Thanks to everyone for the feedback so far. I expected a much different response, I'll admit. Now to answer some questions, clarify a few things and neutralize some pre-conceived ideas that won't be occurring in this space. Disclaimer: this is a long, but relevant reply string to several players that have responded. You're welcome to skip it if you don't like meaty discussion, or skip to where I replied to you in particular. That said, I feel I did a good job addressing just about everyone. Edit: I also admit I was still feeling residual heat in some of my response, and have apologized for my overreaction regarding stream LP and player competition
is there any chance of an "amateur hour" kind of thing?
Yes, this is an interest of mine but difficult to achieve with a minimal population alongside timezone differences. Pauper is a first-step in this direction without actually removing top-tier players from the right to participate, instead leveling the tools available to each player.
How would you decide who are the amateurs and who are the strong players that can't enter?
One method is to pull from the loose MMR/Elo ratings current shown in-game; they show accumulating weekly points, but could serve so many other purposes such as wekely rewards, tournament qualification, etc. I've spoken on this before: the leading "manual" way to do this right now would be to test and develop a segregation system. These are example numbers. Tier 1 could be anyone with a score between 1700 and 2000. Tier 2 @ 1400-1700, and Tier 3 @ 1100-1400. This is a common system adopted by modern competitive games such as Brawlhalla for their Bronze/Silver/Gold/etc ranking system, although other formats also work. I've done the tier system in a racing game because the same three people kept winning every weekend.
So I tested over 200 drivers personally, documented lap/sector times as well as their handling when cornering, passing another driver, etc. After all that testing I was able to create three tiers of drivers, and each Saturday we did one event for each tier, one after another, and it worked amazingly. Closer races, and nobody was way behind or far ahead. Thankfully we wouldn't need to do performance testing to that caliber here, but we still cannot enact a truly fair ranking/tier system without a more advanced MMR/Elo measuring tool in-game as well as a larger population. Doing this manually, now, would be tricky.
50LP for streaming the entire event seems underwhelming. I will still stream my matches because I always do for events, but you can't even do a single Rift Run with 50 LP, not sure what good that will do.
Really surprised by your response and I'm not sure how you missed this... but a fair concern. Yes, 50 LP is a bit small. Initially, the projected count was 100 LP per streamed event. This was adjusted when I brought up Youtube uploading, as some people can record/upload but not stream. This was done out of fairness for those folks.
Please consider: Aside from newcomers to the streaming space, all you guys are doing is pushing a button; no commentary is required, no viewer count required. You're essentially getting a door prize for almost any event you attend, which is quite generous. Keep in mind that many participants have attended two or more events each week, vastly increasing accumulated free LP. As a final thought, consider the new LP prize spread being offered for events like the weekday elimination events: 12th-9th get 50 LP, 8th-5th get 100 LP. I'd implore you to reconsider how this all adds up in the end, even for players that place just about dead-last.
We're trying not to give away so much LP that you guys never have the urge to buy some. This is designed as a trickle-source, just like real-life vitamins they don't replace the human diet; they're supplemental and that's how it needs to stay.
Also the exact timeslots for these events will stay the same? Because I will not be able to attend any of them during the weekday if you shift them to earlier times.
The timeslots will stay the same or very similar at this stage, for weekday events in Zone 1 and 2. I can make slight adjustments on request, but my next step here is to issue a survey and ask participants if they could make it with just a one hour adjustment or not, as well as alternate time requests altogether that are not near a current event time.
I think I can speak for most players when I say that picking the Infinite Border card at random from the command zone is pretty pointless and is honestly kind of annoying. Why should someone who just won a competitive event through skill get a random reward?....This is also even more punishing to the newer players and underdogs who defy the odds to win a single tournament and are super excited only to not be allowed to choose their prize... It also could make tournaments feel almost like a chore for more skilled players because they will want to "farm tournaments" to get the prize they want.
I think your assessment is fair, and I've heard it multiple times. Yeah, why an RNG reward for a skill event? I don't think I can explain why at this moment, as well as Crestmoor or Rikki might. That being said, do you have a better idea? If yo uwant players to choose, where do you draw the line? Should it be any card in the deck? Any card in the collection? We'll always be seeing foil epics and legendaries, never an IB Splitter bot or an IB Aether Acolyte, for example. See what I mean? I'm not against the ticket prize, in fact I was the one who drafted a blue-colored ticket variant of the old Golden Ticket. In any case, we need to weigh IW staff's concern alongside the concern of the playerbase, in order for this subject to move forward.
Someone telling me I can't participate in an event because I'm 'too good' seems a little.... to me. If it's an event I don't care about or can't attend anyway then I don't really care, but if it was for something I liked the prizes for, why should I be excluded simply because I have put more effort into learning the game than others have?
Just seems a bit backwards to me.
Definitely getting the wrong impression here from Miennai. He's interested in the big picture, making sure everyone gets taken care of - including you. But right now, he's the one in need. You don't have to worry about getting stomped automatically in round one frequently - He and many others do, and that's okay
. He'll get there, but in the meantime the best action is to help bridge the gap, give players opponents who are a little stronger, a little weaker, or the same skill level just about. Getting flattened, or flattening others, is not a center for learning in most game spaces. It can happen, but for it to happen a lot is a huge moral risk that we have no need to resort to. The coaching offers I've seen are one way to help with that.
There is not any worry that suddenly we will have four New-Person tournaments a week; where general admittance becomes a thing of the past. One event a week would be just fine with the current player population. Similarly, top-rank events are also fair to have - it's about taking care of everyone we can.
I'm completely stunned that you assume weaker or lower-ranking players are not trying as hard as you. Seriously, the hell? Doesn't sound like you; then again, I don't know you that well. Skill isn't the only factor. There's time available to play between work and life. Some people are more naturally talented than others. It is completely false that someone is working the hardest just because they hit top-tier. Achievement and effort are not automatically synonymous. Some players have a tougher time, including mental disability. They deserve a place where they stand half a chance; it feels like you expect everyone to get to top tier with enough work, and that just never happens in any game in history. I'm asking for you to think about that.
I don't see why anyone would want to play in a tournament where the best players can't participate... I get that newer players want to get a taste of the competition and thrill of winning the tournament, but personally if I was a newer player I wouldn't really feel good about winning if the tourney was in "easy mode" lol. I guess "Noob Only" tournies would be fine as long as they don't take away from the regular competitive tournaments
This is more about making sure new players don't have "Hardest Difficulty" as the only option. Newbie events has been done frequently in many game spaces. In StarCraft, several organizers, clans and groups have tiered events only for certain skill-level players, because a Bronze league player vs a Diamond League player is an absolute waste of time; the outcome is guaranteed. So some tournaments are Bronze League only, and all the platinum/gold/silver/masters players have plenty of other events all the time. It works. One "new person" tournament a week would not take anything away from the general player experience and most every event will always allow full admission from all players.
One of my largest goals here is accessibility and fairness, and another one is being inclusive. So yes, everyone is going to be taken care of and not a single part of the playerbase has anything to worry about. I honestly feel I conveyed this quite clearly from day one, and earned that confidence already; but apparently I have not. Good thing I'm pushing even harder, so it can one day be enough to satisfy. I'm not saying I'm fantastic or doing everything in the best manner, but I deliberately handle things extensively
to take the greatest care I can with communities. One day, you guys will believe in me and have minimal doubts beyond my human error.
I say anyone who isn't Ranked in the top 50 should not be allowed to participate in tournaments.
Then we would no longer need qualifier matches.
But then I would have to play ranked and ranked sucks.
Ironically, these two responses are the easiest to deal with.
I will continue to reflect on player feedback through the day, and see what I can do to improve the quality of service. Will be here to answer any questions or comments that I can.