Recent Topic

A recent topic about this issue was started and closed very quickly before I had the chance to read it. However, I would like to bring up another very similar related suggestion to that mentioned in that topic.

I suggest that for normal tournaments, such as hourly tournaments, new users can still be allowed to play, but that there should be a games played requirement for special tournaments, such as "daily", "weekly" and "monthly" tournaments along with "marathons". This still allows new players to play in most tournaments, so most people will not be discouraged from laying in lobbies, while the most important tournaments, those which I mentioned above, will be much less likely to have cheaters that ruin the experience for everybody.

Any thoughts? I really think this is a good idea.

Hmmm...

I think this is actually a good solution. The main logic behind having a requirement for joining tournaments is that it will discourage new users from playing. But if they are still able to join the hourly tournaments and such but the bigger tournaments that draw the most cheaters be limited to having a certain number of games played could definitely deter cheating in those tournaments as most cheaters don't have well established accounts prior to cheating in tournaments. By the time they have won a few hourly tournaments to get their requirement, they'll be caught.

I'd go a step further and just make it an RD range requirement for entering the larger tournaments. Seems like a win-win situation as I don't think too many people take placing at the top of the hourly as being that big of a deal anyway, but it could make those tournaments more important in the sense that competitive players would likely need to play them to get their RD range in line to make sure they could enter the bigger ones. The side benefit is that the RD range requirements for daily, weekly, monthly, marathon, etc. would also make it far easier to find "smart" cheaters because they would have enough games logged to easily check their play against if they suspiciously start playing significantly better in the tournament.

whoops. First line should read: The main logic *against having a requirement...