Masters of Parkour 2019 Winners announced!

[FelRigge63 1,344]

Congratulations to the winners. What I liked the most has to be the awesome stream format, how map introductions were made, the playbacks and the smooth transitions. Well done, it was surely a remarkable stream and an outstanding performance by the participants.

[Adab 2,896]

I really want to Congratulate TFP (TFP's team 3) for winning the MoP 2019. Also, Congratulations to GTT & FTH on winning 2nd & 3rd places. The Prizes are impressive!  :wub:  ;)

 

I really liked the Live Stream, it was better than ever before, the Animations & Graphics were attractive. It was perfectly organized and well planned. The music choice were also cool. But I think the commentating could be improved a bit, as it was kinda boring. I liked how everything went as per the plan and timing, for example the livestream started right on time which never happened before.

 

About me, I didn't qualify in the first-stage, but I'm happy that I at least took part in this wonderful contest with a decent entry, there should've been more Consolation prizes....but anyways it was honestly a neat judgement.   ^_^

 

Looking forward to Parkour Survival 2019, please make sure you make a cool paint like last year, something not like this year's MoP paint.  :ph34r:

[Heles 9,220]

Congrats to all the winners

[r_Conquest3 17]

Ah I still remember when we had participated back in 2015..... it was fun...

[Guest Maserati]

Congratulations to all teams to even get so far, it's amazing, as well as perform live, a big thumbs up. And I think that despite all factors, the winners are correct due to how things were played.

My thoughts as a former winner, if you're interested.

 

 

Full on rate that you brought Ben back. But, on the last "grand final", I don't understand what's difficult about the trick of TFP. No disrespect to TFP ( as a former TFP member). Both teams performed phenomenally. Like, I think, this trick, was very very poor especially for a Masters of Parkour stream. A 'true' masters of parkour team, would want to perform with amazing tricks, and even finish in style.And this is what founds a strong team. 

 

The difficulty of the tricks for the final round, were definitely judged wrongly (if I'm not mistaken, and it probably was a mistake i.e the factor multipliers, but as GTT did not land, they probably would've lost - especially due to their mistake of a player being on the wrong team).

And the idea that points resetting. It's very very very illogical, because then you should just go for a medium sized difficulty trick just to get through - TFP's winning team actually in my opinion did a much harder trick in the 2nd stage, and should've been awarded more points, since with their trick a lot of things can go wrong so easily.

 

And what GTT did in the stream for the grand final, in my eyes (even as a former member), they did something creative - not something casual parkourists would do. Whilst I parkoured with them, it was very hard to adjust to their style, and for that I think GTT did win the event. Their 2nd trick, to perform that in a live stream, whilst adding all other factors of being a participant. 3 players, stress, a lot of pressure. But they pulled it off. And as the person doing the sliding, there's a lot of luck, but equally a lot of skill. 

 

But congratulations to both teams.

 

 

[arlo7 130]

Congrats to the winners, well done performance! 

[Thiedes 1,106]

to late to be asking, but where are my buds darrex n swift? havent been in touch w/ em but i se fnf running quite gud...

[skeletorXVIII 2,859]

Congratulations to all teams to even get so far, it's amazing, as well as perform live, a big thumbs up. And I think that despite all factors, the winners are correct due to how things were played.

My thoughts as a former winner, if you're interested.

 

 

Full on rate that you brought Ben back. But, on the last "grand final", I don't understand what's difficult about the trick of TFP. No disrespect to TFP ( as a former TFP member). Both teams performed phenomenally. Like, I think, this trick, was very very poor especially for a Masters of Parkour stream. A 'true' masters of parkour team, would want to perform with amazing tricks, and even finish in style.And this is what founds a strong team. 

 

The difficulty of the tricks for the final round, were definitely judged wrongly (if I'm not mistaken, and it probably was a mistake i.e the factor multipliers, but as GTT did not land, they probably would've lost - especially due to their mistake of a player being on the wrong team).

And the idea that points resetting. It's very very very illogical, because then you should just go for a medium sized difficulty trick just to get through - TFP's winning team actually in my opinion did a much harder trick in the 2nd stage, and should've been awarded more points, since with their trick a lot of things can go wrong so easily.

 

And what GTT did in the stream for the grand final, in my eyes (even as a former member), they did something creative - not something casual parkourists would do. Whilst I parkoured with them, it was very hard to adjust to their style, and for that I think GTT did win the event. Their 2nd trick, to perform that in a live stream, whilst adding all other factors of being a participant. 3 players, stress, a lot of pressure. But they pulled it off. And as the person doing the sliding, there's a lot of luck, but equally a lot of skill. 

 

But congratulations to both teams.

 

 

:mellow: Judges rated the trick of GTT MUCH better but the factor + not landing broke their neck. But thank you for the honest and well argued feedback. I am currently collecting all of it so we can improve even more next time.

[Guest Maserati]

:mellow: Judges rated the trick of GTT MUCH better but the factor + not landing broke their neck. But thank you for the honest and well argued feedback. I am currently collecting all of it so we can improve even more next time.

And was the reason for changing the way the contest was set up? (Just curious) i.e the points being removed after each round, and eliminating teams that could not get through. All I could think of that it makes a shorter stream, ups the stakes, but causes team to think tactically and not actually go for the harder tricks but a more easier trick which may or may not even look that aesthetic for parkourers. Whilst, also not giving a chance to the teams that did not manage to make the cut, to compete again to even secure in the top positions. 

It seemed to work great the last 2 years, well except when someone boosted another team by awarding max points, which caused a "heated" discussion.

 

(Also, I think that multiplier factors should be removed, there is a very small difference in difficulty in houses. Just depends on how you approach it. Or at least reduce the factors to something like x1.00 x1.05 x1.10 - every point matters :) )

[skeletorXVIII 2,859]

And was the reason for changing the way the contest was set up? (Just curious) i.e the points being removed after each round, and eliminating teams that could not get through. All I could think of that it makes a shorter stream, ups the stakes, but causes team to think tactically and not actually go for the harder tricks but a more easier trick which may or may not even look that aesthetic for parkourers.

Actually you are on the right track. We wanted to make the finals shorter and more entertaining but also more interesting for the participants. During the past two years we received overwhelming feedback that the "Russian" format is not well liked because Parkour is not about reproducing a trick as fast as possible but being creative and finding new ways.

Thinking tactically and encouraging creativity was one of our main goals with these changes. I don't think it is a bad thing but like anything, new we didn't manage to find the right balance yet. All teams responded positively to the new format, they liked that they have more time to execute their trick, that they have to be creative and that time and attempts have a fairly low impact.

 

Whilst, also not giving a chance to the teams that did not manage to make the cut, to compete again to even secure in the top positions. 

It seemed to work great the last 2 years

Actually it didn't work well. Statistics proof it, the viewer numbers started to tank after the first half hour, a strong indicator that the finals are not interesting to watch. This year we managed to have an exceptionally stable viewer count during the entire stream. During the stream the viewer numbers were between 320 and 350. Conclusion, the stream was interesting to watch.

But also on the participant side, the length of the stream forced some teams to give up mid stream because they had other obligations and some teams gave up after the first or second round because they thought it is impossible for them to win anymore.

Having an elimination system with resetting points reduced the frustration on the team side if they didn't perform well. It also allowed teams who moved on to win because they had another chance. Keep in mind that we are required to do the entire final in one stream.

 

(Also, I think that multiplier factors should be removed, there is a very small difference in difficulty in houses. Just depends on how you approach it. Or at least reduce the factors to something like x1.00 x1.05 x1.10 - every point matters :) )

Totally agree, the factors had too much impact and were too large.

[Best_of_thunder_2015 1,354]

 

I still fell sad that Jade just got lagged at perfect moment. Felt like eating Mcdonald's BigMac without the patty. 

[Guest Maserati]

 

 

Actually you are on the right track. We wanted to make the finals shorter and more entertaining but also more interesting for the participants. During the past two years we received overwhelming feedback that the "Russian" format is not well liked because Parkour is not about reproducing a trick as fast as possible but being creative and finding new ways.

Thinking tactically and encouraging creativity was one of our main goals with these changes. I don't think it is a bad thing but like anything, new we didn't manage to find the right balance yet. All teams responded positively to the new format, they liked that they have more time to execute their trick, that they have to be creative and that time and attempts have a fairly low impact.

 

 

Ah, cool. That's great to know.

Actually it didn't work well. Statistics proof it, the viewer numbers started to tank after the first half hour, a strong indicator that the finals are not interesting to watch. This year we managed to have an exceptionally stable viewer count during the entire stream. During the stream the viewer numbers were between 320 and 350. Conclusion, the stream was interesting to watch.

But also on the participant side, the length of the stream forced some teams to give up mid stream because they had other obligations and some teams gave up after the first or second round because they thought it is impossible for them to win anymore.

Having an elimination system with resetting points reduced the frustration on the team side if they didn't perform well. It also allowed teams who moved on to win because they had another chance. Keep in mind that we are required to do the entire final in one stream.

Well... To be honest, I'm sure statistics about the amount of "applicants" has also decreased - notably the hype is less for our community (could be wrong but I doubt it from just watching from 2015). Yeah, ofcourse, a long stream, will definitely drop viewers. Even if you have now such things called promo codes, which a lot of viewers are actually there for...

 

I think that maybe it will be better to just have 1 hour streams, but 3 rounds. This also will allow some teams, to participate in some of the rounds. And, it's still possible to secure a position in the top 3, if they perform phenomenally. (And this actually worked quite well with the RU contest called Top Class, from what I recall.)

 

And about the frustration, I think that all teams in the finals, would want a shot at the top 3 places if they were given the chance. Even if they fail, they got so far, what's the point of giving up? Some days are bad days, some days are good days.

 

Well it's just a suggestion, probably won't happen, but it would feel nicer from my perspective.

 

I still fell sad that Jade just got lagged at perfect moment. Felt like eating Mcdonald's BigMac without the patty. 

I think that it was a texture glitch, to be honest, wasn't sure what happened there :lol:

[Devoid 2,601]

Hello!

 

I am here to express my concerns with Parkour Competitions, and I am attempting to prove that Parkour Competitions (mainly Masters of Parkour contests) are not fair for most competitors. Let's review this year's Masters of Parkour contest, and I will point out all issues I have with it:

 

Firstly, trick recording and submissions being disqualified. A problem that my team faced was that, since we did not have a spectator to record most of our tricks, we were unable to perform a few of the tricks we came up with ideas for. We came up with a good idea for a trick, in which we would fly over more than half of the "Polygon" map, but we were not able to implement this trick because we needed a support railgun in a specific place, and we would not have been able to show off this player's nickname, and would have thus been disqualified. I find it very unfair how my team was limited on our tricks due to the inability to have access to Spectator Mode. I think teams participating should have been given some sort of temporary Spectator Mode for their team to use, so that they could have submitted entries with better tricks.

 

Secondly, let's analyze one of the solutions for some team's lack of Spectator Mode - The Rent-A-Spectator service. The Rent-A-Spectator service was a good concept, but because the spectator would only be available for an hour, and most good tricks require about 15 minutes worth of setup, some people could not get these good tricks recorded by a spectator, due to the one hour maximum session time that a spectator could be present. I think this service should have allowed people to at least have the chance to have a present spectator for several hours (At least 2 or more), so that they could complete these tricks and have them recorded by the spectator.

 

Thirdly, I want to point out the failure to allow people to resubmit their entry, due to complications with their entry, resulting in disqualification. My team submitted our entry with at least 4 or so days left in the competition, which is more than enough time for the Event Helpers involved with this event to communicate to the teams that were disqualified in order to warn them about their disqualification, and allow them a chance to fix their entries, and resubmit them before the deadline. For all I know, I could have had a chance to win, or at least get a consolation prize, but because I was disqualified and not allowed to re-submit our entry, I lost this opportunity.

 

Fourthly, I would like to show to the Event Helpers running this competition that the amount of winners and consolation prize winners within the International Community is severely less than the Russian version. I find this very shocking, firstly because the International Community competition had a higher potential for large amounts of entries, as it incorporated MANY large communities, such as those of the EN and DE communities, and secondly because there was a large discrepancy in the amount of entries that won the Masters of Parkour paint within the Russian community and that of the International Community.

 

• To put it in perspective, 30 teams within the Russian Community were awarded the Masters of Parkour paint, 12 teams being finalists, and the remaining 18 being consolation prize winners. Within the International Community, only 11 teams (Already less than the number of finalists in the Russian community) were awarded the Masters of Parkour paint, 8 teams being finalists, and the remaining 3 being consolation prize winners. That means a total of 164 players (averaging that all winning teams included four tankers) won the Masters of Parkour paint, but only 27% of those winners were a part of the International Community.

I think the Event Helpers running this contest should have allowed more teams to win, and more teams be a part of the final stream, as it would have lead to a more dynamic and more entertaining final.

 

Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to point out that ALL (100%) of the winners in the International Community were clubs that were either being given club support and a club spectator, or they are an official club. This seems VERY convincing, at least in my eyes, that the winner selections were severely biased. For example, some of the consolation winners' entries were better than some of the finalists, but they were awarded worse rewards because they only got the consolation prize.

 

I hope everyone read through all the concerns and suspicions that I have about this year's Masters of Parkour contest, and I hope the Event Helpers change the structure of this tournament and are MUCH less biased in next year's Masters of Parkour contest. Thank you!  :)