Tourney Lockdown 1vs1 64 players , Registration 20kcr ! First Prize 1.000.000 and a mouse Razer Naga raffled among the participants !!
The post is this : http://forums.spiralknights.com/es/node/105269
Tourney Lockdown First Prize 1.000.000 and a mouse Razer Naga raffled among the participants !
Di, 10/07/2014 - 13:22
Di, 10/07/2014 - 15:53
#2
Lol. Fairness and lockdown were used in the same sentence. Not that you're wrong about any of that though.
Di, 10/07/2014 - 17:47
#3
Please
Do not post multiple threads for the same topic. Doing so clutters up other subforums, and pushes potential topics off the front page, which rarely ever resurface.
The players who are interested in your tourney will be visiting the coliseum, no need to list it here.
Di, 10/07/2014 - 17:51
#4
Do not post multiple warnings about posting multiple threads for the same topic for the same thread. So meta.
As if he didn't know exactly that he wasn't supposed to put it in the middle of general when he did it anyway.
Di, 10/07/2014 - 17:52
#5
what what
Di, 10/07/2014 - 17:53
#6
I did 2 tourneys , the first
I did 2 tourneys , the first Feller was the winner and the second was Bacon-Strip
The rest of the tourneys of contri just sucks , im not contri ok ?
Remember how i did those tourneys and later tell me Skeptics
Di, 10/07/2014 - 21:27
#7
Tournament? But I thought SK was supposedly dead.
Mi, 10/08/2014 - 03:33
#8
Wasn't there that one tournament which Feller lost in the finals and refused to pay the prize because he went with guilty until proven innocent accusations about AT and was also the one who had the prize pot? See also: Skeptic's post.
Mi, 10/08/2014 - 04:27
#9
@Krakob No, that never happened, Feller only played one tournament and won it. Cano and Bacon won the other tournaments with entry fee and we paid them the prize. You can ask them.
@Darkcub No hagas 2 posts, inutil, dejalo en coliseum y ya.
@Skepticraven:
I' not playing and I'll be judge and the other 3 are always fair and won't do anything against the rules to benefit theirselves.
AT is harder to detect with Hammer dash than with the other weapons that you said, and I'll like to make everyone record but if I do people will complain like always.
Darkcub will give a free prize to one of the players just for joining so don't complain aout 300k... And we already gave a lot of prizes for free in the past tournaments.
Nah, we don't wanna have fixed dates, people will pñay when they can.
We will make 2 GvG teams for every 1v1.
It won't get cancelled, but if don't get enough players we may do it with 32 players instead of 64.
It's obvious that we won't let people use alts, but sadly it's imposible to know all the alts of all the players so we may make a mistake with that.
Mi, 10/08/2014 - 07:46
#10
Ah, alright. Still gonna call the hammer ban reason bullfeces, though.
Mi, 10/08/2014 - 08:07
#11
↓
@Contri
"I' not playing and I'll be judge and the other 3 are always fair and won't do anything against the rules to benefit theirselves."
Sure. Whatever you say.
"AT is harder to detect with Hammer dash than with the other weapons that you said, and I'll like to make everyone record but if I do people will complain like always."
Harder because more people use the second attack for hammer and not any of the others? Frequency of use is not the same as difficult to detect. In fact Lancer Knightz data on combo speed puts hammer at the 3rd fastest meaning it is actually more difficult to detect almost all other swords in comparison to hammer if the user does the full combo. Frequency of abuse is not the same as difficulty of catching abuse. It is logistically more difficult to catch someone using AT on a GF than it is with a hammer.
"Darkcub will give a free prize to one of the players just for joining so don't complain aout 300k... And we already gave a lot of prizes for free in the past tournaments."
"Free" = has to pay the entry fee. I'll give into the idea of 280k disappearing for the mouse though. If it is actually free, sign me up.
"Nah, we don't wanna have fixed dates, people will pñay when they can.
It won't get cancelled, but if don't get enough players we may do it with 32 players instead of 64."
When would you make the decision to chop down the tournament to 32 players?
"We will make 2 GvG teams for every 1v1.
It's obvious that we won't let people use alts, but sadly it's imposible to know all the alts of all the players so we may make a mistake with that."
I sure seem to have missed that in the rules for the match. Maybe it should be listed there since it currently is not?
Mi, 10/08/2014 - 08:28
#12
Meep.
Darkcub's very smart I see ;3
Here's how he can make money without doing any PvE.
1. Make a tourney where the amount of money gained > the prize money.
2. Advertise as crazy!
3. Make people sign up.
4. Tourney happens over a week or two.
5. The extra money that is not given to the winner goes into Darkcub's pocket :O
6. PROFIT!
Anyways, you need 50+ people to sign up before you make money.
Mi, 10/08/2014 - 09:00
#13
@Skepticraven: I told Darkcub to update the post about the rules but he is slow. And the reason why hammer is harder to detect isn't the speed, is the dash. I'm gonna ignore the other useless comments...
@Mengh: You aren't really smart, aren't you? He is paying the mouse so he can0t make any f**** profit.
Mi, 10/08/2014 - 10:35
#14
@Skepticraven
You are
@Skepticraven
You are thinking too much about typical competitions. This is different.
Firstly, alts wouldnt make much sense. You would need at least 2 5* accounts. And honestly, if you have more than 1 5* account, you really need to get laid.
Secondly, having contestants as recorders would obviously not matter. Its going to be recorded, and multiple people will be watching. They obviously cant say player A won when B did. Pretty obvious on how the recording will work.
I do agree with the 280k to the organizer though. Thats just greedy.
Also, listing what happens for cancellation would be good, since then the organizer wouldnt be able to steal money from the community.
No reason to have 2 threads for one topic...
But I'll take this thread as a discussion of the tournament instead of an advertisement of the tournament.