MAME Knockout Championships 5

[BBH]

It's with great pleasure that we officially announce the 5th edition of the MAME Knockout Championships. We've made some changes in the format and hope everyone enjoys it! Please read the rules below to find out about the changes.

All rules and information will be mirrored on the webpage here:

http://bbh.marpirc.net/k5/


------

General guidelines for submission:

-For this tournament two versions of WolfMAME Plus will be accepted: 0.106 and 0.101. No other versions of WolfMAME will be accepted. However, in the event that a game is discovered to have severe emulation/playback problems, an earlier version of WolfMAME may be allowed. However, the tournament games have been tested to make sure there are no problems and no substitutions should be necessary.

-When submitting, please be sure to include the .wlf file along with the .inp.

-It is strongly encouraged to use the game's shortname as the filename when you submit your .inp/.wlf file. Long filenames can be a hassle for confirmers.

-As is the case with regular MARP rules, only one credit is allowed. No continuing, and no starting a 2nd game after your 1st credit.

-Recordings must be submitted within 48 hours of creation, except for the last day of competition on a round, anything submitted on the last day must be uploaded within 24 hours of playing.

-Unless otherwise noted, all games are to be played on the default settings. If you're not sure your settings are default, delete the game's corresponding .cfg file from the cfg directory. Although they are usually accepted at MARP, recordings on "harder" settings will not be permitted for this tournament. If the game uses a bios file, please make sure that it too is set to "default", playing on a different bios can lead to playback problems and sometimes results in changes to gameplay as well.

-Final time before which a recording must be submitted to MARP is 23:59 GMT on the corresponding day. If MARP is down for an extended period of time, we will accept submissions via forum attachments on the thread for that week's game. Please do not submit recordings to the forum if MARP is not down.

-There is no limit to the number of times you may submit on a game, as long as your new recording is a higher score than the previous recording. Regular uploading of scores is strongly encouraged since it makes for more interesting competition.

-Average recorded speed must be 95% or higher. Use frameskip if you must.

-If none of the three tournament coordinators can play back your recording, then your score will not be accepted. To help ensure that your recordings will work, please make sure that you delete/disable your nvram directory, and in the case of Neo-Geo games, delete/disable your memcard directory as well.

-HAVE FUN! That's what we play games for, to have fun, right? Don't get TOO caught up in the competition and start verbally abusing other players, either in your score comments or on the forums. Nobody likes a bad sport.



QUALIFYING ROUND

The qualifying period for the tournament will take place from August 20th at 00:00 GMT to August 29th at 23:59 GMT (10 days). Qualifying for the tournament will consist of passing a very low target score on the game selected as the qualifier. Players shouldn't have much difficulty at all to qualify. All players who beat the target score will "officially" be in the tournament, but players are still encouraged to go for as high a score as possible since the qualifying round will factor into seeding. (more on that below)


ELIMINATION ROUNDS

From here on all rounds will be a duration of one week (7 days), with a 24-hour period separating each round.

After the qualifying round is over, the tournament coordinators will take two days to decide how many elimination rounds will be used. Expect to see anywhere from 1 to 3 elimination rounds, depending on how many players qualify. The first elimination round will begin on September 1st.

Elimination rounds will consist of the rules regularly in place for knockout tournaments - be one of the top players on that round and you will go on to the next round. Lowest ranking players will be eliminated.

Performance in the elimination rounds will factor into seeding too, so don't hold anything back.

If 16 or less players qualify for the tournament, the elimination rounds will not be used at all and play will start immediately with the 16-player bracket. High seeds will be given a "bye" and get a free ride into the second round. (hopefully this scenario will not occur!)


THE 16-PLAYER BRACKET

Here is where things get interesting. Although absent in the last knockout tournament, we will be bringing back the head-to-head format when the field has been narrowed down to 16 players (in past tournaments the head-to-head matches started when there were 8). But this time there is another slight change - the bracket will be DOUBLE ELIMINATION. This means that from this point on, no player is eliminated until they lose a total of two head-to-head matches.

Here is a sample representation of what a 16-player double elimination bracket looks like.
As with any double-elimination bracket, all players start in the Winner's Bracket in the first round. Each round will be head-to-head against another player, and it's here that beating the other player's score is all that matters. The winner moves on, the loser goes to the Loser's Bracket. In each round after that, there will be matches taking place in both the Winner's and Loser's brackets at once. If a player loses a match when they're in the Loser's Bracket, they are eliminated from the tournament.

After 5 rounds of play, all but three players will be eliminated - one in the Winner's Bracket, two in the Loser's Bracket. So for the 6th round, the game for that week will be used ONLY for the Loser's Bracket final, the Winner's Bracket champion gets a week off. The match between the last two remaining players in the Loser's Bracket will determine who goes to the grand finals against the Winner's Bracket champion.


THE FINALS

Another twist! Instead of the usual one game/one week approach, the finals will consist of TWO games at once for a 10-day duration. If the two players split and they each win one game, or the Winner's Bracket champion wins both games, then the player in the Winner's Bracket will be crowned the champion of the tournament. The player in the Loser's Bracket must win BOTH games in the final round if he wants to pull off an upset and become the champion.

(Why the two game approach for the finals? It's an attempt to make the finals more exciting, and it's the fastest and fairest solution. Remember, the player in the Winner's Bracket will not have lost a game leading up to the finals... wouldn't be very fair if he lost the tournament after losing one game, right?)


SEEDING

As mentioned before, the seeds for the 16-player bracket will be determined by where the players rank in the qualifying and elimination rounds. It's in the player's interest to try for as low a seed as possible, since that will theoretically give you a better draw in the brackets and match you up against "weaker" players. Upsets can (and probably will) happen though, anything's possible!

To determine seeding, points will be given to each player based on their placement in each round:

1st Place - 0 points
2nd Place - 1 point
3rd Place - 2 points
4th Place - 3 points
...etc. The player with the lowest amount of points will be given the #1 seed, then the next-lowest will be #2, etc. If any ties exist, then the player with the higher score on the qualifying round will be given the lower seed.

If you have any questions or concerns about the tournament, feel free to post them.


Brought to you by BBH, MJSTY, and NotMan

[The TJT]

Great! New format sounds nice.

I have one suggestion though:

THE FINALS

Another twist! Instead of the usual one game/one week approach, the finals will consist of TWO games at once for a 10-day duration. If the two players split and they each win one game, or the Winner's Bracket champion wins both games, then the player in the Winner's Bracket will be crowned the champion of the tournament. The player in the Loser's Bracket must win BOTH games in the final round if he wants to pull off an upset and become the champion.

(Why the two game approach for the finals? It's an attempt to make the finals more exciting, and it's the fastest and fairest solution. Remember, the player in the Winner's Bracket will not have lost a game leading up to the finals... wouldn't be very fair if he lost the tournament after losing one game, right?)

It would be better if in the final there were 3 games, one to win 2/3 is the champion. Variety, fast learning ability etc tested.

It doesn't seem fitting to punish the loser-side finalist, kinda takes the purpose of double elimination away. Which assumably is to get 2 best players in the final, and somewhat eliminate the chance of getting a "bad" game/opponent (opponent having hes/her? favourite game when playing against you).

Most importantly, if loser side finalist has to win both games...Then winner side finalist has to only submit "some score" at other game, and concentrate on his better game, winning on that one only(hiding hes skills untill the end of final) ...Meanwhile other finalist having to concentrate on both games. This makes the loser side finalist chances very very slim to win the tournament.
This might take big motivation away from the loser side competition, knowing that it's nearly impossible to win in the final anyway


Also note that winner side finalist already has an advantage, he doesn't have to play so much, plays couple weeks less I assume...so winning side finalist is more fresh in the finals.

[LN2]

It doesn't seem fitting to punish the loser-side finalist, kinda takes the purpose of double elimination away.

sure it is fitting...because that is the beauty of double elimination...the top player from ths loser backet has already lost once. The top player from the winner bracket has not lost at all.

Doing the 2 out of 3 you mention, if the losing bracket team had the high score on 2 of the 3, then technically the 2 gamers are tied at 2 losses each.

BBH has it perfect having 2 games at once where the winning bracket gamer only has to get the higher score on 1 of the 2 games. The losing bracket gamer has to win both to avoid their second loss of the tournament and elimination. When a gamer with a loss loses a second time, they are out at any level of the tournament...including the finals.

[The TJT]

It doesn't seem fitting to punish the loser-side finalist, kinda takes the purpose of double elimination away.

sure it is fitting...because that is the beauty of double elimination...the top player from ths loser backet has already lost once. The top player from the winner bracket has not lost at all.

No, you are arguing against double elimination and for the single-eliminanation cup system.
If winner side finalist gains advantage for the final, then there's no need for the double elimination tournament in the first place, and we should have cup-system.

Beaty of double elimination is that with this method you usually get best players to succeed best. I've myself played in some pool tournaments using DE...Where final is played to larger amount of racks, this makes best player come more likely on top, since you can lose in the early rounds due to playing fewer racks(shorter matches).
Same thing applies to this tournament; A player might have a tightly scheduled week, not being able to play enough during one round...Or you can just get unlucky(as you can get unlucky at pool too, a bad run of balls) to have an opponent that has hes favourite game against you.
I have won some tournaments, losing to the the finalist earlier on, at short matches, but winning them comfortably on a long match in the final.

Knockout example:
1. At winners side LN2 meets TJT, the game is any T&F type sports game...TJT wins easy.
2. At winners side LN2 meets TJT, the game is any game starting with a "pac"...LN2 wins easy

Of course, these two players being the best there is, they meet in the final...Now if we would use manipulated final, this would mean that the one of us who got the victory in the first confrontation at first place, would surely win the final because of having advantage.
Would that tell who is the better allrounder, no, it would tell that you can play Pacman games and I can play Track'n'Field
...Whereas if we would be on equal ground in the final, we would see who really is the better allround player...Now I don't think they would choose two pac games or two T&F games for the final.

Another example:
At some sports, teams/players are divided into qualification groups where some are eliminated and other continue. After these initial qualies all teams are equal IN PLAY regardless of their previous results. At football best group winner plays against least seccessful of other group...So in a sense their success at qualies give them a sort of "ranking" for the early cup rounds. Now they don't give quali winners 2 goals two start with in the first cup match...

So what I'm saying is that there is a reason why double elimination works as it does...and therefore this system shouldn't be altered or padded.

I'm saying this because I want tournament be as fair and interesting as possible.

[Chad]

I kind of like the 2 game final, and think a three game final doesn't make sense to give the losers bracket winner the win if they win 2/3 since the winner would have lost the same # of times. There is a supreme advantge for the winner of the winner's bracket, but it's probably deserved by wining that many games in a row but it could also be achieved by luck as well.

[The TJT]

But why to have double elimination in the first place, if winner side cup tells us the winner.
Unless the original idea was to have 2 games so that finalists play a minicompetition, one game first, after which second game is announced and played. (better)
I understood they would play 2 games at the same time, which would make the win for the loser side finalist nearly impossible. (worse)

Either way, still my reasoning for not padding traditional DE stays.
Of course it could be just one game in the final, not 3.

[edit: P.S. From my experience, it's very tough to get through to final from the loser side. Plus it drains you more.]

[BBH]

Knockout example:
1. At winners side LN2 meets TJT, the game is any T&F type sports game...TJT wins easy.
2. At winners side LN2 meets TJT, the game is any game starting with a "pac"...LN2 wins easy

Of course, these two players being the best there is, they meet in the final...Now if we would use manipulated final, this would mean that the one of us who got the victory in the first confrontation at first place, would surely win the final because of having advantage.
Would that tell who is the better allrounder, no, it would tell that you can play Pacman games and I can play Track'n'Field
...Whereas if we would be on equal ground in the final, we would see who really is the better allround player...Now I don't think they would choose two pac games or two T&F games for the final.

I understand what you're saying here, but imagine if it was single-elimination instead, and someone in the early rounds has to play against TJT on Track 'n Field, or LN2 on Pacman. No matter how good that player was, they would most likely be out of the tournament due to some very bad luck.

But getting back to the finals, there were two options for this - either the 2-game final that was decided on, or to have the finals like all the other weeks - one game, seven days. If the Winner's Bracket champion wins the tournament is over, if the Loser's Bracket champion wins it goes to one more game in which the winner takes all. I personally felt that having a possible two-week final (+1 day in between the two rounds) would drag things out way too long if it actually happened. If the majority of people think that's more fair than the 10-day/2-game approach though... well, speak up and maybe we'll change it since the tournament hasn't actually started yet. If not, let's see how it works out. A 2-out-of-3 finals doesn't really work at all, what if the Loser's Bracket champion loses the first game and wins the next two... not really fair to decide he's the winner when both players have lost 2 games then, right? (plus, that would make the finals take EVEN LONGER)

And no, the games in the final will definitely not be of the same genre.

[Zhorik]

It doesn't seem fitting to punish the loser-side finalist, kinda takes the purpose of double elimination away.

sure it is fitting...because that is the beauty of double elimination...the top player from ths loser backet has already lost once. The top player from the winner bracket has not lost at all.

No, you are arguing against double elimination and for the single-eliminanation cup system.
If winner side finalist gains advantage for the final, then there's no need for the double elimination tournament in the first place, and we should have cup-system.

Beaty of double elimination is that with this method you usually get best players to succeed best. I've myself played in some pool tournaments using DE...Where final is played to larger amount of racks, this makes best player come more likely on top, since you can lose in the early rounds due to playing fewer racks(shorter matches).
...
So what I'm saying is that there is a reason why double elimination works as it does...and therefore this system shouldn't be altered or padded.
...

Actually both final systems (sudden death or losers bracket must win twice) are commonly used in double elimination systems, largely for the same arguments for and against both systems listed here. The "losers bracket must win twice" system is more common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-eli ... tournament.

[The TJT]

Actually both final systems (sudden death or losers bracket must win twice) are commonly used in double elimination systems, largely for the same arguments for and against both systems listed here. The "losers bracket must win twice" system is more common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-eli ... tournament.

"More common", not sure about that.
Wikipedia is certainly wrong about sumo using double-elimination. Maybe they do so in American sumo tournaments.
---------

Yes, sometimes final is such that losersider must win twice in the final. I can see rationale in that.
However, it's never such as the original knockout proposition, 2 games played simultaneously.

If you still want to make other finalist win twice and stick close to original proposition, then the right format would be:
RIGHT: 5 days game 1, after that 5 days game 2.
WRONG: 10 days game 1 and 2.

The difference between these two is that using latter one, winning the tournament would be nearly impossible for the other finalist.
Also a plusside is that final could be over in 5 days, while at "wrong" the other finalist is made to play for 10 days without real chance of winning.
------------

[destructor]

RIGHT: 5 days game 1, after that 5 days game 2.
WRONG: 10 days game 1 and 2.

Right.

I have one question. How many hours I have for submit inp after recording? 24 hours only?

[BBH]

Yes, sometimes final is such that losersider must win twice in the final. I can see rationale in that.
However, it's never such as the original knockout proposition, 2 games played simultaneously.

so we're not allowed to attempt anything new with the rules? Even with that change in the finals, it's still in the spirit of a "knockout" tournament, isn't it?

If you still want to make other finalist win twice and stick close to original proposition, then the right format would be:
RIGHT: 5 days game 1, after that 5 days game 2.
WRONG: 10 days game 1 and 2.

Perhaps, but shortening the length by two days for the Finals doesn't make much much sense either. Not saying that the current way is the most logical of choices either, but it's an attempt to make things a little more interesting.

The difference between these two is that using latter one, winning the tournament would be nearly impossible for the other finalist.
Also a plusside is that final could be over in 5 days, while at "wrong" the other finalist is made to play for 10 days without real chance of winning.

Is it difficult for them to win? Sure. Nearly impossible? No.

I have one question. How many hours I have for submit inp after recording? 24 hours only?

48 hours at any point before the last day of play, in which point it changes to 24 hours.

[The TJT]

so we're not allowed to attempt anything new with the rules? Even with that change in the finals, it's still in the spirit of a "knockout" tournament, isn't it?

Sure you are, it's a good thing. I just don't think that kind of final would be motivating for the loserside competition or the final itself.
If it's in spirit of the knockout is for you to decide. Spirit of DE, not imo.

Perhaps, but shortening the length by two days for the Finals doesn't make much much sense either.

But it would still be 10 days, longer than one week.
I agree that two weeks is too long, maybe 10 days is pushing it a bit too.

[Chad]

RIGHT: 5 days game 1, after that 5 days game 2.
WRONG: 10 days game 1 and 2.

If it's the "right" way the finals could be over in 5 days instead of 10. the winner bracket winner only needs to win one game.

[The TJT]

RIGHT: 5 days game 1, after that 5 days game 2.
WRONG: 10 days game 1 and 2.

If it's the "right" way the finals could be over in 5 days instead of 10. the winner bracket winner only needs to win one game.

Yes.

[NotMan]

Originally, I tallked BBH about how the final rounds should be run about three months ago. I have the same comments as TJT said back then.

Originally, I came up with the ideas of the winner of loser bracket get a choice to pick what genre of game he/she want to play for the first game. If the loser wins then the winner of winner bracket get choose his/her choice of genre of game. The ideas was dropped, due that wasn't the true fairest ways to run the DE tourney. BBH came up the ideas that they have to play TWO games in the same time instead of having one game then decide if there will be second game or not. it makes the tourney runs longer. We want it make it K5 as fairest tourney as possible we can.

Sorry, TJT! We are sticking with the 2 games at the same time in final round and see if it really works out or not. Remember this is first time we have hosted DE tourney and we don't even know if it was good or not.

TJT, I'm not trying to attack you in hostile ways that I don't like dealing people who try to change rules or modify the rules which they don't like. Just like BBH said earlier:

So what I'm saying is that there is a reason why double elimination works as it does...and therefore this system shouldn't be altered or padded.

Remember, TJT! It was you and the rest of MARPers who vote this k5 tourney coordinators. If you don't like it or not! I'm sorry to hear about that. I'm trying to make this thing more clearer then we can move on to start the k5 tourney w/o having somebody trying to stall the tourney.

Peace, man!

NotMan