If there were low-rank tournaments, would you play?

[Matrixmage]

After what I've taken to be my tentative acceptance as a tournament director, I've started to plan out some tournaments. In the interest of pleasing the greatest number of players, I've created a straw poll to gauge interest and to figure out which maps people would want to play. My thoughts are to start the tournaments at ranked 1000 or less only, with mostly 3v3 maps. While some others may disagree, I feel like 3v3 strikes a good balance by allowing pre-made groups of 3 to play, pre-made pairs with 1 extra, and also impromptu groups of 3. Though this way of thinking can be extended all the way up to 6v6, I feel that past 3v3 you're no longer going to really find pre-made groups of the max team size, so it's less needed. And of course there's also the fact that high player-count teams just complicate everything.

So click the link below to vote in the straw poll! Please post a reply here if you're interested, as then we'll get a more accurate read on the audience. As I mention in the straw poll, if there is a map or format (3v3, 4v4) that isn't included that you'd like to see, just post it below! If enough people are interested as well, I'll look into putting on a tournament.

TL;DR: I'm planning on running 1000 or less 3v3 tournaments. Please vote in the straw poll to show interest and to say what maps you'd play.

Click here for the straw poll!

Click here for my post that started all of this.

[bugblatterbeast]

Fields of Isis 2v2

[arkitect]

I'm not quite in the bracket for this, but interested in seeing how many u1000 players check the forums...

[Mapleloops]

I'm rated u1000 and would love the chance to participate in some more tournaments. However, I would definitely prefer to play in 1v1 tournaments as opposed to '3v3 tournaments'. In reality, I expect fewer people to sign up for these low rank tournaments (at least during the first few tournaments, before it spreads by word of mouth and ads), and so making it team based with (what I expect to be a small amount of people) would make little sense. My 2 cents.

[VioletAnia]

If there were low rated tournaments i'd be quite interested just for fun, but i'd be more interested in 1v1s.
I guess i prefer 1v1s and also everyone i know in faf is pretty much 1500+ so i wouldn't even know where to find team mates =P
Anyways, that's just my thoughts ^^
Ty for considering us ^^

[theeggroll]

Well written points, but the biggest problem I've noticed with tournies that low ranked is lack of knowledge and participation. As it is, a HUGE percentage of the community don't go on the forums, nor do they read the what's new page nor do they read the topic in aeolus. This is especially true for newer members of the community who probably just aren't as involved as the rest of us. So the newbie tournies being U1200 (which is above the "high 100's" division you mentioned) is because that's when you start to get people who are actually involved and pay attention to the "news".

I Feel like this is a common misconception in many ways. While I do agree that the lower ranks do have more new players, and those new players probably won't pay attention to community stuff, I routinely see u1000 players with 500+ games. By that point it's kind of impossible to have NOT noticed some of the community stuff, so I'm pretty sure that a higher portion of the player-base would be interested in these sorts of things than people tend to think.

My point has been proven afaik

[Matrixmage]

My point has been proven afaik

That's a somewhat pessimistic point of view to have... Regardless, I still hold out hope.

[Morax]

My point has been proven afaik

That's a somewhat pessimistic point of view to have... Regardless, I still hold out hope.

It's not a pessimistic point of view; it's realistic. No one likes it and we're all working harder to get the community motivated to be better at the game. You can't force people to subscribe to Zock or TA's youtube channel.

[Matrixmage]

It's not a pessimistic point of view; it's realistic. No one likes it and we're all working harder to get the community motivated to be better at the game. You can't force people to subscribe to Zock or TA's youtube channel.

Maybe pessimistic was the wrong word, but it helped no one for theeggroll to say that their "point was proven". Most of the response I've gotten was from people telling me that they've tried and failed in the past, giving off a pretty strong vibe indicating that they think this is a foolish endeavor. Foolish or not, if no one keeps trying there is no chance for this to be successful.

We can't all give up just because others have failed, it's impossible to succeed unless we continue to try.

[Zock]

I'll keep doing low rated 1v1 tourneys for the weekly tournaments, despite medium success. Part of my own motivation for starting up this tournaments were the lack of tourneys for lower rated people as well. But teamgames require even more participants and organisation than 1v1, and low rated players have a high percentage of people not showing up or leaving during the tournament, which is bad for 1v1 tourneys but worse for teamgames. That doesn't mean low rated teamgame tourneys are impossible however, and i think it's great that you want to try one and that you don't let other discourage you.