Board index DeFRaG Competitions DFWC 2017

DFWC2017 Survey results

Re: DFWC2017 Survey results

Postby dqopb » Jan 22nd, '18, 11:56 am

Who would you like to be the organizers of the next DFWC?
next_dfwc.png

Interesting answers:
- gvn, marvin and jean-michel4
- The current team + effect, FM
- Add more people to help with map testing and demo validation
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
dqopb
 
Posts: 178
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Re: DFWC2017 Survey results

Postby dqopb » Jan 22nd, '18, 11:57 am

What are your preferred ways for DFWC announcements and updates?
announcements_media.png

Very clear.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
dqopb
 
Posts: 178
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Re: DFWC2017 Survey results

Postby dqopb » Jan 22nd, '18, 11:58 am

Questions without charts

Which weapons should appear in DFWC maps and how much?
Many, MANY participants agreed upon around the same idea:
- rockets (the most of all),
- plasma (a lot),
- grenades (here and there)
- railgun, shotgun, gauntlet - Occasionally (Hitting pads),
- BFG - Rarely (in one room only, or with limited ammo, or with limited health etc)
- lightning gun and hook - rarely to none.

Some players asked for more LG with knockback, interesting BFG and even hooks. Others asked not to add these 3 weapons at all.

I guess grenade can be added almost everywhere for simple and slow routes, OR for an ultimate hard shortcut (somewhere).

Besides, many players said that every map should be doable by newbies, so some BFG/LG/hook can be added for wittingly long walk-around paths. Like a hook that lets you jump over a long gap, where it is definitely faster to go with a RJ. And then this hook is removed. Or, if you can't make a 2x rocket somewhere, you can make a few steps aside and take some limited LG.

Some unique yet interesting thoughts:
- "all weapons" should be represented at least once, variety is good
- limited ammo with all of weapons, like we can add lg or other weapons and change some physical condition about this weapon temporarily

If we experiment with "all weapons", we should probably do it wisely and in one map only. Otherwise critics may say that we screw up one map with LG, spoiled another one with BFG, and another one with hook/quad/flight etc.
dqopb
 
Posts: 178
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Re: DFWC2017 Survey results

Postby dqopb » Jan 22nd, '18, 11:58 am

How long should the maps be?
Answers varied from 10 seconds to 3 minutes and beyond. It was hard, but I tried to find an average again :dance:
"no more than 1min, not less than 20 sec" - this translated to 40 seconds, "no more than a minute please" - translated to 55, etc.
I got 42.7 seconds in average.

It may make no sense though - the mapper never knows in advance what the top time will be. Also, is this time for top record, or for average players? Is it for vq3 or cpm? For first or last round, strafe or weapons?
- It is a very rough reference point.

Interesting thoughts:
- the shorter the map, the harder the tricks, and vice versa.

I myself think we had too many long maps this time. There has to be 1 or 2 maps between 20 and 30 seconds for a skilled player, and no more than 2 maps above 60 seconds. 90 seconds works for strafe in vq3, but it is probably too long for cpm and for vq3 weapon runs.

Tricks on maps can be of around the same difficulty level, and the map length makes it for more difficulty. For the majority of weak players it is too disappointing to fail a long run attempt.
dqopb
 
Posts: 178
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Re: DFWC2017 Survey results

Postby dqopb » Jan 22nd, '18, 11:59 am

How difficult should the maps be? Do we need extreme maps, or should a total newbie be able to complete any map?

Almost everybody said that all the maps should be doable by new players, and there have to be different routes. From very easy and slow, to fast routes for pro players. The last 1 or 2 maps can be some harder, but not extreme.

Interesting thoughds:
- Neither. Should be Creative maps where only the most creative route wins instead of the most grinded map
- penalties for not knowing tricks result in slow times, as opposed to not being able to finish the map
- would like to see easy routes. If you add unavoidable hard routes, then there has to be a possibility to re-try each element with enough health and ammo, just like in dfwc2017-1.
- You have to be able to find route while in-game, without radiant. For that, all the triggers should be visible. One good example of it is dfwc2012-5.
- Maps don't have to be hard. Let the player skill make it extreme ! 2017 round 5 is the perfect exemple for that.
- Every newbie should be able to complete all the 7 maps. So that everyone gets maximum of the competition that is organized once in 1-2-3 years.
- we have a small community and we should give most people the chance to earn points in each round.
- There should be routes for all skill levels. Maps should "forgive one's mistakes", so that finishing the map without failures isn't considered a miracle.
- Routes variability is best. But if there is little variability, then frame grinding with standard tricks/routes is better than extremely hard tricks. Pro players will win with precise execution anyway, and average players will not be disappointed just because they could not complete the map because of extremely hard tricks (dfwc2017-7 with only 25 vq3 demos).
- allow all players to play the whole cup but maps should progress from 1 easy up to hardcore, no nightmare.
- We need extreme maps and tricks. Alternative paths/trick resetting can ease some pain
- Each map has to have easy, medium and hard routes, ideally. It is good if you can intermix easy and hard tricks at your choice. We do NOT need extremely hard maps. A total newbie has to be able to complete each map - even without strafes and with simplest RJs/plasma.
dqopb
 
Posts: 178
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Re: DFWC2017 Survey results

Postby dqopb » Jan 22nd, '18, 12:00 pm

Should difficulty increase with rounds, or should harder and simpler maps alternate?
I read through your comments, and tried to count both answers, keeping the reasoning in mind.
The votes for alternating difficulty explained it so that it is a good idea to chill between hard maps. Also, if the maps get more and more difficult, then by the end of 2nd month of play it is unbearable to keep playing hard maps.
Those who didn't answer this question defaulted to increasing difficulty (as it usually increases anyway). Answers like "difficulty should be the same, but routes variability should in crease" translated to alternating difficulty. Answers like "all the same, but the final should be harder" translated to alternating difficulty. Everybody knows that the final should be harder and more spectacular, even if the rest maps are of alternating difficulties.
77% of you guys answered that difficulty should rather increase with rounds. Including answers like "increase but not too much", or "doesn't matter", or "I don't have a preference".
dqopb
 
Posts: 178
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Re: DFWC2017 Survey results

Postby dqopb » Jan 22nd, '18, 12:00 pm

Do you have any suggestions regarding the rating system?
Most of the participants are OK with the current system. Many players really liked it.
But you guys had A LOT of interesting answers. Some of the most interesting ones:
- Yotoon! was experimenting with TrueSkill (based on elo ranking), other rankings should be investigated.
- Perhaps decrease the difference between the top places.
- We will later propose our new variants (an uN*DeaD player).
- We need a smaller point step between top places.
- uN*DeaD|Enter's adaptation of Nascar system
- Delete Zerg from this world and you won't need this question in the Survey :lol:
- Number of points should be proportional to the round difficulty - interesting thought, but it is arguable. Critics would say that organizers give more points for, say, a plasma run, because they support Dex who is good at plasma, or they give more points for a strafe map to support a strafer etc. Difficulty is subjective, so it is impossible to come up with factors that suite everyone. But we should think more about it.
- Take time difference to account and add to points (somehow). So that 1st place 30:000 and 2nd place with 30:008 are less different in points than 1st 30:000 and 2nd 31:000.
- Add point penalties for skipped maps. aDr played half of the maps and ranked high. But other players who player all the maps could not catch him up because of big steps between places and no round skip penalty.
- Anything but this system.
- Zerg and HOX proposed good systems in the final round stream.
- xas/indexfan time bonus scoring idea is interesting.

Some people proposed too sketchy and inappropriate systems, like:
- Number of players minus rank - that's a linear function and it doesn't reward the winner. Top-1 player gets 167 points, and top-2 player gets 166? Seems unreasonable for the winner to play hard just for 1 point difference. The current system makes a 200 points step, which may be too much. We need a more linear distribution, but not quite linear.
- The lowest average rank should win - this is even worse, because it doesn't let one skip a round. We all have real lifes and may have emergencies etc. Skipping a round should probably be punished. But lowest average rank means no rank in a skipped round, no way to calculate the average - disqualification? Point-based systems are more appealing in this regard.
- Elimination-based systems - This makes it a competition on one map. Regardles of ranks in the 1st rounds, those who pass qualification of penultimate round will find the "winner" in only the last round. It makes no sense. No motivation for them to play hard in early rounds, and no way for average players to play in later rounds. We want as many players to play as possible. We want to have fresh blood in DeFRaG. Everybody wants to get maximum of a world competition that happens so seldom.
- Sum of time - this system was used in 2008, and a quote from another player: "in 2008 dex won 7 maps out of 9 but lost the competition because he lost too much time on one map, which makes no sense."
- Exponential function y=a^x - won't do, because most of players didn't like too big point gaps and asked for a more linear function.

In the end I make the following notes for myself or for other organizers of the next DFWC:
- Consider a more linear system with smaller point steps between the leaders, for example Enter's adaptation of Nascar?
- Consider multipliers for different maps based on difficulty or proximity to the final.
- Consider adding/deducting some points based on the time gap (xas/indexfan to take a look at).
- Consider a penalty for not sending a demo for a round.
If we implement all of that, will it not be too difficult to understand? When looking at the round results table, will players not complain that they don't understand why they got less points? Also, all these features should be tested on results of previous DFWCs.
dqopb
 
Posts: 178
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Re: DFWC2017 Survey results

Postby dqopb » Jan 22nd, '18, 12:01 pm

How should the prize pool be distributed among winning players and teams?

Please note that your answers to this question do not affect this year's payout. Maybe next time.
Some interesting answers:
- Like in CSGO tournaments.
- Only top 3 players in each physics, and do not award teams.
- 50% 30% 20% for 1st/2nd/3rd place in each physics.
- 70% to solo players and 30% to teams.
- Award either teams or solo players. Decide before the competition start.
- If the prize fund is big enough, make more prize-winning places. So that top-5 or even top-10 get a few bucks.
- Top 10 players, more ppl(people) will fight to the end.
- Smaller prizes but for more players. Maybe even with a small People's Choice Award. $5000 can be spreaded to top-15 or top-20.
- The more paying the positions the better (while still creating enough incentive for the top guys). Maybe paying out the top 10 if donations are sufficient?
dqopb
 
Posts: 178
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Re: DFWC2017 Survey results

Postby dqopb » Jan 22nd, '18, 12:01 pm

Should we give some money to mappers? If yes, how much?

Most of you agreed to pay 10-30% of the prize fund to mappers (mostly between 20 and 25%). Or from $50 to $200 (mostly between $100 and $150). Either give every mapper an equal share, or give more to the best 1 or 3 mappers based on votes. We should probably distribute it based on the prize fund.

Maybe even open a standalone donation fund for mappers.
There would be no DFWC without decent maps, and mappers need it as a motivation to work. If mappers know in advance that they get paid if they qualify for DFWC, then maybe we will get enough good maps sooner than in 3 years.
dqopb
 
Posts: 178
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

Re: DFWC2017 Survey results

Postby dqopb » Jan 22nd, '18, 12:02 pm

What do you think about streaming maps before round end?

Highlights of the most reasoned answers.
- It certainly defeats the point of it all. DFWC should be entirely private.
- It would be ideal to not stream before, but it's not realistic.
- It a beginner streams that's ok, but if someone spoils good routes, that's bad. -- It is impossible to draw a line based on skill/routes.
- Previews are fine (really basic runs) no more than that.

I read through all of your comments attentively and tried to make them yes/no answers. Answers like "basic overview is fine but no more than that", as well as answers "Zerg did it ok, but no serious training please", and "It is ok for noobs to stream, but not for the pro players" - all translated to "against streaming".
Only 28.9% voted a "YES" for streams before the round end.

In general, argumentation against streaming was significantly stronger than that for streaming. DFWCs have always been offline competitions. Knowing someone else's route is often a big advantage. Even knowing someone else's time in advance is unfair. Yes, players exchange routes anyway, but it doesn't mean we should encourage it.
Beginners and average players liked streams (no surprise, they could find a better route for themselves). But some of the top players were really pissed off or confused with the streams. One top player wrote a very detailed explanation of how he couldn't decide whether to watch the stream of another pro player or not. He wanted to play on his own, with his own route. Yet he didn't want to lose if many other players learn a better route from this stream. It was a big personal dilemma.

Streaming ongoing rounds may help the newbies who are unable to complete a map at all. Maybe we should allow the following:
- streaming the map 1 hour after it was released. Just a slow overview and 1 or 2 completions with the simplest and most obvious route. This would help newcomers.
- streaming the map 1 hour before the round end - just like Zerg does in his streams. An overview of available tricks and routes etc. No grinding.
Yes, we can not ban that automatically (like we can detect cheats). We cannot ban them on twitch etc. What we can do, is state in the rules that it is not allowed by the rules of the competition (exceptions for the 1st and last hour of the round?). And if we notice someone streaming, or if we get a complaint that someone is streaming - we can try texting the streamer and reprimand him. If he doesn't stop it, we should disqualify him. Or should we disqualify even without any warning? As long as it is prohibited by the rules.
We may need to run another poll before the next DFWC asking what do you guys think about banning illegal streamers.
dqopb
 
Posts: 178
Joined: May 2nd, '12, 8:48 am
Location: Belarus

PreviousNext

cron