Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Possible standardized rulesets for music games
Solid State Squad Forums > Other Discussion > 7000 Questions
over there
I'm planning on eventually hosting a huge music-game tournament (no dancing games though since I don't have a decent arcade with multiple machines and good space near me) and I noticed there's never been a standardization of tournament rules for any music games. Before I do this I plan to make standardized rulesets similar enough for each game (obviously more odd games like Guitar Hero or Um Jammer Lammy/Parappa series would be very different) but also flexible enough to allow region differences. I would like at first some topics the players think need to be fixed or addressed in these rulesets, and any games are fine.

Please only include an opinion if you SUPPORT it with theory or evidence.

Examples:

Total EX score vs per-song wins over total wins--Is there any benefit to Total EX? It creates an uneven playing field; Jimbo would do terrible in a Total EX-based tournament, but has a great chance in a per-song tournament. I feel per-song wins balance the tournament and Total EX tournaments should be done away with completely.

Pop'n music random and s-random, and by extension AC IIDX random and s-random rules--Should these be allowed per player or should one player get the choice of what they want to pick? The randoms and s-randoms will not be even if the players are playing on the same side at different times. I believe that for CS IIDX, players should ALWAYS play battle mode no matter what because it gives the same random (and I think s-random), so the playing field is even. What about AC IIDX? What about pop'n? Should these be allowed and if so how do we standardize them to give no players a distinct advantage?

Should combo-based games be based on other scoring methods--Specifically for GF/DM/GH here, how should a win be determined? Pad misses DO happen in DM and I think the scoring system should be tossed since at the highest levels players generally FC everything, so a single pad miss basically ruins a player's chances. GF has a check against that, where the toughest songs are so difficult they are only comboed a few times at most, and consistency in comboing is very difficult with the high level of the charts. GF also has very few instances, if any, of misses not from the player. Should these games be done like IIDXs EX score system? What about DDR EXTREME's DP system? As for GH, how do we begin to calculate wins? Almost all songs can be full comboed by anyone at high levels, and scoring past Guitar Hero 80's is broken in that holds function as analog holds. These holds don't have a maximum value anymore, and hitting them as early as possible, letting go as late as possible gives the most points. This takes the focus on timing in a music game away from it; should GH III and on be banned? Should we do them as total notes hit? If total notes hit is the standard in the case of a tie do we go to score, average multiplier, number of star powers used, or what?

How should player picks in dancing games be valued if the player fails them--This is highly regional and I've seen such things as "keep playing and take the fantastic count," you lose the match, you lose the round, and highest percentage wins regardless of pass/fail. The problem with percentages and playing it out is that dancing games do not give you a score if you both fail (as well as GF/DM, where this is a possible problem). Since a score cannot always be guaranteed, should the player be given a single loss or a full match loss (2 losses)? Is there some way that a winner should be determined otherwise, even though the game is designed against it? How would this be fixed with machines easily and how would we be able to standardize it across the nation? Should this remain a region difference but made with a smaller choice (such as aforementioned loss counts)?

Should pop'n music tournaments be done with cools if possible--I believe if you can 100k a song, you're going to 100k it almost every time you play it subsequently since the chart and timing is always the same and few people use random or s-random in pop'n. This could cause many ties and tiebreakers could prove meaningless until someone gets to a song they haven't 100k'd. Pop'n's timing is the easiest of any bemani game without cools, and konami has standardized cools in ALL forms of competition (online rankings for expert mode, taisen, and the topranker tournaments) for over half of the series' life. Why are we still using greats in tournaments when some US players have advanced to the point that only songs over 36 or so are viable to have score-based battles on without tieing often? What is the argument for TOURNAMENT PLAY for use of greats?



These are some useful examples of arguments present now, and I have plenty more. Discussion on these matters is imperative, and I want to get player input on other problems in tournaments as well. I've talked to Schala quite a bit about this, and I need the opinions of people who have been to tournaments and who have strong views on sides of these and other arguments in the community. I want the community to be accepting of a standardized ruleset for a music game, and I want to revitalize the tournament scene for non-dancing games to what it once was so that we can be a closer-knit community and become better players faster.

Thanks for your time smile.gif
Axem Rangers
money score
Jadin
total EX da BESS
I can't think of a reason why someone who lost a total EX tournament would be the best player that day.
Schlagwerk
My thought has always been that if a game has timing windows (beyond just hit or miss) that some form of EX scoring is a good judgement on skill

Also I kinda view music game tournament matches like fighting game matches. In fighting games you don't pick who won by how much life they had left over all rounds, you look at who won the individual rounds. Likewise I think it makes more sense to decide matches in a music game tournament by number of songs won versus overall score/EX. The only exception is for say a qualifier round where everyone will be playing the same thing

For Random/S-Random I leave it to the decision of the players in each individual match, by song. They have to agree before either or both can use Random. This puts the choice in their hands; It is up to the experience of the players to decide if they think Random would give an unfair advantage for particular songs or if it is worth the risk of getting a bad random in order to score better with a good random

Naively I've always run Guitar Hero tourneys based on score alone and never received complaints at Otakon tourneys (at least on the score system ;P). I hate combo based scoring especially with controllers that may fuck up randomly, but in games where you do not have timing windows I think it's fair to judge people based on how well they do in that games' scoring system. In Guitar Hero it's all about how well they do keep a combo going, how they creatively use their star power to boost their score, etc

Lastly, I'm a fan of keeping tournaments simple if I can help it but I've never held very highly technical tourneys. It makes it easier to run, easier for people to understand, and everything just runs faster. For a while I was considering scoring Guitar Hero tourneys as score * percentage of notes hit, but dropped the idea since it wouldn't be a calculation I could easily do in my head

Mazrim
All the IIDX tournaments I've run (about 7 or 8 now) have been run by adding EX scores for the round. Everyone who entered had no problems with it, but the key note to this is that we never did head-to-head battle mode matches, simply because everyone plays at home on Original screen mode, which means switching to a 2-player mode that everyone would not feel comfortable with (arcade with 2 lanes?). That and all but one person plays on left side, which means song by song wins is more time consuming than just adding EX scores by the end of a round to determine ranking and cuts.

I would love to do a head-to-head setup on home versions but the logistics suck, so I've never bothered. Adding scores at the end of the round rewards consistency over single song effort, while single song victories reward players who are good at specific things. Is the only reason you want to get rid of total EX because you happen to be better at the latter situation, or because it's not done with DDR/ITG (often)?
rmz
I would love to see a IIDX money score tournament where the guy wins solely because he ninja'ed out a border bonus at the end.
djplaeskool
Money scores can be tricksy and false.
EX is the way to go.

I'm sure it's happened to everyone... but I can't tell you how many times I'd get a particular money score, assure myself mentally of the grade, and then get disappointed 5 seconds later...
Buffalo
Total EX score may very well be the best way to determine who deserves to win but it alienates people.

A per song tournament encourages more people to participate than a total EX score because it gives most players a chance at winning. It works for dancing games, why not try it with IIDX? If dancing game tournaments determined winners based off who has the best DP at the end of a round, matches will be alot less exciting (less tie breakers), less people will participate, and results are more "absolute" (no expecting some crazy upset victory etc).

For Pop'n, I don't see any reason why Chou Challenge should not be the standard. The problem with DDR is there's so many tie breakers because the community has advanced so far that most songs are AAA'd on command. Matches can go on and on as random song after random song are AAA'd. Picking chou challenge mode as the standard would speed up how the tournament is ran instead of go into overtime like most major ddr tournaments nowadays.
over there
QUOTE (Schlagwerk @ Mar 25 2009, 03:40 PM) *
My thought has always been that if a game has timing windows (beyond just hit or miss) that some form of EX scoring is a good judgement on skill

Also I kinda view music game tournament matches like fighting game matches. In fighting games you don't pick who won by how much life they had left over all rounds, you look at who won the individual rounds. Likewise I think it makes more sense to decide matches in a music game tournament by number of songs won versus overall score/EX. The only exception is for say a qualifier round where everyone will be playing the same thing

For Random/S-Random I leave it to the decision of the players in each individual match, by song. They have to agree before either or both can use Random. This puts the choice in their hands; It is up to the experience of the players to decide if they think Random would give an unfair advantage for particular songs or if it is worth the risk of getting a bad random in order to score better with a good random

Naively I've always run Guitar Hero tourneys based on score alone and never received complaints at Otakon tourneys (at least on the score system ;P). I hate combo based scoring especially with controllers that may fuck up randomly, but in games where you do not have timing windows I think it's fair to judge people based on how well they do in that games' scoring system. In Guitar Hero it's all about how well they do keep a combo going, how they creatively use their star power to boost their score, etc

Lastly, I'm a fan of keeping tournaments simple if I can help it but I've never held very highly technical tourneys. It makes it easier to run, easier for people to understand, and everything just runs faster. For a while I was considering scoring Guitar Hero tourneys as score * percentage of notes hit, but dropped the idea since it wouldn't be a calculation I could easily do in my head


I was thinking of fighting games when I did the total EX, as often players can just destroy the other person one round then the other guy claws his way back to win in the next two. Playing easy songs and using skills of timing rather than pure note comprehension is a good way to do that if you know you excel at that.

I like your idea a lot for the random/s-random part where both players must allow random before one can use it, that makes it quick and easy to fix and as you said puts things in the hands of the players.

I'm not too worried about GH to be honest, but what you said about combos in the game is true. Score * percentage of notes hit runs into the same problem with good players, where you end up with ties in GH 1, 2, and 80s, and players win by small margins on the later games because they held the notes longer. I like the idea of combining score with something though. I'd like to hear if you have any thoughts on GF/DM personally since they do have timing windows but are still combo-based.

QUOTE (Mazrim @ Mar 25 2009, 04:58 PM) *
All the IIDX tournaments I've run (about 7 or 8 now) have been run by adding EX scores for the round. Everyone who entered had no problems with it, but the key note to this is that we never did head-to-head battle mode matches, simply because everyone plays at home on Original screen mode, which means switching to a 2-player mode that everyone would not feel comfortable with (arcade with 2 lanes?). That and all but one person plays on left side, which means song by song wins is more time consuming than just adding EX scores by the end of a round to determine ranking and cuts.

I would love to do a head-to-head setup on home versions but the logistics suck, so I've never bothered. Adding scores at the end of the round rewards consistency over single song effort, while single song victories reward players who are good at specific things. Is the only reason you want to get rid of total EX because you happen to be better at the latter situation, or because it's not done with DDR/ITG (often)?


Yeah almost every tournament I've been to has been switch-off (which honestly I don't mind, but we want things to be completely fair) rather than battle, for the reason that no one has a widescreen CRT. KOTC has had a widescreen though, and I think a Director should probably get one widescreen CRT if they plan to run a IIDX tournament if possible. I know people don't have experience with it, but people don't have experience playing on different setups further or closer than normal, where the tv is higher or lower, etc. That's what warm-ups are for getting used to, after all. It does speed things up if two play like you said, but I do plan to make rules for pools like the rankings and cuts based on a few selected songs as you mentioned.

As for consistency vs. single-song effort, I think these are essentially one in the same. No one is going to beat Schala or VGTA at most songs because they simply play everything. They don't have a large, glaring weakness as a player. People like Jimbo or MilkChan (I think) are on the other end, they're players who play one way and pretty much don't venture into practicing the other stuff very much (Jimbo gets great scores on easy songs and awful scores on tough ones, while MilkChan and frankly many others are the opposite). Therefore, since Schala is consistently a top scorer on ANY song, not JUST songs with over XXXX amount of notes or XX difficulty, she would most likely win no matter who her opponent was. If Jimbo faced MilkChan by rules of total EX Jimbo should literally give up as to not be embarassed, since he can't plausibly pick anything under p notes where p is the number of notes in the song milkchan picks -50 or so. In a per-song based tournament the outcome will probably come out to the random. A 99% EX over 85% EX on a 2* is JUST AS MUCH OF A BEATING as a 99% EX over 85% EX on an 11*. That brings me to think that maybe total EX percentage could be a more viable option, but it still gives players good at hard songs a slight upper hand. I want to give players an even table to play on, not put one on the side with a broken leg.

QUOTE (rmz @ Mar 25 2009, 05:16 PM) *
I would love to see a IIDX money score tournament where the guy wins solely because he ninja'ed out a border bonus at the end.


See pop'n topranker '06 Enka Remix EX round.

QUOTE (Velius @ Mar 25 2009, 06:47 PM) *
Total EX score may very well be the best way to determine who deserves to win but it alienates people.

A per song tournament encourages more people to participate than a total EX score because it gives most players a chance at winning. It works for dancing games, why not try it with IIDX? If dancing game tournaments determined winners based off who has the best DP at the end of a round, matches will be alot less exciting (less tie breakers), less people will participate, and results are more "absolute" (no expecting some crazy upset victory etc).

For Pop'n, I don't see any reason why Chou Challenge should not be the standard. The problem with DDR is there's so many tie breakers because the community has advanced so far that most songs are AAA'd on command. Matches can go on and on as random song after random song are AAA'd. Picking chou challenge mode as the standard would speed up how the tournament is ran instead of go into overtime like most major ddr tournaments nowadays.


Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to get at with per-song, and you mentioned a good point that it draws players who can't play harder songs very well but do great on easier stuff (Damien getting like 14 greats on dazzlin' comes to mind).

Well I was thinking one possible argument against chou challenge and cools is that there are simply not that many people in the US who play at the level where they can 100k most songs, but that number IS increasing. Not to mention, those players are fairly far away from eachother and locals who are not used to cools may be put off if the tournament is on chou challenge. Still, I fully agree there is no reason chou challenge shouldn't be the standard in larger draw tournaments where it's possible me, arbel, and maybe some other good players would meet.

Good ideas guys, I'm glad people are genuinely interested in this. If there's more support for total EX in IIDX I'll give the option, though I'd like to hear what people think about percentage-based total score rather than EX, since it decreases large leads between someone who beasted on mei [a] and someone who beasted on Pluto normal tongue.gif
Schlagwerk
QUOTE (osrg @ Mar 25 2009, 04:37 PM) *
I'd like to hear if you have any thoughts on GF/DM personally since they do have timing windows but are still combo-based.

I don't have enough experience with them to make a good decision. I know the games themselves are very combo-based in their scores and % grade, but maybe it's the IIDX/PNM player in me still saying that figuring out an EX score based on their accuracy is the better way to rate players. Who's a better player? The guy who can bs kicks but keep his combo because of how big the Good window is or the guy who gets Perfects and misses a note here or there?
over there
QUOTE (Schlagwerk @ Mar 25 2009, 07:47 PM) *
Who's a better player? The guy who can bs kicks but keep his combo because of how big the Good window is or the guy who gets Perfects and misses a note here or there?


Actually I think that line is still fairly blurred in Japan haha. It's hard to continuously get goods in GF because you run into very quick streams and you'd have to switch fingers on trills at the right time and such, which makes me think more that GF is probably good where it is. DM has possible pad problems and the issues of timing vs. combo plaguing it still, and people getting better just exaggerates it, so I'm not sure what to do with that.
Schala
I like best 2 out of 3 with individual ex on a song determining a win, rather than total ex over 3 songs because then L7 songs aren't viable for anything and everyone will pick nageki every time cuz it has NORTS

5key songs should be viable even if they don't save because everyone has access to them

money scores should never count for anything

Faefly Kite (7:15:54 PM): didn't I bring up the idea of like
Faefly Kite (7:16:01 PM): combo battles, with both players agreeing to it
Faefly Kite (7:16:04 PM): that would be cool
Faefly Kite (7:16:08 PM): lowest misscount wins
otaku1313 (7:16:11 PM): hahaha
Faefly Kite (7:16:12 PM): if both FC, then go to EX
otaku1313 (7:16:15 PM): that would be interesting
Faefly Kite (7:16:27 PM): PC would count for something too
otaku1313 (7:16:28 PM): as a side tournament

this is cool too
kevin energy
1) no biting
2) no unicycle polo
3) whoever makes it the furthest in 10 steps wins
Spiritsnare
QUOTE (VgameT @ Mar 25 2009, 09:35 PM) *
2) no reverse baseball suplexes


the fuck is a reverse baseball suplex
Spooky
there should be another irc tournament
*NYAA
dm tournaments are always uneven when players do not play on the same machine
therealbong
Obviously, IIDX should be done like Melee:

DJ Foxx only, Final Countdown, no item's = randomization/speed mods.
Brazoliange
These are the rules I made for AC IIDX/AC Pop'n/some other games at MMS. I might have GF/DM rules somewhere but since we never did a tournament I might have deleted them.

http://www.yousendit.com/download/UmNLRm96Q0NUME0wTVE9PQ
kevin energy
QUOTE (Spiritsnare @ Mar 25 2009, 10:17 PM) *
the fuck is a reverse baseball suplex


you're right, I should fix that
over there
I'll be creating a preface and most likely pop'n music AC/CS singles rules soon, I have a few things I wanted to ask you guys about.

I've seen a rule against "GAMBOLing" before, where one player may not pick GAMBOL hyper on another player.

From what we knew then the timing windows were fairly random, but current plays allowed some of us to see that GAMBOL (L7 3rd, 7k), e-motion (7k, 5k, another, us another), OVERDOSER (7k, another), and Stop Violence! have missing early GREAT and early JUST GREAT windows replaced by GOODs.
GAMBOL another has no timing windows besides BAD (replacing all missing windows), 1 frame of late GREATs and the later half of the JUST GREAT window. There may be a GOOD window but it would be only 1 to 4 frames large and at the very beginning or end of those windows, which is why no one has a score with one.
LOVE SO GROOVY is the opposite of the first group of songs listed in that it only has early GREAT and early JUST GREATs, all later windows missing are replaced with GOODs.
Manmachine plays Jazz and Tribe Groove have a missing early JUST GREAT window if I recall correctly, replaced by GREATs. These songs are easy to PC.
perfect free (7k, another) has a missing early GREAT window, replaced by GOODs, but otherwise is fine.
SOFT LANDING ON THE BODY (all difficulties) is either a 16th note earlier or later than what the screen displays (I don't remember which) directly after the slowdown, but once the speedup occurs notes are placed correctly again.
Tablets another is a chart that must be hit early visually on 6th Style, while on 5th Style the notes are aligned correctly.
patsenner may also be visually incorrect, I do not remember.
I will play 20, november 5-keys GOLD at some point to learn the timing for that as well, but I do not know right now.
For the songs on 3rd, AAAing and scoring is very difficult as turntables are for some reason either a 24th, 32nd, or 48th later after a keypress (for comparison play e-motion 7k on 3rd then try on bmus)

pop'n music has no songs with a broken, halved, or visually early/late COOL window as far as I know (though I have not tested e-motion yet). Some songs have no GREAT window, only one half of the GREAT window (AKIBA is a great example of this), or very strict timing (MUSICAL 9-line, CLASSIC 11 on anything other than pop'n 12 CS). However, because the highest window for timing is accurate, I don't believe these should be disallowed.

Since these songs are consistently timed this way, these songs should probably be allowed, but I would like to hear some opinions on the matter. Do you think picking one of these songs on your opponent is unfair in any way? You both have the opportunity to practice them and be consistent at scoring on them, so why would they be disallowed now?



Also, should 5 key charts (such as LIGHT MOTION and 20, november GOLD) be allowed in IIDX? What about in bmus tournaments, since it is a distinct mode rather than a chart accessible in 7-keys mode? I don't see a reason why they should not be allowed, as you are given a results screen and the chart is legitimately different from 7 keys. 5 key as a modifier should be disallowed since it disqualifies, but why do you think charts specifically for 5-key should or should not be allowed?
Catastrophe
Per Song Matches. If someone picks V first and loses by 150 points then the other guy merely has to pick The Safari (900 notes) or Dazzlin Darlin (a guaranteed low-margin song) to lock a win. That's bullshit. And that's why DDR never did it. Otherwise the length of a DDR song would've been important. The existence of specialist players (like me) who lose Max 300 and then win On The Jazz evolved out of this. But that's not why it happened. And of course Kaze owns me anyway. The better man never loses, though Tiger Woods doesn't win every week either.

Chart Modifiers: whatever the game allows. Whatever saves a score. Shuffle/Wave/Reverse are allowed in DDR. Cut/Jump-off/auto-scratch/auto-bass/auto-neck/5-line/"red donuts only" are not. I might have made that last one up. I can't remember and I can't check right now.

Combo-Based Scoring: sucks, but you gotta do what the game demands. However, Drummania and Guitar Freaks have a mode where they count perfects. Personally I prefer that. (The other two battle modes are max combo, rofl, and money score, which is both rofl AND combo-based for extra rofls.)

Failing a DDR Pick: is a match loss. For several reasons. One, if it's one of those pay-as-go tournaments (lame) and you basically just ended the match. Two, sportsmanship. If you can't do it then you're probably just trying to be a douche and tire out your opponent. Also, play out your damn matches. This isn't M:TG with intentional draws. You can ignore your opponent's song if they pick a Lv18 beast against you. But you have to play your own song, no quitting. However, I would word it like "failing your own pick gives your opponent an extra round win" because sometimes the matches are best of 5 or 7.

Cool/Marvelous Timing: ON. No debate. Konami forced them to be on for SN2 and people bitched for some reason. Konami was right. Hit the fucking windows.

Banned Songs: don't make a general rule for this. It really only affects IIDX. And then the rule is usually that you pick the song and assume "heavy". I mean another. Unless it's The Safari again.
Rather than make a banned list I think I'd make a specifically allowed list: Fake Time 7H, gigadelic 7H, whatever. You can also specifically allow Implantation 5A to that problem. The best way to prevent Gambol bullshit is to make an obvious rule like "7s and up". Fuck Pink Rose. There was one match at BMF 06 that had both Gambol and Pink Rose in it. That's bad. I do play the On The Jazz and 5.1.1. game, but I don't play Have You Ever Been Mellow (a 4 footer).
over there
Haha good reasons for your opinions, and thanks.
itsgreylolol
I do like the idea of per song IIDX tournament, Id like to do the upcoming DJT tournament that way to see how it works.

What are your opinions on difficulty brackets per round e.g Round 1 can pick between 5-10, round 2 6-11, round 3 7-12, and then keep upping the bottom end from there. I like it in theory, but at the same time, it definitely discourages people.
over there
QUOTE (itsgreylolol @ Apr 3 2009, 03:24 AM) *
I do like the idea of per song IIDX tournament, Id like to do the upcoming DJT tournament that way to see how it works.

What are your opinions on difficulty brackets per round e.g Round 1 can pick between 5-10, round 2 6-11, round 3 7-12, and then keep upping the bottom end from there. I like it in theory, but at the same time, it definitely discourages people.


It really alienates newer players unfortunately. I think it would be okay to have it be anything up to 10 (maybe 11, some 11s have scratch patters much harder than 9s and 10s except for watch out[a] and CYO hyper) first round, then increase the upper difficulty level instead of lower with each round. Basically the point is to keep each player playing around their best skill, so getting rid of the 1-3 levels essentially eliminates all the songs with missing timing windows. I've played in a lot of tournaments that do this and I certainly don't mind, but I'm not the one who is getting his best skill taken away.
I've been in ITG tournaments where only 10s on the machine could be picked first round, and ratings went up every round until it got to 13, where any song was pickable (on a hacked machine). That really upset me because most 10s and below don't have significant speed changes or stops to memorize, and I was lucky to qualify in the top half so I could barely scrape past the first round.
Basically bringing in difficulty caps to IIDX is going to do this and, though upper level limits give new players hope, a per-song tournament is going to be a better bet in general and being good at timing GAMBOL or scratching on Wonder Bullfighter is going to give them a decent chance at winning.
Catastrophe
For what it's worth, DDR tournaments exclude new players too. But if you think about it, new players + tournaments = paradox. You can't compete while you're learning the basics. New players should join a league or something. (I was going to start one at TGA. Now I gotta wait.)

So while you're thinking about tournaments, assume that only "good" people are interested. And by "good" I mean "middle-tier with hope" or "top-tier with confidence."
over there
QUOTE (Catastrophe @ Apr 4 2009, 08:05 PM) *
For what it's worth, DDR tournaments exclude new players too. But if you think about it, new players + tournaments = paradox. You can't compete while you're learning the basics. New players should join a league or something. (I was going to start one at TGA. Now I gotta wait.)

So while you're thinking about tournaments, assume that only "good" people are interested. And by "good" I mean "middle-tier with hope" or "top-tier with confidence."


Well in DDR EXTREME anyone who can't pass every song in the game is new imo (supernova 2 would be passing everything except relinquish oni, dead end GRS, and doubles oni charts), but I do plan to take things like that into account. IIDX isn't focused on getting perfect scores like DDR (ha good luck getting perfect scores consistently), and lower difficulty songs make things like e-motion [a] available to Schala if she goes up against VGTA and he picks Mei [a] on her. If she wants to score an easy win, that's the way to do it. DDR doesn't have timing windows that differ for different difficulties since like 5th mix iirc.

Also, I played in tournaments back when I couldn't pass 7s. There's nothing wrong with new players coming to tournaments; it helps bind the community together and get people more interested (and I never would have played IIDX for more than a year if I didn't go to that first tournament and get my ass kicked). You shouldn't exclude a group because they don't belong, that's basically dropping them before you consider them. Plus, more new players means more people that will have a chance at beating someone.
grayfox9996
QUOTE (osrg @ Apr 4 2009, 10:51 PM) *
Well in DDR EXTREME anyone who can't pass every song in the game is new imo

I never passed PSMO. I played regularly for like, 4 years. sad.gif
Spiritsnare
I, likewise, played regularly for four years (with two years of on-and-off prior), and I was only able to get so far as Max 300.
over there
So did I. I passed PSMO maybe 2 years ago. Keep in mind, EXTREME has been around for a LONG time and other dancing games have pushed the bar far higher, so almost everyone I see at a large tournament like Kings of the Coast (even BBQ!) can pass every song with a AA. The reason I call players who can't do that new is because other dancing games help you go past that level within a year or two at most, and it's no longer within the hardest set of charts.
Catastrophe
QUOTE (osrg @ Apr 5 2009, 01:51 AM) *
Also, I played in tournaments back when I couldn't pass 7s. There's nothing wrong with new players coming to tournaments; it helps bind the community together and get people more interested (and I never would have played IIDX for more than a year if I didn't go to that first tournament and get my ass kicked). You shouldn't exclude a group because they don't belong, that's basically dropping them before you consider them. Plus, more new players means more people that will have a chance at beating someone.

It's not like I walk around with the signup sheet and ask people if they can clear Maxx Unlimited. I'll sign anyone up! And I encourage everyone to sign up, just like you said. Tournaments are great community events. I used to think all the same things of tournaments that you do. But you're not thinking about what happens when your only events are tournaments.

Asking people for $2 or $5 for a DDR tournament is kind of like asking them to sit at a poker table. Of course, you want as many people as possible. And there are a few sharks who know for certain that they're getting paid that night. Casual DDR players who just want to haing with friends or strangers who share a common interest for a few hours will pay the $5 and suck at DDR all night no problem. And yeah, they'll meet people, maybe come back, great.

But after awhile it gets stale. Everyone learns better than a bookie who beats who. And then people stop playing. In MA we used to have 4 tiers: good (consistent AAAs), good-enough-but-always-loses-to-good (AAs on all 9s and 10s), better-than-most (me), and fish food. Surprisingly, it was the good-enough-but-always-loses-to-good people who quit first. The good people were showing up for free money. The fish food people were only ever there to be social. But the competitive people in the middle quit because they would always go W-L-L or W-W-L-L or W-W-W-L-L every single time to the same top tier people. Eventually you end up with me in the quarterfinals. That means your scene is dead.

You might be surprised to hear that TGA had lively tournament scene in 2006, but not in 2003 (lol), 2004, 05, 07, or 08. That's because Andy chose to stop hosting them. But why if they're such good community events? Besides me making the quarterfinals, they were also scaring people off. Not all of the "fish food" wanted to pay $2 to get pwned. And on tournament days you typically end up playing less DDR because you'll have 12 people (God forbid any more) sharing one machine. After just a few months of holding DDR tournaments on the first Saturday of every month, Andy noticed he was getting fuktons of DDR players on the following Sunday. All of them fish food. Some of them were noobs who were in awe of my 9 foot AAs, whoop. But some of them had been playing for years without a AA. And they're not noobs, just fish food. But they hate waiting in long lines (who doesn't) and it turns out that they were actually attracted to the idea of playing DDR with no awesome people around. It makes sense. Even if the people scoring AAAs are nicest, most encouraging people imaginable, they're going to intimidate the social players. (I'll stop calling them fish food now.) This really happened. Saturday - AAAs. Sunday - Xepher reclaims its rightful spot on the player's best list.

But mostly it was the threat of long lines, or pros hogging the machine, whichever way you look at it, that scared people away. Which is why leagues are better.
over there
QUOTE (Catastrophe @ Apr 14 2009, 02:11 AM) *
It's not like I walk around with the signup sheet and ask people if they can clear Maxx Unlimited. I'll sign anyone up! And I encourage everyone to sign up, just like you said. Tournaments are great community events. I used to think all the same things of tournaments that you do. But you're not thinking about what happens when your only events are tournaments.

Asking people for $2 or $5 for a DDR tournament is kind of like asking them to sit at a poker table. Of course, you want as many people as possible. And there are a few sharks who know for certain that they're getting paid that night. Casual DDR players who just want to haing with friends or strangers who share a common interest for a few hours will pay the $5 and suck at DDR all night no problem. And yeah, they'll meet people, maybe come back, great.

But after awhile it gets stale. Everyone learns better than a bookie who beats who. And then people stop playing. In MA we used to have 4 tiers: good (consistent AAAs), good-enough-but-always-loses-to-good (AAs on all 9s and 10s), better-than-most (me), and fish food. Surprisingly, it was the good-enough-but-always-loses-to-good people who quit first. The good people were showing up for free money. The fish food people were only ever there to be social. But the competitive people in the middle quit because they would always go W-L-L or W-W-L-L or W-W-W-L-L every single time to the same top tier people. Eventually you end up with me in the quarterfinals. That means your scene is dead.

You might be surprised to hear that TGA had lively tournament scene in 2006, but not in 2003 (lol), 2004, 05, 07, or 08. That's because Andy chose to stop hosting them. But why if they're such good community events? Besides me making the quarterfinals, they were also scaring people off. Not all of the "fish food" wanted to pay $2 to get pwned. And on tournament days you typically end up playing less DDR because you'll have 12 people (God forbid any more) sharing one machine. After just a few months of holding DDR tournaments on the first Saturday of every month, Andy noticed he was getting fuktons of DDR players on the following Sunday. All of them fish food. Some of them were noobs who were in awe of my 9 foot AAs, whoop. But some of them had been playing for years without a AA. And they're not noobs, just fish food. But they hate waiting in long lines (who doesn't) and it turns out that they were actually attracted to the idea of playing DDR with no awesome people around. It makes sense. Even if the people scoring AAAs are nicest, most encouraging people imaginable, they're going to intimidate the social players. (I'll stop calling them fish food now.) This really happened. Saturday - AAAs. Sunday - Xepher reclaims its rightful spot on the player's best list.

But mostly it was the threat of long lines, or pros hogging the machine, whichever way you look at it, that scared people away. Which is why leagues are better.


Thanks for your comments. I'll be more careful about how I categorize people next time. I don't intend for these rules to be used all of the time though, Just for large tournaments or tournaments in a large setting (like KOTC/COTC or BOWLmanifest-type tournaments) or for people who know others in the area take the games very seriously. These rules will be guidelines, not something that every tournament must have. In those tournaments, it's not as much about who wins ___ tournament as who is the best overall music gamer, which is an entirely different idea and takes completely different skills.

I am by no means a "good" DDR or ITG player and it shows, even though I can *** most of ITG singles and have an SDG on almost every song in DDR singles. I will ALWAYS be knocked out of large dancing game tournaments by the third round because so many good players go to the tournaments I attend, therefore making it impossible for me to win. But I like competition and showing people that you can win by knowing more songs and being worse at timing and stamina, or that they don't have that magical intangible ability called consistency yet. Hell, the ONLY music games I consider myself good enough to enter tournaments for money in are pop'n and Gitaroo-Man, and I've never seen a tournament for the latter (and probably never will).
KOTC/COTC has offered me the opportunity to show people I am the best overall music gamer attending for the past three years, and every year I've failed to make top three in total points (which is in my opinion a problem rooted in the popularity-biased point system). I won two tournaments, got third in another, and made it past the first round in ITG last year, along with entering every tournament and placed 5th or 6th overall behind people who got an average of like 3rd-7th place in every dancing game tournament, and didn't enter but one or two other tournaments (which they flopped in). This year Jimbo's fixed it a bit, so I should be able to place better overall. My point here is that if there is a significant chance of a prize for less talented players, they will be there and the attendance will be much higher.
I'm quite disappointed at GOMX's list of tournaments and won't be attending, thanks to no overall prize and it being almost entirely dancing game-centered. Those tournaments are best left to pros and area players, but because of size it's best to use a standardized tournament format that players have agreed on (which is why I'm trying to get a lot of feedback before I write and before I finalize anything). That makes it more appealing and basically voids arguments because the competition is fair, as defined by the players themselves. Just because X group isn't attending doesn't mean the tournament won't have a large draw, and just because X group IS attending doesn't mean the standardized rules MUST be used; they're always suggestions.
I've seen the Brawl community here in Maryland become very conservative rule-wise, banning some couterpick stages and making most of the neutrals counterpicks. This is simply because our region progressed very quickly at first, and reached a level higher than that of the people who made the standardized ruleset for Brawl. The rules are always being revised, and this is how these rulesets should be viewed once they're finished (which is far from now honestly). I've been asking Schala what she thinks about the rules to see how she views things from higher up on the rankings. I need more info from great players who go to tournaments to get real, immediately usable data though. It would be good if limey or Toph posted in here about how they view tournament play, but they haven't bothered so I don't have that viewpoint yet.

I intend to take the "fish food" players into account with my rules; what I said about who I believe is good and who is not does not necessarily apply in that case (since one of the worst players could feasibly pull a victory on one of the best if they know ___ song better than that best player and get a lucky random). As long as it requires some sort of skill that the game rewards the player for, that skill should be measured in tournament play. That means anything from consistency to clearing songs to timing to switching between doubles and singles during one round, or anything else that can be feasibly measured and create a winning round for a player.

The idea of weekly or even monthly tournaments isn't a good idea in my opinion (neither is a league, after attempting one recently) for music games because those players who just want to play to have fun or get better are too pressured by others and by the constant high level of competition around them. They end up losing touch and fall out of the game. I'd say tournaments in large arcades could happen monthly, but smaller arcades should make them at least two months apart to make it a bigger deal and give people a chance to see their improvement (and this appeals to those "fish food" players as long as they play a lot). It's worked surprisingly well at my arcade for the past 3 years and it will probably continue to work that well. However, this isn't something I intend to cover in the rules. I've defined what they're for and how they should be viewed, and I don't intend for them to dictate how to schedule tournaments for the best turnout or which group to appeal to.
Jimbo22291
I've been looking for a thread like this for a REALLY long time.

For dancing games, I have always wondered if it is possible to make a 100% accurate seeding list without the use of a qualifier during each and every tournament. That being said, the one or two song qualifier before a tournament way is the current best thing around, as it has been done for years, but it is still EXTREMELY flawed. In the case of KOTC2, all of my tournaments will be single elimination up until 32 remain, and then it will be double elimination from there on out. Hell, I would do double elimination the entire time, but I have to follow certain time constraints. Now with seeding by a qualifier in mind, I have seen countless first round matchups in ITG2 where two of the best players in attendance had to face each other in the first round due to their "low seeding" (SINGLE ELIMINATION), and one of them was eliminated right off the bat.

Look at the NCAA Basketball tournament. Everyone is seeded based on their performance throughout the year. Could the same thing be done with something like ITG2? For big tournaments, should people from all over the country be seeded based on their performances in other tournaments: big or small? I would LOVE to see that happen, but it would be nearly impossible to get it right. The pros are very simple though, it saves A TON of time because song qualifiers will be eliminated, it prevents imbalance in terms of seeding, and the margin of error in terms of seeding will be a hell of a lot lower than by doing an actual qualifier. Yeah, I could see a margin of error of 2 or 3 spots instead of a margin of error of 40-50 spots. And since there would be no qualifier, sandbagging will be gone, and people who aren't regulars at the specific location can catch a break due to not being used to the machine right away. With the current qualifier system, the people that usually seed high are the regulars of the location where the tournament is being held.

tl;dr- I know it's close to impossible, but if there is ANY good way to accurately seed ITG2/DDR players with little of margin of error based on past performances, I would love to know.

Now, let's shift over to IIDX and Pop'n Music. For those of you who don't know, I am going to be in charge of KOTC2 this year, which is a huge music-game based 3-day event. I was reading Gabe's posts and I was thinking of applying some of this stuff to these two divisions over at KOTC2 this year.
-Pop'n Music: Same overall rules, 2 out of 3 regardless of score, pass/fail, etc. Anything hyper and above may be selected at any time. S-Challenge, however, could be the biggest change and a very good thing to try out.
-IIDX: Same overall rules. 2 out of 3 regardless of EX Score, pass/fail, etc. Anything hyper and above may be selected at any time.

Any other ideas? And Gabe, if you read this and are on AIM later, send me an IM whether I'm away or not.
over there
QUOTE (Jimbo22291 @ Apr 15 2009, 02:15 PM) *
I've been looking for a thread like this for a REALLY long time.

For dancing games, I have always wondered if it is possible to make a 100% accurate seeding list without the use of a qualifier during each and every tournament. That being said, the one or two song qualifier before a tournament way is the current best thing around, as it has been done for years, but it is still EXTREMELY flawed. In the case of KOTC2, all of my tournaments will be single elimination up until 32 remain, and then it will be double elimination from there on out. Hell, I would do double elimination the entire time, but I have to follow certain time constraints. Now with seeding by a qualifier in mind, I have seen countless first round matchups in ITG2 where two of the best players in attendance had to face each other in the first round due to their "low seeding" (SINGLE ELIMINATION), and one of them was eliminated right off the bat.

Look at the NCAA Basketball tournament. Everyone is seeded based on their performance throughout the year. Could the same thing be done with something like ITG2? For big tournaments, should people from all over the country be seeded based on their performances in other tournaments: big or small? I would LOVE to see that happen, but it would be nearly impossible to get it right. The pros are very simple though, it saves A TON of time because song qualifiers will be eliminated, it prevents imbalance in terms of seeding, and the margin of error in terms of seeding will be a hell of a lot lower than by doing an actual qualifier. Yeah, I could see a margin of error of 2 or 3 spots instead of a margin of error of 40-50 spots. And since there would be no qualifier, sandbagging will be gone, and people who aren't regulars at the specific location can catch a break due to not being used to the machine right away. With the current qualifier system, the people that usually seed high are the regulars of the location where the tournament is being held.

tl;dr- I know it's close to impossible, but if there is ANY good way to accurately seed ITG2/DDR players with little of margin of error based on past performances, I would love to know.

Now, let's shift over to IIDX and Pop'n Music. For those of you who don't know, I am going to be in charge of KOTC2 this year, which is a huge music-game based 3-day event. I was reading Gabe's posts and I was thinking of applying some of this stuff to these two divisions over at KOTC2 this year.
-Pop'n Music: Same overall rules, 2 out of 3 regardless of score, pass/fail, etc. Anything hyper and above may be selected at any time. S-Challenge, however, could be the biggest change and a very good thing to try out.
-IIDX: Same overall rules. 2 out of 3 regardless of EX Score, pass/fail, etc. Anything hyper and above may be selected at any time.

Any other ideas? And Gabe, if you read this and are on AIM later, send me an IM whether I'm away or not.


I'll definitely contact you later but I want to get some of my ideas out here as well, thanks for posting!

I've tried a league, as I said, where players at my local arcade simply challenged the other player and both players were required to play (within reason, as long as they had money and legs were working, etc.) in a tournament-style match. Wins were worth 1 point, losses were temporarily worth nothing (though later challenging a high seed from the first season, if you were low, would be worth points regardless of a loss, and if you won it was extra). The problem was that some of the players were really into it and got a lot of wins and dominated, while others just didn't do it at all so they seeded low even though they may have been a top player.

So I'm thinking now something like the ECRC that the Brawl community does would be good, where specific tournaments (assigned well-ahead of time) would position players based on points rewarded for each placing. The remainder of players who did not enter any of these get randomly seeded in the bottom few seeds so that they have a difficult first round. The system rewards activity, so players who enter more tournaments and place well overall are seen as good. This still doesn't fix the problem completely though, especially for people who don't want to travel far or don't have money/time to spend on tournaments. I'm not sure what I'd do personally, but that's what's been done before. This is a lot like the NCAA tournament format you're referring to, so you might want to check out how different regions rank players on smashboards.com (ECRC is the East Coast, mostly VA to CT but includes other states).
I think people being used to the machine is a HUGE problem though, as I've had many issues with that on my own. This doesn't eliminate it, and in fact might make it worse if players don't get a chance to warm-up beforehand. What you could do is what I suggested earlier; call people up for the warm up, no big loss if they're not there, just call the next person after 20 seconds or so. A single song, and they have to agree on it. If you finish early, start at the top again so you can give the people who haven't played in the longest time a chance again. Alternatively, create a warm-up sheet where players write down their name at what time they want to warm up; it's in the player's hands to be there and do it so if someone isn't there one person gets a song on their own or whatever, or the next players go up to play. You can't really put someone in a tournament "cold" when their opponent is a regular who plays at the arcade every day and expect the cold player to win. Even if the other player hasn't played that day, they still have a significant advantage on that first song (though if the out-of-towner is smart he'll choose the first song).

I'd say definitely do super-challenge for pop'n because it's how the game is currently ranked by Konami. Also, consider making 9-lines available (maybe with both players' consent if you don't like it?), because there are many songs with bad timing that only have 9-lines (23 or whatever that license song is in pop'n 10) or are only difficult to time on 9-line (MUSICAL from pop'n stage, various others). This requires timing, which is definitely something pop'n rewards players for, and I know I have a few tournament songs from pop'n 1-5 that only have 9-lines.
Be careful allowing Random/S-Random, as both players won't play at the same time so they may get vastly different charts. I think Velius suggested for IIDX (when you have two players playing at different times) to have both players consent before one player (or both) may use random or s-random on a song, and I think that works here. If I picked Classic 4 Hyper or Classic 10 EX on someone, it's probably because I think I'm better at scales, not because I'm going to random it and beat them. If you allow them to use random, that song one person may have an advantage on is thrown away.

Same thing about random for IIDX if you play it on AC, but I like the CS format you had last year where both players play at the same time smile.gif Prevents different random/s-randoms (s-randoms I have to check but I think so) and it's more comfortable to players since they're playing on more available setups/controllers/games.
L7 is less important to allow than 9-line in pop'n because almost all songs are fine, but I would allow it just to get a larger draw and give lower players an advantage against someone who has never played Pluto L7. If you ever do a 3rd Style tournament though, I would definitely allow GAMBOL L7 at the very least because it's a big challenge in timing (and more difficult than the 7k IMO, thanks to having less notes).
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.