At this point, I am thinking 7 would be better, as others have stated.

7 recieved more positive feedback than 6.

With 6 people it would mean 3 would place, meaning HALF of the participants would get a face. I agree that 7 is for the best.

---

I would agree to 6 people, a possible solution to it being to easy would be to simply do two round robins.

Wouldn't that be too short of a tourney?

Well what people have been suggesting for six is having only two people place, as well as lowering the maximum amount of credits obtainable at the tournament.

---

“In the course of twenty crowded years, one parts with many illusions. I did not wish to lose the early ones. Some memories are realities, and are better than anything that can ever happen again.” -Jim Burden (My Ántonia)

Well what people have been suggesting for six is having only two people place, as well as lowering the maximum amount of credits obtainable at the tournament.

Still, I think with six it wouldn't be as much of a tourney as having 7 or more.

With six, and two round robins, that's 10 battles. If only one or two could place, with the maximum credit allotment
credit being reduced to 1 or two, and only perhaps one participant gaining a face.

So a first place competitor would get a face and 1 or two credits
Second place would receive a face and either one or no credits (depending on the credits given to first place)

10 matches is not a short tournament, as that would be identical as having 11 participants.

And rager, of course it wouldn't be as much as a tournament with more people, that goes for any and all tournaments. "The more the merrier."

---

Veteran, just getting back into the sway of things

When you say first recieve a one or two credits, do you mean total? Or just for placing? I think whether it was 6 or 7, hosts should recieve one, first recieves two, and second receives one. That's all.

---

“In the course of twenty crowded years, one parts with many illusions. I did not wish to lose the early ones. Some memories are realities, and are better than anything that can ever happen again.” -Jim Burden (My Ántonia)

It depended on if placing would receive credits for placing, but I like your idea!

---

Veteran, just getting back into the sway of things

What about organizers? They would still recieve 1 credit for organizing, right?

That's what I was suggesting, yah.

---

“In the course of twenty crowded years, one parts with many illusions. I did not wish to lose the early ones. Some memories are realities, and are better than anything that can ever happen again.” -Jim Burden (My Ántonia)

In reality, either could work. It just depends how this would or if this would be considered by the Committee.

---

Also, true lion gale force wall and fee-hee-heenay call

As some of you may or may not know, when the original version of the BeyPoint System was first launched we allowed for Bladers to play against each other individually and at any time for BeyPoints. However, as you might suspect, this idea was quickly abandoned because of cheating. The problem with this was that it wasn't organized and that it was private.

A seven participant minimum would still work because it would still be organized and public like a 'regular' 8+ participant tournament. I think we can all agree that some sort of Credit reduction and removal of Bronze or Silver and Bronze Faces is fair and necessary because despite our desire to avoid negative situations where Bladers have to go home because they didn't make the minimum, we also don't necessarily want to encourage hosts to feel that getting the minimum of seven is "OK"; we want them to strive to search for more participants. And additionally, the current version of the BeyPoint System already inherently encourages this through it's use of a BeyPoint multiplier based on tournament size.

This isn't a decision by any means, but confirmation that it is something we will consider.

---

I appreciate this is, indeed, being looked into by the Committee.

Again, I do believe 7 is a fair number. In a situation where 8 or above players attended, the Bronze face would be included, but with events of 7, I don't think it would be an issue of it being abolished- the third place winner would still have the title of placing third, just not the face. It's not a huge issue.

Yeah, it wouldn't be encouraged just to get a minimum of 7, but rather an alternative if 8 or more are not available.

---

Also, true lion gale force wall and fee-hee-heenay call

Hate to double post, but Midnight wanted me to share his thoughts:

Though having 6 attendees would be good, and easier for other regions having trouble reaching the minimum, as well, this would probably discourage both tournament organizers and regions who have a fair amount of active bladers to not try their hardest to receive a relatively large amount of attendants, and instead, go for the lowest amount, which in this case would be getting the eight attendees. Maybe there could be a rule of not doing that for active regions, though that would only make things a tad more complicated.

As for hitting a minimum of seven, I'd personally love an idea of this. Regardless of having an active region, or not, I still find it to be that this would be a great idea![/spoiler]

---

Also, true lion gale force wall and fee-hee-heenay call

You'd then have to determine a meaning for "active". Whether that meand going 5 months without a tournament or whatever the comitee decides.

---

6 God is watching and I hope you're prepared to face him

You'd then have to determine a meaning for "active". Whether that meand going 5 months without a tournament or whatever the comitee decides.

It shouldn't apply to only "inactive" places. It should be considered for all regions and events, considering that some sort of credit or face reduction would be put in place for events of 7, anyways.

---

Also, true lion gale force wall and fee-hee-heenay call

I was responding to what ~Midnight~ said.

---

6 God is watching and I hope you're prepared to face him

I think people are hopping on a committee member's bandwagon, no offense intended Kei. With what I proposed, what's the problem?

---

Veteran, just getting back into the sway of things

DrPepsiDew, you meant one Round Robin, then another Round Robin with all the same people ? It seems rather redundant : competitive players could use that opportunity to try to use something better the second time against certain opponents, but if, like we fear, it is just one or two good Bladers with four or five bad friend Bladers, it just gives people more Beypoints for nothing. Furthermore, while as Kei explained the Beypoint System formula takes into account the size of the tournament, processing it basically twice would probably nullify that effect and give more Beypoints than 'necessary'.

Also, while I think about it, I believe the current Beypoint formula is set to have a minimum of eight as the tournament size, so all of this would cause us to try changing the formula which the whole Committee can only hope would not mess everything up ...

It wouldn't give just the competitive players a chance to switch, I've been taken down by a rookie many a time. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying completely. I only said two round robins because Rager complained it would be too short of a tournament. 5 battles is a relatively common amount, especially in block round robin and double elimination.

However, I did not know the Beypoints formula was set to 8 participants, this means that this decision becomes that solely of the committee and their willingness to change the formula for the community.

Still an advocate for 6 though. Thanks for reading!

---

Veteran, just getting back into the sway of things

If the BeyPoints System is set to 8 then if it takes some time to edit it to allow 7 (even if there are no mistakes along the way) then honestly it wouldn't be worth it. One person isn't a lot, and there could surely be a least one parent (CT seems pretty bent on parents staying for some reason) willing to play, no?

However if it isn't a lot of work I would be willing to allow 7 for regions without a tournament in at least 6 months.

---

(Click to View)

Tournaments I've Attended (Click to View)

4/29/12: The Spring Sortie (BB-10)
7/22/12: The Triple Threat (MFB+Plastics+HMS formats)
9/23/12: Autumn's Assault (Zero G)
October 2012: October Achtung (Zero G) (placed second)
12/15/12: Holiday Havoc! (Zero-G)
2/24/13: Paper vs. Plastic (Zero-G+Plastic Formats)
4/21/13: BR Maryland Qualifier (Zero-G)
5/26/12: BeyDays 2013! (BB-10) (placed first)
7/14/13: Heated Metal Plastic-y Madness! (HMS + Plastics) (placed third in HMS)
7/20/13: The Bey Brawl! (BB-10)
9/28/13 "OK, alright, mirai~!" (BB-10) (placed second)
12/15/13 No Limit Holdem'! (Zero-G, Limited)
1/19/14 Happy Gnu Year! (Zero-G)
2/23/14 Better Late Than Never! (Limited, Plastics, which I got 3rd in)
3/29/14 GBT2 North Carolina Qualfier (Limited, got 4th)
3/30/14 GBT2 Maryland Qualifier (Limited)
6/8/14 A Prehistoric Venture (Limited, HMS, placed first in HMS)
6/21/14 A Timely Farewell (Standard, Tag-Team (not official format), Zero-G, placed first in tag-team and third in Zero-G)

My Testing Threads (All Zero-G) (Click to View)

Diablo Kerbecs E230CF
SB Discussion
Q Discussion
MB Discussion
RS Discussion
BWD Discussion
MF-H Gravity Perseus BD145 RDF
MF-H Duo F230CF
F:S Discussion
SA165 Discussion

HMS Resources (Click to View)

HMS Question and Answer Thread
Competitive HMS Combos List
HMS Parts Discussion
HMS General Discussion

I just looked at the code : right now, it looks like if the tournament size was below eight, it would do what it should, so the best way is to try processing perhaps a fake small event to see how things get calculated.

What we absolutely want to avoid is having to change the formula, because that would mean having to reprocess everything all over again probably, which would honestly end some of our lives ...

Oh goodness. If you have to re-do it, don't bother XD

---

Veteran, just getting back into the sway of things

Again, it should go for any region, as every event has different turnout- like Time and others stated. Despite parents staying, some are unwilling to play and for an example, even then, we still didn't have enough- just one off on Saturday. The reason we ask parents to stay is really for the younger kids, which is a large part of most of Naijalak's events.

Try processing the fake event, to see how it goes, I guess, haha- hopefully changing one wouldn't be a big deal. My only other suggestion is odd; perhaps creating a fake account (something like WBOPLAYER) that could be used in a 7 person event to make 8, which players would just gain an automatic win. However, since they'ed get a win from it, not sure how it would work. Just a suggestion if changing the system to 7 doesn't work.

---

Also, true lion gale force wall and fee-hee-heenay call

I have to say I like the idea of a 6 player minimum. I'd remove silver and bronze, lower credits, a require 2 round robins only for the fact that the tournament isn't over in 20 minutes. Since people travel, they want at least some kind of "event", and not just a quick fling.

I'd also suggest that 6 or 7 player tournaments are not approved on the initial outset. I think a tournament should be allowed to run at those numbers, but no tournament should be planned to only have that amount except in regions with notoriously poor/no attendance.

---

What I want, just said in a much more formal manner. ^^

---

Veteran, just getting back into the sway of things

I'd also suggest that 6 or 7 player tournaments are not approved on the initial outset. I think a tournament should be allowed to run at those numbers, but no tournament should be planned to only have that amount except in regions with notoriously poor/no attendance.

I agree. Hosts should look for 8 or more and get as many faces and credits rewarded as possible, yet if they are one or even 2 players short, they'd be able to have a smaller, but official event.

---

Also, true lion gale force wall and fee-hee-heenay call