Ottoman - the idea is interesting, but do notice, that there is large group of players, that doesn't have coins at all (because they probably lost in on the very first day). This means, they won't have access to any tournaments/other coin-based feathers, unless they'll buy some coins. In long term it might cause many players to lose interest of game, because they are not good enough to earn coins.

when people want to open a tournament there should be a cost for this.
when people want to join a tournament, there should be a cost for this.
and every step they passed in tournament, there should be a coin prize for them.

no one will play warlight tournaments anymore after 1-2 months if you do this

remember the game is also for fun

what next?you want fizzer to make all games coin games?

we must not change the original warlight

@ Kryzchu

i didnt want to write, because i have to edit it. i will write it to another thread.

@latnox

but they can earn level points right? after i write the system in another thread you will understand it clearly.

@ Ryiro

when i get free time i will write the system. so that you will understand it better. because of the current coins games you understand it differently. for now coins=money. but in the system i will write later you will see that coins are a little bit different.

Edited 2/10/2015 14:15:54

Ottoman-- There is also a vast majority of players under the age of 18 that can not receive coins....

I would join more tournaments if I could browse them on my mobile.

@ the turtle

that is the point.

1: if it is a bad thing for under the age of 18, is it good for +18?
2: are coins games hidden for under the age of 18 players ?
3: is it too hard to find an +18 friend and use his/her information to play coins games?
4: what is problem? receive coins or playing gambles?
5: which ones are easy to make play coins games. under 18 or +18?
6: is the money you can win from coins good enough? or you play it for more competitive games?

in my system coins are working differently. nobody can receive it from warlight. so there is not a problem for under the age of 18 players. (but you can always find a way to change it to money. you can sell it to someone for example)

Auto filling tournaments is not going to help IMO. All that does is encourage people to make them WAY larger than they need to be. Why make a 32 person tourney? Just make it 512 and if it never fills...oh well.

Deleting older ones would work, but that also throws out the work of finding teammates (not a huge deal I guess). It also helps with the larger issue of tournaments that are going, but half the people are inactive because the tournament took WAY too long to fill/start in the first place. I like the idea of deleting after 30 days if not started for that reason alone. It cuts down on the number of tournaments held up by inactive players.

I would really like to see the user voice option I proposed on eliminating rounds in tournaments (creator option only). So if you make it 6 rounds, but only enough people for 5 rounds joined, it would cut a round. You could do this automatically as well. Like after 30 days, cut down to rounds that currently have players joined (do not boot any teams). And then auto delete tournament after 45 days if it never started.

I think there should be some sort of expiration if tournaments don't fill

The problem with this is that it's a bad experience for a player if they join a tournament and it never starts. Imagine it from a new player's perspective: they go to tournaments, see a couple they like, join them, and then... nothing. Days, weeks, months go by and they never see anything happen. Sure, they could navigate back to tournaments and find it they could find a message saying that they expired, but then what? They join more tournaments, and the same thing happens again? It's a never-ending cycle.

It's also a bad experience for the tournament creator, who created a tournament and then never got to see it start most of the time. I want tournaments to work reliably for everyone involved.

I also want real-time tournaments to work reliably. Someone creates one, and it actually gets enough people and starts. For that to be possible, we really need to fix the ratio between creators/joiners. If it's too easy to make one, then they won't hold enough significance to be relevant to people joining.

one reason tournaments stall out is because people don't decline and you can't invite more people

You're talking about private tournaments. Open tournaments do not have this problem -- anyone can always join it, regardless of whether they've been invited. The only reason tournaments reach the invite limit is due to abuse of the invite system -- people are just spamming everyone rather than actually inviting players who they want to play a tournament with. This leads to people ignoring tournament invites, which is the fundamental reason they're taking up a space in that tournament. We can talk about private tournaments more in a different thread, but let's keep this thread about open tournaments, as the subject says.

How about after a certain amount of time the tournament starts irregardless of how many people have accepted the invite? You fill the holes with byes or AIs.

Something like this could maybe work. But we have to consider how it could fail, too: what if the tournament is only 5% filled, and everyone gets byes up to the end of a 512 person tournament? It would be kind of silly. Also, team tournaments are screwed, since not everyone would have a full team. I don't really like using AIs, since the AI will never be as good as a human, and in some cases it's even worse than not having a partner at all.

how about a rule which'll restrict the "number of tournaments" and "players in it" that we create based on the number of tournaments that we've joined that others have created

That could work. As I said earlier, we need to adjust the ratio of people creating to people joining. In your example though, if you're making a 64 person tournament you'd have to join 64 tournaments before you could make your own. Maybe less depending on how many people are joining but not creating.

What if there's just a limit to the number of open tournaments that can be open at any one time? Say, there's 10, and if you want to start a new one you have to wait for one of the existing 10 to start. There are problems with this idea, too, but I say it just to get the idea out there.

when people want to open a tournament there should be a cost for this.

This is interesting. What if there's a coin cost for creating a tournament, and those coins are given to the winner(s) of the tournament? This would REALLY encourage people to join tournaments, and also keep the number created down to a realistic number, ensuring that they all start.

There is also a vast majority of players under the age of 18 that can not receive coins

That's not true at all. Anyone can receive coins. The only thing that you can't do if under 18 is turn them back into cash. You can still buy, receive, and spend them.

Edited 2/10/2015 16:45:01

This is interesting. What if there's a coin cost for creating a tournament, and those coins are given to the winner(s) of the tournament? This would REALLY encourage people to join tournaments, and also keep the number created down to a realistic number, ensuring that they all start

at that point nobody would create tourney. I think it is better make the player who join the tourney pay an entry fee. And divided the $ between top 4 or 8 (in a 512 torueny i think it's ok).

at that point nobody would create tourney.

I don't think that's true. It will certainly be less than people create now, but that's exactly what's needed to solve the problem we're facing.

Let's take a step back and ask: Why do people create open tournaments? What's the motivation? Is it because they like some specific settings/map and want to play a bunch of games on it?

Why do people create open tournaments? What's the motivation?

possible reasons might be:
promote new maps
improve skills
compete with friends
compete with advanced players

Something like this could maybe work. But we have to consider how it could fail, too: what if the tournament is only 5% filled, and everyone gets byes up to the end of a 512 person tournament? It would be kind of silly. Also, team tournaments are screwed, since not everyone would have a full team. I don't really like using AIs, since the AI will never be as good as a human, and in some cases it's even worse than not having a partner at all.

1. Make it so it only would happen to tournaments over 50% filled. (for team tournaments only count full teams)

2. People in non-full teams are dropped.

3. Do it byes only.

You could also make above 64-man tournaments members-only. Or 256+-man tournaments have to be either Lobbies or paid for by coins.

This is interesting. What if there's a coin cost for creating a tournament, and those coins are given to the winner(s) of the tournament? This would REALLY encourage people to join tournaments, and also keep the number created down to a realistic number, ensuring that they all start.

I don't really like this idea. I would rather the participants chip into a pot which is split between 1st 2nd and 3rd at like 70%/30%-entry fee/entry fee. Making the tournament itself should be free. Otherwise we would have to pay for all the tournaments for all the leagues. You would see the promo/releg league immediately vanish. Clan League would be difficult to run etc.

Make it so it only would happen to tournaments over 50% filled.

I'm afraid we'd still have the same problem we have now. We currently have 276 tournaments, most of which are not 50% filled.

If a player joins a 512 person tournament, and then it starts with just 3-4 people, it's still a bad experience. Tournaments should be big and exciting, they should get your adrenaline pumping and be a big deal. I don't think that will ever happen with the volume we have today -- there are just too many being created, which dilutes the importance of each one.

Otherwise we would have to pay for all the tournaments for all the leagues. You would see the promo/releg league immediately vanish. Clan League would be difficult to run etc.

We're only talking about open tournaments here. Private tournaments would still be free to create, and since you know who you're inviting for all those leagues then they'd be fine as private tournaments.

I would rather the participants chip into a pot which is split between 1st 2nd and 3rd at like 70%/30%-entry fee/entry fee

Yeah, I like that too. Maybe just 1st and 2nd though, since it's hard to determine reliably who is 3rd place. In a single-elimination, there are two people that have an equal claim on 3rd place.

i didn't understand we were speaking about only open tournament.
At this point i agree with Fizzer's idea of put an entry fee for the creator

I would like to point out that just because someone is a member or has paid money does not automatically make them better at making tournaments than everyone who hasn't paid money.

Also, it would be nice if there were some filters on the open tournament page, so we could find a tournament with some nice settings. I don't use the open tournaments page for this reason, it's just a clutter. I only join tournaments if (a) I made that tournament or (b) I get invited.

Auto-starting or cancelling tournaments after x amount of time is a bad idea. You have to first set an arbitrary value and then is it fair that a tournament is deleted after being 1 person away from starting?

Let's take a step back and ask: Why do people create open tournaments? What's the motivation? Is it because they like some specific settings/map and want to play a bunch of games on it?

I normally make tournaments to promote maps that I've made, normally just after the map's gone public.

Edited 2/10/2015 17:57:06

Tournaments should be big and exciting, they should get your adrenaline pumping and be a big deal.

You missed that goal by far and rather should make little steps to improve it, before you try to make gold out of shit.^^ There are already a lot of usefull suggestions. I dont really know whats the big deal about deleting tournaments instantly, when they havent started after months. or simply reduce the number of rounds, due to the number of players. Most players wont even remember, that they have joined this tournament. they will be much more surprised or even annoyed, when those tournaments finally start.

I believe there is two main reasons the tournaments are not getting filled. Invites being limited by inactive players (or players who simply don't see them, like on the various apps), an Auto-decline is needed to solve this imo.

Second, the tournaments are hard to find, why not add open tournaments to the new dashboard page? ( I know it shows when you've been invited to one, but that's not enough). Maybe Include it under the open games tab? Make a own tournaments tab? Whatever you do, I'm sure it would be nice (especially a own tab, where you could include symbols for the settings-like on open games)

And last, a filter (or ability to search for) for tournaments would be great, e.g ("x many players" "X boot time" (maybe even for template settings)". The main point is that the tournaments need to be more accessible for players.

I think "why do people create tournaments?" is the wrong question, Instead ask: Why do people not join the tournaments? (and if the answer is "there is too many", maybe restricting number of tournaments is the solution. (For example only 1 open tourney per player)

Filter out people who haven't responded to tourney invites within x days.

Just an idea, but what if War____ didn't even allow you to decide the number of rounds when you set up a tournament? War____ just would just automatically decide the number of rounds based on how many people have joined within a certain time frame or frames. This would work especially well with a standby waiting list system.

Example: You create a 1v1 tournament, the default is 3 rounds. 8 people join quickly enough, so a standby list is created. Then if 8 more people join on the standby list, an additional round is automatically added, and it waits for the standby list to get 16 more people. Once a certain clearly advertised deadline is reached, the tournament starts with however many rounds have been filled, and the people on the standby list don't get to play. There could also be a setting with a sliding deadline where the deadline gets moved back every time a round is filled.

Or since you don't like the idea of people joining (even joining a standby list) and not getting to play, I agree with the people who said you should limit the ability to create bigger tournaments only to people who have successfully created small tournaments. Do this regardless of member status imo.

+1 to whoever said open tournaments should be sorted. With more sorting, people might find and join a tournament instead of creating one. I wonder how many duplicate tournaments there are right now?

+1 to the team leader idea. The first person to join a team in a tournament would have an option to decline players who joined that team, as long as there is at least one open spot still available (or if the team is on the standby list, there would need to be room left in that standby list, not the next one) As someone who has been in a clan for awhile, I can't count the number of times I've tried to be on a team with my clanmates, only to have some random person join. Our options are to try and contact that person and convince them to leave (good luck with that), or all join another team and try to fill it fast. If there are no other open teams and that person won't leave, we just leave the tournament.

Edited 2/10/2015 19:12:59

for non-member tournament creation you could limit it also based on achievements like you need to have a successfully ended 4 team(or player) tournament before you can make an 8 team(or player) tournament. That should help non-members train as they go on what makes tournaments successfull. Non full tournaments should also time out.