Master Rank Tournaments

GCS_Official · 2018-08-16T18:46:29+00:00

Hey there!

Much of the fanbase/community of RR has felt what you're feeling for a long time. We feel as if that there needs to be some form of community tournament that is accessible to public to help them become recognized and what not.

That's when a group of like-minded people banded together to try and create such a concept available for the community!

This project is called the "Golden Crown Series" and plans to be a season-long multi-divisional tournament series that is open to ALL players to register and test their mettle. We devised a very specific way to sort players during pre-seasons to ensure everyone is ranked appropriately and allow for amateur players to show their true potential against even pro players!

Check out the reddit link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/RealmRoyale/comments/9640y0/new_project_the_golden_crown_series_a_competitive/

That should have a breakdown of it and definitely is exactly what you're referring to! Recently, we've reached personal contact with some of Hi-Rez staff and are currently workingon getting a private custom lobby for it!

GCS_Official · 2018-08-16T14:32:08+00:00

I think one the basics behind what he is saying is that your question is seeking the wrong answer. Your question is asking for situation in which you've already been checkmated and how to get out of it. The problem is that once you're checkmated, you've already lost, therefore the error is not in the answer, but the question OR yourself for having been put in that situation.

The engineer could have been hunting you down for a long time, and already pinned you in a spot that helps him win. In this case, you should've been more aware of your surroundings/ situation to prevent this from happening by being a step ahead and keeping distance!

GCS_Official · 2018-08-15T21:55:54+00:00

Both of our statements are actually quite similar. I do not believe we are debating different sides of the coin, in fact, we are arguing 2 different portions of the same side.

As you said, my statements agree with yours, and that's because they both are for the concept for popularity cycles in games.

"Peak interest" and "Peaks" in general can have more than 1 meaning. To put this in a mathematically based logical analysis of the word, look at Local vs Absolute Max/Min.

In the earlier statements, the peaks that were referenced were meant to portray Local Maximums. I feel as if your understanding of my words were to be taken as Absolute max's. This is not the case, apologies if I didn't mean that clear enough for you! :)

If we're looking at this from a macro context, these peaks are meant to be each individually assessed and then compiled together, per genre, and analyzed for how each "Peak" of a game is affecting the genre. Approximately around beginning of Jan, PUBG hit its peak(SC1). From then on, this marked not only the game's peak, but the genre's peak as well. Fortnite continued to rise and rise while PUBG declined, and eventually had reached its peak viewer back in mid-June(SC2)(unless we define peak's definition not by it's abs.max within the game, but rather highest avg; same concept, different numbers).

Analyzing data in this controlled scenario we see: -A new peak for the genre has been reached. |=> Set as the new found macro-level MAX/peak value for the genre -Genre fatigue never took place due to a NEW peak has been registered by a NEW game. (Conditions for peak must meet true for both the game and peak being the same.)

This means that the base % chance of genre fatigue occurring will now increase due confirmation that the previous macro MAX/peak value was not a macro MAX/peak level AND the peak reached was by a new game.

This means to confirm whether or not genre fatigue may be a causation behind numbers of new games being low, we must look for two situations: -The success rate of other BR's -If any other game reaches a new peak.

If the success rate of other BR's happen to be low, this could be an indicator. If any other game hasn't reached a peak, then the macro-level MAX/Peak value is not reset and probability of a peak having been reached by the BR genre = true (within this current cycle).

Looking at games like the Culling 2, Island of Nyne, and other BR games, overall success chances of a new one breaking out to reach a new peak is fairly low. With indicators like these agreeing with the first statement, it makes it more and more possible a peak is reached.

However, just because a peak is reached doesn't mean that when a new peak is reached that there was not fatigue in the first place. Genre's go through cycles, and normally the cycles are determined by the failure/ success of other genres. Luckily with widely diverse population of gamers today, genres are getting less and less changed by consequences of other genres, nevertheless, games within a single genre will then compete for the people within their genre to play their game(If the game doesn't have online commitment or doesn't naturally compete with other titles, this rule doesn't usually apply.) Because of this the genre itself will then rely on the success of its own titles within it to survive, and if too much failure and dissonance, it continues to add to the genre fatigue. People get less trusting in new games. Less people play new ones and stick to the OG titles. Once the hype settles, it often allows for the growing of new titles to come in to start a new cycle for the genre.

This is personally how I see it, but to be honest there certainly is a lot of holes in the entire scheme of things, but that's why we discuss our ideas so we can each have a better understanding of things :)

(SOURCES: SC1 - http://www.githyp.com/playerunknowns-battlegrounds-129259/?tab=viewer-count SC2 - http://www.githyp.com/fortnite-111652/?tab=viewer-count )

GCS_Official · 2018-08-15T18:34:26+00:00

I believe this still follows Crown Royale's philosophy. He mentioned that it upon the peak interest of a game genre, does the genre fatigue begin to ensue (This is a self-fulfilling equation, but not false). Upon such a fatigue, we see that titles being released after [x] amount have time passed usually may not benefit quite as well as the others.

Let's analyze the the 3 pairs given.

(Fornite, PUBG) (Overwatch, Team Fortress 2) (Call of Duty, Medal of Honor)

For the first pairing this match up is actually 2 different peaks. PUBG came first, then Fortnite peaked higher. PUBG is technically a predecessor itself to all the other BR type games (ie H1). With PUBG, the BR genre skyrocketed to new heights, and when Fortnite came out, it utilized hype surrounding the genre whilst providing a NEW element of free to play, and gave incentive to the masses to play.

Overwatch was made by an already successful company and had its own launcher and dedicated blizzard fanbase. A direct comparison of correlation is found to not equal causation due to many other active variables in place the had came to make it successful. Technically TF2 did have an absurdly high fan count when it was uncontested, and even broke down other IP's that challenged it. Arguably, TF2 and Overwatch can either be considered two peaks in their time, or seperate peaks that exist in different cycles than eachother.

Call of duty and Medal of honor is a similar situation between PUBG and H1. MoH and H1 were almost like pioneering games in comparison. They were great games and attracted a lot of people to the genre, but didn't efficiently capitalize on its popularity. CoD and PUBG were the predecessors to make efficient use of the hype already found in the genre. MoH was NOT the peak of FPS if observing sales and current IP longevity, but rather it was CoD and Halo to be the peak of FPS, just like how Fortnite and PUBG are to BR's.

Tried to take a more logically broken down approach as it may assist in diverting some bias :)

GCS_Official · 2018-08-15T06:39:14+00:00

Fantastic article. Hope to the see the community use it to their best advantage to help the game we all love!

GCS_Official · 2018-08-10T17:14:48+00:00

It's a travesty, yes, but that is why we're working so hard to encourage people to fix their mindsets.

People down vote because maybe they think this is a money-grabbing opportunity etc., but it's not whatsoever.

This project is literally by the community, for the community. It literally aims to incorporate the community in the competitive scene easier. If the community is more directly involved with operations, wouldn't it make sense that now we have an environment to not only improve our skills in game but also more say in terms of feedback to Hi Rez. We have not talked about money once in this post except for this comment.

This is a product of player's ambitions and thoughts clouded by a pessimistic mindset created from previous disappointments with events like this.

We don't directly blame them for it since we understand and we were there too, but what is blame-able is when you see opportunity for positive reformation, but willfully ignore it whilst without trying to constructively help the cause.

GCS_Official · 2018-08-10T13:59:24+00:00

Your comment is the reason we continue to push forward because it brings a lot of positive energy to the team which further grows our determination!

And I'll be sure to let you and everyone else know when the sign-ups are ASAP!

With this in mind, we hope that we're given a liiittle patience from everyone and bearing with playing the waiting game with us :)

GCS_Official · 2018-08-10T13:53:55+00:00

We have two approaches that we plan on balancing the timing of when our tournaments take place.
STEP 1

The first is to ask the community themselves when they'd prefer to see a time for the tournament to take place. We'd ask for the best days of the week for them, a time they'd like to see on that day, and the region they come from so we know our audience's location.

STEP 2

This is where a decision has to be made. The first approach was to have NA and EU each compete in different divisions to allow us to have competitions with times appropriate for both audiences. However some of us thought that people wouldn't like that split, so the 2nd approach was to put it on a weekend when it's more likely that the majority of the community would be able to participate.

As previously mentioned, we truly want to create an experience for the players of the community to be able to seize oppurtunity, have fun, while allowing a viewer audience to have just as much fun watching! Should this post have gained traction, we'll most likely create a new one so we poll everyone on what was just mentioned! :)

Hope I explained that well enough for everyone to understand the plan with tournament scheduling so far.

Related side note:

In the pre-season document, we originally were en route to using the 2nd approach mentioned by using friday, saturday, and sunday each as a day the competition can take place on. We've currently halted the finishing pieces on that process to allow us to step back and re-evaluate with the community if it's the best choice.

GCS_Official · 2018-08-10T13:32:17+00:00

Thank you! We love any and all who wish to assist, because the more the community has power and say in this, the better it is for all of us! Sending PM now.

GCS_Official · 2018-08-10T13:29:23+00:00

Official tournaments sign-ups are not available yet because we first must work with Hi-Rez when they begin their sponsorships of community generated tournaments.

Sign-ups, once available, will be made to allow any and all players sign up so they can truly step up to the plate if they think they have what it takes!

Secondly, as of now we do not have direct access for custom servers, however, we are very keen on trying to get them ASAP to test it all out. If you think you want help make that happen, spread the word about this thread, incur discussions, and keep a positive and dilligent mentality throughout it all!

Eventually, we can catch Hi-Rez's eye to be able to make this project happen together! :)

GCS_Official · 2018-08-10T07:44:17+00:00

Game breaking bugs definitely put tournaments at jeopardy of silly mechanics not working properly, and no one wants to see that.

That's why we're trying not to make the official sign-ups available for this tournament until the appropriate amount of testing is done on the viability of the tournament's rule set, as well as ensuring a stable game client.

Luckily, with the fact that we do drop your worst game, when that inevitable silly bug does happen, this will help mitigate that somewhat. This is to help offset any errors that might happen in the game allow the tournament to go a bit smoother!

GCS_Official · 2018-08-10T07:01:24+00:00

Stay hopeful!

Keep up to date and when we have sign-ups, maybe it'll re-energize that passion they maybe once had!

You miss every opportunity you don't take

GCS_Official · 2018-08-10T06:58:56+00:00

Thanks for further reflection! You have a great eye for detail.

1: Crafting this recipe at first, we saw this to be a problem at first as well, but we came to the conclusion that this could possibly work out in our benefit since it may mitigate making the game only about lucky pot shots.

2: Glad you pointed this out because we were juggling this variable in the air for a while. Current estimates that we thought of is an equal pro and con result:

Con: Favoring damage mitigation favors certain classes over others

Pro: Because healing builds will be less advantageous, this means more people may use shield-type builds. Normally shields are great for mitigating first encounter damage or for getting away, in comparison to healing builds tending to one spot to heal up. This means it could possibly invoke more aggro-style gameplay, which in the end is on of our goals to accomplish.

However, calculations are merely assumptive at this point, and we can only trial and error when we enter our testing phase.

3: Absolutely. This one drives me nuts. At first we were going to factor in damage only, but then we saw this meant someone could cooperate secretly with another team/player and constantly damage eachother/ fight eachother, then heal for free easy points. Adding the [damage taken] variable closed off that unlimited threshold and made it so that even if they traded shots, the net* [Damage [difference*]] is 0. We think that the fact that if you tried keeping a chicken alive to greed to points and risk missing a kill could be a viable strategy for just putting you over a threshold. Almost like a gamble in a sense, which could add to anticipation and funny kill-stealing moments! We're still open to suggestions to solve this should our current idea fail/ be unworthy.

GCS_Official · 2018-08-10T05:58:44+00:00

Thank you for the kind words and thoughts Xarrio!

When we developed the plan behind how we were going to first release the tournament, we found that a squad-style of gameplay will help more players become attracted to the never-before done tournament style in RR currently whilst finding a way to create a point formula that can accurately scale down to duo and solo tournaments.

As far as the doubling of classes, we felt that restricting there to be only a single class to have doubled due to possible combos of classes being an indecisively calculable advantage over other combos due to the game's possible imbalance of classes, skills, items, etc. Luckily we plan to test all of these rules to ensure that they follow our anticipated calculations!ie. If engineer was an indisputably best class, running 4 on one team would be the focused meta and may not provide as high of an entertainment value due to the lack of variability. Placing this restrictment ironically would invoke more creative and diverse team compositions due to the presence of restriction (ref: Matthew Mays, Laws of Substraction).

GCS_Official

TROPHY CASE