for me it's even easier use my main account. So i don't need to play a bunch of game for get 1st place again. Just let me know if i am allowed to use this account (which is not my best anyway, but 2nd best i think) or not.

I'm in.

in this will be very hard...

Beren: that's kind of racist of you, just because they are blue, they still have feelings you know!

When does it begin, and where do I signup?

Decide a date of start and a date of end for the qualifications period.
Calculate the elo rating among the players who played 20 or more games during that period, using only the games played in that period obviously (simple query).
Now you have a very accurate ranking, and the first 8 who want to participate in the tournament are qualified.

I think this is the most skill-based method, and a very easy one to implement too.

I agree with Sephiroth's idea. This way it doesn't actually matter which account people use (since prior rating is irrelevant). I'd just add that there should be some (small) bonus for playing more games since we want to incentivise activity, not just encourage people to play 20 games over two months.

@ps, I'm not racist, I just believe blue people should have their own ladder and stop hogging ours.

Edited 9/4/2015 14:31:58

Seph, but it will be difficult to know how close you are to the top and what the rankings look like, and in the last couple of days I'm sure people would want to have an idea so they can either play a lot to get in or realise it is futile and spend their time on something else.

Addition: It isn't a problem using the current rt rating system as long as we wait a while so everyone can start inflating their scores now to what they "should" be so everyone is starting in a good place. Which I think is one of the reasons so many people are ranked in the rt ladder right now.

Edited 9/4/2015 17:30:38

@hedja, it will be somewhat difficult to do that anyway, since most people won't have kept track of how many days their opponents have spent ranked at which position, not to mention how many games they have played, since that is likely to play some role in the rankings as well.

I'd just add that there should be some (small) bonus for playing more games since we want to incentivise activity, not just encourage people to play 20 games over two months.

Since the matches aren't chosen with a Swiss system, you'll need many more than 20 games to achieve a very high elo ;)

@hedja: it is not that difficult to make a program that calculates the rankings that way

I am in as well

Ok, so Sephiroth's idea is quite good, but it does not really give a huge immediate incentive for people to get higher ranks and I intended to make rt laddeer popular again.

Anyway, I think I'll settle for the simplest solution:
a) the event will start on October 1st and it'll end on the 1st of January
b) every day the points will be assigned to top 30 players with 30 points for 1st place, 29 for 2nd place etc.
c) in order to ensure most players will try to play at least 60 games on rt ladder instead of the minimum amount of 30 to be constantly ranked over the span of the all the accumulated points at the end of the event will be multiplied by min(1, n/60) where n is the number of games played during the specified 90 days
d) 3 rt tournaments will be held and streamed to qualify for the final stage
e) 5 players with most points and 3 winners of tournaments will qualify for the final stage

I decided to allow all accounts, but during the event you may not use more than 1 account. If you participate and you have already used more than 1 account, please specify which account will be used during the event.

4 months of qualifiers? that's an eternity. 1 month would be more then enough imho, especially considering how little slots there are to fill.

agreed with PS -- Too much time will get people forgetting about this and bored.

It's actually 3 months and the problem is with only 1 month, it'd take only 10 games to always be ranked. Even if I'd apply the same multiplier it wouldn't incentivise enough people imo. Maybe 2 months would be a decent middle-ground? There is still 3 weeks till the start so if more people think 3 months is too much I'll make it shorter, 2 months with a multiplier n/40 trying for 40 games in 60 days.

what about everyone has to Play 30 games in 1 month?

yeah. i like what MOD propose, and i would add a rule: if you don't have time to play ALL 30 games, the multiplier will be the number of games you actually played, so 25,20, 27 depends.
What do you think?

so basically you can still compete, but you will get a lower score.

Edited 9/7/2015 14:16:47

what about everyone has to Play 30 games in 1 month?

Honestly I don't like to impose rules like that, because it's a "hard" incentive, meaning you can't participate if you cannot play 1 game a day, which may be a lot for some people and ideally everyone will want to participate even if it is only for fun, not to qualify. I'm heavily leaning towards a "light" incentive.

if you don't have time to play ALL 30 games, the multiplier will be the number of games you actually played, so 25,20, 27 depends.

Isn't that exactly what I proposed? number of games divided by constant is basically the same multiplier as the number of games.


All in all I'd like to hear moe comments about 2 months vs 3 months of competing on rt ladder, do you think 3 months is too long?

yeah 3 months is too long.
it is not 1 game for day, it can also be 5 games 1 day, then no games for 2 days etc.

average 1 game per day sounds acceptable