27/02/15 - WWHW3 One-Versus-One Tournament - Recap, Results, & Review

First off, I’d like to congratulate and thank all of our contestants and staff members,
we had a lot of technical difficulties and mismatches/miss-communication along the way…
But in the end we got it done and, personally, I really enjoyed myself and hope that everybody else did too!

We still have the bronze to do, however, I believe that getting
this out earlier will be better for our preparation for the next tournament…
So, without further hesitation, here are the results!

A big congratulations to Maddie!

You’ll be able to watch the final games, as well as some of the rest of the tournament, at the following link:

So… what now?

We’re just beginning the planning for our next tournament that’ll be in three or four months time.
We will be evaluating out decisions in terms of map choice, game settings, staff participation, etc.
However, if we’re going to get this as-perfect-as-it-can-be next time, we need your help!
Tell us what we did wrong, what we did right, and what you would like to see different in the future!

List of suggestions, thoughts etc:

From Douglas William Bacon, Tournament Manager & Caster,
"We didn’t do a lot of things that we should have, in hindsight, that is.

What we neglected to do at the start, which seems like a big-deal now, is that we didn’t run video or sound checks.
Ever. At all. Not once. This, while the livestream wasn’t affected to harshly, lead to a lot of problems in the recordings of the videos which you can now see on YouTube. Both mine and Jonathan’s audio levels were low, both in terms of quality, and in terms of volume. While I’m incredibly proud of Caleb (Caster & Editor) and his ability to keep it going throughout, with his excellent professional-like casting, this did lower the quality of the tournament overall and will definitely lead those who are watching the replays to be disheartened and will likely lead them to be disinterested.

The above, of course, can also be said for our replay release schedule. In future I’d like to be getting replays out a lot earlier; the original intention was to release them one-bracket-a-day, but by the time that we’d accrued enough replays to support that the interest was already getting lost. Next time we’ll probably try to change the release schedule to one-or-two brackets a week right from the start of the tournament. This leads into my next point…

The first thing that we should have done, right as the start from a participant’s perspective, is ran qualifiers to see who can participate. The lack of qualifiers allowed players, no names given, to go up against others that they were not ready for. On top of the latter it meant that we have little control over when we could actually have matches being played and also when casting could occur; it meant that the tournament, instead of two weeks, would be closer to a month in length - More than twice as long as intended and wanted. In the future, I’d like us to run qualifiers and also have certain requirements for participants, judged by a board of three staff members that will have the final choice.

Now, we were well into the tournament, and I can already regret creating a standard for the tournament; the decision to have adaptive game settings which changed from map-to-map and round-to-round. For those unfamiliar, we adjusted the settings for each map to try and make them as close to being at a similar resource level as possible, and that was a grave mistake; the whole point of having multiple maps, other than a varying layout, is to have a varying amount of both resources and playstyles having to be used for said map. On top of that, which I’m still unsure about, was the decision to change the unit cap based on what round the bracket was under. For those who don’t know:

  • Round 1 had a Huge unit cap
  • Round 2 had a Standard unit cap
  • Round 3 had a Low unit cap, also known as the semi-finals
  • Round 4 had a Standard unit cap, also known as the finals

I really can’t decide if that was a good decision or not in order to force some variety in there. On the one part, it really did provide more variety, and also forced players to be adaptive and change up their strategies depending on what round they were in; on the downside it really wasn’t welcomed by the participants at all and was subject to criticism (only at the beginning before it was explained) by the people who were watching and supporting.

Other than that, I don’t know what else we could have done, the multiplayer is still in beta and we had to ban the use of kamikazi halfway through because of how severely-unbalanced the mechanic was at the time. The positives? Other than the criticisms that were heard, the large-majority of people that were following the tournament had an amazing time, all the caster involved did really well and there were very few technical faults from Jonathan (Caster & Livestreamer.)

Overall, I’m happy with our first try at doing tournaments, and I can’t wait to manage the next one that comes along. The players were incredibly understanding and cooperative with members of staff and, for the most part, everybody had a great time."

It would have been nice if it were a one weekend thing. It was too hard to follow when it was just one set here and there.

There’s no benefit to replay casts here, unless you’re going to record video of a cast that later airs on twitch.

@innociv
Having it all set in a weekend would be ideal; but this time arund the reality was that neither participants nor casters are able to operate in such a professional capacity. If we can do it in future then we definitely will. ^^

Why are there no benefits? For one, it allows for people who can’t view Twitch’s taxing media player to view it on Steam, not to mention be delivered to a wider audience which wasn’t able to watch the tournament during the livestream itself.