@Sinforosa said in FAF League Invitational Series:
From reading this post and the big discussion on the FAF discord you seem to think getting experience versus the top players to improve is something people want. Not everyone plays the game only to improve and tryhard to be the absolute best. (...)
I have nothing against such people and I think there should be some sort of tourneys for them eg. The League Invitational Series.
That being said I don't see why the league tourneys need to be tied to world championship invites. Even if I play in all the league tourneys and win it is very unlikely I would choose to participate in LotS unless I accidentally improve to the level of a pro player.
Exactly this, if those players don't want to tryhard, improve and try to be the best then there is 0 zero reason to tie this League Series to LoTS
I think the balance between awarding achievement and activity is fine because there are Swkoll's invitational tourneys and still LotS invites for top players and other random tourneys which crop up occasionally to reward the best, most tryhard players with money. The ladder league tourneys exist to reward the other people who aren't sickened by the idea of "having to play" 10 hours of ladder a month for only $100. It is good to divide the prize money up between different players and type of players instead of giving it all to the very best. (...)
I agree.
@FtXCommando said in FAF League Invitational Series:
It’s tied to LotS because points for a major tournament is about the only way you can incentivize a round-robin format to actually be played out. LotS and the seasonal invitationals are the only tournaments that could be considered major for FAF.
This is a bad solution to an unnecessary problem. Ask players that actually participate in the league series what kind of format they think would best suit such a tourney, eg. for many I would imagine 7 BO3 over 2 days that kill the whole weekend might be a bit much (eg. for Tex). Maybe it would be better to use a different format that results in less series over all.
There is the option to create a 2nd tournament for ladder invitationals that functions as their version of LotS, however, I do not have the funds to support two different large tournaments. This is going to come down to two relatively minor prizepools or me favoring one over the other. And if it comes down to it, I would favor the one focused on player activity because I see it as more important for the long term health of high level FAF. And then when new LotS has a prize of $500 or $600 total, suddenly the “old inactive pro side” of FAF won’t really bother playing it because of the low prize and now it’s back to basically having an activity based version of LotS. So, the two isolated tournaments idea had to be thrown out unless I get more funds.
I think that you should just leave the League Invitational series as it is more or less and have it be it's own thing about Ladder.
Maybe the solution is doing a point system based on both activity and tournament performance, maybe I need to remove qualifiers entirely if I do it that way. I’ll look into it.
If you look back on previous LoTS and major 1vs1 tournies it's mostly the same 10-12 or so people playing over and over with 4-6 different ones rotating between tourney so why not just give out invites based on tourney performance for 8-10 slots and divide the rest between qualifiers 4 - 6 spots and things based on activity eg. 2 - 4 spots for ladder league.
Also about the "only 5 high level dudes play ladder" stuff. Yeah, I know? That's literally what I want to move away from? Some high level dudes say ladder is pointless because no one plays as there is no point to play. Some say ladder is cringe and not fun. Some just don't want to play FAF unless they're paid.
You don't incentivize the best people to play ladder by forcing it down their throats with a system that's biassed against them where instead of playing a few games they need to spam them.
The first is what I want to solve here, the second I investigate to improve ladder, and the third I don't really have any sympathy or care for.