Jump to content


April Test Tournaments


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

Poll: Seeding Options (62 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 5 battles in order to participate this poll.

Which seeding option should we use for Tier 5-6 Tournaments?

  1. Random (24 votes [38.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 38.71%

  2. Normalized Groups (15 votes [24.19%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.19%

  3. Groups of Death (23 votes [37.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.10%

Which seeding option should we use for Tier 7-8 Tournaments?

  1. Random (13 votes [20.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.97%

  2. Normalized Groups (19 votes [30.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.65%

  3. Groups of Death (30 votes [48.39%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.39%

Which seeding option should we use for Tier 9-10 Tournaments?

  1. Random (14 votes [22.58%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.58%

  2. Normalized Groups (12 votes [19.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.35%

  3. Groups of Death (36 votes [58.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 58.06%

Vote Hide poll

CC_Sly #1 Posted 19 April 2017 - 05:17 PM

    Community Manager

  • Administrator
  • 3066 battles
  • 1,443
  • [WGA]
  • Member since:
    02-02-2015

Heya Tankers.

 

We have a new tool in our belts for the Tournaments! That is now we have the option to select different group seeding options.

 

 

Random - This is what we have been using and is what it is. Random seeding.

 

Normalized groups - This is this first new tool we have. Normalized groups is basically making the average win rate of each group similar.

That means that If you take the average Win Rate of all of the teams in a group, add them together, and divide that number by the number of teams in that group. That number will be very similar to the other groups if we do the same with them.

 

Example

 

Groups of Death - This option is for making Teams with similar average Win Rates play each other in groups.

Basically this means, given enough participation and teams, a 50% team should not go up against a 65% team.

 

Example

 

Testing Schedule:

April 21st - Friday - Normalized Teams Test

April 24th - Monday - Group of Death Test

April 26th - Wednesday - Group of Death Test 

 

I am looking for feedback on how these seeding options work and if we should use them going forward! Let me know what you think!

 

 


  Please read the WoT Blitz Game and Forum rules.

   Forum Rules - EULA TOS

   Find us on Facebook & Twitter!

 


slayer_____ #2 Posted 19 April 2017 - 05:19 PM

    Spray and Pray

  • Players
  • 30970 battles
  • 1,649
  • [ATA2D]
  • Member since:
    07-10-2014
I like the idea. Looking forward to the tests. 

VikkoTheTusken #3 Posted 19 April 2017 - 05:42 PM

    URoRRuR'R'R

  • Players
  • 18375 battles
  • 2,603
  • [III-H]
  • Member since:
    01-03-2015
Excellent concept. I voted.

                                                                                                

 

YouTube    Twitter   Facebook

 

 
 

BluesAllDay #4 Posted 19 April 2017 - 06:01 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6067 battles
  • 974
  • [SRV]
  • Member since:
    10-16-2016
Sorry, I stopped doing tournaments due to time constraints, evedently the ability to get seven people to be online at the same time isn't happening.

dogs look up to you,

cats look down on you,

pigs look you in the eye

and treat you as equal.

 


BluesAllDay #5 Posted 19 April 2017 - 06:19 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6067 battles
  • 974
  • [SRV]
  • Member since:
    10-16-2016

View PostDoorknobz, on 19 April 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

Sorry, I stopped doing tournaments due to time constraints, evedently the ability to get seven people to be online at the same time isn't happening. Is there ever a tournament that is more like the day to day grind, where individuals are thrown together to make a team?

 


dogs look up to you,

cats look down on you,

pigs look you in the eye

and treat you as equal.

 


Rivervally_Tom #6 Posted 19 April 2017 - 06:30 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 7564 battles
  • 328
  • [101A]
  • Member since:
    11-17-2014

Start time is more of a issue than seeding for some of us in EST especially if it's a weeknight and life/job calls early the next day. How about switching it up sometimes 20:00hrs every so often would be nice. Believe it or not that hour makes a difference.

 


 

 


chasey_boy #7 Posted 19 April 2017 - 06:36 PM

    Unicum in training

  • Players
  • 14379 battles
  • 423
  • [_SYN_]
  • Member since:
    12-28-2011

View PostRivervally_Tom, on 19 April 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

Start time is more of a issue than seeding for some of us in EST especially if it's a weeknight and life/job calls early the next day. How about switching it up sometimes 20:00hrs every so often would be nice. Believe it or not that hour makes a difference.

 

 



Tomio_Hara #8 Posted 19 April 2017 - 06:37 PM

    Monteagle madness

  • Players
  • 18031 battles
  • 2,675
  • [XWING]
  • Member since:
    07-31-2014
Groups of DEATH for tiers VII+! Normalized or random for V.

Tomio Hara was the chief of Japanese tank development during the pre war period and WWII

Want to cap base? Read this!


MayoNasalSpray #9 Posted 19 April 2017 - 06:41 PM

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Players
  • 21968 battles
  • 3,153
  • [MSELF]
  • Member since:
    01-27-2015

(Group of Death)

 

While I agree on leveling out the playing field for each team the issue with this I can already see is that you are putting higher level players against higher level players but offering the same reward to people of lower skill. Therefore you make it easier for some people while making it significantly easier for others creates an imbalance of reward based on player experience. 

 

If you aren't understanding to whomever may read this this should make it easier.

 

Previously it worked liked this:

 

60% Team Vs. 49% Team = Winner gets 300-400 gold.

 

Now it works like this:

 

60% Team Vs. 60% Team = Winner gets 300-400 gold

 

49% Team Vs. 49% Team = Winner gets 300-400 gold.

 

My plight is this, you make someone who is good at what they do work harder(let's say a Surgeon) and gets rewarded the same as someone with an easy job (let's say Retail Cashier).

 

I also might remind you that the Cashier got a Raise with this system while the Surgeon got his wages Garnished.


Edited by lookedsquirrel7, 19 April 2017 - 06:46 PM.


EvenSteven98 #10 Posted 19 April 2017 - 07:02 PM

    #1 Topic Killer

  • Players
  • 24168 battles
  • 657
  • [501AU]
  • Member since:
    11-05-2014

Cool, hopefully we can make tourneys more fun and competitive for all players (whether you be a 45%er or a 70%er).

 

But for the love of all that is good and holy, please make the payout for winning not garbage.


 

Original member of the 501st Legion

I use emotes to feel trendy


jjraidz #11 Posted 19 April 2017 - 07:07 PM

    Doggo

  • Players
  • 21495 battles
  • 719
  • [PRAMO]
  • Member since:
    08-04-2014

View Postlookedsquirrel7, on 19 April 2017 - 10:41 AM, said:

(Group of Death)

 

While I agree on leveling out the playing field for each team the issue with this I can already see is that you are putting higher level players against higher level players but offering the same reward to people of lower skill. Therefore you make it easier for some people while making it significantly easier for others creates an imbalance of reward based on player experience. 

 

If you aren't understanding to whomever may read this this should make it easier.

 

Previously it worked liked this:

 

60% Team Vs. 49% Team = Winner gets 300-400 gold.

 

Now it works like this:

 

60% Team Vs. 60% Team = Winner gets 300-400 gold

 

49% Team Vs. 49% Team = Winner gets 300-400 gold.

 

My plight is this, you make someone who is good at what they do work harder(let's say a Surgeon) and gets rewarded the same as someone with an easy job (let's say Retail Cashier).

 

I also might remind you that the Cashier got a Raise with this system while the Surgeon got his wages Garnished.


In the #1 clan in the North American Cluster


Dreadnoghtus #12 Posted 19 April 2017 - 07:29 PM

    Russian Sealclubber

  • Players
  • 23263 battles
  • 874
  • [ACES_]
  • Member since:
    01-30-2015
Looking forward to this, hard to win when you fighting and in a group with pramo 

   


HonicTheSedgehog #13 Posted 19 April 2017 - 07:56 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11286 battles
  • 130
  • [IRD]
  • Member since:
    06-08-2015

Thumbs up for broadening the horizons of tournament structure. I'm honestly not sure which I'd prefer, but just experimenting is a good sign.

 

Have skill-based tournament tiers been at all considered? For teams that want to engage in competitive play but may not be an uber-competitive clan, even if the initial brackets are more balanced, the chances of moving up are slim. I'd like to get more involved in tournaments, but just knowing that sooner or later I'll run into the brick wall that is GRIM or PRAMMO, etc..., definitely dampens my enthusiasm for it.



Dark_Magician_Girl #14 Posted 19 April 2017 - 08:23 PM

    #1 Reroll NA

  • Players
  • 13780 battles
  • 2,849
  • [STR8]
  • Member since:
    10-02-2016
This is lovely as long as this concept never comes to pubs.

Edited by Dark_Magician_Girl, 19 April 2017 - 08:23 PM.


_CH3F #15 Posted 19 April 2017 - 08:55 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 37202 battles
  • 2,392
  • [O-VII]
  • Member since:
    12-24-2014
If you can do this for tournaments why not for pub matches? I constantly have 40% players on my team while going up against 60% players on the other team. Please do something about this, it's getting old really fast! 

mike82198 #16 Posted 19 April 2017 - 09:47 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32672 battles
  • 1,746
  • [PURPL]
  • Member since:
    11-04-2014

View PostCC_Sly, on 19 April 2017 - 12:17 PM, said:

Groups of Death - This option is for making Teams with similar average Win Rates play each other in groups.

Basically this means, given enough participation and teams, a 50% team should not go up against a 65% team.

 

Example

 


In response to the complete failure in getting Silver and Gold tournaments off the ground you're proposing to test a system where stronger teams fight each other tooth and nail for X Prize with only one winner, while weaker clans also duke it out for that same X Prize. So from bad prizing (original system), to pitiful prizing (ticket system) and now to testing a pitiful prizing system combined with communism. You might as well dispense with any pretense of trying to promote this feature. It's not worth anyone's time if this is the direction you're thinking in. 

 



hydra1415 #17 Posted 19 April 2017 - 09:51 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 13645 battles
  • 50
  • [DR5IA]
  • Member since:
    12-09-2014

View Postlookedsquirrel7, on 19 April 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

(Group of Death)

 

While I agree on leveling out the playing field for each team the issue with this I can already see is that you are putting higher level players against higher level players but offering the same reward to people of lower skill. Therefore you make it easier for some people while making it significantly easier for others creates an imbalance of reward based on player experience. 

 

If you aren't understanding to whomever may read this this should make it easier.

 

Previously it worked liked this:

 

60% Team Vs. 49% Team = Winner gets 300-400 gold.

 

Now it works like this:

 

60% Team Vs. 60% Team = Winner gets 300-400 gold

 

49% Team Vs. 49% Team = Winner gets 300-400 gold.

 

My plight is this, you make someone who is good at what they do work harder(let's say a Surgeon) and gets rewarded the same as someone with an easy job (let's say Retail Cashier).

 

I also might remind you that the Cashier got a Raise with this system while the Surgeon got his wages Garnished.

 

So you're saying that this whole "group of death" thing is basically just communism (you're not wrong).

 

I don't mean to say that I'm ungrateful that WG is trying something new, because the tournament system does need changing, as it limits basically anyone who isn't over 60%, but I'm not thinking this is the way to go. For example, what if a team just decided to screw all nine players' winrates over and then murder everyone for the same rewards people are getting for sweat and blood, tooth and nail?


Edited by hydra1415, 19 April 2017 - 09:56 PM.


CalmSeasQuest #18 Posted 19 April 2017 - 09:58 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 44097 battles
  • 735
  • [DD]
  • Member since:
    07-01-2014

View Post_CH3F, on 19 April 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

If you can do this for tournaments why not for pub matches? I constantly have 40% players on my team while going up against 60% players on the other team. Please do something about this, it's getting old really fast! 

 

Be careful what you ask for; I doubt you'd like the result.

 

Players (humans) focus on negative-result events, forgetting that just as often the advantage was in "your" favor.

 

No thank you to MM designed to drive WRs to ~50%


The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. - George Bernard Shaw

 


_Dragongeddon #19 Posted 20 April 2017 - 12:57 AM

    LetsMakeTheForumsBurnSomeMore

  • Players
  • 21597 battles
  • 2,284
  • [PRAMO]
  • Member since:
    04-26-2015

Normalized Groups are a terrible idea. It's essentially skill based matchmaking gone crazy where the worst teams are guaranteed to be put against the best team. I simply can't imagine how that is going to work out. Seriously, pitting 30% teams against 70% teams=working as intended? That's insanity. 

 

Group of Death might sound great on paper because the top teams play the top teams and everyone plays people their level, but eventually you're going to start getting tired of facing the same people over and over again. Another issue with WR-based tournaments is that 60% team that is good but not good enough to consistently out match a 70% team for example is going to be second or third in many tournaments, which would be frustrating because a 50% clan over in the other group that ran over it's 50% competition will move up to Gold League while the obviously superior 60% team is going to be stuck in Silver. It only benefits the people at the top of their WR Group in the long run. (And this is only an extreme hypothetical but when Grand Championships come the only people having Red Tickets out of this system would be a 70% team, a 60% team, a 50% team, a 40% team, and a 30% team instead of 70% teams across the board. It's an easy steamroll for that 70% team.)

 

I think that normalized 50% Average Grouping is a terrible idea and although Group of Death is an interesting concept, we should stick with Randomized Grouping because it's simple and it works.



_Dragongeddon #20 Posted 20 April 2017 - 01:03 AM

    LetsMakeTheForumsBurnSomeMore

  • Players
  • 21597 battles
  • 2,284
  • [PRAMO]
  • Member since:
    04-26-2015

View Postlookedsquirrel7, on 19 April 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

(Group of Death)

 

While I agree on leveling out the playing field for each team the issue with this I can already see is that you are putting higher level players against higher level players but offering the same reward to people of lower skill. Therefore you make it easier for some people while making it significantly easier for others creates an imbalance of reward based on player experience. 

 

If you aren't understanding to whomever may read this this should make it easier.

 

Previously it worked liked this:

 

60% Team Vs. 49% Team = Winner gets 300-400 gold.

 

Now it works like this:

 

60% Team Vs. 60% Team = Winner gets 300-400 gold

 

49% Team Vs. 49% Team = Winner gets 300-400 gold.

 

My plight is this, you make someone who is good at what they do work harder(let's say a Surgeon) and gets rewarded the same as someone with an easy job (let's say Retail Cashier).

 

I also might remind you that the Cashier got a Raise with this system while the Surgeon got his wages Garnished.

 

Well...if you ever wondered why socialism didn't work, this is it.

 

The least-worst out of a group of total incompetents gets rewarded just as much as the professionals at the very top - why waste the effort to get better when the rewards for your efforts are no greater than before.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users