Tourney 2 Results and Rules Going Forward

[Wyeth_RG]

We have reviewed concerns about Tournament 2, and these are our findings and guidance going forward.

First off, please remember that the Unioverse is full of many games, and Hoverdrome is just one. Also, consider that the Hoverdrome code and assets will be given to developers who can make all sorts of variations to cater to different appeal and purposes.

Now, let me personally ask you all to reset your expectations about what the Hoverdrome is. It is similar to Rocket League or Mario Kart but also, a unique product unlike anything else. I need you all to understand what we are trying to do, so you don’t come to the table with expectations based on how other eSports work. 

The Hoverdrome is about live audience participation. For every player IN the Hoverdrome, we want 10 or 20 times as many people watching it. When thinking about how it should feel, we would draw more inspiration from a live UFC event or soccer game than with any existing eSport.

When we talk about “people playing the Hoverdrome” we consider those viewers players also, and you have seen the first little peek with the cheer system. From this regard, tournament 1 and 2 were overwhelmingly successful. In fact, it was some of the most fun gameplay I personally have ever watched. If we do this well, playing in the Hoverdrome should feel much like walking into that UFC stadium with 20,000 people screaming your name. This is the goal.

Therefore, when considering what makes the Hoverdrome better, it’s as much or more about the viewers as live participants as it is about the in-game players. 

The issue was raised that Clyfoul and Gellazka might have been coordinating, and that as a result they should be banned because this is unacceptable in eSports. Similar complaints were then issued towards other players.

First of all, I want to give context to this complaint: If the complaint was true, I would put this under the umbrella of “unsportsmanlike conduct”. It is not the same as using an aimbot, or exploiting the game with memory tools - which certainly would warrant a ban. I am disturbed by how quick the accusations went immediately to “ban them”, though I do understand existing eSports competitions have a lot of baggage. Regardless, let’s try to be a less toxic community.

If we examine this in the perspective of the UFC: can you imagine banning a top fighter because he did an eye-gouge? They can’t eject celeb athletes, who provide most of the fun to watching the sport, because of a momentary error in judgment. 

Now, because this is a unique product we need new and unique solutions. We do want players to have fun and a sense of fairness, but at the same time we need to accept it as a live event. There are reasons why NFL teams are limited in referee reviews: Too many, and it becomes unbearable to watch. 
We also need to embrace that Hoverdrome is evolving, fast, and we need systems in place that adapt to changing features and rules.

My personal belief (admittedly not shared by everyone) is that some forms of collusion are probably OK in the Hoverdrome. 

One example I have given is the following: If a player got an early lead in points, and then wanted to shift strategy to specifically stop another (really skilled) player from advancing to the finals, I feel that’s a totally valid strategy. To anyone watching, this might look like collusion. 

Another example: three players spawn with a known top player, and all three use 100% of their missiles and lasers against that player. Again, looks like they are colluding, and in fact they are but to a reasonable outcome.

In our premise of being a live UFC or NFL event, the solution to complaints against this can’t be to stop everything and review, or to review sections of videos after the fact (as has been going on in our Discord) trying to understand a players intent at a given moment.

Therefore, here is the proposed way forward:

• We will do a better job issuing guidelines and expectations for the rules. 
• During a tournament, each player gets 1 appeal. It must happen immediately after a match they were in. This will start a 5 minute delay while the issue is resolved. 
• During this time the dev team/hosts will issue any thoughts they have for consideration.
• All the players in the tournament may vote if the match should be replayed because of the issue.
• If at least 50% of those that vote, vote to replay it, then that will go to the hosts/dev team who can veto it or proceed with a rematch.
• If a player who was found to violate the rules in an appeal, performs the same or significantly similar infraction a second time, they will be dropped from the tournament. 
• If an appeal was granted, it will not be counted as used and they could appeal again.

We will define this system better before the next tournament, and adjust it as we go. To some degree this passes the responsibility on to the players about the gray area of the rules. I think everyone is OK with that, as long as we all understand the context of this needing to be really fun to watch and fun to play.

If we imagine going back in time, to some problem scenarios we had, this approach would have worked well:

• Mikmik’s escaping the arena: I believe it was accidental, and did not ultimately change the outcome of that game, but if someone appealed and wanted that match replayed either outcome would be reasonable.
• Infinite flying: It was raised and ruled on prior to a tournament, but imagine if someone got the Proten and just flew around for 30+ seconds. I’m pretty sure an appeal would have gone through, we’d determine that was NOT ok, and replay the match with clear guidance for the subsequent games.
• Flying to Specific areas: This came up in the qualifier and we ruled areas that were specifically OK to land and others (top of the gears) that were not. With that guidance I think this would have led to a reasonable outcome.

Finally, if we imagine this was the process in place when this accusation of collusion between Clyfoul and Gellazka came up, what would the likely outcome have been? This is obviously unknowable, but I certainly would have encouraged the players to consider that the games played were great games to watch, among some great players, with no obvious unsportsmanlike conduct to the viewers. I imagine any appeal would have informed everyone to be very careful about appearances, and ultimately 2 amazing players would likely still have been in the finals anyway. 

Therefore, we are moving forward with the results as they stand. We hope everyone understands the reasoning, even if they disagree, and will be part of the active community to help continue to evolve the Hoverdrome into something unique and amazing. 

Thanks,

Wyeth Ridgway
Founder/CTO
 

[Elian]

Well said Wyeth. A live vote would be a great tool.

[Tpro]

Disappointed to see players purposely play in a grey area in the rules and get rewarded for it. But understandable, glad to see that new rules and enforcement will be in place :D. I think a appeal system and quick decision timing is perfect, always gets messy the longer something stays undecided.

Edited September 5 by Tpro

[Wingman_RG]

Thanks everyone for your help - and as we grow, we will need more of it to get all of this right, we will stub our toes from time to time, guaranteed, but we will always work with you to sort it out as best we can.

MassOnians - Forever !!

WM