top of page

Get Smoked!

Roles: Tournament Organizer & Systems Designer

Focus: Player Incentives, Session Pacing, Fairness Perception, Participation Systems

Summary:

Get Smoked! is a recurring regional competitive fighting-game event hosted in a licensed private lounge environment. The venue introduces unique operational constraints: limited play stations, strict closing hours, mixed competitive/casual attendance, and varied player comfort levels.

Goal:

To design tournament structure, incentives, and operational rules that preserved competitive integrity while maximizing accessibility, retention, and reliable event completion.

The event regularly attracts players traveling from across New England and neighboring states.

Design Constraints

The event functioned as a live multiplayer system operating under real-world limitations:

  • Fixed venue closing time

  • Limited available play setups 

  • Long match durations 

  • Mixed skill levels (new and competitive players)

  • Player comfort concerns about environment

  • Long distance travel for many attendees

IMG_1706.jpg

These Constraints required behavior driven solutions rather than purely logistical ones. 

Player Flow & Event Completion

Competitive double-elimination tournaments naturally expand in duration as attendance grows. Events that run late negatively affect player trust and future attendance.

To manage session length, I adjusted both structure and scheduling:

  • Double elimanation maintained through qualification rounds

  • Defined Top-8 finals phase

  • Sunday time window (1-6 PM) 

  • Earlier start times

This schedule allowed out-of-state players to attend without early travel while ensuring the tournament reliably concluded before venue closure.

Design Outcome: predictable session length and increased attendance confidence.

Infrastructure Incentive System

Problem

I do not own nearly enough setups to support growing attendance. 

Solution

Players who brought a complete play setup receive a waived tournament fee.

Instead of restricting attendance, I aligned incentives with the desired behavior. Attendance scaled alongside infrastructure because players directly contributed resources to the system.

image.png

Result: a player driven infrastructure economy that solved capacity limitations without reducing participation.

Attendance & Retention Incentives

Early events showed inconsistent turnout and reduced participation after elimanation.

To increase retention and perceived value, I implemented:

  • Prize pool bonuses

  • Sponsored merchandise rewards

  • Catered food

  • Bi-monthly scheduling

Running the event bi-monthly instead of weekly increased attendance. Players planned travel in advance and treated the event as a destination rather than a routine activity

Key Insight: Scarcity increased commitment and improved turnout.

IMG_1779.jpg

Player Accessibility & Psychological Barriers

The venue environment created potential social and comfort barriers for some players

I introduced accessibility rules:

  • Dedicated non consumption area

  • Optional pseudonyms for competition

  • Alternate characters not affecting regional rankings

These changes reduced competitive anxiety and encouraged participation from newer and casual players.

IMG_1724 (1) (1).jpg

Design Goal: lower entry friction without compromising competitive integrity. 

Downey's Crazy Crews

After the main bracket concludes, many participants remain at the venue for casual play. To maintain engagement and give eliminated players meaningful participation, I designed a custom competitive mode called Downey’s Crazy Crews.

Design Goals

  • Keep eliminated players engaged

  • Encourage social interaction

  • Reduce skill-gap frustration

  • Create a spectator-friendly format

Structure

  • Two teams of five players

  • Teams drafted and adjusted for skill balance

  • Each team elects a captain 

  • Ten characters randomly generated

  • Captains draft characters for their team 

  • Team share a combined pool of 20 lives (4 per player)

When a player wins a match, their remaining stocks carry over to the next opponent. 

For example: Winning with 2 stocks remaining means you start your next match with only 2 stocks. 

Systems Design Reasoning

Skill Balancing:

Teams are not purely random. I adjust team composition to prevent one sided outcomes, improving fairness perception and keeping weaker players invested.

Draft System:

Randomized character selection followed by captain drafting introduces strategic planning and team coordination while preventing dominant character usage. 

Shared Life Comeback Mechanic:

The carry over life system creates tension and comeback potential. Strong players matter, but cannot completely dominate the outcome alone. Team contribution becomes more important than individual skill. 

Outcome:

The mode consistently retains players after elimination and converts spectators into participants. It also encourages communication between players who would not normally interact, strengthening community cohesion and increasing overall event satisfaction.

Key Takeaways

Running a live competitive environment demonstrated that player behavior is shaped more by incentives than rules. Infrastructure problems were solved most effectively by rewarding desired behavior rather than restricting participation. 

​

Attendance increased when players felt their time was respected and social pressure was reduced. 

​

This experience shaped my systems design philosophy:

 

Effective systems do not force behavior, they make the desired behavior the optimal choice. 

bottom of page