Make the tournament system mirror the actual game of TFT. So instead of points every player has a “health pool,” and the earlier they lose a game the more health they lose. In the second half of the tournament players will he knocked out, but even the player in last can hang on if they keep winning.
I feel like "all 5 players going mid" in DotA is basically what GOATS was in Overwatch. Yes, it would require absolutely nuts team fight mechanics, team work, and there would be teams who just come out on top in that kind of meta. It would be INCREDIBLY boring to watch... which GOATS was.
I have a couple of ideas for tournament formats for this game with increasing stakes. The first is to simply use the point system, but increase the number of points earned in each game as the tournament progresses. So the first round you might earn 8 points for first place and then 30-60 points for first in the last round. This way even a player who consistently places 3-5th throughout the beginning and middle and then clutches some first places at the end can still win. But this has the issue of becoming more luck based on how you drew later in the tournament. I feel like this is close to the optimal format for finding the best player among eight but has the disadvantage of not knowing exactly how long a match will take. So this might be good for final eights in tournaments where they can over schedule the final and end early if it happens to. This is to have the winner be the person who exclusively gets three first or second placements in games in a row. So if two people get three in a row they both still have a chance to win the round after assuming that the other one doesn't also get first or second. This also makes first and second place identical which means that you could restart the match at two people left or use those last two as a tie breaker maybe. But then what if I got first for the first two games and then second the third it should still tie break to me. I personally prefer treating first and second identically in this format and maybe in tournament tft in general. In a broad sense you could have eight groups play until one person wins every group with this format and then take those eight for the finals, I'm imagining this wouldn't take more than ten hours but I really don't know how long it might take to reach this win condition. Two first or second places in a row feels far too low to be an actual test of the best player though. What do you think?
I think BR is really difficult to avoid a point system. For it to work, I think it needs to have placement and kill incentive. Maybe placement works as a multiplier for your kill count. This could allow for teams to make up ground by playing more high risk, which has entertainment value. I think you also could have prize money for placement per game too. So even if you are lost in overall standings, there's still incentive to try to get some prize money by winning the last couple games
I think that a format like the F1 Quali system would be fitting for BRs. So basically let's say there are 8 games, every team plays the first 2 games, the best score in either game counts towards the standings (tiebreaker could be the scores added up). After that, the worst 25% get eliminated. Repeat until last round where the team with the best score wins. The only problem with the system is that devs would need to program a feature where the starting play area is smaller every round.
Don't forget to shout out the game that becomes the most fun as you get better, SSBM-- literally a breed of its own. I appreciate the yugioh shout btw, I think it would have been a great opportunity to recognize the importance of prize pool and how an esports irl rewards affect players mentality, uf a game is nothing but passion as motivation it has a dramatic affect on the potential competitiveness. I'd love if you did a video of up in coming fps games, think with you're following it's a video that could easily blow up. Only one I can think of that may have an exciting comp scene coming out soon is masterchief for pc. Like you said, pretty much everyone seems to be waiting on that clear cut game that pays to grind, like csgo, league, and dota. However, age can be a hindrance in pursuing already developed games. For example, as a 20 y/o I'm only looking to grind a new game with potential because an already developed game is just way too intimidating, and I'm sure theres plenty that feel the same. Great stuff!
Here is my idea for a competitive tft format. Tournaments are in team format. 8 teams in one tournament. Each team enters 5 players. Each team must rank their players in skill 1-5. 5 games will be played. 5th best players for each team play in the first game, 4th best in game two and so on. Each game rewards different points towards a total that will be tallied after game 5. The game with 5th best players counts least, and the best players game rewards the most points. Let me know what you think, there is probably room for tweaks, but I think this format has potential.
Maybe make a team mode variant for tft where you only pvp the enemy team and you can coordinate with your team what builds each player is going for, so you can hold or sell characters you normally wouldn't in hopes of making the pool more favorable for your team, at the risk of also making it more favorable for the opponent
11: 05 yes that is true, but only because the comparison is partly flawed. 1 game is not 1 hand but offers many more decision points which are "micro hands" yes they can snowball, but that is partly true for poker as well, as the player with the larger pot has pressure on the table and the mind games/reads/social game of 1 game are strongly connected over multiple hands.
Tournament format: If the top 3 finish in the top 4 consistently, then make a sort of table hierarchy, like tables ranked 1-8. After the game, top 4 go up a table, bottom 4 go down a table. Once a table can't reach the top table, it stops playing, the players there are eliminated. If these games would allow for less than a full compliment of players, I'd say you start cutting the top table in half until one remains, but perhaps instead the final table plays one last game and the chips fall where they may and you're just confident in top 8
I think elimination style would work and wouldn't change the game since it's what happens in a single game. Another thing that would be pretty cool to see, but would change the tactics, would be to see team based tournaments where you have 4 on each team (either they always match vs the 4 on the other team or perhaps even more interesting if they randomly face each others' armies too so you need to consider that in your strats). Team-matches probably would also need less games per match to find the winning team (and each game within the match could end as soon as all from one team are out since the inter-team placements don't matter). The score would be a simple 1 or 0 (or 0.5 if they end up exactly even). I think that would be quite enjoyable to watch. :)
Imo TFT Tournament Format is similar to FGC. Tons of top 8 lobbies with seeding and "pools" single or double elim is up to preference, but double elim seems prolly fine. Top 4 stay winners bracket, Bottom 4 are losers bracket/out. Slowly reduce # of lobbies til a final 8, then final placement determines 1st-8th. Minor issue is people that never went to losers bracket but then placed bottom 4 in the final lobby, unsure of a good solution for it. Maybe final lobby is ran 3 times?
I completely agree with the tournament format thing. I think the consistent monetary payout is the easiest solution. Its like poker/elo, you win some you lose some and the payout should reflect that. I think the culture of first price getting all the money is a bit absurd anyways, but ofc they can get a bonus but then consistent tournament payouts will show the best players and this could be used to create tournament series with multiple stops. Increasing point payouts are the other straight forward option but that makes the game significantly more rng heavy as winning the last game is worth more than the first but if it is balanced correctly it could be a useful factor. (Another aspect connected to this are choosing meaningful tiebreaker factors.) But all of this still depends on the high level player skill range (which is again partly formed independently of the game itself.) More exotic formats would include bonus challenges in the game for a skiled player to collect extra points by winning in a certainw war balancing out his bad luck as he may have not gotten first due to rng, but he was able to show the a skill in anotger way (but also we need to remember the ist still kn beta and there is loads of room for changes.
they need to add 4 player and 2 player modes to a tournament format for tft. use the 8 player ffa mode for seeding. you can do the current point system with 8 players for like, say, 4 games. bottom 4 are cut. repeat in a 4 player ffa mode and after 2 more people are cut continue on into a 1v1 mode, basically heads up poker.
I've seen Mario party at mlg events back in the day, it's definitely a competitive game I think fortnite also sucks when it's an esport because people just sit in 1x1 until last circle and people refuse to engage.
In PUBG’s Regional Pro Leagues it’s something like this: The top 5 teams get the bulk of the prize money and a spot in the global event, so it’s sort of like they’re fighting for who gets the bulk of the bulk of the prize pool lol. These teams are usually neck and neck in points. The next 5 teams reserve their spot in the league for next phase and are fighting to possibly break into the top 5, I believe they receive prize money as well, just not as much The bottom 6 teams risk being relegated to the tier 2 league or even worse they can be relegated out of the entire scene and have to go through the process of open quals, closed quals, relegations all over again. Big yikes. These leagues are played over a very long time. They are different than tournaments but I felt this was worth mentioning.
2 Points- How do you feel about things like TF2, where the competitive meta and format have many more restrictions on team size and item use compared to pub games, particularly when 6s seems to be the gold standard? Do you feel that even though it diverges considerably from what the average player experiences, because there isn't a huge divergence from the game's core mechanics and because each class remains viable as an off-pick in the very least it maintains that integrity? And for the Battle Royale problem, one of the big issues I see is that past the top positions, the end result of a tournament doesn't really care what order anyone is in, yet these scoring systems track down to the bottom team. It seems to me that if you wanted to prevent that bottom-team burnout, the best solution would be to determine what bracket a top team should consistently be in (Top 4, as you said, for TFT) and count all placements past that as equivalent. I'd establish a system of "lowest score wins," and distribute points based on simple placement. For the TFT example, though, I'd distribute 5 points to every player outside of the top 4. Across 5 games, a single 8th place therefore shouldn't kill your ability to place, but you might have to aim for eliminating players who lasted longer in previous rounds to make sure they're experiencing that 5-point love as well. Scored placements like the example you gave have a tendency to exacerbate differences that rise up early on, and give teams/players too much padding to their scores. The only problem I see arising with a smaller score window is that there is a much stronger chance of ending up with tied scores compared to a system that produces that larger, sometimes insurmountable score gaps. Maybe keep the broader placement number on hand as a subscore for tiebreakers? I'm just spitballing at this point.
An idea how to rank something pubg: Caviat, it would take several times the players and man power. You have 16 teams of 16 teams. Play 16 games, and award points as per usual. Then you break up the Indavidual teams by score and have them play again. So all of the teams that placed first play one another, and so on. Second game finishes and you then pair up teams by closest total scores. Repeat for X games. Now that I think on it for a minute, this just seems overly complicated for the same result.
You ever play this game called Gigantic? I looooved this game, but the servers shut down. I just got reminded of this game when you started talking about CannonBrawl
While you are probably aware of this 9:50 is a very simplified statement, How about 2 people of *"similar"* skill level playing each other. The different dimensions connected are the spread of skill and how different "closeness" inability expresses itself on different levels of play. (You probably mention some of that) But the interesting part is that more rng can make a game less rng based if it increases the skill ceiling so that it stretches the top 100 players further apart. In the "perfect competitive game where all pro's are at 99% solved(similar skill level) then every rng that does exist will be insanely more impactful.
So I know the game is made as a free for all but from what I've seen I feel like it could be adapted to a 1v1 with reasonable success. I haven't played it myself so maybe I'm way off the mark on that.
In a free for all, if we have a fixed amount of matches to resolve and the last place has a reasonable change to somehow win the tournament so they have a reason to keep playing, it would be really uncompetitive and/or unfun to watch Pretty much only the last match of the series would matter How would a "first to X first places" work? Given enough matches they would select the best player, but not sure how many that would be for TFT
Sound proofing normally makes an “L” shape, but that is not the case here. The door is on the right side instead of the left in this video. The microphone comes from the the left side instead of right. The shadow is casted across the left side of your face where it is normally on the right. That’s all I was able to find so far.
@@tylernewton7358 well done spotting the differences. I just noticed Skyline's face was mirrored and the way he talked with his hands looked off. Plus that soundproof lego piece.
I think you have to knock out the bottom player each game. 8 games is 4 hours of play. TFT need more balanced wolves/bosses and such to fill the empty players positions to keep game length the same.
Do you think the game would change too much if at the end of tournaments, like the final 8, you start eliminating players and starting the next game with less people? For example, instead of a best of 3 at the end, you do 8 player game -> top 4 player game -> top 2 player game? Or 8 -> 6 -> 4 -> 2? Might be worth testing. So in a 64 player tournament for example, you'd have 8 tables of 8 -> 4 tables of 8 -> 2 tables of 8 -> 1 table of 8 -> 1 table of 4 -> 1 table of 2? It would get rid of this point system mentality and also test the assumption that getting top 4 in a tournament setting is consistent if you're the better player.
competitive? yes, maybe. but only a true randomless game can be the ultimate the only true esport can be a game where the player controls everything and the better player will win 100% of the time (at the highest skill lvl), if you play perfect, you win everytime.
That was the problem with goats. Goats on high tier still requires a lot of skills but made most heroes, and with them some of the best players, useless.
Cute anime girls in a Skyline thimbnail? Never clicked faster.
Make the tournament system mirror the actual game of TFT. So instead of points every player has a “health pool,” and the earlier they lose a game the more health they lose. In the second half of the tournament players will he knocked out, but even the player in last can hang on if they keep winning.
So how will you play when only 7 are left?
Thanks for the tips Sky, off to go start my QWOP racing league!
I would watch that tbh
it's a good day when skyline makes a video😊
Hope you're enjoying being back on youtube your videos are great and I hope you can do them for a long time.
I feel like "all 5 players going mid" in DotA is basically what GOATS was in Overwatch. Yes, it would require absolutely nuts team fight mechanics, team work, and there would be teams who just come out on top in that kind of meta. It would be INCREDIBLY boring to watch... which GOATS was.
I think this is a pretty reasonable correlation
I have a couple of ideas for tournament formats for this game with increasing stakes.
The first is to simply use the point system, but increase the number of points earned in each game as the tournament progresses. So the first round you might earn 8 points for first place and then 30-60 points for first in the last round. This way even a player who consistently places 3-5th throughout the beginning and middle and then clutches some first places at the end can still win. But this has the issue of becoming more luck based on how you drew later in the tournament.
I feel like this is close to the optimal format for finding the best player among eight but has the disadvantage of not knowing exactly how long a match will take. So this might be good for final eights in tournaments where they can over schedule the final and end early if it happens to. This is to have the winner be the person who exclusively gets three first or second placements in games in a row. So if two people get three in a row they both still have a chance to win the round after assuming that the other one doesn't also get first or second. This also makes first and second place identical which means that you could restart the match at two people left or use those last two as a tie breaker maybe. But then what if I got first for the first two games and then second the third it should still tie break to me. I personally prefer treating first and second identically in this format and maybe in tournament tft in general. In a broad sense you could have eight groups play until one person wins every group with this format and then take those eight for the finals, I'm imagining this wouldn't take more than ten hours but I really don't know how long it might take to reach this win condition. Two first or second places in a row feels far too low to be an actual test of the best player though.
What do you think?
I think BR is really difficult to avoid a point system. For it to work, I think it needs to have placement and kill incentive. Maybe placement works as a multiplier for your kill count. This could allow for teams to make up ground by playing more high risk, which has entertainment value. I think you also could have prize money for placement per game too. So even if you are lost in overall standings, there's still incentive to try to get some prize money by winning the last couple games
I think that a format like the F1 Quali system would be fitting for BRs. So basically let's say there are 8 games, every team plays the first 2 games, the best score in either game counts towards the standings (tiebreaker could be the scores added up). After that, the worst 25% get eliminated. Repeat until last round where the team with the best score wins. The only problem with the system is that devs would need to program a feature where the starting play area is smaller every round.
Don't forget to shout out the game that becomes the most fun as you get better, SSBM-- literally a breed of its own.
I appreciate the yugioh shout btw, I think it would have been a great opportunity to recognize the importance of prize pool and how an esports irl rewards affect players mentality, uf a game is nothing but passion as motivation it has a dramatic affect on the potential competitiveness.
I'd love if you did a video of up in coming fps games, think with you're following it's a video that could easily blow up. Only one I can think of that may have an exciting comp scene coming out soon is masterchief for pc. Like you said, pretty much everyone seems to be waiting on that clear cut game that pays to grind, like csgo, league, and dota. However, age can be a hindrance in pursuing already developed games. For example, as a 20 y/o I'm only looking to grind a new game with potential because an already developed game is just way too intimidating, and I'm sure theres plenty that feel the same.
Great stuff!
Here is my idea for a competitive tft format. Tournaments are in team format. 8 teams in one tournament. Each team enters 5 players. Each team must rank their players in skill 1-5. 5 games will be played. 5th best players for each team play in the first game, 4th best in game two and so on. Each game rewards different points towards a total that will be tallied after game 5. The game with 5th best players counts least, and the best players game rewards the most points. Let me know what you think, there is probably room for tweaks, but I think this format has potential.
Maybe make a team mode variant for tft where you only pvp the enemy team and you can coordinate with your team what builds each player is going for, so you can hold or sell characters you normally wouldn't in hopes of making the pool more favorable for your team, at the risk of also making it more favorable for the opponent
11: 05 yes that is true, but only because the comparison is partly flawed.
1 game is not 1 hand but offers many more decision points which are "micro hands" yes they can snowball, but that is partly true for poker as well, as the player with the larger pot has pressure on the table and the mind games/reads/social game of 1 game are strongly connected over multiple hands.
Tournament format:
If the top 3 finish in the top 4 consistently, then make a sort of table hierarchy, like tables ranked 1-8. After the game, top 4 go up a table, bottom 4 go down a table. Once a table can't reach the top table, it stops playing, the players there are eliminated. If these games would allow for less than a full compliment of players, I'd say you start cutting the top table in half until one remains, but perhaps instead the final table plays one last game and the chips fall where they may and you're just confident in top 8
I think elimination style would work and wouldn't change the game since it's what happens in a single game.
Another thing that would be pretty cool to see, but would change the tactics, would be to see team based tournaments where you have 4 on each team (either they always match vs the 4 on the other team or perhaps even more interesting if they randomly face each others' armies too so you need to consider that in your strats). Team-matches probably would also need less games per match to find the winning team (and each game within the match could end as soon as all from one team are out since the inter-team placements don't matter). The score would be a simple 1 or 0 (or 0.5 if they end up exactly even). I think that would be quite enjoyable to watch. :)
Imo TFT Tournament Format is similar to FGC. Tons of top 8 lobbies with seeding and "pools" single or double elim is up to preference, but double elim seems prolly fine. Top 4 stay winners bracket, Bottom 4 are losers bracket/out. Slowly reduce # of lobbies til a final 8, then final placement determines 1st-8th. Minor issue is people that never went to losers bracket but then placed bottom 4 in the final lobby, unsure of a good solution for it. Maybe final lobby is ran 3 times?
I completely agree with the tournament format thing.
I think the consistent monetary payout is the easiest solution.
Its like poker/elo, you win some you lose some and the payout should reflect that. I think the culture of first price getting all the money is a bit absurd anyways, but ofc they can get a bonus but then consistent tournament payouts will show the best players and this could be used to create tournament series with multiple stops.
Increasing point payouts are the other straight forward option but that makes the game significantly more rng heavy as winning the last game is worth more than the first but if it is balanced correctly it could be a useful factor. (Another aspect connected to this are choosing meaningful tiebreaker factors.)
But all of this still depends on the high level player skill range (which is again partly formed independently of the game itself.)
More exotic formats would include bonus challenges in the game for a skiled player to collect extra points by winning in a certainw war balancing out his bad luck as he may have not gotten first due to rng, but he was able to show the a skill in anotger way (but also we need to remember the ist still kn beta and there is loads of room for changes.
they need to add 4 player and 2 player modes to a tournament format for tft. use the 8 player ffa mode for seeding. you can do the current point system with 8 players for like, say, 4 games. bottom 4 are cut. repeat in a 4 player ffa mode and after 2 more people are cut continue on into a 1v1 mode, basically heads up poker.
So glad youre making more content
I've seen Mario party at mlg events back in the day, it's definitely a competitive game
I think fortnite also sucks when it's an esport because people just sit in 1x1 until last circle and people refuse to engage.
In PUBG’s Regional Pro Leagues it’s something like this:
The top 5 teams get the bulk of the prize money and a spot in the global event, so it’s sort of like they’re fighting for who gets the bulk of the bulk of the prize pool lol. These teams are usually neck and neck in points.
The next 5 teams reserve their spot in the league for next phase and are fighting to possibly break into the top 5, I believe they receive prize money as well, just not as much
The bottom 6 teams risk being relegated to the tier 2 league or even worse they can be relegated out of the entire scene and have to go through the process of open quals, closed quals, relegations all over again. Big yikes.
These leagues are played over a very long time. They are different than tournaments but I felt this was worth mentioning.
2 Points- How do you feel about things like TF2, where the competitive meta and format have many more restrictions on team size and item use compared to pub games, particularly when 6s seems to be the gold standard? Do you feel that even though it diverges considerably from what the average player experiences, because there isn't a huge divergence from the game's core mechanics and because each class remains viable as an off-pick in the very least it maintains that integrity?
And for the Battle Royale problem, one of the big issues I see is that past the top positions, the end result of a tournament doesn't really care what order anyone is in, yet these scoring systems track down to the bottom team. It seems to me that if you wanted to prevent that bottom-team burnout, the best solution would be to determine what bracket a top team should consistently be in (Top 4, as you said, for TFT) and count all placements past that as equivalent. I'd establish a system of "lowest score wins," and distribute points based on simple placement. For the TFT example, though, I'd distribute 5 points to every player outside of the top 4. Across 5 games, a single 8th place therefore shouldn't kill your ability to place, but you might have to aim for eliminating players who lasted longer in previous rounds to make sure they're experiencing that 5-point love as well. Scored placements like the example you gave have a tendency to exacerbate differences that rise up early on, and give teams/players too much padding to their scores. The only problem I see arising with a smaller score window is that there is a much stronger chance of ending up with tied scores compared to a system that produces that larger, sometimes insurmountable score gaps. Maybe keep the broader placement number on hand as a subscore for tiebreakers? I'm just spitballing at this point.
An idea how to rank something pubg:
Caviat, it would take several times the players and man power.
You have 16 teams of 16 teams. Play 16 games, and award points as per usual.
Then you break up the Indavidual teams by score and have them play again. So all of the teams that placed first play one another, and so on.
Second game finishes and you then pair up teams by closest total scores.
Repeat for X games.
Now that I think on it for a minute, this just seems overly complicated for the same result.
You ever play this game called Gigantic? I looooved this game, but the servers shut down. I just got reminded of this game when you started talking about CannonBrawl
according to Jericho everything is esports, especially bridge building sims.
Василий Калинкин when someone names Tucker Boner says it, its gotta be right
While you are probably aware of this 9:50 is a very simplified statement,
How about 2 people of *"similar"* skill level playing each other. The different dimensions connected are the spread of skill and how different "closeness" inability expresses itself on different levels of play.
(You probably mention some of that)
But the interesting part is that more rng can make a game less rng based if it increases the skill ceiling so that it stretches the top 100 players further apart.
In the "perfect competitive game where all pro's are at 99% solved(similar skill level) then every rng that does exist will be insanely more impactful.
So I know the game is made as a free for all but from what I've seen I feel like it could be adapted to a 1v1 with reasonable success. I haven't played it myself so maybe I'm way off the mark on that.
In a free for all, if we have a fixed amount of matches to resolve and the last place has a reasonable change to somehow win the tournament so they have a reason to keep playing, it would be really uncompetitive and/or unfun to watch
Pretty much only the last match of the series would matter
How would a "first to X first places" work? Given enough matches they would select the best player, but not sure how many that would be for TFT
Yuh notification squad
Is this video mirrored?
I think so, how can you tell?
Sound proofing normally makes an “L” shape, but that is not the case here. The door is on the right side instead of the left in this video. The microphone comes from the the left side instead of right. The shadow is casted across the left side of your face where it is normally on the right. That’s all I was able to find so far.
@@tylernewton7358 well done spotting the differences. I just noticed Skyline's face was mirrored and the way he talked with his hands looked off. Plus that soundproof lego piece.
You are gonna take TFT ranked by storm, twitch fame awaits
Orangu Juice-u! Marc master race!
Maybe kick out bottom 2 players/teams each round?
I think you have to knock out the bottom player each game. 8 games is 4 hours of play. TFT need more balanced wolves/bosses and such to fill the empty players positions to keep game length the same.
Do you think the game would change too much if at the end of tournaments, like the final 8, you start eliminating players and starting the next game with less people? For example, instead of a best of 3 at the end, you do 8 player game -> top 4 player game -> top 2 player game? Or 8 -> 6 -> 4 -> 2? Might be worth testing.
So in a 64 player tournament for example, you'd have 8 tables of 8 -> 4 tables of 8 -> 2 tables of 8 -> 1 table of 8 -> 1 table of 4 -> 1 table of 2? It would get rid of this point system mentality and also test the assumption that getting top 4 in a tournament setting is consistent if you're the better player.
competitive? yes, maybe. but only a true randomless game can be the ultimate
the only true esport can be a game where the player controls everything and the better player will win 100% of the time (at the highest skill lvl), if you play perfect, you win everytime.
Does Pokemon qualify?
4:02 irrelephant!
Do you think that Overwatch keeps it`s spirit as you get better at it?
Spirit of meme?
That was the problem with goats. Goats on high tier still requires a lot of skills but made most heroes, and with them some of the best players, useless.
What if team fight tactics has teams of 2 that way there's all ways a way to comback
That way you could have a strong build but rng it could hurt your teamate
I really strongly disagree with your first point, just because Melee exists.
Melee gets way more fun the better you get. New players look at pros wave dashing around doing cool tricks and want to get better so they can do that
Skyline I guess, I probably misunderstood you,
5:17 but isnt that just league in na lcs? that is how they play the game!
no
thirst
No game is really worth competing in in my opinion. But if you do, you do. If you don't you don't.
You should make your videos shorter and more concise. 23 minutes is a very long video to just listen to someone talk with few visual aids