A Few Suggestions for the Future FCCW tournament

[Muracley]

I'm Muracley, the runner-up of the FCSS 2025 Winter tournament and champion of both the Spring and Fall tournaments. I had a great time during the matches, but there are still some flaws in the current tournament format. For this reason, I'd like to share some of my personal thoughts and suggestions.

In the three 2025 tournaments, the format adopted by Matrix/Slitherine has been the points system. Players compete for the points available in each match through wins and losses, which determines their ranking in the next round. Meanwhile, players who engage in unsportsmanlike play will be disqualified from the tournament. Given the large number of participants in most cases, this is certainly a good way to shorten the tournament schedule. Furthermore, players who engage in unsportsmanlike play are directly eliminated, and the opposing side also receives a certain amount of point rewards in return. On the surface, this seems to have a certain degree of rationality.

However, the inherent flaws of this tournament format are difficult to eliminate. First, a match requires coordination between two players to complete. However, due to factors such as real-life work commitments or time zone differences, some groups struggle to finish their matches within the tournament deadline. As a result, the stronger players in these groups are unable to earn the points they rightfully deserve. Second, it is difficult to define the point rewards for the winners of groups where unsportsmanlike play occurs. This is because the system struggles to determine whether the winners had the intention to compete actively, and both excessively high and excessively low point rewards would be unreasonable.

Take this year Fall Tournament as an example: in the second-round matches between Uberhauskaninichen vs. DIVM and Tcao vs. zhuangcheng, neither match was completed on time. As a result, Uber and Tcao missed the opportunity to earn higher points. In contrast, In contrast, in the match between BadOptics and Galahad78, player Galahad78 secured 1100 bonus points without shedding a drop of blood. As a result, Galahad78 outperformed many competitors in the rankings and claimed the third place. Similarly, many other players who obtained the 1250 bonus points effortlessly without sufficient competition have received a score that most actively participating players actually struggle to achieve. These are all irrefutable evidence of the loopholes in the tournament format.

I understand that some players may not be able to spare sufficient time to participate due to real-life commitments, even though they possess a certain level of skill themselves. However, the unjust point allocation of the points system constitutes a gross disrespect for those players who competed earnestly. Why is it that players who dedicated more time and effort receive fewer points than those who didn't take a single shot? Or that players with sufficient strength let the opportunity to gain high-value points slip away due to their opponents' passive play? In the long run, a small number of players may even deliberately delay the match, and they won't submit their match saves until the very moment of the deadline, thus seizing the victory improperly.

Therefore, I propose that the future FCCW Tournaments could adopt one of the following three schemes:
Option 1: Replace the points system with a knockout system and extend the tournament duration.
Option 2: Run the points system in parallel with the knockout system. Specifically, select the top 8 or top 16 players based on the points ranking from the first one or two rounds, and then group them into pairs for the KO stage.
Option 3: It is advisable to hold a hardcore competitive tournament (the knockout system) and an entertaining fun competition (the points system) simultaneously.
While all the above options may require the tournament organizers and players to invest more effort in organizing and participating in the matches, they can minimize the impact of unsportsmanlike participation and luck factors, thereby providing a fair competitive environment for all actively participating players.

[Uberhauskaninichen]

Congratulations to Muracley on taking first place again. Anyone that has played him knows that he is a very skilled tactician and a master of getting the most of weapon and sensor platforms.
I support his suggestions for a change in the tournament format, all good options. There are plenty of opportunities for casual play with Flashpoint Campaigns so it would be nice to see tournaments with a knock out format. As Muracley suggested there could be splitting of tournaments into casual (non-elimination) and competitive (elimination).

Additionally, it would be good to see serious penalties for players who submit their orders at the last minute after a long period without posting orders. Finishing the game when you are getting smashed isn't fun; however, when a player stops playing until the last minutes and this isn't detected the scoring is grossly unfair. At this time, I'll give a shout out to the players that have played the whole round against me. Don't worry my nemesis gave me my comeuppance.

When I missed a day in my match against Muracley due to being ill, I did get a warning email from Matrix. This is a great start, maybe there could be a series of progressive warnings about non-play resulting in penalty and elimination. Obviously for players real life will intrude and problems will arise, which is understandable so perhaps a method of withdrawal from the tournament is in order.

With unfinished games, Matrix staff won't have the time, but perhaps impartial volunteers can judge a winner. I've seen this done in person for Advanced Squad Leader tournaments, but for Flashpoint Campaigns, the judges would need to be emailed files indicating the positions, actions and intentions. A little burdensome but not impossible.

The tournaments can be fun but they can also be frustrating with the scoring issues.

[CapnDarwin]

Thanks for posting on the Tourneys and for sharing how to make things better. I'll pass this along during the Monday Dev call to those on the team who support those events.

[Muracley]

Thanks for posting on the Tourneys and for sharing how to make things better. I'll pass this along during the Monday Dev call to those on the team who support those events.

Thank you. I hope every player who takes the tournament seriously gets the respect they deserve.

[DIVM]

Happy this is being discussed. Not sure how much flexibility OTS has on the organization and structure of the tournaments, but it's worth a thread to discuss how to improve the experience. I believe there are two issues at hand:
-Player elimination for matches unfinished
-Scores in tournaments for matches unfinished.

Therefore, I propose that the future FCCW Tournaments could adopt one of the following three schemes:
Option 1: Replace the points system with a knockout system and extend the tournament duration.
Option 2: Run the points system in parallel with the knockout system. Specifically, select the top 8 or top 16 players based on the points ranking from the first one or two rounds, and then group them into pairs for the KO stage.
Option 3: It is advisable to hold a hardcore competitive tournament (the knockout system) and an entertaining fun competition (the points system) simultaneously.
While all the above options may require the tournament organizers and players to invest more effort in organizing and participating in the matches, they can minimize the impact of unsportsmanlike participation and luck factors, thereby providing a fair competitive environment for all actively participating players.

I don't think there's enough of a MP player base yet to run a knockout system, and it might scare off new players. Same goes to running two tournaments in parallel. Hopefully in a short future. However, Option 2 sounds like a good idea and something that could be implemented with the last tournament's numbers.

For the first issue, player elimination, I've been in both sides during the last tournament, having a first round with a no-show and a second round where I was eliminated, I feel unfairly, for no reaching enough number of turns in one of the mirror matches. Some ideas or alternatives:
- I understand that a first round is crucial to weed out inactive players （people that for various reasons don't show up at all）, but we could simply use it as a warming up without scores to avoid default scores that affect the final results.
- For the following rounds, if a player has been showing up and doing turns (in a game where turns take a looong time to do) we should be more careful in eliminating players. I think a high penalty in the score for those players would be enough to avoid using this as way to get ahead in the score or the tournament: I think simply reducing the penalty from the responsible player without adding an extra or default score to the mirror player would be good to deter unsportsmanlike plays without incurring in the overcompensation of scores that Muracley was talking about. I wasn't happy I was taken out of the tournament after spending so long, and the deadline came right when I was playing one of my turns; a few mins later and it could've been Uberhauskaninichen instead of me, which I think wouldn't have been fair either. But a high penalty, that's something I could understand.
- A withdrawal option as Uberhauskaninichen proposed would be a good idea, maybe with a penalty on the player score (assuming there's a players ranking system) to deter players withdrawing just when they are losing badly.
- Extending the rounds duration could save a lof of these troubles, but it could also scare off some players. I know a number of players in other tournaments that won't join if tournaments take too long. Not sure if this is doable, but maybe allowing games to go over the round time (while still matching players using the score achieved at the round deadline) if both players are active would be a way to find a balance. For example:
--round 1 = 2 weeks, no scores
--round 2 = 2 weeks to match players by scores for next round (games can run till week 3)
--round 3 = 2 weeks to match players by scores for final round (using these plus final - round 2 week 3- scores of round 2; games can still run till week 3).
-- final round = 3 weeks; final results of all rounds at the end of week 3.

Ideally this would keep most games within 2 weeks; while allowing some extra room for those players that need more time without making everyone else wait longer.

[BadOptics]

I'm Muracley, the runner-up of the FCSS 2025 Winter tournament and champion of both the Spring and Fall tournaments. I had a great time during the matches, but there are still some flaws in the current tournament format. For this reason, I'd like to share some of my personal thoughts and suggestions.

In the three 2025 tournaments, the format adopted by Matrix/Slitherine has been the points system. Players compete for the points available in each match through wins and losses, which determines their ranking in the next round. Meanwhile, players who engage in unsportsmanlike play will be disqualified from the tournament. Given the large number of participants in most cases, this is certainly a good way to shorten the tournament schedule. Furthermore, players who engage in unsportsmanlike play are directly eliminated, and the opposing side also receives a certain amount of point rewards in return. On the surface, this seems to have a certain degree of rationality.

However, the inherent flaws of this tournament format are difficult to eliminate. First, a match requires coordination between two players to complete. However, due to factors such as real-life work commitments or time zone differences, some groups struggle to finish their matches within the tournament deadline. As a result, the stronger players in these groups are unable to earn the points they rightfully deserve. Second, it is difficult to define the point rewards for the winners of groups where unsportsmanlike play occurs. This is because the system struggles to determine whether the winners had the intention to compete actively, and both excessively high and excessively low point rewards would be unreasonable.

Take this year Fall Tournament as an example: in the second-round matches between Uberhauskaninichen vs. DIVM and Tcao vs. zhuangcheng, neither match was completed on time. As a result, Uber and Tcao missed the opportunity to earn higher points. In contrast, In contrast, in the match between BadOptics and Galahad78, player Galahad78 secured 1100 bonus points without shedding a drop of blood. As a result, Galahad78 outperformed many competitors in the rankings and claimed the third place. Similarly, many other players who obtained the 1250 bonus points effortlessly without sufficient competition have received a score that most actively participating players actually struggle to achieve. These are all irrefutable evidence of the loopholes in the tournament format.

I understand that some players may not be able to spare sufficient time to participate due to real-life commitments, even though they possess a certain level of skill themselves. However, the unjust point allocation of the points system constitutes a gross disrespect for those players who competed earnestly. Why is it that players who dedicated more time and effort receive fewer points than those who didn't take a single shot? Or that players with sufficient strength let the opportunity to gain high-value points slip away due to their opponents' passive play? In the long run, a small number of players may even deliberately delay the match, and they won't submit their match saves until the very moment of the deadline, thus seizing the victory improperly.

Therefore, I propose that the future FCCW Tournaments could adopt one of the following three schemes:
Option 1: Replace the points system with a knockout system and extend the tournament duration.
Option 2: Run the points system in parallel with the knockout system. Specifically, select the top 8 or top 16 players based on the points ranking from the first one or two rounds, and then group them into pairs for the KO stage.
Option 3: It is advisable to hold a hardcore competitive tournament (the knockout system) and an entertaining fun competition (the points system) simultaneously.
While all the above options may require the tournament organizers and players to invest more effort in organizing and participating in the matches, they can minimize the impact of unsportsmanlike participation and luck factors, thereby providing a fair competitive environment for all actively participating players.

On top of this (or to provide more context to help with improvement?), Galahad78 got those points because I basically was in crunch mode for my CCNA exam and really was checked out of the tournament at the end of November. However, because there was no concede or way to end the scenario without playing through it (I guess I could have just submitted a turn with no orders?), I think the game basically handed over all the points for his WP game (where you have all the VP points). On the other hand, my first round opponent didn't play anything and I feel like I had a much higher score in the tournament up to round 3 than I probably deserved.

TBH, I think it would be better to have a tournament with brackets that ensure even if there are situations like this, at least the 1st and 2nd place players are likely to have played full games. So I guess I agree with your option 1 for ease of implementation, or option 3 so the points can still maybe be used for bragging rights or see how close the matches were.

My suggestion would be to not use strictly offensive/defensive scenarios. Playing as the East Germans wasn't that fun as it was mostly just waiting to see what the NATO player did, while as the NATO player you now have a larger time expenditure planning out an attack where you mostly know where the other person is going to be. I think having a meeting engagement style scenario that's played multiple times is better.

Edit: On second thought, as DIVM mentioned maybe option 2 where the initial points can be used to filter out any players that signed up but have no intention of playing (or not able to), then transition to the KO phase. Or just have a loser's bracket where the pain of losing is a bit softened due to the possibility of coming back. I've played in tournaments ran by a small number of players (probably at or lower than the pool from this past fall tournament) that used this method.

[MaximKI]

Hey everyone, thank you for the extensive feedback and ideas.

We're aiming to run an FCCW tournament in the near future, so stay on the lookout for an announcement.

Some of the ideas that have been offered here would require more significant and risky changes that we simply don't have the time to implement for this first tournament. However, there are some easier modifications we are planning to try with this tournament. In particular, we're aiming to increase the round length from our standard 15 days to 21 days or 3 weeks, since that's been a common thread. We're hoping this gives players enough time to complete their rounds. We're also planning to slightly adjust the point awards to see how that's received.

[DIVM]

Thanks! Probably extending the rounds to 3 weeks is the simplest solution short-term.

Something I'd like to add, it would be great if we can maximize the number of weekends for the rounds 2-3, as bigger maps or armies require investing an important amount of time and probably weekends are the best time for many players to start these rounds and to make longer turns.

[Muracley]

I’m delighted to see the attempts at tournament reform. While I’m a firm supporter of the knockout format, I fully understand that revising the tournament structure requires significant effort. Thus, extending the tournament cycle is an excellent option that deserves recognition. I hope to experience more diverse scenarios in future FCCW tournaments.

[Galahad78]

Seeing the results of the last tournament, I'd say that the point system is only good if a ranking system is implemented in the future, or a differente tournament style is adopted. As it stands today, it leads to unfair results as shown by my third position in this tournament, based on two timeouts (first one for technical problems, second one because real life gets in the middle sometimes).

I think the fairest system could be a mix of league/knockout, similar to the current Champions League format. That way, we noob/normal players could still have fun playing some regular rounds, even against top players, and if any of the lesser gifted/savvy players made to the KO stage with unfair points due to timeouts, tech problems, etc., they would be easily weeded out in the early knockouts. Of course, I don't know if this is an easy/possible change, technically speaking.