Tournament of the Champions - PvP Tournament (Update 2.0)

gotflounder · February 2020

Discord channel: https://discord.gg/pPWNhW

Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/flounderhd

The Protected By Barhart

- Adamantium (GWF)
- KASPERxHR (HR)
- Marduk (CW)
- WaRRiOr (GF)
- Barhart (OP)

Sub - Yayabings (CW)

Designers of Mayhem

- Nefarius (CW)
- Led Zeppelin (GWF)
- Fiyugofi (TR)
- Marilyn (DC)
- Pipini (SW)

Paper Royal Flush [EoA]

- Xartan (GF)
- Marigold's Gluestickz (TR)
- Nevermind (CW)
- El sanjo (DC)
- Aizu (SW)

Sub - Rookz (HR)

Paper PepegaS [EoA]

- Logen (GWF)
- SuckToBeYou (CW)
- Kaioion (TR)
- CHIEFTAIN (GF)
- Miss Rhoda (DC)

Sub - Ramesh (SW)

+Ape

- Clyde (TR)
- Razorleaf (HR)
- Grace (SW)
- Bloodreina (CW)
- Lancer (GWF)

Noname

- Brutal Pineapple (GF)
- Blackmore (CW)
- Shinobi (TR)
- Moira (DC)
- MELYOUS (GWF)

Retired Washed up GOD GAMERS [EoA]

- Wilk (TR)
- Sugar (OP)
- Zeemoz (GWF)
- Beast (HR)
- Derarzt (CW)

Sub - Elenea (DC)

I would like to give a big thanks to Aizu for the graphics!

micky1p00 · February 2020

If you make it teams of 4, it will allow to have 2 'observers' / 'judges' to stream the actual matches.

gweddry · February 2020

Nice initiative especially given the drop in PvP activity between seasons. If the rules are reasonable I'm definitely interested. What comes to mind is no op sigils, no drains and at most one healer spec regardless of class.

trgluestickz · February 2020

micky1p00 said:
If you make it teams of 4, it will allow to have 2 'observers' / 'judges' to stream the actual matches.

The downside of teams of 4 is the maps are designed to be played as teams of 5, dunno if that will make this a bad option but something to keep in mind, it could effect rotating.

sandukutupu · February 2020

micky1p00 said:
If you make it teams of 4, it will allow to have 2 'observers' / 'judges' to stream the actual matches.

@blargskull was suggesting the same thing to me this week. But he wanted to do this with the bigger (10 versus 10) PvP and have 2 judges one on each side. But I told him that the issue is control, and it was my opinion you can't control that kind of crowd. It would not take long before chaos would ensue. I also offered to contribute prizes, if he decided to try it himself. I will make you the same offer @gotflounder sounds like a great community event.

attn: @methuselas / @evergreenzz / @jimmypdt / @blargskull / @apollo#5199 / @xfoxx#8089
These players might be interested in supporting your efforts, participation, donation, or just overall helping out.

trgluestickz · February 2020

Also would suggest hosting the tournament when the PVP season is on cooldown. If you try to do it during the season, you'll have a harder time getting people for it.

micky1p00 · February 2020

trgluestickz said:

micky1p00 said:
If you make it teams of 4, it will allow to have 2 'observers' / 'judges' to stream the actual matches.
The downside of teams of 4 is the maps are designed to be played as teams of 5, dunno if that will make this a bad option but something to keep in mind, it could effect rotating.

True that people used to 5vs5, but I wouldn't say the map strictly designed for it, that 4 is an issue.
More so, changing stuff can makes things more interesting, how people adapt, and what they do.

It also depends on the rules and how it is structured, for example you can make a 2vs2 tournament, with only mid point.

sandukutupu said:

micky1p00 said:
If you make it teams of 4, it will allow to have 2 'observers' / 'judges' to stream the actual matches.
blargskull was suggesting the same thing to me this week. But he wanted to do this with the bigger (10 versus 10) PvP and have 2 judges one on each side. But I told him that the issue is control, and it was my opinion you can't control that kind of crowd. It would not take long before chaos would ensue. I also offered to contribute prizes, if he decided to try it himself. I will make you the same offer gotflounder sounds like a great community event.

That depends on the observer. An experienced PvPer will know what to anticipate and where to stand for the best results. The maps are small, and a IMO a real time discussion and commentary can make or break such event.

A lot can be taken from such professional e-sports events (in competitive games), where the commentary and observers are an extremely major part of it.

trgluestickz · February 2020

gweddry said:
Nice initiative especially given the drop in PvP activity between seasons. If the rules are reasonable I'm definitely interested. What comes to mind is no op sigils, no drains and at most one healer spec regardless of class.

Definitely agree with Razorleaf here about no op sigil, no drains, and 1 healer per team.

There are some other rules EOA likes to use for their own inhouses, these might be useful ideas to consider:
We tell people not to use the really expensive potions, this is to help people save AD in matches where you can tell people not to use everything.
We also ban overloads usually, this is also to help people save AD but its also partly to reduce variables introduced by class wards and slayers. It also covers the no drains rule.

My personal opinion on the overload rule we use is that it only makes sense to ban drains (for sure ban these) and the class ward/slayer overloads (not essential to ban but does help reduce class performance variables).
All the others should be permitted due to them being either needed for certain builds or because they are very small bonuses. One example is AP gain builds, corrupt black ice/lethal/piercing overloads are important for these kind of builds. Dragon glyphs and stat or 5% damage increase overloads are also small improvements that there is no reason to restrict.

Similarly, I think some potions should be permitted as their absence also can reduce the effectiveness of some builds unnecessarily. Crit sev pots tend to be important for helping dps classes kill tanky players as an example.

gotflounder · February 2020

I'm glad to see all positive comments and some interest. A lot of the ideas for rules you all have brought up will definitely be in place. I never thought of the 4v4 with spectators idea and I like it, but it wouldn't really work imo. As a spectator, you would not be able to follow the action as you would still be able to be targeted and be in the way. You could stay at the fire, but then the commentating would strictly be on the score and no action would be seen. We will have to rely on honesty and trust everyone to follow the rules and report if any are broken, unless @cwhitesidedev#9752 would like to implement free camera roaming

. Let's keep this conversation going and as previously mentioned, this will happen AFTER the pvp season is over. Pain an I would definitely love any support with setting it up, prizes and so forth @sandukutupu

alsafah20 · February 2020

Thank you Flounder for posting the idea.

You mentioned everything I wanted to say, I hope it'll be a fun and great tournament.

Pain-Q8

modestmouse75 · February 2020

I would definitely be interested in participating in this, think its a good way to bring us together and bring in more that have been curious about it. This way they don't have to worry about any toxicity like in the regular Qs

barbiefortinha · February 2020

Wow! i'm in! I've already chosen my team. We are ready. Very good initiative for the creation of the tournament

Adamantium
KASPERxGF
Snitram
Barhart
WaRRiOr

This is going to be fun. Thank you for the great initiative.

karalisshadow · February 2020

Could it be a good idea but there are too many stats difference by players.
Would it be nice if all players wear with the same gear (protege set is easy to obtain now) with just r8-r9 enchants.
I've always thought that the main pvp problem in neverwinter is this. It's too unbalanced.

nightwish021 · February 2020

Have it played on preview, gear should not be a factor.

gotflounder · February 2020

As stated in the original post. All teams must be rainbow comps....meaning only 1 of a certain class per team. No 2 GF or 2 TR or 2 CW....etc.

kalina311 · February 2020

nightwish021 said:
Have it played on preview, gear should not be a factor.

I disagree then most will be without guild boons which is also part of their build ..

kalina311 · February 2020

@trgluestickz exacly what is considered " expensive potions " lol by that same token there are expensive mounts and insignias too where does the madness end or begin ? If i got a potion/ consumable for cheap and post it at an expensive exorbitant markup price in the auction house what then ? why cant a player who does not have a 10million ads mount etc "rent stats" by using consumables then even expensive ones ?"

trgluesticksz said ...

"Similarly, I think some potions should be permitted as their absence also can reduce the effectiveness of some builds unnecessarily."

my Cw build IS to drink and consume all potions and scrolls and such : D

kalina311 · February 2020

as it stand now you cannot have 2 observers on the 5 v 5 maps that will effect and skew results power abilities passive abilities mistargetting and all sorts of stuff ... you would probably need a few players from each team streaming and then have commentators based on that ....or maybe some observers at a distance on the 2 wind dale maps that would be a better place for judges to be out of the way for the most part if you were to have a 1 v 1 or 2 v2 3 v3 etc tournament but then pets would unfortunately be the issue

kalina311 · February 2020

I would also like to pledge a donation to the prize pool once it starts to get compiled

kalina311 · February 2020

should toxic players that have a past history of using drains and never taking them off / throwing matches be exempt from the tourney or given another chance ? or be given no access to the prize pool

nightwish021 · February 2020

kalina311 said:

nightwish021 said:
Have it played on preview, gear should not be a factor.
I disagree then most will be without guild boons which is also part of their build ..

There are plenty of guilds on preview with boons, it takes maybe minutes to be invited in one.

Gear can be easily the deciding factor in fights, what`s the point of having rewards as initiative if they`ll be most likely won by BiS players who might not even have the need for them?

tchefi · February 2020

gotflounder said:
Hello everyone, some of you may know me but for those of you who don't....I am Flounder. I was approached earlier this morning on my stream by a fellow long term player named Pain (GF) with an idea for a PvP tournament.

Hi,

I tried in 2018 to do the same but at a lower scale (3vs3 + 1 obs/team, as one of my ally event).

It was really really really hard to organize and maintain in the long run... even though it was only 8 teams to managed (and one forfaited without a single match played)

N°1 biggest problem was for one team to have all its players available at the same time AND compatible with the availabilities of the other team in the same bracket.

Advices :
- prepare as much as possible the form of your tournament and some spreasheets/formulas to manage it.
- a big pool/championship is at the same time 1- easier to manage than a tableau/tournament (because a tableau can have the progression blocked because of the one team in 1/16 that is unavailable during X days long), 2- harder to manage (pools is much more matches as every team play every other ones).
- if teams have to register before the tournament to participate, you should allow them to also have a team roster (5 titulars, 5 substitues for exemple) : this can ease compatibility of playtime between each teams (sometimes it's difficult for all the players of 1 team to be online at a defined same time, and you have 2 teams for a match...)
- teams should decide themselves, together and between each others the date/hour they are facing each one others (so if a team doesn't show up => forfeit and can't complain because they have themselves agreed to the date/hour).

good luck

kalina311 · February 2020

nightwish021 said:

kalina311 said:

nightwish021 said:
Have it played on preview, gear should not be a factor.
I disagree then most will be without guild boons which is also part of their build ..

There are plenty of guilds on preview with boons, it takes maybe minutes to be invited in one.

Gear can be easily the deciding factor in fights, what`s the point of having rewards as initiative if they`ll be most likely won by BiS players who might not even have the need for them?

why are you ,muddling / mixing guild boons and player gear in the span of 2 sentences they are mutually exclusive one point does not support/ prove or negate the other ...ya so lets just have naked pvp then right ?? BIS player are not playing for rewards they are playing for reputation and bragging rights

when you join a guild you get boons not gear .. so i really dont get your point on rewards s initiative vis a vie that
no tornment rules have been set regarding bis gear or limiting guild boons ..besides I would want to fight with my onw guild tag and not some rivals on preview that we had to beg to get into an enemy guild

how many pvp guilds on preview server have max guild boons after the mod wipe ??? ya ... i thought so ...
one can just as easily be invited to a guild on live as well with the boon sections that you want / are not forced into

gotflounder · February 2020

Pain an I are in discussion today over a lot of these topics. An update to some things will be posted later today.

gotflounder · February 2020

Rules and other guidelines have been added to the original post under the UPDATES area.

krumple01 · February 2020

I know these comments I'm about to make are a little off topic, but I think they might have some meaningful impact for pvp so bare with me and humor me for a second. But other than that I think this idea of holding this tournament is a great idea.

So I think the scoring for pvp needs to be completely redone.

Currently the problem is, the scoring system actually encourages players to NOT play pvp. What I mean is, it's based on a ratio of wins and losses which is a terrible metric. IF you quickly glance over the top player on the pvp leader board and see how many matches they have played, it quickly becomes obvious that something is not right.

Here is an proposed idea of how to potentially fix this.

The premise here is to encourage more pvp matches. This means players need an incentive to keep queuing for more and more matches, not stop to preserve their wins to losses ratio.

Here is just an example.

1. Each time you queue into a match you are given 1 point. Even though its only ONE point, which might seem pointless, its the most important piece of scoring. It actually gives incentive to keep playing.

2. In domination capping a point should give you 5 points for each cap. This incentives capping which should be difficult to do.

3. You get 2 points for each player you are credited for killing during the match. This encourages actual pvp.

4. You get 5 points for winning the match (each player on the winning team gets 5 points here)

5. Losing the match you get zero points (all players on the losing team gets zero points)

6. You lose 2 points for each time you die or get killed in pvp. (This is to encourage survival) and a player who can make kills, cap points and survive should be rewarded. Not dying is a reward because dying costs you two points.

So lets play out a simple example here just to show how even if you are on the losing team, you could still potentially be making more points than a player who was on the winning team.

Player Queue Caps Kills Win Deaths Total pts (for the match)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1 2 5 1 3 20

B 1 3 6 0 2 24

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can see that player B even though they were on the losing team scored 24 points where as the player A on the winning team scored 20 points.

NOTES:

1. The queue points should not be zero. The reason for this is because bulk que forces pvpers to play because if they just sit out there is a player who is crappy pvper who can over time start to beat them in points. This is what you want, it encourages playing pvp.

2. Also all these points need to be close together and not drastic value differences. The bigger spread you make, the harder and less meaningful you make the match worth. Since my premise is based on bulk playing pvp, you should keep these numbers small to prevent broad gaps between players who have a lot of time to dump into pvp vs players who are limited.

3. Also all the encouragement for each important aspect of pvp is counted for. You want pvpers to be encouraged to cap points (domination) and make kills meanwhile preventing their own deaths. It also means even though you might of been on the losing team, the team hasn't completely been the reason your point count is low. If you are a decent pvper, you can make up for being on the losing team by actually playing better. This also reduces the hate that veteran pvpers will place on queuing with "sh!tty" teammates.

gotflounder · February 2020

That is an interesting idea. The PvP CDP should be coming up soon, so you can share all of your thoughts on PvP there as well.

bananitsa · February 2020

nightwish021 said:
Have it played on preview, gear should not be a factor.

That would be a good solution so people are able to have everything maxed. Only bad thing is , many people don't have lionheart set yet and preview is not going to help them much there

gweddry · February 2020

Rules are looking good, hopefully they also provide a hint about what should not be present in PvP to the developers.

trgluestickz · February 2020

krumple01 said:
I know these comments I'm about to make are a little off topic, but I think they might have some meaningful impact for pvp so bare with me and humor me for a second. But other than that I think this idea of holding this tournament is a great idea.

So I think the scoring for pvp needs to be completely redone.

Currently the problem is, the scoring system actually encourages players to NOT play pvp. What I mean is, it's based on a ratio of wins and losses which is a terrible metric. IF you quickly glance over the top player on the pvp leader board and see how many matches they have played, it quickly becomes obvious that something is not right.

Here is an proposed idea of how to potentially fix this.

The premise here is to encourage more pvp matches. This means players need an incentive to keep queuing for more and more matches, not stop to preserve their wins to losses ratio.

Here is just an example.

1. Each time you queue into a match you are given 1 point. Even though its only ONE point, which might seem pointless, its the most important piece of scoring. It actually gives incentive to keep playing.

2. In domination capping a point should give you 5 points for each cap. This incentives capping which should be difficult to do.

3. You get 2 points for each player you are credited for killing during the match. This encourages actual pvp.

4. You get 5 points for winning the match (each player on the winning team gets 5 points here)

5. Losing the match you get zero points (all players on the losing team gets zero points)

6. You lose 2 points for each time you die or get killed in pvp. (This is to encourage survival) and a player who can make kills, cap points and survive should be rewarded. Not dying is a reward because dying costs you two points.

So lets play out a simple example here just to show how even if you are on the losing team, you could still potentially be making more points than a player who was on the winning team.

Player Queue Caps Kills Win Deaths Total pts (for the match)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1 2 5 1 3 20

B 1 3 6 0 2 24

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can see that player B even though they were on the losing team scored 24 points where as the player A on the winning team scored 20 points.

NOTES:

1. The queue points should not be zero. The reason for this is because bulk que forces pvpers to play because if they just sit out there is a player who is crappy pvper who can over time start to beat them in points. This is what you want, it encourages playing pvp.

2. Also all these points need to be close together and not drastic value differences. The bigger spread you make, the harder and less meaningful you make the match worth. Since my premise is based on bulk playing pvp, you should keep these numbers small to prevent broad gaps between players who have a lot of time to dump into pvp vs players who are limited.

3. Also all the encouragement for each important aspect of pvp is counted for. You want pvpers to be encouraged to cap points (domination) and make kills meanwhile preventing their own deaths. It also means even though you might of been on the losing team, the team hasn't completely been the reason your point count is low. If you are a decent pvper, you can make up for being on the losing team by actually playing better. This also reduces the hate that veteran pvpers will place on queuing with "sh!tty" teammates.

I see many issues with this scoring system you are proposing.

I'll mention that while imperfect, there is a reason why win to loss ratio is prioritized so much.
Note: its not actually just the win/loss ratio, the quality of the wins (AKA winning vs other high scoring players) matters more than the number but number still important
The other option that comes to mind is prioritizing Kills and Deaths, and making that a dominant factor would be an even worse metric. When you over incentivise killing and survival, you incentivise everyone to play selfishly instead of working together as a team to win the match, they will only want to farm kills and will run away everytime they are about to die instead of keeping your nodes/helping your team win the match.
It would also make kill farming and spawn camping behavior in unbalanced matches much worse, hardly a quality of life improvement for the newcommers.
Kills and deaths typically isn't support role freindly either, since they usually don't kill anywhere near as often as a dps role does.
I'll also mention that a good K/D is very easy to get without being skilled at all, just build tanky and abuse the latest broken BS items and you'll get a great K/D without actually needing to play well.

I also don't think capping should give people many if any points. The reason being is capping and recapping a lot is actually a red flag that something is wrong with your team's ability to hold two nodes. It usually means nobody is defending your nodes (bad play), someone is farming caps at the expense of helping their team (also bad play), and/or your team is too weak and is taking a desperate risk to be able to hang on at all. You also have the obvious problem of trading caps to consider, right now its courtesy for the winning team in grossly unbalanced matches to let the losing team trade caps until the match is over.

I 100% agree that incentivizing everyone to play as little as possible (AKA how PVP currently works) is a terrible way to promote PVP activity rates/ high PVP population size. Its also a terrible way to promote skill.
The population size being larger and more active is vital for making the que system matchmake teams more fairly and would also help alleviate the patterns of win streak followed by loss streak over and over again you see right now. A large population size would also would help skilled players rise to the top by making sure that there is enough competition to keep unskilled players from rising to the top by default.

Right now, if you stop playing after you you reach the spot on the board you wanted, you are much more likely to keep that spot. It almost seems like the leaderboard takes a snapshot of how you were doing at the time you last played in comparison to your peers and doesn't update it until you play again. speaking from experience, it is extremely difficult to pass people who got to the top and then stopped playing for an extended period of time. Especially if they stopped within the first 2 weeks.

There is another proposed solution to the issue you were trying to fix, a decay system. Cryptic-Ridi told me he was working on one a while back, dunno if that project got put on hold or not. A decay system would mean that you can't just park your characters on the leaderboard for long periods of time and keep your spot. Your score would be penalized the longer you remain inactive for and you would slowly drop places over time.

trgluestickz · February 2020

gotflounder said:
---------------------------------UPDATES ---------------------------------------------
Below are some rules, more may come later. These are just to help you prep your teams and everything else better. We will let you know if anything else is decided.

- As a reminder, all teams will be rainbow....only 1 of each class allowed per team.
- Only 1 Healer allowed per team. Could be either OP or DC doesn't matter. If SW is included must be DPS if already a healer on team.

- No Paladin (OP) Sigil's allowed for main artifact usage.
- No Darkened Storyteller Journal allowed for main artifact usage.
- No Frozen Storyteller Journal allowed for main artifact usage.
- No Staff of Flowers allowed for main artifact usage.
- No Tarokka Deck usage due to being broken atm.
- No overloads of any kind are allowed to be slotted.
- Clingy Leather Coat chest piece will not be allowed to be worn.
- No equipment that spawns enemies is allowed to be worn (Planar Bindings arms...etc)

- 1 sub is allowed per team in case of any scheduling issues.
- In instances where there are disconnects from server. If it is before or right as the match begins...match will be restarted. If it is during the
match, the match will continue and hopefully either the original player (not the sub) can join back in or you will play 4v5.
- I am going to try to set up all matches within my discord. All 10 people will be in two separate channels. I will have discord Nitro so 1 member of
each team can stream the match from their perspective via discord. Feel free to record any matches yourself and post on YouTube. I would
recommend at least one member recording anyways for disputes.
- As stated as a suggestion in a comment earlier, both teams against each other will agree upon a time for their match. This way there is no
disputes come match time.

-Everyone will need to join my discord between now and then. Also the team sign ups will be there as well under the text channel "pvp tournament
sign up". We only need one member of each team to post in the sign up area with your team and classes they will be playing.

ALL TEAMS NEED TO HAVE JOINED MY DISCORD AND REGISTERED NO LATER THAN 10 FEB 2020. This will allow for schedules and time to set
match times before the tournament starts.

https://discord.gg/TMamwg

Once again if any rules are broken you will be disqualified from the tournament and forfeit any winnings if you are already in a top 3 spot.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The item rules look fine for most part.
-- I don't think banning all gear that summons enemies was necessary but its not a problem to ban it either. I do agree about banning the darkened book since that summons a ton of adds and would get out of hand if anything close to 5 people did it.
-- Clingy leather coat is annoying but also isn't essential to ban.
-- I don't think banning literally all overloads was needed but it will help keep things simple since you won't need to check which overloads people have on.

The 1 healer per team rule was good decision, only downside is it does make it harder to make teams.

The 1 emergency substitute rule is my primary worry. Its better than no substitute but Its going to be complicated enough to get all the teams to have everyone online for every match they are scheduled for. Especially considering this will be going on for a week or two from sound of it. I like the idea for the fixed teams but sounds easier said than done.

The substitute if anyone ends up needing it also will be very hard to get if we are also restricted to only subs who haven't got a team, I'd recommend allowing even a player who has a team to sub since otherwise a substitute isn't even possible to get most likely. To combat rewards related issues, if someone agrees to sub, maybe make it so the sub doesn't get victory points or rewards from that match.
Also should check how strong the substitute is compared to the absent person, you don't want a substitute coming in that is dramatically stronger/more skilled than the absent person.

Another possible solution to the above issues with substitutes is to allow an emergency rescheduling of a match if someone can't show.

Tournament of the Champions - PvP Tournament (Update 2.0)

Comments