how the players enjoy it, if and how the organiser helps players to find their games. For me a tournament is far more successful when the organiser sends game numbers with tags rather than anything else... etc etc.
This is really getting far from the point of this thread but wherever discussion moves is good I guess until it is discussion

amazzony wrote:

hulmey wrote:why is point grabbers the most successful tournament? i've seen far better tournaments than yet. Andrewb always draws the class players and most of them are'nt usual tournament players. I think someone is blowing their own trumpet

Any organiser who has either high rank or some experience could do it. And the fact how fast tournaments fill or who play in them isn't showing how successful the tournament is. Well, it is part of the package but IMO there are more important things. How fast the tournament moves, how the players enjoy it, if and how the organiser helps players to find their games. For me a tournament is far more successful when the organiser sends game numbers with tags rather than anything else... etc etc.
This is really getting far from the point of this thread but wherever discussion moves is good I guess until it is discussion

To blake ; i didnt know OP ran Point Grabbers and it shouldnt really matter who ran it! Im wondering how and why its the most successful.

To comment on what Amazzony said, i think successful tournament's are in the eye of the beholder. I for one love the World Cup Tournament (even though i was knocked out). It was a fun long and hard challenge. With timely updates and wonderful graphs and tables (congrats to Marval).

First of all, I just re-read this thread (some posts at least) because I had trouble understanding your point, hulmey. So, what was your point when you posted to this thread? From your posts I read that you prefer big tournaments so perhaps you agree with max who doesn't like small tournaments (though he keeps running them) and thinks that people shouldn't run what they enjoy running?

About successful tournaments and PGs. Nobody said that one of the Point Grabbers has been the most successful tournaments (at least I didn't read it from anywhere), the point was that it has definitely been one of the leading tournament series that everybody knows (I'm sure including you, hulmey, even if you have troubles admitting it) and it has always been something that fills fast, moves along fast and was just ran with great professionalism (like all OP's tourneys). I'm sure it has put a base to most (if not all) tournaments that are ran as series because everybody wants something that they are known at.

amazzony wrote:First of all, I just re-read this thread (some posts at least) because I had trouble understanding your point, hulmey. So, what was your point when you posted to this thread? From your posts I read that you prefer big tournaments so perhaps you agree with max who doesn't like small tournaments (though he keeps running them) and thinks that people shouldn't run what they enjoy running?

About successful tournaments and PGs. Nobody said that one of the Point Grabbers has been the most successful tournaments (at least I didn't read it from anywhere), the point was that it has definitely been one of the leading tournament series that everybody knows (I'm sure including you, hulmey, even if you have troubles admitting it) and it has always been something that fills fast, moves along fast and was just ran with great professionalism (like all OP's tourneys). I'm sure it has put a base to most (if not all) tournaments that are ran as series because everybody wants something that they are known at.

Im not sure if you read the posts correctly or maybe i have gone offtopic. I said how "a tournament is successful in the eye of the beholder". Ive never played in point grabbers and thus cant judge or not judge if it was the most successful series as has been claimed on page 1.

I think everyone should have the chance to make or run any tournament they feel fit....

Im running one right now which is a doubles tournament and will play out 800 games and its of great interest to me coz its about football. Im also running another which is assassin and will play out 180 games but im sending the games 30 at time. I like this one coz its so interesting and nearing the end anyone can win it.

So, i say again let people run whatever tournament they feel like if it makes them happy. Smaller tournaments encourage new TO's to join us and not to take to much on for their first tournament

[quote="hulmey"]
To blake ; i didnt know OP ran Point Grabbers and it shouldnt really matter who ran it! Im wondering how and why its the most successful.
[quote]
That's exactly why, because OP ran it (not to mention it was an ingenious idea)

max is gr8 wrote: I don't care if you like running them, if you want to run them make them best of 3 or more

double and tripple elimination are good to

Nowadays I'm not sure you could really, truly consider Point Grabbers as the most successful, as a matter of fact, I don't think we could really categorize things that way anymore now that tournaments have blown up the way they have over the past 9 months. There are just too many of them, like hulmey said.

The distinction that Point Grabbers gets is that it was the first of its kind. Nobody had run an easy to understand, quick-paced tournament series before, and I think everyone here can look back and see that the oh-so-mighty Optimus Prime inadvertently started this rash of "small tournaments" when CC's first franchise tournament was born.

Off with his head!!!

Strange that a TO has problems with other people making tourneys lol.

I have a few complex ideas for tourneys but before I try them I have set up a smaller one that's pretty straightforward. Why? So I can learn how the system works, encounter some small problems (probably) and learn from it.

If anything TO's should be (in my opinion) restricted to ONLY small tourneys before being granted permission to run big ones, thus making them learn how to do it and proving they can follow it through to the end.

Also if medals encourage people to start tournaments isn't that a good thing? I know I chased a few medals myself and found new game settings that I like a lot and tried more maps than I would have without the lure of a shiny medal.

Well thats my 2 cents, Oh and if you would like to join my first tourney - http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 2#p1604762