In case this hasn't been suggested: Designate/Invite Team Member in Tournament.

I am in a tournament and people don't always read the messages to see if a team has already pre-designated it's members.  It would be nice to reserve a spot to stop people from jumping in multiple times when a spot is reserved.

Follow-up suggestion: Ability to remove someone from one's team in the tournament join-phase.

Reserving spots for other people would be very helpful!

+1

+ somewhere between 0.1 & 1.0

It might encourage more participation as well.  But there are issues that should probably be anticipated and resolved. What happens if a proposed partner declines? Does the seat open up?  Should people be allowed to invite more than one partner in a teams of 2 game? Can you invite someone that's been invited to other teams,? etc..

Just the basics - reserve for the amount of eligible teammates (1 for 2-team game, 2 for 3- team game, etc) and player needs to be on invite list and not associated to another team. The team member who has joined should have capability to jump ship if they desire or be disassociated from the team by another team member if they so choose.

 The team member who has joined should have capability to jump ship if they desire or be disassociated from the team by another team member if they so choose.

So when someone declines or leaves, is the spot open, even though the inviter didn't invited them?  ..maybe they had candidate B in mind.

If the "team host" has the ability to remove someone from their team it doesn't matter what behaviour it reverts to. 

I think spots should display open or closed to public.  If it's open you can join that spot.  If it's closed then the team host is filling that spot.  Allow invitation withdrawal and invite someone else.

Yep. +1 to that.

Any chance this could slow down the process?  Sorry, I'm just playing devil's advocate.  M57 joins the tournament and saves a seat for Andernut, who declines.. Then someone else sits in the seat, but gets booted by M57, who now decides he'd rather play with Thingol. ..etc..

+1

Just to chime in, I'll say that I no longer play any team games whatsoever because of this.  I'd love to play more team games with players I've come to like and respect, but we're in vastly different time zones, so we can never setup a team at the same time.  And like what Andernut said, it's been my experience (at least in many cases) that people don't always read the messages to see if a team has already been pre-designated.

Don't get me wrong - I like the idea. I just want to see it implemented properly.

Andernut wrote:

If the "team host" has the ability to remove someone from their team it doesn't matter what behaviour it reverts to. 

I think spots should display open or closed to public.  If it's open you can join that spot.  If it's closed then the team host is filling that spot.  Allow invitation withdrawal and invite someone else.

+1

Andernut wrote:

If the "team host" has the ability to remove someone from their team it doesn't matter what behaviour it reverts to. 

I think spots should display open or closed to public.  If it's open you can join that spot.  If it's closed then the team host is filling that spot.  Allow invitation withdrawal and invite someone else.

Can/should it be such that if the invitation is withdrawn, the seat can optionally be open to the public?

My concern is that by inviting people who don't join, a player may (unintentionally) delay or even potentially cancel/time-out a tournament.

Yes, I think giving all the options to the team "captain" or "host" is a good idea. Allow them to designate reserved or open, remove players, and redesignate/reinvite for Unfilled slots. Even allow them to transfer team host abilities to someone else on the team.

Don't want to bastardize the thread...but I will anyway ...has anybody requested the ability to switch the tourney denomination between private and public?  This would be beneficial when a tourney host wants to start a tourney by making sure certain players can join first before opening up to the public.

Thingol wrote:

Don't want to bastardize the thread...but I will anyway ...has anybody requested the ability to switch the tourney denomination between private and public?  This would be beneficial when a tourney host wants to start a tourney by making sure certain players can join first before opening up to the public.

Wouldn't that semi defeat the purpose of making a tournament public in the first place?

I don't have a problem with opening up a tournament that is invite only to the public so long as it doesn't "count" as a public tourney.

M57 wrote:

Thingol wrote:

Don't want to bastardize the thread...but I will anyway ...has anybody requested the ability to switch the tourney denomination between private and public?  This would be beneficial when a tourney host wants to start a tourney by making sure certain players can join first before opening up to the public.

Wouldn't that semi defeat the purpose of making a tournament public in the first place?

I don't have a problem with opening up a tournament that is invite only to the public so long as it doesn't "count" as a public tourney.

In response to your first question, no (atleast for my tourneys).

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear.

My point is that if entrance to a public tourney discriminates in any way, it should not count towards the stats.

E.g., if you were to open a private tournament for 16 players and invite 15 of your friends, then switch it to public to fill the last seat, you have all but created a private tournament yet managed to have it "count".

In fact, the idea of being able to force teams somewhat runs counter to the fairness paradigm that I'm alluding to.  Really, a "Team" stat should belong to the team, not the individual.  But there's really no good way around that.  Bridge players, for example, try to pair themselves with better bridge players for this very reason.  As a result, there are "Pro" bridge players out there that hire themselves out to be paired with lesser players to help them raise their rankings.

M57 wrote:

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear.

My point is that if entrance to a public tourney discriminates in any way, it should not count towards the stats.

E.g., if you were to open a private tournament for 16 players and invite 15 of your friends, then switch it to public to fill the last seat, you have all but created a private tournament yet managed to have it "count".

In fact, the idea of being able to force teams somewhat runs counter to the fairness paradigm that I'm alluding to.  Really, a "Team" stat should belong to the team, not the individual.  But there's really no good way around that.  Bridge players, for example, try to pair themselves with better bridge players for this very reason.  As a result, there are "Pro" bridge players out there that hire themselves out to be paired with lesser players to help them raise their rankings.

I agree with M.  It seems this system would get gamed too easily.

What might fit the bill here is implementation of the "clan" system we had been talking about some time ago.

Expound Please Attila.

Thingol wrote: Expound Please Attila.

I was reacting to the idea of a private tournament that then goes Public.  If the intent is to have a Public tournament that counts for the rankings but also is played with a team or group of teams that are familiar, I think the "clan" (or whatever we had been calling it) system would fit that bill.

 

Include that along with the Team Host capabilities and that shoudl meet everybody's need.