Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Actually, it would be great to organize a similar tournament on Wargaming.net, if NumOne doesn't mind such plagiarism. We could call it something like "Beat Alex." As far as I know, Meduum managed to do it a few months ago. In general, there would be a long queue of Wargaming.net players willing to participate. And it would be a good testing ground for Vik's idea about paid broadcasts. :)
I'm a little concerned that by the start of the tournament, a rather large number of players will register, and many will have to wait quite a long time for their turn, which will significantly reduce interest in the tournament for most. I can suggest a more interesting scheme: after a player becomes the King of the Hill, other players are given N days to challenge him. And then, from those who issue a challenge, an opponent is randomly selected. This system will increase interest in the tournament and give a greater chance of playing to those who want to play soon.
Actually, it would be good to organize a similar tournament on the forums, if NumOne doesn't mind such plagiarism... And call it something like "Take Down Alex"))) As far as I know, Medium was the last one to do it successfully, about a few months ago. In general, there will be a queue of forum users who want to participate... Well, and it would be a good testing ground for Vik's idea about paid broadcasts. :)
No problem. :) Let someone take care of it.
Ihtiandr
I'm a little concerned that by the start of the tournament, a fairly large number of players will probably register, and many will have to wait a long time for their turn, which will greatly reduce interest in the tournament for most. I can suggest a more interesting scheme: after the next player becomes the "King of the Hill," other players are given N days to challenge him. And then, from those who challenged, an opponent is randomly selected. This system will increase interest in the tournament and give a greater chance of playing for those who want to play soon.
Actually, "King of the Hill" shouldn't be positioned as a regular tournament; it will rather be an alternative to the season and a supplement to other tournaments. The thing is that the list of participants here is more of a formality; some may sit here for a year or more without playing even once, but when the chance to play arises, there will be a much greater incentive to play at their best to stay in the game. A forum-based version is welcome here; the main thing is to find a good organizer.
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. By the time it's your turn, you'll have already forgotten that you registered, the enthusiasm will fade, and there won't be much incentive to keep trying. But if you implement the system I suggested, no one will get bored – they'll have to keep submitting applications, and the intrigue will always be there. But of course, this is just empty talk; I'm sure the organizers have thought about it, but they decided to implement their own idea, which is closer to their hearts.
It will be interesting to have the highest score compared to other players and watch them gain points, while you can't do anything because of the randomness....
Added after 6 minutes
but when the chance to play arises, there will be a much greater incentive to play to the fullest in order to stay in the game.
What to strive for? When a separate group of players has a certain lead in points (due to randomness), having an even greater chance again due to randomness, the incentive to play against them can be abandoned after 3-4 months of the tournament.
МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...
If, let's say, after tomorrow or in a couple of days, we have a "King of the Hill" game, why not have everyone play 2 games in a single-elimination format (16 players)? And then, from the remaining 4, a random draw decides who will play against the "King"? Maybe there are 16 players, but only 10 are actually ready to play. Why not let anyone who wants to play for the top spot compete for the right to challenge? I think if there are many willing participants, they will come up with a reasonable solution to this problem so that real contenders don't have to wait...
That's exactly what I mean. By the time it's your turn, you'll have forgotten that you even registered, the enthusiasm will be gone, and there won't be much incentive to keep going. But if we implement the system I suggested, no one will fall asleep – they'll have to keep submitting applications, and the intrigue will always be there. But of course, this is just empty talk; I'm sure the organizers have thought about it, but they decided to implement their own idea, which is closer to their heart.
As practice shows, even in regular tournaments, enthusiasm can fade. How many times have there been situations where people withdrew in the playoffs, in the round of 16 or the quarterfinals? Why should that bother me? It's stated in my first post that before each game, I will contact the selected player. If they are unresponsive, I will move on to the next player, and so on, until I find someone who still has the enthusiasm. R55Max
It will be interesting to have the most points compared to other players and watch as they gain points, while you can't do anything because of the randomness...
If you only select players who have already accumulated a certain number of points and ignore the rest, that would be much more unfair. Randomness is great – let's hope for it and rely on it! :) R55Max
What's the point of trying when a certain group of players will have a lead in points (due to randomness) and, thanks to the randomness, have a greater chance? After 3-4 months of the tournament, you can just give up on the incentive to play against them.
There will always be something to strive for. I need players here who will play to win, not just to participate. They shouldn't be intimidated by the situation where one player has been in the lead for 2 months; they should try to beat him and stay in the lead for 3. And remember that the tournament won't end in a year – it will continue cyclically (provided that interest in it doesn't wane), and the player who, for example, first plays in December, if they win, will start the next year as the King of the Hill.
The tournament will be tested for a while. Gradually, I will determine the optimal number of players (there should always be a limited number), and I may make some adjustments to the rules. But, as some have suggested, I will definitely not have multiple matches happening simultaneously, as this contradicts the very essence of King of the Hill.
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
The tournament starts on January 3, 2013. The first winner will be determined on January 1, 2014.
This is the end. What comes after will be a new cycle, not a continuation.
Saying that I'm ready to play for a whole year with a weekly availability period seems a bit unserious, especially considering that there's no way to adjust to the dates, as the queue might come up at any moment. Some kind of certainty is simply necessary in such a long marathon. And if randomness is going to be used when determining the contender, then open online lotteries should be held, as I think.
МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...
A simple random selection seems unfair to me. I think it would be better if players could choose randomly, but within a single round, a player shouldn't be able to be selected a second time.
Also, the time for one game should be limited, I think to 3 days, so that there can be as many games as possible. And if you can't play faster, i.e., you can't defend the top of the mountain, then you should drop out.
I think a simple random selection isn't fair. It would be better if players could choose randomly, but within a single round, a player shouldn't be selected twice.
This is closer to the truth. According to the current rules, the losing player gets a break for the next 3 matches; perhaps increasing this number to 4-5 would be optimal. Dima Surmay
Also, the time for a single game should be limited, I think to 3 days, so that there are as many games as possible. And if you can't play faster, i.e., you can't defend the top of the mountain, then you should be removed from there.
I already wrote about this, that the game should be completed within a week or faster. If the King can't maintain the pace for whatever reason, then he falls into the pool, and a new pair is started. 3 days is still not enough; few people will be able to play at such a pace for a long time.
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
That's what I wrote about – you need to stick to a week or less. If the King can't handle the schedule for whatever reason, he drops out, and a new pair is started. 3 days is still not enough; few people will be able to play at that pace for a long time.
You'll see, it will turn into a mess... like, I could play on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday... but couldn't play on the other days, and my opponent is the opposite... and it turns into a mess. I think we also need to introduce a veto option – like, after an opponent is assigned for the King, he tries to schedule a match with that opponent within one day, setting a specific date and time.
Javdet
