epic
This document raises a lot of questions, especially with how much it feels being done in purely bad faith.YokesPai wrote:
Hi! I have some issues with this update, specifically the rule stating to disallow asynchronous matches under any circumstances. Some of these issues include what an asynchronous match is defined as, and the potential of fully asynchronous tournaments that are now unbadgeable.
Please read the full document here!
Obviously this was made as a rule to avoid asynchronous matches during a tournament where the matches are synchronous. However, this was decided way too fast.So, you're already admitting that as a tournament host, you fully understood what the rule was made for, hence it should end at that, but let's continue.
In a qualifier, you are competing against every other player/team. And you can bet that there is no tournament where all players/teams play at the same time for said qualifier. Simply put, qualifiers aren’t allowed anymore.Where in the name of hell did you even read qualifiers were not allowed.
This would make existing tournaments such as Ladder Cup unviable for a badge which uses an asynchronous format during the bracket stageSo a tournament from October 2019 is the only last argument you've been able to find. Interesting how that seems like a non-issue in this case, and could just be sorted out on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore the rule is already flawed. But let’s ignore that. I assume the tournament committee made the rule assuming experienced tournament hosts know that qualifiers are exempt. Either way, specifying this would not hurt.I think badged tournament hosts should not be having their hands held every single step of the way.
- No roll/pick/ban timer (as those are done beforehand).Some of these benefits also just sound like it's not that much worth the hassle of having two lobbies at once for a single match as a staff.
- Waiting time between maps is decreased (fewer players/teams per lobby).
- Fewer maps to practice (maps that didn’t get picked aren’t played after all, you can also have huge mappools this way!)I'm sorry but don't you literally need to practice most of the mappool to know what to ban or pick anyway???
- Less worry about scheduling and availability issues (usually referred to as “schedule hell”).Probably the only decent arguments here, but also: If you can't get to schedule anything, don't join tournaments if you're not gonna have a large enough availability.
- This allows people who aren’t available at 14-16 UTC to play international tournaments.
- You can even have teammates play asynchronous if their team has a big range of time zones (i.e. Suiji).Oh great, so what now, 1 lobby per player per team?
Therefore I propose that we simply change the wording of the rule:So now to the actual part that matters at all.
“The tournament must have a consistent match format, however, qualifiers are exempt from this” (so no switching between async and sync)
Considering the current state of tournament banned players as helpers/staff, as shown on the wiki, depends fully on the host's discretion as of now, tournament banned players would not be allowed by any means to do that by themselves.megumic wrote:
May I ask what are the consensus on a host's own eligibility? If a tournament organiser is currently restricted on osu!, or has an ongoing tournament ban, can they receive official support for a badge? And if it's not a complete no, where is the line drawn? If support is eligible even if you have a tournament ban, would that still apply if you have a permanent tournament ban that's given from cheating in a tournament?
Personally I think that anyone who is restricted or has an ongoing tournament ban should not be given official support no matter what. I hope this can be clarified and added to the wiki, thanks!
While Kasumi has already done a good job explaining Tournament Committee's official stance on this, I'd like to expand to clarify why the wording on this rule should not be changed.YokesPai wrote:
Hi! I have some issues with this update, specifically the rule stating to disallow asynchronous matches under any circumstances. Some of these issues include what an asynchronous match is defined as, and the potential of fully asynchronous tournaments that are now unbadgeable.
Please read the full document here!
The tournament must have a consistent match formatOne could argue this wording also invalidates all tournaments whose Best Of or ban counts change between round, or which change format from group stages to a bracket stage if they were to argue in bad faith.
If you think this was done in bad faith, I will provide some context. This document stemmed from a discussion of me pitching an idea and getting responed (by a tournament committee member, by the way) that it would not be badgeable.Kasumi-sama wrote:
This document raises a lot of questions, especially with how much it feels being done in purely bad faith.
Yes, as a tournament player, I got to see a few asynchronous matches in my career. However, I saw members of said Discord server ask what an asynchronous match was, so I naturally thought "what else could an asynchrounous match refer to?"Kasumi-sama wrote:
So, you're already admitting that as a tournament host, you fully understood what the rule was made for, hence it should end at that, but let's continue.
I got my conclusion by using the very definitions of the words "match" and "asynchounous" from Google (which is what one should do if they're confused about the wording). This was again an argument for how unclear the current rule about asynchrounous matches are. Was it presented badly? I don't know, but hopefully this cleared it up.Kasumii-sama wrote:
Where in the name of hell did you even read qualifiers were not allowed.
Was it said point blank said explicitly at any point in the new rules?
Was it said by any of the Tournament Committee members at any point?
Because I decided to take a step back and remove all prior notions about what I already know. It's very easy to do something that doesn't shoot your own foot, but looks like you are shooting your own foot to others. For example in this case, you guys know exactly what you mean by this new rule, but I saw some players who are and have been participating in tournaments still ask what it meant for a match to be asynchrounous.Kasumii-sama wrote:
The fact this is a point even being brought up, when every person in the committee is a tournament host using qualifiers.
Why would we decide to shoot ourselves in the foot with that??
I used Ladder Cup because it was brought up in the Discord. If you want more tournaments that use interesting formats that aren't your type of "matches", but would go under Google's definition of "matches", then I can refer to omct5 (osu map clearing tournament 5) and Banger Bonanza 2022 (where the 4-week qualifier stage was my favorite part, by the way).Kasumii-sama wrote:
So a tournament from October 2019 is the only last argument you've been able to find. Interesting how that seems like a non-issue in this case, and could just be sorted out on a case-by-case basis.
Considering how easy it is to search around for examples of well-run tournaments, I do agree overall. For this rule in particular though, can you name a tournament that had an asynchrounous match (your definition) on the top of your head? How many? When compared to the full amount of badged tournaments, it's not that many. Again, both players and staff alike should know what an asynchrounous match is. A specific rule like this has no reason to be vague in any way.Kasumii-sama wrote:
I think badged tournament hosts should not be having their hands held every single step of the way.
If you need that, then you shouldn't be looking at getting official support to begin with.
Again, you can have multiple players/teams play in the same lobby (like a qualifier) if you wish to reduce the amount of lobbies. Players/teams can simply leave when a pick comes up that is not in their playlist. I've seen this work well in tryouts where players only pick x maps in the tryouts mappool, but have lobbies which go through all of them.Kasumii-sama wrote:
Some of these benefits also just sound like it's not that much worth the hassle of having two lobbies at once for a single match as a staff.
This was more of a benefit for experienced players, since they are well used to the usual mappool meta anyway. However, it is quite easy to play a map once and tell "I think I can do better" or "No, I will not be able to play this". In addition, many players I know are lazy and simply don't practice pools until the last second anyway, so if there are less picks there is less stress about what you're playing.Kasumii-sama wrote:
I'm sorry but don't you literally need to practice most of the mappool to know what to ban or pick anyway???
How does this change anything?
As a staff and tournament player I am not seeing the benefit here in the slightest.
This argument just feels like an argument for the sake of being an argument. I'm not going to make any assumtions based on your time zone, but it is pretty ridiculous that international team tournaments, 90% of the time force players who live in America, Asia and Oceania to play at early, late or straight up 3AM.Kasumii-sama wrote:
Probably the only decent arguments here, but also: If you can't get to schedule anything, don't join tournaments if you're not gonna have a large enough availability.
Also don't join a billion tournaments like a lot of osu!standard tournament players seem to do for whatever reason.
Qualifers aren't a mess, so this shouldn't be either. I will again refer to the argument 3 quotes above this one.Kasumii-sama wrote:
Oh great, so what now, 1 lobby per player per team?
Won't be a mess at all.
They don't need to? Tournaments like omct and Ladder cup were very successful despite having little to no "actual tournament matches". And I personally loved the qualifier stage of Banger Bonanza. Not every tournament needs to the "adrenaline rush" of beating your opponent in a multi lobby. To be blunt, this argument sounds like a bias, rather than an actual argument.Kasumii-sama wrote:
Asynchronous matches just don't feel like tournament matches at all at that point, it's just a practice lobby with your own team, or on your own.
So why even bother?
After actually thinking about it (thanks to Dio's post), I realized that the type of tournament I'm proposing is literally just a score attack with a gimmick. It's happening in Lazer, it's been done in omct as a "pass attack", the qualifier stage in Banger Bonanza would count as consecutive score attacks which turns into a bracket stage. The difference between my concept and these tournaments do end up being a gimmick, where the gimmick is that instead of comparing your score to everyone in the tournament, it's compared to one other player/team.Kasumii-sama wrote:
Why has no one hosted anything like that properly in 3 years?
This is true, so after some thought, this is my next proposal:D I O wrote:
One could argue this wording also invalidates all tournaments whose Best Of or ban counts change between round, or which change format from group stages to a bracket stage if they were to argue in bad faith.
1) The new rule states that eliminated players can only become so after being eliminated. As long as they have no power as a staff until they're eliminated, I see no issues in keeping him.freddiiieeee wrote:
Hey,
One of my club's officers is interested in playing in my university's upcoming LAN's Mania 4K tournament. However, they are also enlisted as a staffer. With these recent changes, then I have a few questions/concerns.
1) As long as they do not staff one osu! Mania 4K match before they are eliminated, then the chances of the tournament getting badged are still fine even if they were enlisted as a staffer before registering as a player? They also have never seen the mappool until it was publicly released.
2) Because this staffer is not playing in the LAN's standard tournament, can this staffer referee the LAN's standard matches at any point during the event (even if they are not yet eliminated from the Mania 4K tournament) without compromising badging prospects?
Thanks!
I think this could be a little bit better as follows:YokesPai wrote:
The tournament must have a consistent match format within the same stage.
Any deviation in the format of a match must be publicly announced before the tournament's registrations close.This would preserve the ability of hosts to badge any well-run tournament with variable match formats that are SUPPOSED to be variable. The only reason async sucks is because it deviates from the intended match format of the tournaments where async matches occur. I'll see if the other t-comm members are willing to push this change.