Putting together a system that allows tournaments to work is about weighing down the variables and deciding whether it’s a matter of fairness or pay-to-win investment.
Given that both have their fans, it’s essential for a host to have the technicalities in place with a very clear direction.
The core intentionality of the tournament, its ranking format, and the competitive factors that balance the system are what allow it to be attractive and worthwhile for entrants. As such, the questions regarding the tournament model revolve around its mechanics.
In this article, we will address the fundamental system clarity that such an activity must provide, explaining the problems and variables it must tackle.
Naturally, we will also discuss the way it can apply various principles for a proper set-up, especially in the context of the various types of tournaments that it can support.
The fundamental problem-solving question for a tournament format
For the sake of understanding the core of this exploration, we need to establish chance-based competitions, in which the outcome depends on purely randomized results during play.
We will use free slots tournaments as a framing for it, given that they represent a growing market that serves as an alternative to traditional gambling, integrating randomness as the main driver while relying on a ranking system.
The problem revolves around three major details that such a tournament requires:
- Comparability allows users to compete based on the same input, which means that everybody plays the same slot that has the very same base of variance.
- Discrimination is the factor that allows ranking feasibility since there must be a form of separation that does not lead to a mass tie.
- Legibility is the way in which players understand how and why they end up with a certain ranking, essentially simplifying the system in a readable way.
A slot tournament generally relies on comparability by using an identical game whose outcome variance creates the discrimination factor. Moreover, slots are generally easy to understand and are almost intuitively understood as random.
Major models you’ll encounter and how they work
Slot tournaments, especially the free ones that circumvent the dilemma of competitiveness through buying power by eliminating the consideration (using real money for the stake), usually have two major models that allow the system to work smoothly and also be legible.
We’ve given them a handle name each, models A and B, to be able to discuss them throughout the rest of the article. For now, they are the following.
Accumulated points (Model A)
This model’s system is monotonic by relying on continuous increase. Each round played can only increase the point tally, which means that there is no inherent damage to one’s competitive chances regardless of the obtained result.
Distribution usually depends on cumulative factors, but the big-credits outcomes usually dominate. Having at least one massive result next to more normal inputs (medium value) can make the difference in the competitive scale.
This system’s signature factor comes from its lack of downside to stopping. There is no reason not to play continuously, given that consistency (especially if it generates total volume) contributes alongside luck.
Highest single multiplier (Model B)
Model B is also monotonic, given that the score can only go up. However, the difference is stagnation, given that an inferior result simply leaves the high score as the representative one in the competitive context.
The idea is to land the biggest multiplier that can go as high as the slot’s maximum. Each round can produce the best multiplier in the tournament.
This makes the system essentially independent of stake value since a maximum or minimum bet can score the same ratio, which is the driver behind the ranking.
It also underscores the importance of the one round. If the first spin outrates the thousand that follow, then only that initial one mattered.
Consistency comes not from accumulation of rounds but from continuously trying to best the multiplier that serves as the user’s representative on a leaderboard.
Stake normalization and how they matter within respective formats
The idea of normalizing stake is more relevant for Model A since the accumulation of obtained points depends on credits.
This would essentially create an issue because the total winnings tally would rely almost fundamentally on spamming spins.
That’s why there are certain normalization efforts for it, especially since Model B eliminates the relevance of this factor. They would be the following:
- A fixed stake for each spin basically allows consistency to be relevant based on the number of completed rounds and on each player’s luck.
- Having a fixed number of spins creates a benchmark for all participants, meaning that everyone’s luck is measured within a hard ceiling of complete rounds.
- A nominal slot title translates into the same level of volatility and hit rate from a probabilistic standpoint, which is more applicable to Model B’s reliance on variance.
- Unit abstraction can help Model A have a more legible system. For example, tournaments can count the cumulative multiplier obtained, which normalizes the stake without imposing a nominal one.
The overall idea is to create a constant that every participant can follow and create a weighing system that levels fairness for the same competitiveness.
For this reason, the fixed number of rounds can be essential for both, given that Model A has the sublinear increase factor (spins become less impactful as you accumulate more, but they still matter), whereas Model B requires a capped number of spins because it avoids turning into an endurance contest while hunting for the highest multiplier.
Can a middle ground be relevant and competitive?
As we’ve hinted at so far, the middle ground between these systems would be to measure the best (nominal) number of rounds out of an established maximum.
If the user receives 200 spins in total, but only measures the sum of the 10 best multipliers, then the system helps with:
- Discrimination, by using the multiplier value to determine the competitive factor and establish a ranking;
- It reduces single-spin dominance by incentivizing a certain number of qualifying rounds that is higher than 1;
- It still rewards consistency by requiring the participants to complete the full set of provided spins to obtain the most cumulative qualifier.
The only actual issue that can matter is the fact that it can be harder to understand than either Model A or B.
However, this is a comparative problem since the legibility sacrifice is considerably small if the explanations are well-exemplified in a set of terms and conditions for the tournament.
Leaderboard updates and the cadence of rankings
Moving on to a more organized factor, we need to discuss the way a leaderboard sets up its updating system, especially when it comes to cadence. It’s a factor that requires an established focus on consistency.
It usually comes in three cadences:
- In real time, in which case this updating system can be harder to balance with a higher number of participants and would require input with each scoring event. Model A takes it harder than Model B (which has significantly rarer changes in ranking).
- At a specific interval, after a specific, pre-established and transparently communicated number of seconds/minutes. It allows the user to know and take reference from when the leaderboard updates, using this aspect for a more stable method that has lower chances of lagging or even breaking.
- On a user’s demand, when the player makes an input that serves as a request. It’s the easiest to implement, but it can create disparity among users, which can strongly skew individual perception in the context of competitive reality.
Regardless of format, there are certain user experience factors that provide better value for the competitor.
- Score is almost as important as position because it provides authority. When you see that certain competitors are above you, there needs to be a score that explains the ranking.
- Since Model B can appear stagnant and lose any perceptual urgency, using near-misses or other movable factors can create a sense of fizzle in real time.
- If there are issues with updating the capability for a fast-moving ranking in a tournament with many participants, only refreshing the topmost sector of the leaderboard can help. Naturally, the entire board needs updates, but their cadence can differ. Only updating the prize-winning positions is the natural choice.
Untangling the possibility of a tie
There are dilemmas that apply to ties regardless of where they happen. At the bottom of a leaderboard, there can be quite a few, especially in Model B. At the top, it’s less likely, especially for Model A, but the occurrence can still create issues.
That’s the reason why Model B requires the multiplier system not to rely on built-in slot features like bonus rounds or jackpots, which would rely on a nominal ratio that boosts the chances of a tie.
Speaking of which, how can tiebreakers work for these systems?
- The earliest achievement factor would basically say that the first arrival has dibs. It’s naturally better for Model B, where reaching the same point and remaining there is far more likely.
- Efficiency, based on rounds used, essentially says that the player who requires the fewest rounds to reach that point wins. It’s a nuance away from the earliest achievement, but places the number of spins higher than the temporal factor.
- The value of the second-highest one uses the best-placed near-miss or previous record. If a tie has a couple of competitors at 453x, but player N had 394x as the second best, compared to player K, who has 340x, then player N wins based on this tiebreaker.
There are certainly other options that would work, such as a prize split or coin flip, but they are outside of the spirit of competition and far removed from the tournament’s system, which essentially makes them unfair.
Conclusion: Ensuring tournament integrity and fairness
Our last entry here will be a bit outside the tournament system itself, and more of an issue that a host must contend with: users trying to compete fraudulently.
Using multiple accounts is something that the gambling sector (and its adjacent subsections, including social games of luck) has contended with, and the exposure for both tournament models is problematic.
Model B is in the most vulnerable position since someone with two accounts has two avenues for hitting the best multiplier.
That’s why identity verification through the standard KYC requirements, but also device and network matching, are standardized types of due diligence.
Behavior can also be a checkable factor, especially if there are congruent splits where two accounts play interchangeably and not at the same time at all.
Finally, we also need to highlight the importance of careful gameplay for the user. If a competitive edge requires overplay during a session or multiple sessions, it can be a mental health hazard, which is why responsible play is just as essential as it is in traditional gambling.
