I have some thoughts on this. Before I talk about anything specifically or generally allow me to introduce myself to anyone reading this post who does not know who I am.
My name is Ian Davis and I am the tournament organizer for Kumite in Tennessee. This past January we ran out first tournament that included Injustice (or any NRS game). The turnout of the tournament was good considering it was our first time (64 entrants) and it was widely well received by the players who attended. I am going to run another 3 day tournament in January 2015 that will include Injustice. As a TO I am very interested in standards and structure and listening to the voice of the players, so I want to see if anything comes out of this thread. I want this to succeed. It is time for structure in the FGC.
I only control one tournament and I will speak to exactly how KiT will accommodate this, but I also have a feel for the FGC as a whole as someone in my position must if I wish to be successful. I can tell you how I personally would respond to this and how I think other TOs would as well. Take this into account to know what you will have to overcome to make this stick.
General Overview
First - the 10,000 foot view of what you wish to accomplish. Is this a list of demands or a general guideline? Do you expect every single TO to follow every single point in your outline? If the TO chooses not to, what is the recourse - to boycott? The FGC world we live in lacks any semblance of central structure, and each individual tournament acts as an autonomous entity making any decision it wants for any reason. Sure, most will go with very general commonalities such as running double elimination for all games, but big differences between tournaments are easy to spot. There is also Evo, the current largest tournament, that tournaments can easily point to as the de facto standard and justify violating your outline by simply saying it is copying what the biggest tournament does.
If you wish this to be a strict set of rules, I would first suggest you get as many prominent members of the community to sign off on it. A lot of what you do comes across as P2W vs the world and it is much easier to dismiss one voice no matter how loud than it is an entire community. Be careful of the way you present this. Second, give the TO a good reason he should follow it. I like the idea of a certified tournament tour that only the tournaments that follow the rules can be a part of that culminates in some large NRS event. As an example, there is a Road to Evo that most tournaments would jump at the opportunity to be a part of. If Evo says to be a part of the "Road to Evo" tournament series you have to do things a certain way then tournaments would do it. And the only tie-in Evo has with those tournaments are seeding points, yet their brand is so strong tournaments wants that seal of approval to help their own brand by association. That is what you need - to be associated with something bigger than the tournament itself you need to follow this outline. If KiT follows it and others do not, I absolutely want there to be some tangible distinction. Prestige matters to me (and other TOs) a great deal - so make it prestigious.
I would not come across as hostile or threatening when you present this. I would present this as a community backed suggestion at first. Your power as players is to not attend an event, which is not something insignificant, but the Injustice community at this moment is dependent on the established multi-game grass roots tournaments to exist as a competitive game. There is not a single one of them that can say it is historically an MK/NRS based tournament, so none of the established TOs have an emotional or personal reason to go above and beyond (which absolutely matters btw), and not every TO understands how building goodwill by adhering to community desires will help them long term. If you become more trouble than it is worth, tournaments will simply drop the game and continue on. I am not saying not to do this because I think it is a very good idea, I am only saying be careful of presentation - it matters a great deal. I also wish to affect change in the FGC, but I cannot do it overnight. I must build relationship first, and so must you.
Now that the philosophical stuff is out of the way, let me get to the specifics of what I want to point out:
Tournament structure 3/5 instead of 2/3
If you want this change, calculate how many setups are required to finish a 16 person pool in 2 hours - the standard currently in the FGC. Find the average game time for a 3/5 match and include button check time and player transition time. Keep in mind winner and loser's final of each pool bracket cannot be played concurrently. I would like to run 3/5 the whole way but do not know if it is truly feasible. KiT will definitely run the top 32 3/5 and have at least 8 pools (meaning I will a least do winner/loser final of each pools 3/5 just as this year). 3/5 the whole way is not out of the question - I have my eye on Civil War and UFGT for evidence.
Community wide you are going to run into resistance because Evo runs the game 2/3.
I would not include Tekken in your argument at all (unless just talking to me). No tournament runs Tekken 3/5 the whole way except KiT, and I am thinking of going to 2/3 for pools for that game due to time. Final Round is the only other tournament that does 3/5 at all and that is post-pools only. UFGT/BigE/CEO/ECT/Evo/SCR/TS/NCR all do 2/3 the whole way. Running Tekken 3/5 is something KiT does because I am a Tekken player and personally fought for the change (unsuccessfully). However, I see the power of adhering to the community wish for 3/5. I just dont know why you think Tekken 3/5 is standard and other TOs will quickly point out that it is not.
Putting all onsite registered players into a "Pool of Death"
For KiT, this is not applicable as I will not do onsite registration at all. Evo is the only other tournament to do this as far as I know.
For every other tournament I see this as being a huge issue. Take the case of KiT this year - we only had 5 people register onsite. That would unfairly make that pool easier to get out of. Take the other extreme - Winter Brawl had over 30 people to register onsite. That creates a logistical nightmare to finish that pool. The other reason - TOs just won't want to. It is physically much easier to just slot onsite registered players into byes in existing brackets and just deal with the unbalanced seeding it might cause.
Use challonge or Tio
For KiT, I will post challonge brackets before the tournament starts. What you see days before the tournament is what you will get. I've heard the counter-argument of you shouldn't be able to know exactly who you play first round, but I would rather run an effiicient tournament as a trade-off. I cannot guarantee though that each bracket will be run digitally as that would require a laptop or tablet for every single pool. If I use paper brackets they will mirror challonge and be updated after a pool ends.
Community wide, I just can't see this being a strict standard. It requires too big of a digital infrastructure to do this for all games, and I don't see TOs just doing it for Injustice while not doing it for other games.
Equipment
For KiT, we will use all Asus monitors and 360s. We hotfixed games several times after we thought we already had. There needs to be a well-documented method for hot fixing a 360.
Asus and 360 are pretty standard community wide so I dont see this as an issue. The hotfix thing is a huge issue.
Seeding the tournament
For KiT, I plan to have established players I trust review and change the brackets. The initial draft can definitely use the ranking system, so I am interested in seeing that.
Community wide, a ranking system is the most objective way. You just have to get up a reliable ranking system first.
The label of the tournament (major, regional, etc)
I am not sure why this is in this outline. It seems like this label only matters after the fact for discussing player strength subjectively. Why does it matter in an objective rules outline?
If you want it to mean something, make it more than just the current perception war of what is major and what is not.
Create value - such as the Shoryuken ranking for Street Fighter. Am I proud that KiT is part of the SF rankings as a series tournament? Damn right I am , and I am motivated to make it into more just based off of that.
I wrote all of this because I see value and great potential in the Injustice/NRS community. You are known as high maintenance in the FGC, but I see a community that wants professionalism and does not settle for low quality. You are not afraid to challenge the status quo and demand attention. You want everything I want. You respect me because I respect you. We want change and it is coming, but we must proceed intelligently. I am here to help however I can.
