Post by: The Oracle on May 27, 2010, 05:53:03 pm
- How well a tournament was run?
- What problems did you encounter?
- How would you improve tournaments?
- etc.
Post by: Levgre on May 29, 2010, 03:54:25 am
Consider a tournament takes 2 hours... if you farm false gods, in 2 hours you can easily earn 6k-10k. That means that these special event tournaments are less lucrative for the winners than normal farming. (then of course if you don't get top4 you get nothing)
So I suggest increasing each electrum prize by a thousand or a couple thousand. I still think that would be completely reasonable and balanced.
Post by: Belthazar666 on May 29, 2010, 04:11:26 am
Post by: Levgre on May 29, 2010, 04:34:25 am
My argument is that the electrum prizes fall far short of normal elements play, considering the time investment that goes into tournaments. I think special events, even though they aren't special 'because' of the prizes, should have prizes that are exciting, so to speak. As of now they are sort of just consolation prizes, not at all lucrative but more a "thanks for participating".
Post by: Belthazar666 on May 29, 2010, 04:43:24 am
Post by: plastiqe on May 29, 2010, 04:44:54 am
Can we please change the Eastern Tournament start time 2-3 hours earlier?
Post by: icecoldbro on May 29, 2010, 05:22:05 am
Post by: Levgre on May 29, 2010, 05:25:28 am
I signed up for the tournament in the sign up thread.
I was in the chat 5 minutes BEFORE tournament start.
Yet, Terroking didn't let me be in the tournament because I didn't see an respond to his query in the jumbled chat with dozens of lines.
Apparently it was required I watched the chat and read all the messages to help Terroking do his job of figuring out who in the chat room was there.
But there is NOTHING in the rules about having to answer a roll call at tournament start, just that you have to sign up and be in the chat room. IF you WANT to require a roll-call, add it to the rules so people actually know!
He could have even sent me a private message in chat. He did no such thing.
Either change the rules requiring a roll call, or don't let people like Terroking host who add these arbitrary rules for registering in a tournament and don't even send a private chat message to the people he is trying to figure out are there.
I spent an hour waiting and preparing decks, and that time was wasted, because Terroking was too inflexible and not thorough. The manager of the tournament is supposed to be the organizer, so follow the rules or send a private chat message. I was reading the chat but not following it closely..
Post by: PuppyChow on May 29, 2010, 06:55:55 am
So there's been some in-chat suggestions of changing the tournament to double elimination.
For info about double elimination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-elimination_tournament#Pros_and_cons
Basically, it's more fair and guards against a good player being eliminated by an unlucky seed against another good player. However, it also requires more games (but I think it only adds on a single round, so theoretically if a tournament goes smoothly it wouldn't take too much longer).
Post by: Flare on May 29, 2010, 06:57:29 am
Post by: Scaredgirl on May 29, 2010, 08:47:15 am
I have more feedback on the tournament. Terroking failed in his responsibility as a tournament hoster, and the criteria for signing up for the tournament needs to be clarified, because...My sincere apologies. Something like this is very unfortunate, and we will do our best to make sure that it does not happen again.
I signed up for the tournament in the sign up thread.
I was in the chat 5 minutes BEFORE tournament start.
Yet, Terroking didn't let me be in the tournament because I didn't see an respond to his query in the jumbled chat with dozens of lines.
Apparently it was required I watched the chat and read all the messages to help Terroking do his job of figuring out who in the chat room was there.
But there is NOTHING in the rules about having to answer a roll call at tournament start, just that you have to sign up and be in the chat room. IF you WANT to require a roll-call, add it to the rules so people actually know!
He could have even sent me a private message in chat. He did no such thing.
Either change the rules requiring a roll call, or don't let people like Terroking host who add these arbitrary rules for registering in a tournament and don't even send a private chat message to the people he is trying to figure out are there.
I spent an hour waiting and preparing decks, and that time was wasted, because Terroking was too inflexible and not thorough. The manager of the tournament is supposed to be the organizer, so follow the rules or send a private chat message. I was reading the chat but not following it closely..
Problem is of course that the last 10 minutes before a tournament starts is pretty hectic, and building those brackets can be a nightmare with all the people afk, not show up, random people joining chat, etc.
We'll try to come up with a better system.
Post by: Scaredgirl on May 29, 2010, 08:51:48 am
*I'm posting this here because tournaments are run by the forum basically. I'm not sure if it should instead go in the tournament section though.I merged this post here because this is where you post tournament suggestions and feedback (as you are well aware).
So there's been some in-chat suggestions of changing the tournament to double elimination.
For info about double elimination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-elimination_tournament#Pros_and_cons
Basically, it's more fair and guards against a good player being eliminated by an unlucky seed against another good player. However, it also requires more games (but I think it only adds on a single round, so theoretically if a tournament goes smoothly it wouldn't take too much longer).
Quote
A disadvantage compared to the single-elimination format is that a considerably greater number of matches have to be conductedThat is the reason we won't be having double elimination.
Once we get the ingame link and most likely every single tournament is 32vs32, there cannot be any extra matches because it's already taking too long. Right now the biggest challenge is how to make tournaments go faster. What you suggested is totally the opposite.
As for having to face a good player in round 1.. I have three things:
- try to win
- if you lose, you deserve to get kicked out of the tournament
- don't lose
Post by: PuppyChow on May 29, 2010, 05:56:16 pm
Quote
post tournament suggestions and feedback (as you are well aware).Believe it or not, I hadn't even considered this topic due to how new it is. I was debating between posting a new topic in this section or in the forum suggestions section, and didn't even think about this topic. Also, I liked the idea of a poll :) .
But the ideas out there, and I guess this is a better place for it.
Anyway, you're right about it taking too long. I had thought it would add more games but only one more round. Instead, it doubles the number of rounds too :) . In other words, too long at the moment. It may be worth it to consider it in the future when we're pros at having them, though.
Round 1: 16 Matches
Round 2: 16 Matches
Round 3*: 8 Matches
Round 4: 8 Matches
Round 5*: 4 Matches
Round 6: 4 Matches
Round 7*: 2 Matches
Round 8: 2 Matches
Round 9*: 1 Match
Round 10: 1 Match
Round 11 (if loser in round 10 had 0 losses): 1 Match
* Denotes a losers-bracket-only round.
Quote
As for having to face a good player in round 1.. I have three things:Let's say you run a shrieker rush against a cremation deck game one. You lose because you have 4 dead quicksands sitting in your hand and they have lots of control to beat those shriekers up with. Oh well.
- try to win
- if you lose, you deserve to get kicked out of the tournament
- don't lose[/l][/l]
Then in game two, you don't draw a card inherent to your combo that you have six of in your deck. Until there's 13 cards left. AKA, you lose due to a horrid draw even though your deck was a perfect counter to theirs.
Now the first one I can accept; maybe they predicted you would use a shrieker rush. Game two, however, you lost due to sheer luck. So do you really "deserve" to be kicked out of the tournament? No, but life ain't fair, so that's alright. I don't mind it.
But we *could* make it more fair and bad-draw proof, all around (so a newb playing Rastafla in round 1, for instance, doesn't get the shaft). I was just trying to get that idea out there.[/list]
Post by: jheamay on May 31, 2010, 05:50:39 am
I would like to propose a simple tournament ranking and seeding system.
Ranking Points System:
For each round:
- Match ends (2-0): winner +3 points / loser +1 point
- Match ends (2-1): winner +3 points / loser +2 points
- No Shows: -1 point
- Champion: +5 points
- 1st Runner Up: +3 points
- 2nd Runner Up: +2 points
- 3rd Runner Up: +1 point
Each week, the top 4 players with the most points become seeded players for the next tournament.
For the next tournament:
- Previous Champion: Gets an automatic 1st round bye. (unless there are fewer than 8 total players)
- Seeded players: Get an automatic 1st round bye. (unless there are fewer than 8 unseeded players)
- 1st round bye = +3 points
- You get at least a point for playing in a tournament. :)
- The previous champion and seeded players don't get to face each other until round 3.
- Encourages participation, if you don't play in the next tournament you're gonna be behind on points.
- Easy to maintain, compute and verify.
- Tourney winners don't get too much point bonuses. Which means you don't need to be a champion to be seeded and recognized as a strong player. If you miss a tourney you can also catch up really quick.
On a side note, i would like to see an unupped/no mark change tourney. :)
Post by: Corrum on May 31, 2010, 02:47:05 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament
Corrum
Post by: Scaredgirl on May 31, 2010, 02:59:42 pm
1. Any ideas that require more matches to be played will be instantly scrapped.
Like I explained earlier, we need to find a way to make the tournaments go faster, not slower. Once the ingame link arrives we shouldn't have any problems with getting that 32 vs. 32 every single time, and when we do, extra matches would mean a tournament lasts 4-5 hours which is way too long.
In fact, we might even get 64vs64 if we could find a sensible way of running it, like using two different chat rooms with winners from each room fighting each other in the end. We could also do a "sudden death", best-of-one" first round which would of course make the whole thing more luck based, but at least it would enable more players to join.
2. Nobody gets and advantage when doing the brackets.
Giving previous winners a free pass would not be fair at all. It would only widen the gap between "pro gamers" and casuals, which is also one of the things we are trying to avoid.
Post by: Belthazar666 on May 31, 2010, 06:04:35 pm
Post by: Scaredgirl on May 31, 2010, 06:11:02 pm
Are the tournaments that are up and posted now place holders, or subject to change? As they are, I think they're too simple. Also, when was the last upped tourney? Aren't we about due for an upped?In June we will have a bunch of relatively simple tournaments because we are expecting a lot of new casual players.
We have a 3 unupped, 1 upped rotation. Last tournament in June will be upped.
Post by: Anothebrother on May 31, 2010, 08:15:41 pm
Post by: Antagon on May 31, 2010, 09:47:16 pm
it'd be cool if we could run some kind of week-long tournament simultaneously to the current ones so that people who cannot make it during those specific times can play at more random times during the week... however, there would be issues if players werent on at the same time...i wasnt around for trials, how'd those run? smoothly?
call it league ;)
Post by: Anothebrother on May 31, 2010, 10:30:11 pm
league doesnt have a tournament format and personally i dont like the current system at all as it's just total points and rewards those who play the most games... also, league doesnt have special rules (like mono w/different mark or no perms etc.) so no, it's different from the league... ;)it'd be cool if we could run some kind of week-long tournament simultaneously to the current ones so that people who cannot make it during those specific times can play at more random times during the week... however, there would be issues if players werent on at the same time...i wasnt around for trials, how'd those run? smoothly?
call it league ;)
Post by: jheamay on June 01, 2010, 03:30:46 am
2. Nobody gets and advantage when doing the brackets.Any chance of implementing the tournament rankings if we eliminate the byes?
Giving previous winners a free pass would not be fair at all. It would only widen the gap between "pro gamers" and casuals, which is also one of the things we are trying to avoid.
Post by: plastiqe on June 01, 2010, 03:44:15 pm
Quote
Unupped, Fate EggI do not like this format at all.
..Everyone uses the same deck and all other decks are illegal!
Having a pre-built deck takes away all the fun of designing decks. Forcing everyone to use the same deck based on random cards means it'll be a tournament based purely on luck. Also The Fate Egg deck in question requires very little skill. May as well just pick a name out of a hat and give them 1st place
If we really had to do a tournament like that, the rules should be more like "Your deck must contain 6 Fate Eggs" - and that's it.
Post by: Scaredgirl on June 01, 2010, 03:46:24 pm
Like I've said a million times already, it's not based luck, it's based on FATE.QuoteUnupped, Fate EggI do not like this format at all.
..Everyone uses the same deck and all other decks are illegal!
Having a pre-built deck takes away all the fun of designing decks. Forcing everyone to use the same deck based on random cards means it'll be a tournament based purely on luck. Also The Fate Egg deck in question requires very little skill. May as well just pick a name out of a hat and give them 1st place
We had those before and the plan was to restart it, however it might be too much work. Last system failed because organizers stopped updating it, and who can blame them? It's tedious and boring work on top of all the other things PvP Organizers have to do.2. Nobody gets and advantage when doing the brackets.Any chance of implementing the tournament rankings if we eliminate the byes?
Giving previous winners a free pass would not be fair at all. It would only widen the gap between "pro gamers" and casuals, which is also one of the things we are trying to avoid.
We need some kind of automated system that takes care of this thing.
Post by: Anothebrother on June 01, 2010, 07:49:15 pm
Quote"Your deck must contain 6 Fate Eggs"I really like that idea...can we change it to that?...
Post by: jheamay on June 05, 2010, 01:23:47 am
If you want I could create a database to store tournament data and points and auto-update the rankings. I'd just upload the updated rankings here in jpeg format every week. :)Like I've said a million times already, it's not based luck, it's based on FATE.QuoteUnupped, Fate EggI do not like this format at all.
..Everyone uses the same deck and all other decks are illegal!
Having a pre-built deck takes away all the fun of designing decks. Forcing everyone to use the same deck based on random cards means it'll be a tournament based purely on luck. Also The Fate Egg deck in question requires very little skill. May as well just pick a name out of a hat and give them 1st placeWe had those before and the plan was to restart it, however it might be too much work. Last system failed because organizers stopped updating it, and who can blame them? It's tedious and boring work on top of all the other things PvP Organizers have to do.2. Nobody gets and advantage when doing the brackets.Any chance of implementing the tournament rankings if we eliminate the byes?
Giving previous winners a free pass would not be fair at all. It would only widen the gap between "pro gamers" and casuals, which is also one of the things we are trying to avoid.
We need some kind of automated system that takes care of this thing.
Post by: Demagog on June 05, 2010, 01:38:16 am
Also, when will we get to see an upgraded no restrictions tournament?
Post by: Svenningen on June 05, 2010, 05:52:01 pm
So what about a starter deck tournament? Either starter deck, or your account must not have any wins/losses when you start the tournament (I don't remember if PvP Duels give you wins/losses).
Also, when will we get to see an upgraded no restrictions tournament?
starter deck sounds fun. Only i'd say ur allowed 1win. (the very first quest)
Post by: plastiqe on June 05, 2010, 06:12:38 pm
Post by: the dictator on June 05, 2010, 08:39:02 pm
(Yes, I was confused first too).
Post by: Troh on June 07, 2010, 08:24:38 am
In case there is a 32 people tournament.
I am spending 2-3 hours to go to the final and there i am loosing.
It is very frustrating for me to receive electronum (that i simply don't need anymore) after having so much winnings.
:( I suggest when there are full tournaments (32 players) you must give for all 3 first players.
1 Place : a rare card by choice. + electronum
2 Place : player choose : mark or nymph. And he is receiving a random mark or nymph(depends on what he chose) + electronum
3 Place : a random mark or nymph (what remains from what chose 2 place) + electronum
4 Place : electronum
This way maybe i'll ever have a nymph, i am playing this game for some couple of months and i still have 0 nymphs and 0 marks, which is really not cool :(.
Let's see it other way :
1.Until now, the tourneys were small ( 8-12 players) and there was 1 rare card awarded. which means with equal chances i had 1 from 8 chances to win. Now if you'll implement the new reward system it will be 3 from 32 chances to win which is equal to 1 from 8 (which means same chances like before).
2. 2 place and 3 place will receive a RANDOM card. In case of nymphs (some nymphs just suck ), in case of marks(some marks you don't need). So you can't really say the players from now on will have lots of uber duper decks.
3. Or keep the the same prizes and let us buy some stuff (cos electronum after a moment (after you make your Upped FG Decks) become worthless, and that 2 or 3 place prize is just like a spit in your face)
Post by: melzardust on June 07, 2010, 08:48:33 am
Bad luck on oracle...
BTW itotally agree
Post by: Troh on June 07, 2010, 08:50:35 am
Wow.Like ScaredGirl says. it's not luck it's fate. >:D :(
Bad luck on oracle...
BTW itotally agree
Post by: melzardust on June 07, 2010, 08:52:11 am
That means... youre EVIL!!!Wow.Like ScaredGirl says. it's not luck it's fate. >:D :(
Bad luck on oracle...
BTW itotally agree
EDIT: ill try to stay on topic from now
Post by: Antagon on June 07, 2010, 10:48:56 am
i agree with more electrum for tournament top4, but only the winner should get a card.
just my opinion.
p.s.: maybe some "monthly special tournaments", played at the last sunday each month, with slightly higher prices, for example 2 rares for winner, 1 for 2nd, and best of 5 matches at the half finals and final best of 7 or something, would make sense.
Post by: Scaredgirl on June 07, 2010, 03:16:06 pm
In case there is a 32 people tournament.There's the problem. Why did you lose?
I am spending 2-3 hours to go to the final and there i am loosing.
I suggest next time you win.
Problem solved.
Btw.. Zanz increased tournament prizes as follows:
| 1st | 5000 electrum + special card + forum award icon (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7002.0;attach=1348;image) |
| 2nd | 4000 electrum |
| 3rd | 3000 electrum |
| 4th | 2000 electrum |
Post by: Svenningen on June 07, 2010, 03:34:19 pm
This worked GREAT! Thanks for the tip SG! =) Maybe ill try it again some time, to you all, this is a great tips, and it worked for me in my very first tourney! :-*In case there is a 32 people tournament.There's the problem. Why did you lose?
I am spending 2-3 hours to go to the final and there i am loosing.
I suggest next time you win.
Problem solved.
Post by: Troh on June 07, 2010, 03:41:43 pm
it's not about me.In case there is a 32 people tournament.There's the problem. Why did you lose?
I am spending 2-3 hours to go to the final and there i am loosing.
I suggest next time you win.
Problem solved.
Btw.. Zanz increased tournament prizes as follows:Good news for losers.
1st 5000 electrum + special card + forum award icon (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7002.0;attach=1348;image) 2nd 4000 electrum 3rd 3000 electrum 4th 2000 electrum
Post by: Anothebrother on June 09, 2010, 04:27:14 am
so:
0-15 Players: 1st Place chooses mark or nymph
16-23 Players: 1st Place chooses mark or nymph, 2nd Place chooses nymph
24-32 Players: 1st Place chooses mark or nymph, 2nd Place chooses nymph, 3rd place chooses any upped card (not nymph or mark)
33-39 Players: 1st Place chooses mark or nymph, 2nd Place chooses nymph, 3rd place chooses any upped card (not nymph or mark), 4th Place chooses any unupped card
...or something like that?
Post by: Anothebrother on June 14, 2010, 06:39:11 pm
Post by: Anothebrother on June 14, 2010, 06:40:30 pm
Quantum Pillar Quanta Production Only:
No pillars except Quanta Pillars
No Marks
No Novas
No Immos
Devourers ALLOWED
Rustlers ALLOWED
Post by: Anothebrother on June 14, 2010, 06:43:31 pm
Tournament of Fate II
Everyone must use this deck:
Code: [Select]
5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5ri 5ri 5ri 5ri 5ri 5ri 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61t 61u 622 622 622 622
Post by: Anothebrother on June 14, 2010, 06:45:59 pm
Big Deck, no weps or shields
-60 card deck
-no weapons
-no shields
Post by: teffy on June 14, 2010, 07:29:07 pm
2. Idea: unupped , exactly 60 card , no Novas, Immolation, Quantum Pillars, Devourer, Earthquake
3. Idea: unupped, Trio Decks (3 different colors min / more than Trio , No Quantum Pillar, Novas, Immolation, Devourer, Earthquake ( people shall be able to play all of their colors, but not more).
4. Idea: no pillar allowed, upped cards possible.
5. Idea: low cost (high cost) decks. cards may not have costs > X ( <X).
6. Idea: MtG version: only 4 copies of a card allowed, 60 cards (?), only Pillars may have more than 4 copies. Quantum Pillars only 4, because Rainbow Decks would have an advantage here.
P.S. I´m not one of the MtG players, I´ve only read some rules.
Post by: MaxMilen on June 14, 2010, 07:36:23 pm
1. No creatures allowed. Creatures can be "created", such as by Animate Weapon, but you can't have any actual creature cards in your deck.
2. Zero-power only. All creatures in your deck must have 0 power. Weapons cannot be used.
3. Singleton. Other than pillars/towers, you can't have more than one copy of any card in your deck. If upped cards are allowed, upped cards are counted as the same card as their unupped form. (For example, Trident and Poseidon are considered the same card.)
Post by: Bender74d on June 17, 2010, 05:28:51 pm
do a "draft tournament". have a list of random cards (set up before hand and and by a neutral party) and give all users a draft order and allow the to pick one card at a time from the card list. Users can only make a deck out of what they draft and pillars.
idealy for true randomization (so the last person to pick doesn't get shafted) each users should get a set amount of cards to choose from (each persons being different), they would then choose one card, and "pass" the rest to the person after them in the order.
Post by: smuglapse on June 19, 2010, 06:19:10 pm
I assume this is new to the organizers as well because of the increasing size of tourneys.
Post by: venumuse on June 19, 2010, 07:55:33 pm
Post by: Scaredgirl on June 19, 2010, 07:57:50 pm
Please add to the rules page if there is going to be Preliminaries that it will be a best of 1 matchup. Just so people know ahead of time and there isn't confusion.The problem is not the rules, it's players (like yourself :) ) who do not READ the rules. Here, let me help you:
I assume this is new to the organizers as well because of the increasing size of tourneys.
Quote
Each tournament has a maximum of 64 players. If we have more than 32 players, will will have a fast 10 minute "best-of-one" preliminary round to determine which 32 players go to round 1.That is a copy-paste taken directly from the rules topic. Each tournament topic asks people to read these rules and even has a link to them.
What more can we do? Go to everyones house and force them to read it? :)
Hi Scaregirl, I've been wanting to get into a tournament and when u say enter the chat room, what chat room are you talkin about? The only tournament system that I think would be better is to make a forum 10-20 min before the torunament starts and have every body sign up there.This is also explained in the rules. Please read them.
Post by: smuglapse on June 19, 2010, 08:03:42 pm
Post by: Cisco on June 22, 2010, 08:17:29 am
First of my apoligies for not showing up last months. I encountered problems that I couldn´t get around of. We all should be thanking those that ran the tourneys as it isn´t as easy as one may think.
One thing I did spend a lot of time thinking about how to speed up the tourneys make theme more popular, giving more people prizes and having more than just 2 tourneys a week.
Simply put there is no way around it. Zanz would have to automate it. We have a thread where you can vote whate you believe is most importent for the next update and I believe automating the tourneys is one of the things you can vote for. Personally I have a very good idea how such an automization would look like to make it popular and will start a thread about it sooner or later to collect ideas and to see what everbody thinks how it should work. Zanz thene may work with those ideas to make a great automated tourney for elements that actually goes really quick and prizes that fit the amount of players in it.
With two tourneys a week running we pretty much always had one unupped tourney running and did not lose any players because of it and see no reason to have 3 unupped one upped tourneys as I read here. I think the rotation with one unupped, no restrictions and special rules is a good one. Special rules usually was unnuped anyways.
Lot of suggestions that are made in this thread fall under these special rules tourneys. I hope SG did not erase that thread with SP rules ideas as there were many great ideas in it.
Post by: Scaredgirl on June 22, 2010, 10:35:57 am
I hope SG did not erase that thread with SP rules ideas as there were many great ideas in it.Of course not. Ideas from that thread have been moved to private PvP organizing section (visible to Tournament organizers) along with ideas from that competition we had, and some random ideas taken from other threads as well. All ideas will be implemented sooner or later.
Post by: melzardust on June 22, 2010, 10:44:30 am
Post by: Scaredgirl on June 22, 2010, 10:53:24 am
I just wanted to add tha having a 1-round preliminary on aThat was your fate unfortunately. :)luckFATE based tourney like the eggy one is kinda depressing, as i lost very closely on that first round and wanted to rematch...
The thing is that if there are more than 32 players, we are forced to use a best-of-1 preliminary round. Otherwise it takes WAY too long to finish one tournament because one extra full round could add 45 minutes to total tournament time.
I know it sucks for players who lose that first match, but at least they had a chance. With the old 32-player-max system, the 33rd player couldn't be able to join at all.
Post by: melzardust on June 22, 2010, 11:00:56 am
okey-dokey!I just wanted to add tha having a 1-round preliminary on aThat was your fate unfortunately. :)luckFATE based tourney like the eggy one is kinda depressing, as i lost very closely on that first round and wanted to rematch...
The thing is that if there are more than 32 players, we are forced to use a best-of-1 preliminary round. Otherwise it takes WAY too long to finish one tournament because one extra full round could add 45 minutes to total tournament time.
I know it sucks for players who lose that first match, but at least they had a chance. With the old 32-player-max system, the 33rd player couldn't be able to join at all.
I an not angry or anything, just wanted to state my opinion, and you replied. :)
Post by: RavingRabbid on June 22, 2010, 01:22:10 pm
Code: [Select]
4t3 4t3 58p 58p 595 595 595 595 595 595 5lj 5lj 5lj --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ----No Upped Cards
-No Rares
-No Novas/Quantum pillars
??? = Placeholder for cards picked by the user.
Post by: PuppyChow on June 24, 2010, 04:07:52 am
Okay, so Luci and thelonesun had a pretty fun idea for a tournament imo that I kinda streamlined and made more realistic for an actual weekly pvp tournament set of rules. It would take more preparing, and would be 15-30 minutes longer simply due to the preparation time before the tournament actually starts, but other than that it's a pretty sweet idea to me.
-Get in chat THIRTY MINUTES before tournament starts (this could be changed), preferably a little bit beforehand.
-Then PvP Organizer will announce a random set of letters and or numbers (like naa72cv). You must now make a new game account with your chat ign + this random set of letters and numbers tagged on the end.
-You then have until the tournament starts to grind this account and get whatever decks you want or can.
-You then compete in a no restrictions tournament using that account. Note that if you grinded enough, you could have upped cards :) .
Prizes will of course go to the main account via the redeem code.
Again, the only reason I can think of that this wouldn't be a fun way to do a tournament is that you need to be in chat earlier than normal to get the random string to make a legal account.
Post by: Demagog on June 26, 2010, 09:09:28 am
Cock Fight
The only creature that may be used is cockatrice. There must be six in every deck.
No other restrictions. Unless it were to be an unupped tourney.
Flying weapons aren't creatures.
Post by: petterud on June 26, 2010, 07:37:53 pm
You would automaticly be paired up with a number of people to battle 1 vs 1 in elemination rounds until one man is standing. of course, the type of tournament could variate, maybe with some sort of daily theme tournament.
I think a similar idea could be nice if it is thoroughly made.
Just a suggestion though.
(PS: how to sign up for tournaments as it is right now? the forum is like a maze for the forum-newbies like me.)
petterud(testing out the facilities in this forum) this one was really cool btw
Post by: nkedwards90 on June 27, 2010, 02:38:12 am
So, I was playing this guy in the first round of the tournament. I was pretty psyched since it was my first and thinking I was gonna plow through it like a hot knife through butter. It's second round, he's beaten me, I've beaten him, and he has no creatures on the feild with an HP of 82. I have like 12 Aether pillars out, and I Fractal my Phase Spiders. And as soon as I do, my hand fills up and my computer freezes. Though, I guess I should have thought more about the amount of windows I had open before I proceeded.
Well, thought I'd vent.
Thanks,
nkedwards90
Post by: TheoCT on June 27, 2010, 03:03:23 am
:)
Post by: sSethia on June 27, 2010, 03:05:38 am
There's always next time :)
Post by: killsdazombies on June 27, 2010, 03:10:19 am
also rasta provided a screen shot of the desync while you did not, if you could have provided a screen shot showing you inevitable win, than i would have called it a redo. because rasta was about to own you when you desynced :/ learn to take screen shots.
Post by: tyranim on June 27, 2010, 03:37:24 am
Post by: xonepartlost on June 27, 2010, 04:02:31 am
he was fighting rasta.Kinda hard to take a screen shot when your computer freezes.
also rasta provided a screen shot of the desync while you did not, if you could have provided a screen shot showing you inevitable win, than i would have called it a redo. because rasta was about to own you when you desynced :/ learn to take screen shots.
Post by: killsdazombies on June 27, 2010, 04:10:54 am
Post by: tyranim on June 27, 2010, 04:14:11 am
Post by: killsdazombies on June 27, 2010, 04:16:43 am
Post by: tyranim on June 27, 2010, 04:18:56 am
Post by: xonepartlost on June 27, 2010, 07:39:04 am
Post by: tyranim on June 27, 2010, 07:44:16 am
Post by: nkedwards90 on June 27, 2010, 07:53:05 pm
At the time I was fighting Flare in the match.
You must have confused me with another person.
I'm not lying, either.
My CPU froze and I got p****d.
And, out of rage, I just got up and went to my room.
I said that I won when Dariuss left, not when my CPU froze.
And as I said, that wasn't a demand for a redo!
Oh, and BTW, this was my first tournament so you didn't have to be such a jerk to me in chat.
Post by: mafidufa on July 01, 2010, 02:52:46 pm
Post by: Rastafla on July 17, 2010, 05:07:08 pm
It appears that the final was won with a BYE. This is unacceptable! Its down in the rules that the most recent beat player (by the leaving player) fights instead. So this would have meant that ytn2006 fought in the final instead of the bronze match!
What the hell happened to allow a finalist win with a bye?
Post by: jmizzle7 on July 17, 2010, 05:14:16 pm
Post by: killsdazombies on July 17, 2010, 05:18:22 pm
Wish I was in chat when this situation came up... I would not have allowed it.ya this was a jumbafail, i was passed out ATT so i couldnt have done anything :c
Post by: Jumbalumba on July 18, 2010, 12:31:16 am
I would just like to say, by no means of an excuse, but rather to point out the complexities of the situation, what actually happened. If you read the history you would see that ytn2006 actually left and wasn't even in chat when the semi between homoaddictus and I finished. Technically, I did wait for the 5 minutes and ytn2006 did not show up. He showed around the 7 minutes mark. I was lenient, conscious of the time and trying to avoid any discontent so allowed him the benefit of placing third. However, it still remains that technically ytn2006 was also a no-show and we have to go back to Rastafla or Dragoon1140. Rastafla was in chat but was afk like Zeru. (I do recognise though that I did not call for Rastafla but Rastafla had not posted in a long while and his post earlier in this thread implies that he was out and just left chat on.) Other than that, there was nobody down the bracket left. So technically, nobody could or should replace Zeru in the finals. I say should because ytn2006 would have satisfied the rule of finding an opponent, the finalist homoaddictus, within 5 minutes as he was there 2 minutes into such a countdown but I believe he should be, technically disentitled to being able to do so because he was a no-show for an earlier match (the bronze match).
Post by: Scaredgirl on July 18, 2010, 08:45:00 am
Wish I was in chat when this situation came up... I would not have allowed it.No offense but you have no authority for that. Tournament Organizers have the last word in everything tournament related.
Yes, per rules that was my fail and I apologise to all involved.Thanks for the explanation.
I would just like to say, by no means of an excuse, but rather to point out the complexities of the situation, what actually happened. If you read the history you would see that ytn2006 actually left and wasn't even in chat when the semi between homoaddictus and I finished. Technically, I did wait for the 5 minutes and ytn2006 did not show up. He showed around the 7 minutes mark. I was lenient, conscious of the time and trying to avoid any discontent so allowed him the benefit of placing third. However, it still remains that technically ytn2006 was also a no-show and we have to go back to Rastafla or Dragoon1140. Rastafla was in chat but was afk like Zeru. (I do recognise though that I did not call for Rastafla but Rastafla had not posted in a long while and his post earlier in this thread implies that he was out and just left chat on.) Other than that, there was nobody down the bracket left. So technically, nobody could or should replace Zeru in the finals. I say should because ytn2006 would have satisfied the rule of finding an opponent, the finalist homoaddictus, within 5 minutes as he was there 2 minutes into such a countdown but I believe he should be, technically disentitled to being able to do so because he was a no-show for an earlier match (the bronze match).
Things like this happen, it's not a big deal. Big part of leadership (and organizing) is making these split second decisions in difficut situations. Whether or not it's the best decision, makes no difference. Main thing is the the decision is made.
It's easy to criticize those decisions later. It's much more difficult to actually run the tournaments.
Post by: Demagog on July 20, 2010, 09:32:35 pm
Post by: guolin on July 25, 2010, 07:18:47 pm
Post by: edunavas on July 27, 2010, 11:51:34 am
I must commend girlsgeneration on her effort in filling in for killsdazombie. Her head could have exploded from the mess she had to take care of for our tourney, but it apparently didn't. +1 karma.I know what he is talking about. The begin of last tourney was a mess. No fault for the absence of the pvp organizer much less to girlsgen that made an excelent job organizing, but the problem was the amount of newbies that DON´T read the rules tournament.
By the way, i think the rules are incomplete, it doesn´t explain what is a PM, and how to do this. Other thing it doesn´t explain how to invite another player to a duel. (these two things people were asking just a few minutes before the tourney starts).
At least, i think that tourneys would be allowed at least to Jr Members. Certainly a Jr Member have ready at least once the rules tournament. Some players are so newbie at tourney that don´t even have a forum registration and go to chat tourney by chance.
This would prejudice people who don´t write much at forum but already has a good experiencie in game, so we can allow people who is Jr Member Forum or have like 5000 points in game.
To finalize, the PVP organizers should publish more often at the tourney chat the link to the tourney rules before it begins.
I think this is a way to garantee that people read the rules tournament and prevent pvp organizers craziness and tourney delay.
Post by: icecoldbro on July 28, 2010, 04:43:19 am
edunavas: sorry to say i particpated in my first tourney when i had less than 30 posts (i probaly did have the score though)I must commend girlsgeneration on her effort in filling in for killsdazombie. Her head could have exploded from the mess she had to take care of for our tourney, but it apparently didn't. +1 karma.I know what he is talking about. The begin of last tourney was a mess. No fault for the absence of the pvp organizer much less to girlsgen that made an excelent job organizing, but the problem was the amount of newbies that DON´T read the rules tournament.
By the way, i think the rules are incomplete, it doesn´t explain what is a PM, and how to do this. Other thing it doesn´t explain how to invite another player to a duel. (these two things people were asking just a few minutes before the tourney starts).
At least, i think that tourneys would be allowed at least to Jr Members. Certainly a Jr Member have ready at least once the rules tournament. Some players are so newbie at tourney that don´t even have a forum registration and go to chat tourney by chance.
This would prejudice people who don´t write much at forum but already has a good experiencie in game, so we can allow people who is Jr Member Forum or have like 5000 points in game.
To finalize, the PVP organizers should publish more often at the tourney chat the link to the tourney rules before it begins.
I think this is a way to garantee that people read the rules tournament and prevent pvp organizers craziness and tourney delay.
i agree with the JR. member requirement but the score requirement i disagree let the newbs play it makes them gain experience for the next tourney and most people just play the tourney for fun(not to win like me) so let them play also we do not want to ample the difference in between the vets and the newbs(because there only chance at a nymph other than oracle.
also for the 5000 score requirement we ave the upgraded card tournaments which most newbs will not particapate in.
so basically:
JR member requirement :) the problem is it will be more difficult for mods to regulate the players that go in(unless we return to sign up on page which i liked more stating score)
score requirement :( in my opinion is alredy instated in some tourny
Post by: edunavas on July 28, 2010, 11:44:00 am
Thanks for you feedback ice.At least, i think that tourneys would be allowed at least to Jr Members. Certainly a Jr Member have ready at least once the rules tournament. Some players are so newbie at tourney that don´t even have a forum registration and go to chat tourney by chance.edunavas: sorry to say i particpated in my first tourney when i had less than 30 posts (i probaly did have the score though)
This would prejudice people who don´t write much at forum but already has a good experiencie in game, so we can allow people who is Jr Member Forum or have like 5000 points in game.
To finalize, the PVP organizers should publish more often at the tourney chat the link to the tourney rules before it begins.
I think this is a way to garantee that people read the rules tournament and prevent pvp organizers craziness and tourney delay.
i agree with the JR. member requirement but the score requirement i disagree let the newbs play it makes them gain experience for the next tourney and most people just play the tourney for fun(not to win like me) so let them play also we do not want to ample the difference in between the vets and the newbs(because there only chance at a nymph other than oracle.
also for the 5000 score requirement we ave the upgraded card tournaments which most newbs will not particapate in.
so basically:
JR member requirement :) the problem is it will be more difficult for mods to regulate the players that go in(unless we return to sign up on page which i liked more stating score)
score requirement :( in my opinion is alredy instated in some tourny
Like you i played my first tourney without being a Jr member neither 5000 score, but i read the tourney rules.
You missunderstand me. I said Jr. Member OR have +5k score. Because there are people who play a lot, but don´t post to forum, nevertheles he is capable to play.
Of course with this rule, the sign up should come back. It´s a way to make tourneys more organized, fast and fun. Don´t making PVP organizer crazy.
Post by: Appawesome on July 28, 2010, 07:35:08 pm
This is everything that happened to me during the PvP tournaments Eastern 28th - My choice - unupgraded.
Post by: icecoldbro on July 29, 2010, 03:04:25 am
On the Eastern Tournament, there were 9 people. The minimum is 16, but we didn't know because it isn't in the rules. There was no tournament organizer, so Essence has to be the tournament organizer, which was sad because she wanted to win her 2nd life nymph. Anyways, there was prelims, Round 1, semi finals, and finals. I wasn't in the prelims. In Round 1, I lost 2-1 to truddy, but I used my mind control to tell him to leave. I advanced to the Semi Finals. I was against nilsieboy. I won one, then she won one. We kept disconnecting, so nilsieboy was declared winner by Essence. I have no idea why. Maybe it was because I was Not even supposed to make it to Semi-Finals. In the Finals, I tried to use my mind control to convince nilsieboy to leave. It didn't work. Then I had to do the bronze match with xuru. I won one, then he won, then he won again. I thought bronze match was 1 round, but oh well.so u didnt win even one round amazing that u got cash at all
This is everything that happened to me during the PvP tournaments Eastern 28th - My choice - unupgraded.
Post by: Appawesome on July 29, 2010, 06:28:34 am
so u didnt win even one round amazing that u got cash at all
My mind control powers are awesome. They rarely work.
Post by: edunavas on July 29, 2010, 02:10:51 pm
Post by: mutantkickass on July 31, 2010, 10:55:41 pm
Post by: Appawesome on August 02, 2010, 04:38:19 am
i think the tournament prizes should be bigger because the tournaments take a while and like that other person said u could make much more farming fgs like 1000 electrum for 4th place is terrible consider ing the tournament took 3 hours it should be more electrum and more rares
Don't get 4th then. Get 1st. 1st is definately worth it.
Post by: the Sage on August 02, 2010, 12:53:33 pm
i think the tournament prizes should be bigger because the tournaments take a while and like that other person said u could make much more farming fgs like 1000 electrum for 4th place is terrible consider ing the tournament took 3 hours it should be more electrum and more raresI agree with this statement overall. Then again, as things are the point is not to 'farm' a tournament, but to enjoy it.
What you might do is increase the reward magnitude depending on the player count.
So, for up to 16 players: rewards as is. For 17-32 player tournaments, you double the cash and numbers 2-4 get a 'normal' rare (say, a weapon). For 33-64 players, numbers 5,6,7 also get a cash reward.
However, if you want to increase rewards, you might also want to consider sign-up fees. This would probably have to wait until the tournaments are built into the game, but I think having tournaments where you pay a smallish fee (like 100 electrum) and the rewards are substantially bigger might work out.
Last, an idea: how about the following rules for a mono(ish) tournament?
The only upgraded cards allowed are shards
Only one type of pillar; no quantum pillars (but does not have to match your mark).
no nova, no immolation, no mark cards, no nymphs
Post by: Brion on August 02, 2010, 05:52:39 pm
Post by: the Sage on August 05, 2010, 12:01:11 pm
Post by: Rastafla on August 06, 2010, 08:18:25 am
I don't know where to post this, so i will just post it here. I noticed that the 3-4 last tournaments haven't been moved to archive yet and its kind of confusing now.I searched for the option to move them as soon as I became organizer but couldn't find it. I did lock the older ones though. Admin or global have to move them I suppose.
Post by: Brion on August 06, 2010, 12:10:53 pm
I don't know where to post this, so i will just post it here. I noticed that the 3-4 last tournaments haven't been moved to archive yet and its kind of confusing now.I searched for the option to move them as soon as I became organizer but couldn't find it. I did lock the older ones though. Admin or global have to move them I suppose.
ok thanks, they kind of stack now :-\
Post by: Appawesome on August 07, 2010, 01:29:12 am
Well, I lost my first match, then I didn't lose the 2nd, Nilsie won because We kept disconnecting.On the Eastern Tournament, there were 9 people. The minimum is 16, but we didn't know because it isn't in the rules. There was no tournament organizer, so Essence has to be the tournament organizer, which was sad because she wanted to win her 2nd life nymph. Anyways, there was prelims, Round 1, semi finals, and finals. I wasn't in the prelims. In Round 1, I lost 2-1 to truddy, but I used my mind control to tell him to leave. I advanced to the Semi Finals. I was against nilsieboy. I won one, then she won one. We kept disconnecting, so nilsieboy was declared winner by Essence. I have no idea why. Maybe it was because I was Not even supposed to make it to Semi-Finals. In the Finals, I tried to use my mind control to convince nilsieboy to leave. It didn't work. Then I had to do the bronze match with xuru. I won one, then he won, then he won again. I thought bronze match was 1 round, but oh well.so u didnt win even one round amazing that u got cash at all
This is everything that happened to me during the PvP tournaments Eastern 28th - My choice - unupgraded.
Post by: Scaredgirl on August 08, 2010, 03:37:37 pm
This was a permission "bug" that has been fixed.I don't know where to post this, so i will just post it here. I noticed that the 3-4 last tournaments haven't been moved to archive yet and its kind of confusing now.I searched for the option to move them as soon as I became organizer but couldn't find it. I did lock the older ones though. Admin or global have to move them I suppose.
Post by: Brion on August 09, 2010, 05:58:55 am
Kk thanks for helping.This was a permission "bug" that has been fixed.I don't know where to post this, so i will just post it here. I noticed that the 3-4 last tournaments haven't been moved to archive yet and its kind of confusing now.I searched for the option to move them as soon as I became organizer but couldn't find it. I did lock the older ones though. Admin or global have to move them I suppose.
Post by: Appawesome on August 21, 2010, 08:42:33 am
What I learned: Tournament Organizers overpower rules. I shall abuse this as much as I can.
/rant
EDIT:According to Jmizzle7, after the tournament, he told me that he was being sarcastic when I asked him if Organizers overpower the rules...
Post by: giversgivealot on August 21, 2010, 08:46:34 am
Today I was in a tournament. Things went terrible. In the beginning we got into a debate about if the mark was part of the deck. They even made a thread about it:There was no organizer, so GirlsGeneration had to do it. I lost the first round. GirlsGeneration left, and gave organizer+code to ICB. ICB got the wrong code, so he couldn't do the brackets. Giversgivealot lost to ICB. ICB left, and Jmizz was turned into the organizer. Giversgivealot should of been in, but Jmizz said no.well oh well i wanted to be in and ICB did leave and all but oh well
What I learned: Tournament Organizers overpower rules. I shall abuse this as much as I can.
/rant
Post by: majofa on August 21, 2010, 08:56:12 am
Post by: Appawesome on August 21, 2010, 09:03:45 am
you forgot to mention that I BEAT icb...How so? Did you beat him once? or Did you mean you won the round?
Post by: jmizzle7 on August 21, 2010, 09:17:39 am
Moot question: rulings are final. Any further questioning of rulings made during the Eastern Tournament - August 21st - Starter decks tournament will be considered Flaming as well as Questioning moderation policies/actions in the forums and will be handled accordingly.you forgot to mention that I BEAT icb...How so? Did you beat him once? or Did you mean you won the round?
Post by: Rodrigofix on August 21, 2010, 06:35:31 pm
(http://imageplay.net/m7Gbd81342/elements_thumb.jpg) (http://imageplay.net/pt/view/m7Gbd81342/elements)
Post by: PuppyChow on August 21, 2010, 06:41:58 pm
i dont know why i was out the bracketIn case you can't read that (it gave me a hard time):
(http://imageplay.net/m7Gbd81342/elements_thumb.jpg) (http://imageplay.net/pt/view/m7Gbd81342/elements)
-Rodrigofix said something about 10-20 seconds before SG went to make the brackets.
-He said something about 30 seconds after-wards too.
AKA, SG missed him with copy-paste somehow, SG screwed up the brackets somehow, or he went away for the 40-50 seconds between those two messages.
Post by: Scaredgirl on August 21, 2010, 06:47:22 pm
i dont know why i was out the bracketLike I have told you a hundred times, you were not in the chat room when I copy-pasted all the names. How I know this? Well, because I took ALL the names and you were not there.
(http://imageplay.net/m7Gbd81342/elements_thumb.jpg) (http://imageplay.net/pt/view/m7Gbd81342/elements)
I don't know how to explain it more clearly. For some reason you left, and came back a moment later. I don't know why you left (maybe it was a bug?) but you did leave because you were not on the list.
Here's a table explaining the situation:
GROUP 1 People who were in chat 4 minutes before the tournament started Total of 48 players. | GROUP 2 People who were not in chat 4 minutes before the tournament started You. |
One other option is of course that the copy-paste in my computer malfunctioned and somehow removed your name while keeping all the other names. Could be a virus.
AKA, SG missed him with copy-paste somehow, SG screwed up the brackets somehow, or he went away for the 40-50 seconds between those two messages.I didn't miss him. I copied all the names from both rooms and pasted them in a text-file. I then copy-pasted all those names to Challonge. I have done the same process many many times, and I do it very very carefully. Had his name been 1st or last on the list, it would have been possible (in theory) that I might have missed him, but since it's in the middle, there's no way that is possible because I don't copy names one-by-one, I copy all of them at once. I mean I would have had to manually remove him to make it possible.
Reason for this happening: (in order of probability)
1. His chat crashed during that crucial moment
2. He was jumping from one room to the next
3. I have a virus and my copy-paste is broken
4. Zanz hacked my computer and removed his name from the list
Post by: Rodrigofix on August 21, 2010, 06:55:15 pm
im really disappointed
but im a little glad that scared assume that could be a mistake made for her
Post by: Scaredgirl on August 21, 2010, 07:28:28 pm
i dont quit the room....and was a little strange that i quit and enter in few time and at the exact moment of the brackets buildProblem here is that you think you were in the room when I took the names, but I know you were not because I have the original list of names in a txt-file and you are not on that list.
im really disappointed
but im a little glad that scared assume that could be a mistake made for her
You are however in a "test list" I took about 10 minutes before the tournament started to test out the process. But 4 minutes before it started, when I took the official list, you were not on it. I don't know why you were not listed in chat, but that's the way it was.
Let me repeat this one more time: I take all the names using one copy-paste. I don't them individually where there would be the possibility of me missing one name, I take them all. This means that if you had been listed in chat when I took all those names, you would be in that txt-file with all the other names.
If your name somehow disappeared during that time when I copied them and pasted them in the txt-file, there are only three possible explanation for it:
1. My copy-paste is broken
2. I somehow edited the txt-file, removing your name, and all this without my knowledge
3. I am lying
If you think about this logically, those three are the only options. That screenshot of yours means nothing because I copied the names AFTER I posted that. My guess is that you thought I had already done the brackets, and you went to general chat or crashed, and came back 15 seconds later. Unfortunately it was those 15 seconds when I took the names and.. your name was not on the list.
Post by: Rastafla on August 22, 2010, 02:29:47 pm
Peoples problems with routers/WIFIs and online games are notorious everywhere because they simply cannot set them up properly.
Important notice
THIS IS NOT THE GAMES FORUM/TECH SUPPORTS JOB TO FIX FOR YOU OR THEIR REGULAR USERS DOING VOLUNTARILY TECH SUPPORT.
YOU have a RESPONSIBILITY to be in chat and make sure you are there.
If not in the bracket. Complain to the organizer in question in PMs and be respectful. Do not whine in public as you are the one at fault (unknowingly or not) and the organizer have no responsibility whatsoever to include you. The organizer cant know if specific chat users are late or genuinely dropped just before making bracket. Even if denied at first You may have the chance to be included due to a bye or dropout.
People leave and join all the time. Make sure you are in and there are no problems. Do so by sending yourself PMs and keep a constant eye on chat. It it stops rejoin at once.
--<>----<>----<>----<>----<>----<>--
On another related subject
Personal observation and announcement.
For the past weeks I have listed a couple of nicks that simply join tournament chat and refuse to leave until the brackets are made and that keep silent or say hardly anything or just reply yes at random. Then these nicks leave and cause byes (which i edit away but it still makes up for delays).
I'm starting to think those very few (same nicks) players are doing it on purpose to mess with the bracket. However I'm keeping this to myself for now. If you persist doing this week after week Im gonna have to talk to my fellow staff and superior admins about you and appropriate measures will follow.
Post by: Suguri on August 29, 2010, 12:53:05 am
congrats
Post by: Rastafla on August 29, 2010, 12:53:36 pm
Post by: 7wavemaster on September 05, 2010, 06:14:58 am
Post by: Mntoothpick on September 07, 2010, 12:16:43 am
A few quick thoughts:
I do think that organizers should never compete in the tournament they are organizing (otherwise the entire thing loses its perceived legitimacy).
I think the organizers should receive some standards compensation for their time (such as electrum) in light of not being able to participate.
(It may also be that a just for fun round could be reserved at the end of the tournament in which the organizer is allowed to play the tournament winner in a no stakes round so that the organizer gets some play time.)
Participating in the tournaments takes a great deal of time and preparation. Unfortunately, preliminary rounds reduce the opportunity to test many of the decks people may make and hence reduce the incentive to build a lot of decks.
Maybe create a losers bracket for people who want to play their decks out a few more rounds in case of early elimination. After all, if you have 5 decks and only get to play one of them, its rather disappointing. You can't help but think you should have gone with deck 3 instead of deck 1, but you'll never really know.... LOL.
My guess is problems with desyncing would "mysteriously" disappear if competitions were not for actual rewards. Unfortunately, electrum/special prizes might bring out the worst in people.
It's hard to solve this problem. For me, the competition is "something to do." Although I have two somewhat modest 4th play finishes, I have never taken the time to actually cash my prizes.
I suppose you could at least see what happens if you hold a tournament without prizes. If turnout is too low, you can always switch back. I keep focusing on the social aspects of the tournament rather than the actual prizes. I enjoy the competitions and seeing what great ideas people come up with.
You could also create stage "eligibility requirements" in which your stage gives you some additional bonus which is modest. So if you go from stage 1 to stage 2, you qualify for an extra oracle spin or something like that, but something that applies broadly but is not a huge incentive.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Post by: Rastafla on September 08, 2010, 09:11:05 pm
I think tournaments are a good idea to bring people together.Yes I agree to this but the reason why we are allowed to compete is that there is no reward/pay/whatever for organizing because if there was such a compensation people would think it was unfair that only the TOs in the staff would get it. After all we only do the job one day per week. No matter what we got it would either be a) pointless or b) people would complain that it was too much/good.
A few quick thoughts:
I do think that organizers should never compete in the tournament they are organizing (otherwise the entire thing loses its perceived legitimacy).
I think the organizers should receive some standards compensation for their time (such as electrum) in light of not being able to participate.
Quote
Participating in the tournaments takes a great deal of time and preparation. Unfortunately, preliminary rounds reduce the opportunity to test many of the decks people may make and hence reduce the incentive to build a lot of decks.The previous answer to this have been and will always be, I'm quoting, "Do NOT lose" this holds true in basically all events. Want to test things? Make sure you win as the winner takes it all.
Maybe create a losers bracket for people who want to play their decks out a few more rounds in case of early elimination. After all, if you have 5 decks and only get to play one of them, its rather disappointing. You can't help but think you should have gone with deck 3 instead of deck 1, but you'll never really know.... LOL.
Quote
My guess is problems with desyncing would "mysteriously" disappear if competitions were not for actual rewards. Unfortunately, electrum/special prizes might bring out the worst in people.This may be a problem in the first round and/or prelim but remember, if you cant provide a screenshot of your opponent desyncing (warning msg during the last extra 10 sec have to show) YOU lose. Saying "I desynced" or "you desynced" wont help you, because BOTH of you desynced, at a desync both players see the opponent desync and you both are to provide a screenshot. Because if you cant provide such a screen you obviously did something you shouldn't have done.
This is only really enforced later on (round 2) due to time but is happens earlier too. The reason is mostly because people (newbies) are lax about taking screens (dont know how, dont know where or when or are simply stupid). I do every match and I save them just in case. One never knows.
Quote
It's hard to solve this problem. For me, the competition is "something to do." Although I have two somewhat modest 4th play finishes, I have never taken the time to actually cash my prizes.Sponsored tournaments are something Zanzarino wanted or so I am told. And I think it is great, besides prizes make people show up and make time also people who really strive to compete, instead of a few just for fun people, and if you want, you could always talk to one of the PvP event staff and set one up yourself!
I suppose you could at least see what happens if you hold a tournament without prizes. If turnout is too low, you can always switch back. I keep focusing on the social aspects of the tournament rather than the actual prizes. I enjoy the competitions and seeing what great ideas people come up with.
Quote
You could also create stage "eligibility requirements" in which your stage gives you some additional bonus which is modest. So if you go from stage 1 to stage 2, you qualify for an extra oracle spin or something like that, but something that applies broadly but is not a huge incentive.This requires coding and only Zanz can do something about that, go to Game Suggestions and Feedback (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/board,8.0.html) or email him at game.elements@gmail.com.
Quote
Anyway, just some thoughts.Thank you for taking time and writing your thoughts. Hopefully I've provided some insights to some of your thoughts.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 11, 2010, 07:15:58 pm
I am fairly new around here -- meaning the forums -- although I actually found this game about 6 months ago and have been playing with some regularity. (I have 60K points, about 300 upgraded cards, 7 nymphs, just to give you an idea of how much I've played).
Two of my hobbies actually include BOTH Flash game design and board/card game design ... so a Flash card game is right up my alley. In fact I have been putting together my own Flash-based card game for the last year or so and will be launching the project in 3-4 months (this timing based on my day job). Searching for similar products, to get an idea of the market, is how I found Elements in the first place.
I thought I'd just give some background on me, and hope to get to know the community here a bit better. Seems like a good group of people. And the game itself is great too of course!
I wanted to put up a post on PvP tournaments. My impression is that they are going to get more and more popular as people realize they are the most reliable source for nymphs, and once there is better linkage from the game itself, etc.
A lot of folks are reticent to take advice from a newcomer and I understand that ... but there are some issues that it would improve the PvP experience to address. One issue in particular:
DESYNC-ing.
A desync is basically a result of a bad connection in a PvP game, where one player's computer has a spotty connection and the game goes offline. It can be majorly disruptive when a player has this happen frequently. It's not surprising that this is happening given that lots of folks are playing on weak connections and that lots of games are happening across oceans! (One nice thing about Elements is the international community of players).
Whether they like to admit it or not there are some USUAL SUSPECTS for desyncing. And that makes sense. Most people have a connection that doesn't cause a desync. Some people have bad connections. That is nothing against them, but they need to take RESPONSIBILITY for their own bad connections.
The current policy in PvP tournaments is that a desync should just result in a replayed game (unless someone is completely dominating and almost won). There are several problems with this policy; not the least of which is that it opens the door to cheating.
Earlier today, for example, I was in a PvP tournament in a best-of-1 preliminary round. My opponent had a bad draw, I had a good draw, and he desynced. After at least ten minutes of annoyance waiting around and trying to get things to work properly, we played again, only this time he had a perfect draw and mine was terrible. He ended up winning only because of that.
The fact is that this is completely unfair. I don't suspect this opponent of cheating necessarily, but it should not be the case that HIS bad connection causes me a loss.
The policy in tournaments -- and really in any form of competition between players online -- should be one that is as fair as possible, and which DOES NOT RELY on people's honesty. This is not because most people are cheaters -- it is simply because it is not fair to force players to play in a system where they HAVE to rely on the honesty of someone else.
I have never cheated at anything in my life. But it DISTURBS me that with the current PvP rules I could cheat to my great advantage very easily. I could easily force a desync every time I had a bad draw and get several chances to draw well. In turn this would enable me to build a deck that relies on good draws -- making it even harder to beat me. In the time it took my opponent to re-connect he also could have altered his deck slightly since he saw exactly what cards I had in the desynced game. Being able to customize your deck to beat your opponent WITHOUT HAVING EVEN PLAYED ONE GAME is not fair. Fixing up your deck after a game is much more fair.
My suggestion is that the rules be changed. Desyncing should be the responsibility of the player who desyncs. Yes in general something can go wrong and it should be forgiven once in a while -- but there are players out there who desync CONSTANTLY and they should either not be allowed to play in tournaments at all or they should have to forfeit when they desync. It is just not fair to everyone else to do things any other way -- EVEN IF 99% of players who desync are honest.
Perhaps the best policy would be that if you desync your opponent has the option to force a forfeit. Or perhaps they have the right to keep playing, only against AI -- and if they win, they win. Tell me what you think about this.
Please leave your comments below!
Cheers,
Sir Valimont
Post by: Higurashi on September 11, 2010, 07:26:23 pm
As it is now, the rules cover what needs to be covered. Exceptions are handled in the situation, as this is the most flexible method. That's extremely important when organising the tournaments, since they create a lot of chaos.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 11, 2010, 07:31:15 pm
There is a legitimate concern here -- since it is quite possible, EASY even, to cheat by desyncing intentionally when given a bad draw. Today I lost a tournament 100% because the opponent had a bad connection; no other reason. I should not have to accept the probability that my opponent didn't cheat. I should be playing in a system where I don't have to make that assumption at all. That's how a good system would work.
Of course there is good reason for the current rules. But the fact is that desyncing is a problem caused by a minority of players, and it screws things up for everyone else. Those players should be held responsible. Not that it's a great crime; most of the time it's an inconvenience and nothing more. But it should NEVER be an open door for potential cheating, WHETHER OR NOT people actually cheat.
Post by: Dragoon1140 on September 11, 2010, 07:35:20 pm
A desync is basically a result of a bad connection in a PvP game, where one player's computer has a spotty connection and the game goes offline. It can be majorly disruptive when a player has this happen frequently.Actually, a desync occurs only when faulty data is sent to the server, regardless of internet connection. Like the Fire Nymph bug that was fixed a while ago. Before the fix, when a Fire Nymph was used, a desync occurred and both players saw different and weird things. You are just disconnecting from your opponent.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 11, 2010, 07:40:29 pm
There are many ways desyncs can happen. If it's faulty data rather than connection strength, that's well and good. But it doesn't change the fact that certain players have it happen constantly while others have it happen never at all. That is not a fair situation for other players to have to deal with.A desync is basically a result of a bad connection in a PvP game, where one player's computer has a spotty connection and the game goes offline. It can be majorly disruptive when a player has this happen frequently.Actually, a desync occurs only when faulty data is sent to the server, regardless of internet connection. Like the Fire Nymph bug that was fixed a while ago. Before the fix, when a Fire Nymph was used, a desync occurred and both players saw different and weird things. You are just disconnecting from your opponent.
Post by: Higurashi on September 11, 2010, 07:43:02 pm
Yes, you argued for that in your OP. We can't create a system like that as it would screw many of the players over. Timing out is very common in a large tournament such as the one we just played. You simply have to trust the player, like everyone else do. We accept that this is the case before we enter, because otherwise half the players would be eliminated before even one match had been played.
Nope, it's not a minority at all, and they can't be held responsible since they have nothing to do with it, either. I've played up to ten rematches because my opponent or I desynced or timed out (they are not the same thing). Here's the thing about desyncs: both players desync from the server, which means you will see strange stuff happen, and so will your opponent. Therefore it's rather impossible to tell whose connection is doing it, or if it's just the server (which is the most likely, as they are dodgy).
If you want to buy better servers, go ahead. Until then, it's a minor flaw we adapt to.
(yeah, we're actually getting upgraded right now, or so I hear)
Post by: Dragoon1140 on September 11, 2010, 07:46:07 pm
But it doesn't change the fact that certain players have it happen constantly while others have it happen never at all. That is not a fair situation for other players to have to deal with.Actually, it is pretty darn fair if everyone would chillax about the situation. Rarely, if ever, does somebody actually disconnect (not desync, different words) from their opponent repeatedly and deliberately. Nobody is really willing to risk that much just for a Nymph and a measly 5k electrum. If the disconnections repeatedly happen over the course of thirty minutes, the host of the tournament will decide the victor, so it is of no matter.
If you don't like players disconnecting from games, take it like a man. ;)
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 11, 2010, 07:50:04 pm
Clearly you think I referred to you and got butthurt. I did not.Don't be infantile. It detracts from the otherwise intelligent points you are making.
Nope, it's not a minority at all, and they can't be held responsible since they have nothing to do with it, either. I've played up to ten rematches because my opponent or I desynced or timed out (they are not the same thing). Here's the thing about desyncs: both players desync from the server, which means you will see strange stuff happen, and so will your opponent. Therefore it's rather impossible to tell whose connection is doing it, or if it's just the server (which is the most likely, as they are dodgy).I think it's quite clear that certain players, or certain connections, cause desyncs while others don't. As Dragoon pointed out there may be other causes -- but there are players who desync 5 times against every single opponent they play in every single tournament they play. It is intentionally myopic to pretend, therefore, that "you can't tell whose connection is doing it." Yeah, you can't tell given one instance. But when a person never desyncs against anyone and another person desyncs against everyone, and then the two play each other and desync, it doesn't take a genius to figure out whose connection is the problem.
Trusting people is lovely, but it misses my point. I am not advocating that people don't trust each other. I am explaining that a well built system does not enable cheating, even if it's only potential cheating. I am therefore encouraging discussion on this topic as it could lead to an improvement in the rules.
Post by: Amilir on September 11, 2010, 07:52:34 pm
Is double forfeit for disconnect better? Really? You can't let someone force a forfeit for disconnecting because that would allow for even greater cheating, or unfair power to vets. It IS a serious problem, but there's no good solution, except major changes by zanz. Even that won't solve it all.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 11, 2010, 07:54:16 pm
... take it like a man. ;)Lol ... are you claiming to speak from experience Dragoon?
On topic:
It's great that these issues are "rare" as you put it. Sounds about right -- definitely the community here is a good one. :)
Still, this community is going to grow. As games get more popular, more douchebags join. That's just a reality of online games. These people are going to try to cheat. It's easy to imagine that it will be simple to regulate the system, but that opinion is derived from the relatively small community existence that is current; when there are literally hundreds of people playing in tens of tournaments, it becomes extremely important to have ironclad rules that prevent foul play. I'm not claiming that people here are dishonest -- just that those rules should be enforced sooner rather than later.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 11, 2010, 07:56:43 pm
The problem is, it's impossible to tell who disconnected, and it happens unintentionally frequently. Just how sure can you be that it wasn't a problem on your side? Or the server?Well I think your points are right on. Clearly a double forfeit for disconnect is no good. But there needs to be a distinction made for players who cause desyncs and players who don't. Perhaps different tournaments: the desync tournament being one where you're at risk of your opponent desyncing; the no-desync tournament you would get, say, 3 total desyncs the whole tourney, after which every desync is a forfeit. Play at your own risk.
Is double forfeit for disconnect better? Really? You can't let someone force a forfeit for disconnecting because that would allow for even greater cheating, or unfair power to vets. It IS a serious problem, but there's no good solution, except major changes by zanz. Even that won't solve it all.
Post by: Demagog on September 11, 2010, 08:00:55 pm
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 11, 2010, 08:04:20 pm
The solution is just to make desyncs as unlikely to occur as possible. Once Zanz does that, problem "solved."Well quite honestly I think this sounds very smart. I just am unsure that the desyncs are caused by the code so much as certain people's connections. I suppose that, at least in theory, the problem could be addressed with specific coding upgrades, regardless of the problem's source ... but that's speculative at best.
I wonder what Zanz thinks about this.
Post by: Higurashi on September 11, 2010, 08:07:07 pm
Yes, you want a good system. We've been through how that would look, and we've been through why it doesn't work right now, as the game is as it is, and the servers are as they are.
However, to have people who keep watch over who causes the most desyncs would require that we have more tournament organisers. A lot more. We already need more, as I see it, as most tournaments are still very chaotic. Even if we got a bunch more, most who desync a lot stop doing so after a period of time, right in the middle of a tournament. There's no way to tell for what reason, and thus we can't act on it as you would like. It would be far too drastic, and having the small risk we have now is a small price to pay. We've been through this as well, though. I don't think we need to repeat ourselves further; we simply disagree.
Now, a change in the future may become relevant then, if we do indeed get a lot of people who will create desyncs on purpose. Sure.
Edit: We are actively reporting desync bugs as a community, and the devs are working on that bug. It's a rather annoying one, after all.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 11, 2010, 08:13:50 pm
Not any more infantile than assuming too much and acting on it, really. In fact, it only does make you look insecure, which is unfortunate as I don't think that's the case.You used the term "butthurt" whereas I raised an issue that you AGREE is important. All I'm saying is that you don't need to resort to personal attacks -- like saying I'm "insecure" because a course of action I didn't advocate ... like acting on assumptions ... strikes you as immature. I've raised this issue because I think it merits discussion. I don't need to be accused of being "butthurt" or "insecure" just the same way you don't need to dilute your good points with name-calling.
... most who desync a lot stop doing so after a period of time, right in the middle of a tournament. There's no way to tell for what reason, and thus we can't act on it as you would like.This is really interesting and I had no idea this was the case. Still, the only "action" I've proposed is that people who desync a lot be responsible for it. Not that they are forced to forfeit every time. Not that they are being blamed for it either. Just responsible. I think it's a reasonable line of thinking; the question becomes what the best way to enforce it would be.
Post by: Higurashi on September 11, 2010, 08:21:36 pm
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 11, 2010, 08:43:51 pm
Clearly you think I referred to you and got butthurt.I must not know this idiomatic expression in English ... To me it sounded like you were accusing me of misreading you. That's why I said you "accused me of being butthurt" in my last post. Did I not understand something correctly? Was I totally off-base in thinking it was childish to tell someone they were "butthurt" ?
You paved the way because you assumed, I ran on it, you didn't like it.What did I assume exactly? I'm not sure what you're talking about ... feel free to quote me ...
I never assumed, for instance, that people are cheaters. I specifically said, several times, that I didn't think they were. I said that the system should be built so it is cheating-proof, and that that is independently important of whether or not there are cheaters present.
I never assumed either, for instance, that only some people desync and only in some situations. I made the case that certain people's connections cause desyncs very regularly in PvP. I think that is irrefutable. Tell me if I'm wrong. Again, the statement to refute would be: "Certain people's connections cause desyncs very regularly in PvP."
Post by: wavedash on September 11, 2010, 09:35:07 pm
Post by: Higurashi on September 11, 2010, 10:00:22 pm
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 11, 2010, 10:15:24 pm
Just the poll wording that's lacking.I'm inclined to agree ... I think I should re-tool the poll, or add one, asking whether people think players who are known to desync a lot should be treated differently in PvP than others, and to what extent.
Post by: Scaredgirl on September 12, 2010, 03:19:01 am
As for cheating, yes, it's of course possible, but doing so and getting caught will result in a permanent ban from all PvP events.
Also, all tournament feedback should be posted in the Tournament Feedback (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,7055.108.html) topic, which is where I am merging this topic very soon.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 12, 2010, 04:29:28 am
Perhaps more to the point, tournament organizers need to recognize the legitimate concerns that desyncing enables cheating rather than resorting to responses like the one given in the post above.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 12, 2010, 04:44:32 am
There's no way of knowing who/what initiated the desync, so any kind of forcing to forfeit is out of the question.I don't really know what to say except that I find the continued refusal to see the situation clearly ... well, shocking, frankly.
For a community that asks for feedback, it's amazing to me that simple requests for fairness are summarily dismissed as "things you just can't have" or some such. It's not that big a request that something be done about the TWO or THREE players in a tournament who make the entire thing take twice as long and who screw up all of their matches because they have to be replayed six times.
Fact 1: Certain players are involved in matches that desync constantly.
Fact 2: Most players are NEVER involved in a match that desyncs UNLESS they are playing against someone in group 1.
Fact 3: Whether or not you can tell what caused a desync in a given instance, it remains true that the problem is somehow linked to certain players' connections.
Fact 4: It is NOT FAIR to allow players who desync to replay games carte-blanche. It enables them to cheat. Whether they cheat or not is irrelevant.
If you disagree with any of the above facts, you are wrong. And I'd be happy to explain to you why you're wrong if you'd like a discussion on the topic.
Post by: ratchetspyro94 on September 12, 2010, 04:53:29 am
Something needs to be done about desyncing. Well, assuming these tournaments are meant to be fair anyway.Ya... how does that help cheating. -_- makes no sense. all you have to do is pvp them again untill no desynch. Besides desynch can be dealed with the TO work hard enough in Tourneys.
Perhaps more to the point, tournament organizers need to recognize the legitimate concerns that desyncing enables cheating rather than resorting to responses like the one given in the post above.
Post by: kobisjeruk on September 12, 2010, 05:11:47 am
Quote
There are many ways desyncs can happen.but then you downright pinpoint desync to and i quote "Certain players are involved in matches that desync constantly." which mean you basically accuse them to cause desync i.e. cheating
IF you have solid proof, this is not the way to present it
you're just shrouding your accusal in a discussion about fairness when the truth is, you're just upset because somebody desync while you got a good hand and ended with a bad hand and thus cost you the game (i'm pretty sure that is an example based on your own experience)
higurashi might've not meant it but i will say this, butthurt much?
keep participating in tourneys some more and you'll have more experience and come to terms with it (like everyone else have). desync = replay is the fairest deal we got now. sure its not fair if you started with a good hand but was dealt with a bad hand after a replay now and then but you cant blame it on desync, its all RNG
cheaters will cheat, that is true but they wont get away with it forever (if you use the proper channel to report them)
tl;dr version: desync is the BIGGEST problem in PvP, true but suck it up and re-play is the best way to deal with it for now
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 12, 2010, 05:22:25 am
It's not that complicated ... a person wants to restart the game because he's losing (or has a bad draw or whatever) so he causes a desync.Something needs to be done about desyncing. Well, assuming these tournaments are meant to be fair anyway.Ya... how does that help cheating. -_- makes no sense. all you have to do is pvp them again untill no desynch. Besides desynch can be dealed with the TO work hard enough in Tourneys.
Perhaps more to the point, tournament organizers need to recognize the legitimate concerns that desyncing enables cheating rather than resorting to responses like the one given in the post above.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 12, 2010, 05:25:53 am
but then you downright pinpoint desync to and i quote "Certain players are involved in matches that desync constantly." which mean you basically accuse them to cause desync i.e. cheatingI will explain, AGAIN, what I said. I did not accuse ANYONE of cheating.
If someone has a poor connection or their computer setup is somehow screwy so that it doesn't communicate properly with the Flash app, that can cause a desync. It probably has NOTHING to do with the player wanting it to happen, or trying to cheat, or whatever.
The POINT is that this is a loophole in the system through which people CAN cheat. It's like I'm telling you that you have a store and your back door is unlocked. And you're constantly arguing with me about whether someone has broken into the store. Well I DON'T CARE if someone has or hasn't broken into the store. I'm telling you to close the stupid window before someone does. That is IF they haven't already.
Post by: kobisjeruk on September 12, 2010, 05:34:03 am
Quote
I'm telling you to close the stupid window before someone does.using metaphor now are we?
well in this case, you're blaming zanz for that stupid window being open / backdoor being unlocked (metaphor for loophole occurring because i dont understand how players connection is supposed to be either the backdoor or window of the shop = game)
see, this is why we dont use metaphor and IF you have a problem, you need to go to the proper channel and vent there instead of trying to start something with a pretense of discussion...you sly fox ;)
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 12, 2010, 05:36:11 am
Okay metaphors are too complicated for you.QuoteI'm telling you to close the stupid window before someone does.using metaphor now are we?
well in this case, you're blaming zanz for that stupid window being open / backdoor being unlocked (metaphor for loophole occurring because i dont understand how players connection is supposed to be either the backdoor or window of the shop = game)
see, this is why we dont use metaphor and IF you have a problem, you need to go to the proper channel and vent there instead of trying to start something with a pretense of discussion...you sly fox ;)
Disagree with either of both of the following if you like:
1) Desyncing, if triggered intentionally, can be used to cheat in PvP tournaments.
2) It is possible to trigger a desync intentionally.
Post by: kobisjeruk on September 12, 2010, 05:48:30 am
Quote
1) Desyncing, if triggered intentionally, can be used to cheat in PvP tournaments.1) true
2) It is possible to trigger a desync intentionally.
2) i dont know personally, but it is possible so true
BUT we already have a system to catch cheaters so this isnt new
from my own experience playing PvP,
- if somebody desync a lot during the course of the tourney, TO will observe their match to see if its intentional
- if it happens under certain circumstances (player B just about to win), a screenshot proof is needed and should be presented to address desync (which is why zanz added the desync warning in the latest patch, which i have yet to see in action myself)
i'm not a staff and i have no way of knowing how cheaters are caught (and whatever it is, it should be kept from the public for obvious reason) but i do know they do have ways to figure it out
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 12, 2010, 06:04:24 am
Okay. So you agree with me.Quote1) Desyncing, if triggered intentionally, can be used to cheat in PvP tournaments.1) true
2) It is possible to trigger a desync intentionally.
2) i dont know personally, but it is possible so true
BUT we already have a system to catch cheaters so this isnt new
from my own experience playing PvP,
- if somebody desync a lot during the course of the tourney, TO will observe their match to see if its intentional
- if it happens under certain circumstances (player B just about to win), a screenshot proof is needed and should be presented to address desync (which is why zanz added the desync warning in the latest patch, which i have yet to see in action myself)
i'm not a staff and i have no way of knowing how cheaters are caught (and whatever it is, it should be kept from the public for obvious reason) but i do know they do have ways to figure it out
Because 1) and 2) are both true, logic (and good game design) dictate that tournament rules should be improved so that cheating is easier to detect and/or not possible at all. That is all I am saying.
Post by: icecoldbro on September 12, 2010, 07:21:35 am
I suppose you could at least see what happens if you hold a tournament without prizes. If turnout is too low, you can always switch back. I keep focusing on the social aspects of the tournament rather than the actual prizes. I enjoy the competitions and seeing what great ideas people come up with.i have made ac ouple of these no prize cept respect and a small incentive in karma for tourny the turn out was good for the preparation it took(10+) most people dont participate in tourny because it hits an uncomfortable hour for them so we created (as we i mean who ever has run one) HOME MADE TOURNAMENTS yes they prizeless but they have great fun and rules are relly kept to a minimum (i.e. unuped mono)
hope i helped clarify it and hope it helps in future
Post by: jmizzle7 on September 12, 2010, 07:22:47 am
Instead of complaining about a symptom, why not help us out and try to figure out probable causes of desynchronization? If you have any possible suspects (I am still talking about cards, not players*), list them HERE (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,2221.msg21402#msg21402).
*NOTE: players are not causes of desynchronization.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 12, 2010, 07:24:22 am
Yes, the tourney I played in that you set up was a lot of fun. :) As for the karma, that's a perfectly good prize! Speaking of which, I thought I was going to get more for my victory. :PI suppose you could at least see what happens if you hold a tournament without prizes. If turnout is too low, you can always switch back. I keep focusing on the social aspects of the tournament rather than the actual prizes. I enjoy the competitions and seeing what great ideas people come up with.i have made ac ouple of these no prize cept respect and a small incentive in karma for tourny the turn out was good for the preparation it took(10+) most people dont participate in tourny because it hits an uncomfortable hour for them so we created (as we i mean who ever has run one) HOME MADE TOURNAMENTS yes they prizeless but they have great fun and rules are relly kept to a minimum (i.e. unuped mono)
hope i helped clarify it and hope it helps in future
Post by: vrt on September 12, 2010, 08:23:18 am
Voted for "always replay" because "definitely about to win" is incredibly vague, too much so for a competitive setting.The first ever tournament was won by jmizzle7 by a screenshot, actually. He was using a fire stall deck, and when he used the fire bolts on his last turn, he desynced.. However, with a screenshot of his quanta and amount of firebolts, it was pretty obvious he was the winner.
Post by: Higurashi on September 12, 2010, 08:34:30 am
Fact 1: Certain players are involved in matches that desync constantly.Which usually passes, as they usually happen in periods.
Quote
Fact 2: Most players are NEVER involved in a match that desyncs UNLESS they are playing against someone in group 1.False, for desyncs and especially for timeouts. "Most" will experience it at some point, and their opponent hasn't mattered in most of those cases.
Quote
Fact 3: Whether or not you can tell what caused a desync in a given instance, it remains true that the problem is somehow linked to certain players' connections.Can be one factor, but is far from all of them. Been through that.
Quote
Fact 4: It is NOT FAIR to allow players who desync to replay games carte-blanche. It enables them to cheat. Whether they cheat or not is irrelevant.And the alternative is even worse. Been through that too.
Quote
If you disagree with any of the above facts, you are wrong. And I'd be happy to explain to you why you're wrong if you'd like a discussion on the topic.No, this is simply a case of having more experience to analyse from. Your results from observation may differ, but since they do, you have no basis for saying your observations are the absolute, objective truth. Especially when you deal with extremes like "always". It's great that you're trying to help the community and give suggestions, but your basic premises are wrong.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 12, 2010, 04:14:54 pm
This sums up the biggest problem I have with all this conversation. It seems like you folks believe that "the alternative" is a single, obvious course of action, like to automatically force a forfeit on desyncers. Clearly there are many other ways one could handle the problem; and personally I think that when a player PMs me before our tournament saying he hopes he doesn't desync like he had been constantly through the entire other tournament, then desyncs after three turns when I'm kicking his ass, then is somehow impossible to connect to for a few minutes, then shows up with a draw that has cards I didn't see in the previous game that so happen to be perfect against my deck, and then has absolutely no problem with desyncing ... well, several issues have been raised. First of all, independent of "cheating," if we are talking about "worse alternatives," well then quite frankly what happened to me is a much worse alternative than telling this person who singlehandedly caused every single game he played in a previous tournament to be replayed 6 times that he had to sit this one out.QuoteFact 4: It is NOT FAIR to allow players who desync to replay games carte-blanche. It enables them to cheat. Whether they cheat or not is irrelevant.And the alternative is even worse. Been through that too.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 12, 2010, 04:20:00 pm
Sir Val, your intentions are all well and good, save for one glaring detail that has either been ignored or overlooked - there are still desync triggers that even zanz doesn't know of. We are all taking part in a witch hunt of sorts, and desync triggers are our target. I have been around since the very early days, and I can safely say that desync is very close to becoming extinct. PvP has come a long way since then, largely due to the fact that we have done a good job of identifying and eliminating desync triggers. Of course, every time a new card comes out, there are new desync triggers that come with it. Thus, as long as Elements the Game is evolving, PvP will continue to evolve and go through growing pains.I have no doubt everything you said is accurate, but I never advocated sweeping measures for desyncs the way your post implies. This is not a witch hunt, and not an accusation of cheating against anyone. What this is is a simple recognition that the actual RULES of the tournament need to cut out an important loophole. You simply can't hope to fix the problem by "catching every way to force a desync."
Instead of complaining about a symptom, why not help us out and try to figure out probable causes of desynchronization? If you have any possible suspects (I am still talking about cards, not players*), list them HERE (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,2221.msg21402#msg21402).
*NOTE: players are not causes of desynchronization.
You guys have much more experience with this community and with this game than I do. I would wager that I have much more experience in community management and product design than you guys do. That's not meant to be an invitation to one-upmanship; but there really is a central design concept here that I feel is being overlooked. When there's a potential flaw in the system, you don't patch it up on a case-by-case basis, stepping through each way to exploit the flaw and specifically countering it. At least you don't do that first. What you do first is change your system so that the flaw doesn't matter at all. THAT is good design. THAT is what I'm advocating.
Frankly, even if someone is not cheating at all, if desyncs happen in such a way that they favor one player just by sheer luck, that's still completely unfair, regrettable and should be avoided. And I haven't really seen any reason in this entire thread why it would be so difficult to improve rules to that end. The disconnect seems to be that many of you talk about these things as if they are completely random, and divorced from any pattern of occurrence. In reality though there are two "types" of desyncs, at least in the way they occur: some are completely random, seemingly; others are closely tied to certain players. The latter group need to be addressed, and not excused because of the former. It's really not hard to tell the two groups apart, yet that seems to be the only argument people raise against doing something at all.
Post by: killsdazombies on September 12, 2010, 07:20:30 pm
desync make TO angry. VERY ANGRY.Something needs to be done about desyncing. Well, assuming these tournaments are meant to be fair anyway.Ya... how does that help cheating. -_- makes no sense. all you have to do is pvp them again untill no desynch. Besides desynch can be dealed with the TO work hard enough in Tourneys.
Perhaps more to the point, tournament organizers need to recognize the legitimate concerns that desyncing enables cheating rather than resorting to responses like the one given in the post above.
desyncs suck, they happen, you deal with them. Please dont start a hate thread about desyncs because every one hates them, we try to solve them in tournaments to the best of our ability but the use of screen shots helps alot.
Post by: DrunkDestroyer on September 13, 2010, 01:27:24 am
I too suspect someone of doing this, as we played 5-7 games(mirror matches), most of them very short, and I lost 2-0 (If you recognise yourself here, It would be wise not to post as you are deliberately being left anonymous). I don't often have huge problems with desync, so this struck me as slightly suspicious, as the next time we played, I deliberately used mediocre decks, and we played 2 only games (no desyncs), and I lost both times again.
However, there was really no way of proving whether it was desync or not (no desync warnings ever showed up, just timed out and left to play computer before it was obvious a winner could be chosen, but after initial hands were played).
Of course, it may have just been bad connection that day (although my other matches went fine). I have not acted upon my suspicions (as you obviously have) as that is all they are, suspicions.
(again, if you do recongnise yourself here, claiming so will only raise suspicion. I will NEVER reveal your name on a public thread)
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 13, 2010, 04:59:00 am
Sir Valiamont, I can see where you are coming from. But really, you are confusing people, because in general, you refer to 'desyncs', which are associated with bad connections ect. But what you are really reffering to is intentional desync when you talk about opponents changing cards based on your deck, or 'desyncing' until they have a perfect hand.Thanks for your post DrunkDestroyer, I think it's really helpful.
I too suspect someone of doing this, as we played 5-7 games(mirror matches), most of them very short, and I lost 2-0 (If you recognise yourself here, It would be wise not to post as you are deliberately being left anonymous). I don't often have huge problems with desync, so this struck me as slightly suspicious, as the next time we played, I deliberately used mediocre decks, and we played 2 only games (no desyncs), and I lost both times again.
However, there was really no way of proving whether it was desync or not (no desync warnings ever showed up, just timed out and left to play computer before it was obvious a winner could be chosen, but after initial hands were played).
Of course, it may have just been bad connection that day (although my other matches went fine). I have not acted upon my suspicions (as you obviously have) as that is all they are, suspicions.
(again, if you do recongnise yourself here, claiming so will only raise suspicion. I will NEVER reveal your name on a public thread)
For everyone who's contributed to the thread -- Higurashi, KDZ, and others -- I want to thank you for your insight and also reiterate that the whole point of this discussion is to improve tourney rules and our PvP experience.
I think my experience and Drunk's experience are not isolated cases. Of course we all hope that there are no cheaters in our midst; but simple wisdom dictates otherwise ... there simply is no online gaming community that doesn't have cheaters. And the unfortunate truth is that in my experience most adolescent game players -- yes, MOST -- would cheat for an unfair advantage if they were 100% sure of not getting caught.
We really should be taking concerns from players like Drunk and me seriously. Not because we want to prosecute those suspected of foul play, but because the whole point of regulation is to make participants NOT feel like they have to have suspicions. People should be able to feel they can trust the system, and that trust should be based on rules of fair play rather than purely on faith in other players.
Post by: Rastafla on September 13, 2010, 04:00:13 pm
We have a honor system here, to ask people to do the right thing, and all veterans follows it.
personal anecdoteI myself have lost just as you described it, good draw and the opponent desyncs about halfway to three quarters into the game where my win was a couple of turns away with virtually NOTHING being able to stop me. I asked my opponent for the win but didn't get one, I requested desync screenshot and got one, we restarted and the next game i was pillarscrewed. Lost and was out.
All you can do is get over it and try next week.
About desyncs:
Both players desync, not just 1 because conflicting data is being sent to the server. If you doubt the other players honesty request a screenshot of your desync that he/she got. He/she have to be able to provide one. If the opponent mess with his connection it will say that he left! All that jmizzle said is true and i cant say this enough; Its hard to cause a desync by will. If your opponent tries to cause a desync what will show is in almost all cases is that your opponent left or something else in the msg from the game.
One player desyncing alot.
Does not happen as much as you make it sound. A players may have a bad connection to another player. Its unfair to just kick him/her out or penalize for that. However, if that player desync in round after round he/she will be booted and its counts as leaving so the last person who lost in that line of the bracket will get back in. TOs have done so before. (If its a vet they'll excuse themselves and leave on their own before it becomes an issue)
If someone is saying he/she desyncs a lot and the deck changes etc talk to TO at once. Remember to take screens.
Always take screen especially against people you've never fought before.
personal observation
One thing about desyncs, they are most common in prelim and round 1 among newbies and less between newbies vs veterans, and the least among veterans. I wonder why? It cant be server stress, its just some 15-25 extra games.
PS I also feel your main problem with all this is that you feel you've been treated unfairly which you have not, its the same for everyone and you have 2 new chances each week. So my advise is to play in more tournaments.
Post by: Demut on September 13, 2010, 05:23:36 pm
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 13, 2010, 10:24:00 pm
I just want to respond to this quickly:
PS I also feel your main problem with all this is that you feel you've been treated unfairly which you have not, its the same for everyone and you have 2 new chances each week. So my advise is to play in more tournaments.When I first wrote my comments I specifically didn't mention my case because I am absolutely NOT immature enough to extrapolate rules based on how I feel I've been treated. The experience was informative, yes, but my commentary is not all about how I've been cheated; it's about the flaws inherent in the system that could potentially allow such a thing in the first place. I think the arguments I've made are valid completely independently of any particular instance one way or another.
Indeed I am ready for next week again. :)
Post by: Rastafla on September 14, 2010, 03:15:51 am
I agree that your argument is valid but I disagree in that we need to address desyncs more and make more rules around it. We treat everyone equally as truthful players until proven otherwise, any other approach would be worse. For me there currently is no tournament gamebreaking flaw.
Besides people with weird attitudes and those with shifty behavior won't last long (either due to boredom and not getting the attention they wanted). It always adds up. Staff in charge will deal with them swiftly.
Are those special rules tournaments supposed to be weekly?Yes, as much as possible. If you want to play with any deck of your liking you may do PvP1-2 or if you want to compete for prizes do either one of the Championship League or Beginners League. Good luck.
Post by: icecoldbro on September 16, 2010, 08:39:15 am
Thanks Rastafla, your comments are really helpful and give some good perspective. :)we do not need more rules regarding desyncs what we need is the players old or new should respect the rules(im not saying they dont right now) and advise when a desync occured also always take screenies if u feel the desync was unfair and it would have been ur win no matter what u considered would happen, plz if u are a newer player to tournaments plz read rules first also if u still have doubts PM me or any other vet (we are normally helpful specially to newer players)
I just want to respond to this quickly:PS I also feel your main problem with all this is that you feel you've been treated unfairly which you have not, its the same for everyone and you have 2 new chances each week. So my advise is to play in more tournaments.When I first wrote my comments I specifically didn't mention my case because I am absolutely NOT immature enough to extrapolate rules based on how I feel I've been treated. The experience was informative, yes, but my commentary is not all about how I've been cheated; it's about the flaws inherent in the system that could potentially allow such a thing in the first place. I think the arguments I've made are valid completely independently of any particular instance one way or another.
Indeed I am ready for next week again. :)
Well im out for now keep tourneying
~icecoldbro
Post by: jmizzle7 on September 18, 2010, 09:33:59 am
I have no doubt everything you said is accurate, but I never advocated sweeping measures for desyncs the way your post implies. This is not a witch hunt, and not an accusation of cheating against anyone. What this is is a simple recognition that the actual RULES of the tournament need to cut out an important loophole. You simply can't hope to fix the problem by "catching every way to force a desync."Actually, if you had played Elements before v1.15, you would have been exponentially more frustrated with desyncs, because there were many, many more triggers (e.g. using Hourglass's Hasten skill). Zanz has since fixed many of these problematic triggers, and I personally can count on one hand the number of times I have desynced in the past several months. So yes, I would say hunting for potential desync triggers is not only beneficial, but absolutely essential in order to improve the quality of the PvP experience.
You guys have much more experience with this community and with this game than I do. I would wager that I have much more experience in community management and product design than you guys do. That's not meant to be an invitation to one-upmanship; but there really is a central design concept here that I feel is being overlooked. When there's a potential flaw in the system, you don't patch it up on a case-by-case basis, stepping through each way to exploit the flaw and specifically countering it. At least you don't do that first. What you do first is change your system so that the flaw doesn't matter at all. THAT is good design. THAT is what I'm advocating.You are assuming that we are applying Band-Aids on a major wound. I respect your opinion, but I most definitely disagree. If you look at my Desync thread, EvaRia has done some great scouting work to identify a major potential culprit of the very problem you are mentioning ("time out" desync). If Zanz can fix the problem, you will never have to worry about timeouts caused by desync ever again.
Frankly, even if someone is not cheating at all, if desyncs happen in such a way that they favor one player just by sheer luck, that's still completely unfair, regrettable and should be avoided. And I haven't really seen any reason in this entire thread why it would be so difficult to improve rules to that end. The disconnect seems to be that many of you talk about these things as if they are completely random, and divorced from any pattern of occurrence. In reality though there are two "types" of desyncs, at least in the way they occur: some are completely random, seemingly; others are closely tied to certain players. The latter group need to be addressed, and not excused because of the former. It's really not hard to tell the two groups apart, yet that seems to be the only argument people raise against doing something at all.If there is ever a pattern of suspicious connection issues with a player, that player will receive a warning (see above). However, warnings are entirely at the discretion of tournament staff on a case-by-case basis. As it is practically impossible to tell whether a "time out" desync is forced or not (I have had several happen to me even in test matches, where neither player stood to gain from such a thing), one must understand that all precautionary measures are being taken to preserve the integrity of every PvP experience, from new player to war-tested veteran.
Post by: Sir Valimont on September 18, 2010, 05:50:32 pm
Post by: Demagog on September 19, 2010, 02:58:26 am
Post by: Dragoon1140 on September 19, 2010, 03:02:08 am
Suggestion: If both players agree, they can use upgraded cards in their match. This way players without upgraded cards are not disadvantaged, and those of us with upgraded cards will be able to use them.This, I support it. Not only will it allow newbs to still use unupped cards, it also means that a tournament needs to be unupped or upped anymore, since rich folk will still have their upgraded duels with each other.
Post by: ~Napalm on October 06, 2010, 06:09:20 am
Post by: kev on October 08, 2010, 06:12:18 pm
I've compiled a list of questions that seem to be asked every week if they're not addressed in the opening post. I'm not against using the tourney threads as a spot to discuss potential abuse of the special rules but some questions, especially by newer players, are just a drain on your time.
Using some of these as a template may head off unnecessary questions:
- Are upped cards allowed?
- Can any mark be used?
- Are "Other" cards allowed?
- Can mark cards be used?
- In an upped tourney, are SoGs allowed?
- Are any specific cards disallowed? (This requires TOs to predict whether the special rules will result in one decktype dominating.)
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on October 30, 2010, 07:09:42 am
Too many people don't even know the rules of the tourney they are participating in, rules shouldn't have to be explained in chat, they are posted, so people should try reading it for once :-\
Post by: Jangoo on October 30, 2010, 07:53:03 pm
Tourney-organization seems to work great in spite of many people, not really knowing what is going on, asking questions all the time, getting confused about rules/procedures ... thanks.
One thing I didn't really know about, and which should be improved asap, is "Deckbuilding rules".
Reading the tourney-OP and the general tourney-rules did absolutely not clarify what "Only the elements XYZ are legal. Your mark must be one of those elements." actually means.
In this writing it kind of suggests that the mark defines the element for this tourney.
Now I know that there has been a thread about this a while ago, stating that the element of the actual cards defines the deck-composition, which is now used for the deck-boards to decide whether its a duo, trio, rainbow etc. ... I think this thread should be clearly linked in the tourney-rules, if it is to apply, or the specific meaning of "legal" etc. should be put down shortly in the tourney rules and/or tourney description again.
Post by: Higurashi on October 30, 2010, 08:00:33 pm
Post by: Jangoo on October 31, 2010, 02:24:27 pm
It really doesn't have to be a hard thing to remember to do in the future:
Tourney-OPs state to read the RULES and if the rules state, that (unless tourney rules state
otherwise) deck composition follows the same guidelines used for posting a deck in the deck-section (LINK), then the whole thing should be just fine.
The only thing to remember would be to avoid unfortunate combinations like the mentioned
sentences "Only elements XYZ are legal. Your mark ... ". Posting this e.g. with hyphens would
avoid the perception that one sentence refers to the other.
Thanks for hearing me out. Looking forward to join the next tourney ... with a deck-list that
actually features legal decks. ;)
Post by: Higurashi on October 31, 2010, 02:32:50 pm
For instance:
Only cards of these Elements are allowed:
Only these marks are allowed:
You must change decks every duel.
In this, everyone have to know what a duel is. That info is in the rules, but a lot of people still don't know it. So, while you can post infinite amounts of info, everyone are not going to get it unless they have the habit trained. Nonetheless, I can minimise the impact by having a template that we can apply to most tournaments.
Post by: kobisjeruk on November 02, 2010, 01:36:58 pm
Post by: Dragoon1140 on November 02, 2010, 11:17:43 pm
so will there be any tourney this coming weekend? (06/11/2010)There is still a lot of time for a new tournament to be posted. Give the Tournament Organizers time, they do a lot for us at the moment anyway. :)
Post by: kev on November 08, 2010, 12:56:14 am
I'm of the opinion tourney rules should never allow players to build, for instance, a PVP Graboid Rainbow. This week's tourney rules essentially allowed exactly that, and in a field of over 50 players, three of the final four were using a variant.
The PVP Graboid Rainbow can be countered. Easily. I'm not arguing that one specific deck should be outlawed. But the ruleset should allow players to be both creative and competitive, and I don't think this week's rules did that.
While I'm in this thread I'll mention a couple other things:
1. I'd be on board if the TOs permanently banned SoGs from all tourneys.
2. An idea nobody will like: Tourney and PVP Event in-game rewards should be related to number of participants.
Post by: Jangoo on November 08, 2010, 08:14:08 am
I'm of the opinion tourney rules should never allow players to build, for instance, a PVP Graboid Rainbow. This week's tourney rules essentially allowed exactly that, and in a field of over 50 players, three of the final four were using a variant.Hmm ... I don't know. Maybe that's just your perspective because you have been playing the
The PVP Graboid Rainbow can be countered. Easily. I'm not arguing that one specific deck should be outlawed. But the ruleset should allow players to be both creative and competitive, and I don't think this week's rules did that.
tourneys for a long time now, so you yearn for something "special"?
Personally, I just now found some time to play a few tourneys in all that time I have been playing
Elements. The last couple weeks I was looking at the tourney-rules thinking something like
"Interesting, however: Goddamnit, can't I just use a regular deck for once?"
Since I don't have an unupped decklist, my options to prepare for it were kind of limited.
Well knowing that pillarless PvP decks would probably dominate, I went for a pretty straight
darkness-stall ... and got pawned right away. ;D
The plan was to come back for the second tourney and go the countering way but something got in the way.
My point is that all this was still very exciting even though I believe to know the meta-game
quite well. I played the doubleedged mono-dark way and lost. So my question is:
What exactly is your reasoning?
Are "standard" PvP decks OP? Boring? Not ambitious enough? ... ?
Post by: kev on November 08, 2010, 03:24:41 pm
Quote
What exactly is your reasoning?Two weeks ago the tourney the rules were unupped, only creatures and pillars/pendulums allowed, no re-using an element against an opponent. PHENOMENAL. Each player is forced to create three decks. He could copy paste three from the forum, but he's just guessing at how each deck will perform.
Are "standard" PvP decks OP? Boring? Not ambitious enough? ... ?
This week's tourney rules were not as restrictive, and consequently many people used a deck that is already established as a phenomenal PVP deck. Again, there are counters to this and every other "best" deck. But the proof is in the pudding: three of the top four players from a field of 54 all used a variant of one deck. Thus, as a player you're forced to decide. Should you:
a) Create a deck that is just flat out less likely to win? Problem: losing isn't as fun as winning.
b) Use a deck somebody else created? Problem: winning isn't as fun when you use somebody else's cookie cutter.
Shouldn't the tourney reward go to the player who succeeded in both deck construction and execution? Imo neither option is as fun as the tourney was two weeks ago.
Post by: Jangoo on November 08, 2010, 04:21:44 pm
I see exactly what you mean and still there remains the meta-game that goes beyond all this
to be considered:
c) If countering these decks is so easy,
why not just use a counter-deck and pawn those guys?
Since I was expecting those rush-type decks to be predominant, I would have guessed that there
are quite a few people who readied themselves for them. Then you may have the problem that
you lose that one match against the guy who isn't using a grab-rush, ok. A destructive fire-deck
however, will stand a decent chance against many other decks.
The reason I chose neither rush nor counter was because I was expecting the meta-game to
have evolved to a point where rush-decks are so often countered that they are not even that
popular anymore ... I was totally wrong about that. ;)
It could be that such a mechanism would only be established if the weekly tourneys were to
feature no special rules at all over and over again. People would adapt and everything would
somehow balance out again. The way it is now, I suppose you will have plenty new players
fielding their rush and those who aren't new will seize any opportunity to play a straight rush
for once ...
I am still wondering if "banning" the standard decks is the right way to force people into
creativity. Once again, if the standard rush is indeed the standard, then why was nobody
creative enough to bash it into oblivion?
Post by: Demut on November 08, 2010, 06:56:45 pm
Basically like this.
Okay, in actual rock/paper/scissors rock is the most common strategy taken. Literally being chosen twice as much as either one of papers or scissors.
And here is why.
Everyone thinks you are going to go rock, so you know they are going to go paper, so you decide to go scissors but then you realize that they know that you know that they know, so you think they are going to go rock to defeat your scissors so you decide to go paper, but then you think, what if they predict that or what if you are completely wrong, if they know that you know that they know that you know then they would instead go scissors so instead you should go rock, but what if you are wrong and they would instead be going paper like you predicted just assuming you were going to go with rock!? Then you are sunk!
So the logic continues in an endless loop because in reality there is no logical reason one should be chosen over the other. So without a decision capable of being made, when the game starts they just go with their first impulse which is almost always rock because rock is said first.
Likewise in this case a rush is the first impulse, so it is our "Rock".
The counter is our "Paper"
and the counter to the counter is our "Scissors"
And the same logic train above, applies to this. Which is, is the absence of additional information first impulse will be six times out of ten chosen simply because there is no deductive or inductive reason to choose any of the others above the first impulse.
Even knowing this, the element of chance is still dominant, which is why strategy should have a soft mesh rather then a series of hard counters.
Post by: kev on November 08, 2010, 07:33:42 pm
- Without special rules adequately constraining deckbuilding, many players opt for tried-and-true PVP decks.
- Tournaments (to me and I've been told by others) are the most fun when both my opponent and I use something other than tried-and-true PVP decks.
Post by: chum3 on November 14, 2010, 07:26:01 am
- Perhaps have the tournament organizer reserve the second post in the tournament thread and use it as a space to put answers to questions people have asked. (You might not even need the second post and want to keep everything in the first post, but this would keep the first post from becoming too long/cluttered.)
- To add onto the above, maybe post in the questions-answered section some example decks that are legal & illegal for the given tournament (just to show what can & can't be used). It might make it easier for people to understand tournaments where the rules are more complex.
Post by: Belthazar666 on November 14, 2010, 08:55:58 pm
Some suggestions:I agree with this, great ideas.
- Perhaps have the tournament organizer reserve the second post in the tournament thread and use it as a space to put answers to questions people have asked. (You might not even need the second post and want to keep everything in the first post, but this would keep the first post from becoming too long/cluttered.)
- To add onto the above, maybe post in the questions-answered section some example decks that are legal & illegal for the given tournament (just to show what can & can't be used). It might make it easier for people to understand tournaments where the rules are more complex.
Post by: dragono on December 19, 2010, 01:51:30 pm
Post by: Dm on December 19, 2010, 02:54:43 pm
You can also watch the games by going into spectate and getting both IGN's (In Game Name) of both PVP'ers to watch them fight.
Post by: Blues on December 20, 2010, 11:05:58 pm
Post by: Higurashi on December 20, 2010, 11:18:28 pm
Post by: drogana on March 12, 2011, 12:37:50 pm
with the curent rule => desynch and rematch until time limit and then coin toss
i can't came up with a rule that would avoid that , but if someone could think of an alternative , that would be a great inprovement
Post by: dragonsdemesne on April 16, 2011, 09:18:10 pm
In my second tourney, the 16/04/2011 western tournament, there were some issues with the challonge website and the chat where some people couldn't see things, or, in my case, it was lagging badly. Not the fault of anyone, but just saying it caused some issues.
One major issue I did have though this week. I had one game where my opponent disconnected and then claimed he had four jade dragons. I posted a screenshot of my opponent with an empty board except for feral bond and hope (due to Fire Storm, he/she was playing ray of light + hope), 7 cards in deck to my 27, and me with a full field of permanents, including a 23x bone wall. The organizers almost made it go to a coin toss, even though it seems pretty clear that I was going to win. See what you think: http://img857.imageshack.us/i/picg.png/ (we were both afw from chat playing the game, which is why they asked a couple times what our status was) (**s added to relevant lines)
[14:28:17] TStar: spiritkirinblade and dragonsdemesne what is the status on your match?
[14:28:38] SpikeSpiegel: ^^
[14:28:44] SpikeSpiegel: huge damage is huge
[14:28:48] SpikeSpiegel: 2-1
[14:28:50] ~Napalm: Darn you spike
[14:28:51] SpikeSpiegel: hugglez nap
[14:29:03] ~Napalm: GG's
[14:29:05] ~Napalm: *cries*
[14:29:18] xn0ize: SS moves on :D
[14:29:21] ~Napalm: I had a great hand at first, but you weren't there
[14:29:27] ~Napalm: So I had to restart
[14:29:35] ~Napalm: and get rewarded with yet another @#$% hand
[14:29:38] pikachufan2164: It's to duel :P
[14:29:42] ~Napalm: Time to go cry myself to sleep
[14:29:45] ~Napalm: I need a nap anyway
[14:29:59] pikachufan2164: D:
[14:30:09] TStar: Sleep well Red
[14:30:14] SpikeSpiegel: yep
[14:30:17] SpikeSpiegel: pika
[14:30:20] SpikeSpiegel: 1 minute plz
[14:30:22] SpikeSpiegel:
[14:30:36] pikachufan2164: Take one of Desert's Kirby plushies with you :3
[14:30:40] Jen-i: can someone repost the brackets?
[14:31:23] pikachufan2164: http://challonge.com/buffuptourney
[14:32:00] TStar: dragonsdemesne and spiritkirinblade tell me the status of your match now please or I will have to coinflip it
[14:32:27] TStar: This is the 3rd and final time I'm going to ask
[14:33:00] spiritkirinblade: huh
[14:33:03] dragonsdemesne: oh
[14:33:05] spiritkirinblade: we are in game
[14:33:06] dragonsdemesne: in first game
[14:33:08] spiritkirinblade: but
[14:33:13] spiritkirinblade: he lagged out o.o
**[14:33:15] dragonsdemesne: itll probably be deckout
[14:33:18] dragonsdemesne: i did?
[14:33:24] TStar: First game?
[14:33:26] xn0ize: what's the SCORE?
[14:33:36] dragonsdemesne: sorry was afw playing the game
[14:33:42] spiritkirinblade: yeah..
[14:33:45] TStar: It's been almost 30 minutes and you two haven't finished a single game yet?
[14:33:45] spiritkirinblade: i took a screenie
[14:33:54] spiritkirinblade: hes got a 60 card deck!
[14:33:54] xn0ize: WTF?
[14:33:54] dragonsdemesne: 0-0 atm
[14:33:56] spiritkirinblade: :L
[14:34:05] spiritkirinblade: okay okay.
[14:34:07] spiritkirinblade: lets go again
[14:34:12] xn0ize: Tstar. can you coin toss them?
[14:34:13] TStar: ok we have to coinflip this
**[14:34:18] dragonsdemesne: we're still playing... did you d/c
[14:34:26] xn0ize: this is getting stupid
[14:34:28] TStar: sorry guys you are just taking far too long
**[14:34:30] dragonsdemesne: i still have the game up
**[14:34:36] spiritkirinblade: huh. you dc/ed
**[14:34:44] dragonsdemesne: well im going to win the first one
[14:34:53] SpikeSpiegel: pika?
[14:34:56] dragonsdemesne: i can take ss
[14:34:56] xn0ize: coin toss them from 0-0
[14:35:03] pikachufan2164: /nom
[14:35:13] dragonsdemesne: you just d/ced now spirit
[14:35:18] majofa: i love how people always say 'the other person' d/c
**[14:35:20] spiritkirinblade: i had 100 health and dragons left..
[14:35:23] TStar: dragons, pick heads or tails
[14:35:28] spiritkirinblade: I took a damn screenie
[14:35:32] spiritkirinblade: you want proof >_>
[14:35:34] dragonsdemesne: what the hell
**[14:35:37] dragonsdemesne: im winning and he d/c
**[14:35:41] dragonsdemesne: i can prove it
[14:36:01] xn0ize: GOD
[14:36:05] TStar: Fine you both have 3 minutes to show me proof that you were clearly going to win
[14:36:10] TStar: otherwise I'm flipping
[14:36:24] xn0ize: * god please help me, if you will, i will start to believe in you! *
[14:36:27] TStar: and screenshots against the AI are NOT proof
**[14:36:39] dragonsdemesne: i have one with the CPU playing in x seconds
[14:36:50] DevilLoss: hey everyone just came by to wish spike gl also was looking for TII but guess hes not here
[14:36:55] xn0ize: Tstar!
[14:36:58] TStar: That's fine, you have 2 minutes left to show it to me
[14:37:00] xn0ize: coin flip them from 0-0 PLEASE
[14:37:10] DevilLoss: also jen-iif hes playing also >.>
[14:37:17] xn0ize: if some one dced , they need to rematch
[14:37:29] xn0ize: and as it looks like, IT WILL TAKE FOR EVER
[14:37:32] dragonsdemesne: its upping to imageshack
[14:37:35] DevilLoss: whos runing this tourny?
**[14:37:57] dragonsdemesne: even if he has 2 permanents in play and 7 card in deck?
[14:38:03] TStar: You got 30 seconds left
**[14:38:14] spiritkirinblade: i had dragons left.
[14:38:17] spiritkirinblade: fyi
**[14:38:18] dragonsdemesne: http://img857.imageshack.us/i/picg.png/
[14:38:27] xn0ize: Tstar
[14:38:53] spiritkirinblade: look at my life quanta.
**[14:39:05] spiritkirinblade: i had 4 frickin jade dragons >_>
**[14:39:14] dragonsdemesne: not in play you didnt
[14:39:16] xn0ize: * cry *
**[14:39:21] dragonsdemesne: you had feral bond and hope
[14:39:26] spiritkirinblade: yeah but 7 cards left :P
[14:39:38] avenger: huh, what dragons
[14:39:40] dragonsdemesne: http://img857.imageshack.us/i/picg.png/
[14:39:44] xn0ize: * please help me god *
**[14:39:46] TStar: I can't call that I'm sorry
**[14:39:53] TStar: dragon heads or tails
[14:39:55] avenger: the shield would have blocked them
[14:39:58] RootRanger: IMO dragon deserves the win, but I don't have a say
[14:40:00] WVM2: is there any other tourney's today?
[14:40:11] RootRanger: his mitosised RoLs won't die
**[14:40:12] dragonsdemesne: you cant call me having 27 cards in deck and him 7 and no board?
[14:40:16] RootRanger: because life and light have no CC
**[14:40:19] avenger: there is a grav shield
**[14:40:27] avenger: it is clear that the rainbow won
**[14:40:27] dragonsdemesne: and i had a full field
**[14:40:32] RootRanger: and he can make enough RoLs to lockdown with the hope in his hand
[14:40:36] spiritkirinblade: yeah i agree actually.
[14:40:41] spiritkirinblade: i forfeit.
[14:41:04] TStar: ok thank you please post it dragon
[14:41:11] avenger: rr: 7 cards, deckout
[14:41:21] spiritkirinblade: I kinda wanted another game..
[14:41:28] dragonsdemesne: alright
[14:41:29] spiritkirinblade: ^_^ good luck.
[14:42:06] TStar: RootRanger the second into the Final 4 and also undefeated
[14:42:11] spiritkirinblade [»] dragonsdemesne: searching
[14:42:38] dragonsdemesne: ok we playing again or is that it for our match?
[14:42:43] TStar [»] dragonsdemesne: please post a 1-0 result in the thread so I can make it official
[14:42:46] RootRanger:
[14:42:51] spiritkirinblade: erm
[14:42:58] xn0ize: RR
[14:43:00] spiritkirinblade: its probably not official >_>
[14:43:04] xn0ize: i hope you wont smash me in finals :o
[14:43:06] spiritkirinblade: but let me face you
[14:43:06] dragonsdemesne [»] TStar: ok done
Any feedback is welcome; I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything wrong here. My next opponent, who was also the other tournament organizer (tstar was helping her because challonge was messed up for her) was also very slow to respond to the next game, causing further delay as I waited for her for at least five minutes without any response from her in chat or in accepting my pvp duel challenge.
[14:48:31] dragonsdemesne [»] GirlsGeneration: ign dragonsdemesne, challenged
[14:49:25] dragonsdemesne: girlsgeneration you there?
[14:49:32] dragonsdemesne: sent pm and challenge
[14:50:23] dragonsdemesne: is anyone here?
[14:50:28] avenger: bye tournament, hope RR wins
[14:51:19] dragonsdemesne: hmm
[14:51:38] dragonsdemesne: not only is my opponent gone, she is the organizer
[14:52:23] GirlsGeneration: i've been waiting forever
[14:52:28] dragonsdemesne: me too
[14:52:32] GirlsGeneration: oh. just found it
[14:52:40] GirlsGeneration: oh great... 60 card deck....
[14:52:44] dragonsdemesne: i kept asking if you were here
[14:53:19] dragonsdemesne: ya im in now
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on April 16, 2011, 09:48:16 pm
Wins are given only when there is absolute certainty you'd win:
- The timer is still active, you aren't playing the ai
- The damage on your board is certain to knock out your opponent after pressing spacebar
- There is no exclamation mark indicating a desync
As for the rest, I cannot, and will not speak on behalf of other organizers, I hope you have more fun during future tournaments.
Please contact the organizers responsible in case you question any decisions made by them.
Post by: TStar on April 16, 2011, 10:09:29 pm
I'm sorry that you were upset by this ruling. I understand how frustrating it can be to lose to random chance like that (I lost in both the Eastern and Western Fate Egg tournament to coin flips) but as a temporary TO it was my responsibility to keep the tournament moving and follow the rules as they were written. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss this any further or have any questions or concerns.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on April 16, 2011, 10:37:02 pm
Regarding the 30 minutes rule, I don't know how long it had been, but the tournament had been very slow in starting due to technical issues with brackets/chat, and spiritkirinblade finished several minutes ahead of my previous match, so he was waiting while I finished the last round. By the time I finished, he had disconnected or was afk or something, so it took several more minutes before he replied to my PMs in chat to play our match. Then we were both playing control stall decks, so the game took a long time :p
re: TSTAR: I can respect that. I considered it virtually impossible that my opponent could have recovered, but I suppose it might have been possible, and I certainly didn't have a next-turn win. (though I have no idea what combination of cards could have theoretically beat that scenario in a seven turn time frame) It is also fair (and my fault) that I did not see you in chat asking about the match because I was busy playing the match and not watching chat. As soon as I noticed it, I replied, which was unfortunately several minutes and after you had already asked for an update 3 times.
The main issue I had was in regards to my opponent, who lied in chat about having had 4 jade dragons in play and seemed to be strongly suggesting (at least in my mind) that he was about to win (see above post for log) and that after I posted my screenshot showing that this was not the case, you hadn't said anything about it. (and when he failed to provide one in turn) I do realize that desyncs can happen (but they seem to be rare, and I only saw it happen ever once, in pvp2, where all my opponent's creatures vanished for no reason when he lost connection for about 30 seconds) so I suppose you have to be careful about that as well.
Perhaps some better way of verifying this sort of thing should be done for tournaments? It seems like this sort of thing comes down to he said/she said, and since I'm new and spiritkirinblade is a veteran (I've seen him in top50) it seemed like he/she was being believed over me.
edit:Also, just want to make sure there are no hard feelings about any of this. Mostly I'm just trying to understand why it was handled as it was to prevent misunderstandings in the future.
Post by: RootRanger on April 16, 2011, 11:14:11 pm
The TOs are good players and are able to tell who is more likely to win the game. They usually won't be 100% sure one player is going to win, but a lot of the time they can be very confident that one player has the win.
So shouldn't the player more likely to win receive the win if a coinflip is the only other option?
With a coinflip, the better player advances only 50% of the time. But if the TOs choose who wins, the better player will advance more often than not.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on April 16, 2011, 11:37:04 pm
Post by: Higurashi on April 16, 2011, 11:45:03 pm
Perhaps some better way of verifying this sort of thing should be done for tournaments? It seems like this sort of thing comes down to he said/she said, and since I'm new and spiritkirinblade is a veteran (I've seen him in top50) it seemed like he/she was being believed over me.We didn't settle on the rules arbitrarily. There's no perfect or even great way of dealing with the main problem here: bad servers. There's only one way to prove anything, and even that isn't perfect: screenshots. Rulings of who won aren't based on anything else. People may seem more inclined to believe someone, but decisions aren't made on beliefs.
We rarely make a ruling unless a game is 100% certain, because that would be even more unfair than tossing a coin. Say what you will about randomness, but it's always fair.
Two things everyone have to be prepared for in a tournament: adapting to how much time other people have and finish the round in time while taking that into consideration. Secondly, connections dropping anywhere between you, the servers and your opponent. This can drag out rounds like nothing else and leaves us with no choice but to coinflip most of the time. Especially since we have a lot of other things to tend to, we can't make rulings on ambiguous duels.
Something everyone have to be prepared for in competitive elements everywhere: it's a lot like a lottery. Counters lose, everyone get sucky draws, desynchs can spoil all your chances at succeeding in a round, and you can't afford to take it too seriously.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on April 17, 2011, 02:36:58 am
Quote
Two things everyone have to be prepared for in a tournament: adapting to how much time other people have and finish the round in time while taking that into consideration. Secondly, connections dropping anywhere between you, the servers and your opponent. This can drag out rounds like nothing else and leaves us with no choice but to coinflip most of the time. Especially since we have a lot of other things to tend to, we can't make rulings on ambiguous duels.Yeah, next time I'll probably have to make a faster deck, if I can gather the cards for it. I heard in the chat that apparently upgraded cards are only allowed once a month, so I should be able to gather whatever I need for it if I don't already have it, if next time is unupgraded again like on the 9th.
Quote
and you can't afford to take it too seriously.I think that's what annoyed me the most; I just don't see why it was such a big deal that my opponent had to lie about having jade dragons in play. It didn't make sense, since in the 23 turns of the game, he never got even one, and he could have easily played one if he had by then, and there was no reason not to play it if he'd had one. Even if six of the seven cards remaining in his deck were jade dragons (extremely unlikely but possible) my bone wall alone was already big enough from firestorming his rays of light to hold off six turns of hits, and the seventh would have partially gotten through. We'd sent a few messages back and forth, so I know he was there for the whole game, and he never timed out on any previous turns, so the AI never took over until the red bar on the screenshot expired. (one turn he said something like 'did i just mitosis a ray of light twice?' and I replied 'not sure, but I have firestorm so it doesn't matter', for example; pretty sure the AI doesn't talk to me :p)
Post by: cyanspirit on April 27, 2011, 06:43:45 am
but if it's held on weekdays plz hold it after we students finish school or something..... I know it is hard as times are different all over the world but holding the Eastern tournament on a saturday
(where im occupied with lessons).... I just can't join tournaments.
I havent joined a single tournament yet but my friend says its fun....
plz read and consider.
:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
Post by: dragonsdemesne on April 27, 2011, 04:49:41 pm
Post by: scauduro221095 on May 12, 2011, 09:45:31 am
Post by: Astrocyte on May 12, 2011, 01:16:20 pm
The tournaments normally shit an hour or 2 each week, but i dont know what the set times are, i just see when i have to join themNeed more fiber in your diet, yo.
Post by: scauduro221095 on May 12, 2011, 11:43:03 pm
Lol i missed the 'f' ive added it now.The tournaments normally shit an hour or 2 each week, but i dont know what the set times are, i just see when i have to join themNeed more fiber in your diet, yo.
Post by: Dm on May 13, 2011, 05:43:29 pm
All tournaments are on Saturday. Eastern 12 hours before Western. The tournaments normally shift an hour or 2 each week, but i dont know what the set times are, i just see when i have to join them
We're on a rotation schedule. 18-20 PM GMT Western and 6-8 AM GMT Eastern. You can find the time in every single tournament thread that's put up.And I vaguely remember a post that SG did. Can't find it now..
Post by: Deamon19 on June 25, 2011, 09:20:30 am
Post by: Dwerg on June 30, 2011, 12:58:21 am
But that was cause they were taking too long, so I guess that's not a real prob since it's in the rules that if you take too long, a coin toss will be made.
Post by: dracomageat on July 12, 2011, 04:58:46 pm
Post by: RootRanger on July 30, 2011, 07:14:13 pm
Rulesets like this usually aren't a problem; they allow good deckbuilders to not have to worry about prediction and instead win by having a stronger or more optimized deck. Unfortunately, in these tournaments, deck-copying can be a major problem.
In a tournament with a distinct metagame, if the opponent copies your deck after Game 1, you can prepare and counter it. This isn't the case in a tournament with a small or no metagame. In a tournament without a clear metagame, if the opponent copies your deck after Game 1, there is no way to counter them if you were using the best deck in Game 1, which is clearly the best strategy. Games 2 and 3 will be purely luck. I don't think tournaments should involve pure luck for Game 2 and 3.
In tournaments without a metagame, or with a very small metagame, I think deck switching should not be allowed. This would cause these tournaments to be mostly deckbuilding skill with some luck involved, instead of mostly luck with some deckbuilding skill involed. Besides, there isn't any need for the best players to switch decks if one deck can beat everything else more than 50% of the time.
Post by: Kickpuncher on July 30, 2011, 08:07:56 pm
Connor
Post by: Rastafla on September 03, 2011, 10:12:47 pm
This does matter and its important for the sake of fairness.
Post by: Higurashi on September 03, 2011, 11:03:33 pm
Post by: Rastafla on September 06, 2011, 05:04:12 pm
Challonge did not lag, I was using the site too and we were not short on time, everyone was present way before start. However thats beside the point, I do not knowingly tell lies. I say things as I perceive them, it was not an accusation but an observation. To me there is no excuse not to shuffle the seeds since it IS unfair however minor or major one might think it is.
All I want is that every participant receives fair treatment, this was sidestepped and as such it needed to be pointed out. No matter the reason(s) why it happened.
That was all.
Post by: Higurashi on September 06, 2011, 05:28:47 pm
And the reason does matter. I prioritise keeping the tourney on time before most other aspects, as anything else can cause a lot of problems.
Post by: Gorthos on September 19, 2011, 02:47:18 pm
N00bs are annoying when they misread the rules, or don't show up to the match, but this rule excludes everyone who just wants to play tourneys and not do other things on the forum (unless they've already played a bunch of tourneys).
Why not make a quiz on tourney rules instead, and make everyone who wants to play the tourney take the quiz (retakes allowed until they pass - and once you take it you don't have to re-take it for subsequent tourneys).
Post by: AngelMusti on September 19, 2011, 02:58:49 pm
NOTE: people with less than 30 forum posts are no longer allowed to enter tournaments.
looks to me you're forcing beginners to post irrelevant stuff to get the required amount of posts.. this is a game not a concentration camp.
There are some poeple who played elements for 3 years and posted less then 10 in those 3 years. and they are active and in the same league's as some ''champion league winners''.
Try saying this to yourself : ''Posting on forums to get the priviledge to participate ''the only tournament'' organized for the game elements.'' what kind of message are u giving out to the old skool/ new players. there are rules to abide , and they're also to be followed.
this rule is somewhat too personal & offensive.
Post by: Higurashi on September 19, 2011, 03:05:09 pm
There is nothing offensive about a rule like this, and claiming there is is laughable. Almost all groups that require membership have a trial period or even formal tests. This is socially accepted in all societies and usually even expected because it undeniably increases the quality of the group or project for all the other participants. For the sake of all players and all volunteer staff, this is an obvious rule to introduce as a community grows larger.
The fact that we've had tourneys completely open for a long time is nice, and it used to work. It doesn't anymore, as the community grows and hacking attempts become much more common. Until you have full knowledge on what's required to organize these events, I advise you not to criticise. Especially harshly, as it's a huge insult to hard-working volunteers that have thus far endured hell to get the events done.
Post by: Elusion on September 19, 2011, 04:09:29 pm
New players who haven't read rules is a huge waste of time and is equal to spitting in our faces, but they're far from the only problem this rule solves. There is unfortunately no substitute for it, but it solves so many problems it doesn't matter. We chose 30 posts because it's extremely easy to get it by posting usefully, and I can promise you we won't lose any activity whatsoever.I agree 100%. New players are newbs. They don't know jack and should not waste our times. We are so much better than those people. Like seriously... Why should we even acknowledge them? Don't you hate it when newbs ask questions too? Like omg... Go find out for yourself and stop wasting our time.
There is nothing offensive about a rule like this, and claiming there is is laughable. Almost all groups that require membership have a trial period or even formal tests. This is socially accepted in all societies and usually even expected because it undeniably increases the quality of the group or project for all the other participants. For the sake of all players and all volunteer staff, this is an obvious rule to introduce as a community grows larger.
The fact that we've had tourneys completely open for a long time is nice, and it used to work. It doesn't anymore, as the community grows and hacking attempts become much more common. Until you have full knowledge on what's required to organize these events, I advise you not to criticise. Especially harshly, as it's a huge insult to hard-working volunteers that have thus far endured hell to get the events done.
I think we should make all new players go through a tutorial of the game. There should be one when you first play that explains all the functions in the game. This would be a great idea so we don't have to put up with those newbs and then at least they have passed some sort of test by being able to push continue and win their first game. Don't you agree?
and yeah. Do you have any idea how hard it is to come up with a theme for these things with so little cards to choose from? How about you come up with one without it being a huge advantage to yourself so you can win. Let's see you do better than these people who have put in a lot of time and hard work into a role/job that pays nothing.... These guys get nothing out of it.. Remember.. They're doing this for you and me...
Post by: AngelMusti on September 19, 2011, 04:27:26 pm
i already understood this cause i was briefed earlier about this situation. anyways having this topic
anyways eloozion this being said we should move on. move on to discover the new world of elements since u and i both know we lack our amounts of posting. and yet i feel redeemed and felt rejoice again.
i thank you all , god bless us all.
Another Random quote:
Eloozion: I just want Higs to notice me already =(
Post by: bucky1andonly on September 21, 2011, 07:54:29 pm
Quote
Why not make a quiz on tourney rules instead, and make everyone who wants to play the tourney take the quiz (retakes allowed until they pass - and once you take it you don't have to re-take it for subsequent tourneys).Should be a weekly quiz, 10 questions, 5 based on the basic rules, 5 based on the tourney specific rules.
Player should get at least 8/10 to be able to participate.
3 attempts only, answers are not shown after answering when making the quiz (it is an option)
Questions should be really easy and obvious, so that if anyone fails to make the 8/10 clearly wasn't paying attention or didn't read the rules.
This would mean tourney ideas would have to be up early, otherwise anyone can participate, also there is a quiz section so this idea is very easy to implement. This will show that you know the rules and are ready to play.
Here is an example, only 7 questions though.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?action=SMFQuiz;sa=categories;id_quiz=151# (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?action=SMFQuiz;sa=categories;id_quiz=151#)
Post by: AngelMusti on September 21, 2011, 09:57:20 pm
Post by: jippy99 on September 21, 2011, 10:01:53 pm
Post by: kirchj33 on September 22, 2011, 02:39:58 am
Higurashi is the woman in charge here and she states that it isn't feasible to change from the 3 hour rotating schedule because:
- We simply don't have enough reliable TOs to accomodate a schedule change
- Tourney participation is at an all-time high
- A change in schedule would require a massive overhaul to its current structure
- A rotating schedule would be more fair to all players in all parts of the world, so that you could make at least one tourney every 6th or so week
- TOs from other timezones have not been explored as an option
Schedule rotates about a 3 hour window.
Proposed change:
A 12-hour rotating schedule that works something like the following -
Week A: 2400 GMT & 1200 GMT
Week B: 2300 GMT & 1100 GMT
Week C: 2200 GMT & 1000 GMT
Week D: 2100 GMT & 900 GMT
Week E: 2000 GMT & 800 GMT
And so on until a 12th week is reached.
If there is enough interest, we could explore the option of staffing with proper TOs. Please vote!
Post by: jippy99 on September 22, 2011, 02:41:08 am
Post by: Jocko on September 22, 2011, 02:43:55 am
Post by: kirchj33 on September 22, 2011, 02:44:55 am
Want me to start this topic in the tourney section?Sure, or we could have a mod move it there. Can you do that?
Post by: MatrimKK on September 22, 2011, 02:46:24 am
Post by: n00b on September 22, 2011, 02:48:53 am
Silly Murricans, I laff at yoo!Sorry... I don't speak Entroponic. Ken I haz en Inglush plese?
Post by: jippy99 on September 22, 2011, 02:49:07 am
Higs can. I don't think I can and if I can I have no idea how to.Want me to start this topic in the tourney section?Sure, or we could have a mod move it there. Can you do that?
Post by: bucky1andonly on September 22, 2011, 02:58:25 am
Post by: plastiqe on September 22, 2011, 03:00:16 am
Post by: jippy99 on September 22, 2011, 03:01:40 am
Post by: Scaredgirl on September 22, 2011, 09:21:40 am
Key thing to understand here is that no matter which times we choose, someone will have a problem with it. With 12 hours between tournaments, and the 3 hour window, I'd say we have it pretty well covered. Like Higurashi said, increasing the window more than that, would make organizing a nightmare because we would be often dependent on having that one organizer be online, or we would have no organizer at all. So unless we hire 20 TO's, or one TO that is online 24/7, there's not much we can do.
Post by: kirchj33 on September 22, 2011, 11:42:53 am
This topic will soon be merged to Tournament Feedback topic. Discussion is fine, but we don't really need a poll because we already had one and we are aware of the activity peak hours.Those of us on the east coast are not asking that our needs are specifically catered to, we're asking that others' needs are not specifically catered to and that people in all time zones are given a fair and equal chance if there can be some movement to organize enough reliable TO staffing. It wouldn't be a big deal, except when the prizes are something as rare and valuable as nymphs and marks. There are so few opportunities for players who are active and love the game to earn such a thing, it is a shame to see the opportunity slanted towards a specific demographic.
Key thing to understand here is that no matter which times we choose, someone will have a problem with it. With 12 hours between tournaments, and the 3 hour window, I'd say we have it pretty well covered. Like Higurashi said, increasing the window more than that, would make organizing a nightmare because we would be often dependent on having that one organizer be online, or we would have no organizer at all. So unless we hire 20 TO's, or one TO that is online 24/7, there's not much we can do.
Post by: scauduro221095 on September 22, 2011, 12:20:40 pm
I like Gorthos idea, most of it anyway.The problem with this idea is that while we try to make sure that we have players who know the rules we arent just trying to stop newbs from having fun. Instead we are trying to stop people that make multiple accounts to try to win through a tournament. We are trying to stop CHEATERS. This isnt fool proof but then nothing really is and for now it is the best we can do. So please elements community please understand why we are putting this rule in and really if your a newb and you are serious about a tourney then it takes 10 - 15 minutes to get those posts by helping the community.QuoteWhy not make a quiz on tourney rules instead, and make everyone who wants to play the tourney take the quiz (retakes allowed until they pass - and once you take it you don't have to re-take it for subsequent tourneys).Should be a weekly quiz, 10 questions, 5 based on the basic rules, 5 based on the tourney specific rules.
Player should get at least 8/10 to be able to participate.
3 attempts only, answers are not shown after answering when making the quiz (it is an option)
Questions should be really easy and obvious, so that if anyone fails to make the 8/10 clearly wasn't paying attention or didn't read the rules.
This would mean tourney ideas would have to be up early, otherwise anyone can participate, also there is a quiz section so this idea is very easy to implement. This will show that you know the rules and are ready to play.
Here is an example, only 7 questions though.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?action=SMFQuiz;sa=categories;id_quiz=151# (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?action=SMFQuiz;sa=categories;id_quiz=151#)
Post by: Mithcairion on September 22, 2011, 12:30:56 pm
Saying that this is the way it is done because this is the way it is done is the poorest excuse possible for justifying why something is done. No matter the scenario the result will be the same: Interest will wane, and the circling of the drain will begin. While such a thing may be inevitable, it would be sad to see due to such a poor reason.
Post by: Higurashi on September 22, 2011, 01:09:45 pm
Haha, I used 20 TO's as a response too.This topic will soon be merged to Tournament Feedback topic. Discussion is fine, but we don't really need a poll because we already had one and we are aware of the activity peak hours.Those of us on the east coast are not asking that our needs are specifically catered to, we're asking that others' needs are not specifically catered to and that people in all time zones are given a fair and equal chance if there can be some movement to organize enough reliable TO staffing. It wouldn't be a big deal, except when the prizes are something as rare and valuable as nymphs and marks. There are so few opportunities for players who are active and love the game to earn such a thing, it is a shame to see the opportunity slanted towards a specific demographic.
Key thing to understand here is that no matter which times we choose, someone will have a problem with it. With 12 hours between tournaments, and the 3 hour window, I'd say we have it pretty well covered. Like Higurashi said, increasing the window more than that, would make organizing a nightmare because we would be often dependent on having that one organizer be online, or we would have no organizer at all. So unless we hire 20 TO's, or one TO that is online 24/7, there's not much we can do.
As I've responded before, we do have the most fair coverage right now that we can achieve with our limited resources. There was zero preference in mind when we chose the current schedule; I personally thought only of maximum global coverage.
We get plenty of East coast players for two reasons: they can adapt and stay up for Eastern (not something I expect anyone to do), and Western is in the afternoon for them. Pure luxury compared to some people's location.
If we wanted to have a complete rotation schedule around the clock, we'd need more TO's than we've ever been able to find. We would have more TO's right now if I could do magic, but we've had to hire less than we wanted to because of not enough suitable applications. What determines suitability? Personality, experience and motivation. We don't even get enough applications, period.
We have to try to keep tourneys high-quality because they reflect on the game itself and the developer, and changing things around now would ruin numerous tourney executions. While I would like to try a fully rotating schedule out, this is not a project you can "try out", because it requires more resources than we've ever managed to find.
Post by: MatrimKK on September 22, 2011, 01:52:26 pm
I won't try and suggest anything for Eastern as I don't live in that hemisphere.
Also if you are looking for TO's as long as you don't mind oddballs I currently have more time and waking hours than are good for me :P
Post by: Higurashi on September 22, 2011, 02:13:43 pm
We used the poll for what times are best for tournaments when changing the times, and as such we have actually managed to have a better time for the "bulk and fringe" of the community, as you put it. This is reflected in more participants in total. Part of that can be explained with a growing community, so a better sign is all the new players we've had join in without a noticeable reduction in the regulars. Some are very vocal, but the difference has been minute.
Post by: kirchj33 on September 22, 2011, 02:20:23 pm
Post by: ffun on September 22, 2011, 03:15:42 pm
Even though Western tournaments are during my Saturday afternoons, this is exactly the time I'll be with my family, going out with them and giving them attention after working the whole week. At late evenings I have much more free time to spend with Elements, so Eastern turns out to be the time I choose to participate, although it's not quite convenient (you end up making all kinds of silly mistakes during matches at 4.00 am :P). The alternative suggested by kirchj would let me participate much, much more often (and also get some more sleep when I do decide to participate!).
Of course, I'm only one player in the midst of thousands, and I don't think rules should revolve around my choices on how to spend my free time, but if these changes would also cater the needs of a significant player base, I would be overjoyed if they took place!
Post by: ~Napalm on September 22, 2011, 03:45:24 pm
Its clear that the Western Tourney is having success in its scheduled timeslot. Instead of drastic changes, I propose to change the name of Western to Eastern, and then unbind the 12 hour staggering. Meaning, instead of 12 hours apart, they could be somewhere between 15-17 hours apart. This would mean for the East Coasters, instead of 2, 3, or 4am, they would fall somewhere between 9pm-1am depending on whether they were staggered by 15, 16, or 17 hours. West Coasters are -3 hours so it should work nicely for them as well. This should help both those who like to stay up later, and give some opportunities to people who have a bedtime. Then by flipping the names we have a simple solution. I think this would better accommodate those crazy egotistical Murricans. Everybody wins.+1
Post by: MatrimKK on September 22, 2011, 04:08:15 pm
At least to shut kirch up :P
Because something was once true at a single point in history does not make it currently true.
Also I have never seen this old poll so I'm talking out my blow hole at this point. What time of year was this poll held, and who (demographically speaking) voted on it? What options were available?
I suggest two new polls: One for those in the eastern hemisphere asking them what the ideal or most convenient time would be for them in GMT, with of course an option of idc. And a mirror for western.
Sorry I'm not serious enough to make better points and counter points but this is only for fun :P
And by no means am I suggesting a change in the system, the current one currently serves me just fine (and I receive much less competition this way.) I'm merely trying to point out that this is by assumption not the best timing for those in the western hemisphere and the timing for eastern (as shown by lack of particpants) is just badly timed.
I think tournaments are by far a great place to learn the game (as well as leagues) and a great reason to find interest in the game after ai becomes dull.
Maybe this is for the best as most of the problems had in the past are likely people who fall into some of the demographics I described earlier and this keeps cheating and no knowledge of the rules to a minimum. Also I can only guess at the difficulties a TO may encounter where tournaments often exceed the current sizes.
As response to kirch and squiggles: Eastern and Western do not refer to coasts you silly Murricans. As far as hemispheres go making a 12 hour difference makes the most sense unless you are to consider more populated areas hold a larger % of the Elements the Game players and base times of the most populated areas of the two hemispheres. These 2 areas (in my best guess without any knowledge to back it) are Murrica and Europe. Without some sort of poll for those that do or would like to participate in tournaments these are simply best guesses. You could possibly take some info gathered from the forum user's profiles but many may not put this info or truthful info. Also not every person with a forum account participates in tournaments, so I would question how many actual do.
Aside from all the arguing and ignoring others points and everyone repeating the same thing over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and overagain. I think it would be at the least interesting to do a census type survey of the elementals forum community ranging from a/s/l (being candid and only released as a study not individual results) to what sections of the forums they like best (CIA, PvP Events, etc.) how much time they spent and when they are likely to spend it. Whether or not this yields any useful information and how many are actually willing to participate, I for one would be interested in the results.
Post by: ~Napalm on September 22, 2011, 04:16:35 pm
Post by: MatrimKK on September 22, 2011, 04:17:09 pm
joking :P
I know I was simply making things clear in my own silly way, since I saw what could be misinterpreted in your posts.
Post by: kirchj33 on September 22, 2011, 04:22:11 pm
Also, you aren't fooling me with this non-biased peaceful act Matrim 8)
Post by: MatrimKK on September 22, 2011, 04:29:57 pm
have you ever seen the movie "The Usual Suspects" ? ? ?
Post by: kirchj33 on September 22, 2011, 04:35:11 pm
as per usual kirch you are one of the few people who get me :PYou mean you are actually Kaiser Soze irl?
have you ever seen the movie "The Usual Suspects" ? ? ?
Post by: MatrimKK on September 22, 2011, 04:52:07 pm
patchx94: Conclusion: RR feeds me lies! Sweet, delicious, and moist lies, I tell you! D:
RavingRabbid: Conclusion?
RavingRabbid: WTF is happening?
MatrimKK: mmmm sweet delicious moist cake....
majofa: The lie is a cake!
Mithcairion: Are we sure Matrim is talking about cake?
Dwerg: indeed, I had a deck that had never gotten past 6 ttw and then suddenly 14 ttw
RavingRabbid: Suddendly, nakedness and indecency.
MatrimKK: @Mith I am not sure :silly:
MatrimKK: awwww squiggly is gone D:
~Napalm: kirch is alive?!
Mithcairion: ‹@~Napalm› kirch is "being productive" away from chat, apparently
Mithcairion: ‹@MatrimKK› elementscommunity.com/forum/index.php/topic,7055.msg425066#msg425066 I thought Scarlet was the one who goes *poof* "...he was gone"
Dm1321: KARTIS
Dm1321: WHERE MY REVENGE?
~Napalm: Mmmm. Going to class shortly.
Jocko: Gotta run, bye!
Post by: Sevs on September 22, 2011, 07:54:27 pm
Post by: ~Napalm on September 22, 2011, 09:40:43 pm
For the 3/4 of the year that i live on the east coast, the tournament times just doesn't fly with my schedule. 3-4am is too late, and most college students do things on the weekend. But while on the West coast, 12pm is pretty optimal still pushing the "too late" side if you actually get past the first round. I would be all for a change of the Western moving it ahead ~2-3 hours.By "Western" do you mean "Western Tournament" or the tournament designed for the "Western Hemisphere" (Not the West Coast Matrim!)?
Post by: Sevs on September 23, 2011, 12:10:40 am
Western Hemisphere is the US right? so i guess the Eastern Tournament? lolFor the 3/4 of the year that i live on the east coast, the tournament times just doesn't fly with my schedule. 3-4am is too late, and most college students do things on the weekend. But while on the West coast, 12pm is pretty optimal still pushing the "too late" side if you actually get past the first round. I would be all for a change of the Western moving it ahead ~2-3 hours.By "Western" do you mean "Western Tournament" or the tournament designed for the "Western Hemisphere" (Not the West Coast Matrim!)?
Post by: MatrimKK on September 23, 2011, 01:05:12 am
confuzzled...
but yes Sevs Murrica is Western hemisphere...
dancing...
Post by: Bhlewos on September 23, 2011, 05:54:07 am
Post by: scauduro221095 on September 23, 2011, 07:07:37 am
Like Matrim said, why not just make a poll? Ask for the opinions of everyone in the community rather than just the opinions of a couple of vets/TOs. Don't get me wrong, the TOs would have the final say, but it might help to get an estimate of what would work.Do you mean a "What time is best for you poll?" Because we have done that before (Before i became a TO and everything so a while back) but if you guys want that i can set it up
Post by: ArcanisX on September 23, 2011, 12:38:11 pm
P.S. Omg forget about it. No idea when I posted so much...
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on September 23, 2011, 12:52:59 pm
I wonder if >year registered time (close to 2 actually) and already participating in lord-knows-how-much tournaments could substitute for 30 posts? Really not much of a forum guy, but I do know how not to cause disruption :))If you participated in "lord-knows-how-much" tournaments and don't have 30 posts either:
P.S. Omg forget about it. No idea when I posted so much...
- you fail badly for posting so few won matches.
- "lord-knows-how-much" isn't all that much.
But I guess those won matches must explain that isn't a problem for you ;)
Post by: bucky1andonly on September 24, 2011, 04:57:35 am
-edit-
after losing in this weeks eastern tourney in my first match, ive come to a conclusion.
the special rules dont do jack squat, so i say just do away with them. people will still use one of the common decks no matter what, might as well just open it up and allow every card every week without any restrictions. no matter what the special rules seem to be, i always run into the exact same bunch of decks week after week, no one seems to take the special rules and make decks from them, they just take common decks, with slight tweaks adding in cards if cards are required, or substituting a few if any are banned. its boring, and its rather irritating to see these decks when we have special rules, and usually the rules are bad anyway, because they allow these decks to be used every week.
with such a limited amount of cards, sure, you might make the excuse that there are only so many decks people can play, but that is just plain wrong. there are lots of decks that can be used, but its roughly 5-7 that are used about 80-90% of the time in tourneys. remember when everyone started to complain about how all the arena decks are so unimaginative? they still are obviously, but same goes for the tourneys any more. the rules suck, they dont change much of anything and people are not being creative with the rules that are given.
Post by: rgurgelles1 on September 24, 2011, 02:31:37 pm
Post by: Higurashi on September 24, 2011, 03:03:32 pm
Post by: plastiqe on September 27, 2011, 08:13:21 am
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/plastiqe/tourney.png)
Post by: Scaredgirl on September 30, 2011, 08:31:18 am
I made a diagram to illustrate my point.I don't know if you are being serious or not, but in case you are, I have to point out that that is the map of US, not the world. If our goal was to make sure that all US players will able able to join tournaments at times that are perfect for them, then I would agree with the picture. But the problem is that more than half the players come from somewhere else. "Eastern" does not mean Eastern US.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/plastiqe/tourney.png)
I talked to TO's a bit about the possibility of merging the two tournaments into one bigger tournament, and then rotating the time of that tournament, for example 8 different time slots during the whole 24 hours (with possibly skipping the most inactive ones around 11GMT). This would have many benefits and would guarantee that everyone gets a chance to join at some point.
Post by: The_Mormegil on September 30, 2011, 08:40:37 am
I'm not much of a tournament player, but... If you do that, while it ensures that everybody will be able to partecipate in tournaments some time or the other, it also ensures that everybody will NOT be able to partecipate at least one or two times each rotation, probably more. With two tournaments, you have that most people can partecipate in one, some in both, some in neither. Wouldn't have two tournaments with the same "rotation" be better? I.e. having two tournaments as usual, but shifting the time by, say, about 8 hours every week. That way you have one tournament every 8 hours within two weeks.I made a diagram to illustrate my point.I don't know if you are being serious or not, but in case you are, I have to point out that that is the map of US, not the world. If our goal was to make sure that all US players will able able to join tournaments at times that are perfect for them, then I would agree with the picture. But the problem is that more than half the players come from somewhere else. "Eastern" does not mean Eastern US.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/plastiqe/tourney.png)
I talked to TO's a bit about the possibility of merging the two tournaments into one bigger tournament, and then rotating the time of that tournament, for example 8 different time slots during the whole 24 hours (with possibly skipping the most inactive ones around 11GMT). This would have many benefits and would guarantee that everyone gets a chance to join at some point.
The point here is that while you still grant one tournament each 8 hours, you also grant most players the chance to partecipate every week instead of every other week. Not sure if I made myself clear here.
Post by: furballdn on October 06, 2011, 02:07:07 am
Post by: RootRanger on October 06, 2011, 02:11:08 am
Post by: bucky1andonly on October 10, 2011, 11:19:00 pm
Post by: inthisroom on October 22, 2011, 06:42:48 pm
The only thing that really annoys me about tournaments is that they only take place on Saturdays, when I'm not able to attend. I'm usually at work and even when I'm not, well, people generally go out on weekends, you know...
Post by: Higurashi on October 22, 2011, 08:20:00 pm
Post by: inthisroom on October 22, 2011, 09:35:02 pm
Indeed, it's been a problem for me as well, getting invited to BBQ's all the time during summer. However, we've had a poll (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,25516.0.html) on it, and Saturday won easily over Sunday.Thank you for the info, I thought that this might already have been a topic at some point.
Well, if it's a poll-decision, I'll do what a good citizen is supposed to do, I'll bow to the majority :)
Post by: dragonsdemesne on October 29, 2011, 08:22:42 am
Post by: mafidufa on October 30, 2011, 06:39:00 am
Post by: dragonsdemesne on October 30, 2011, 06:48:53 am
The major problem with that is it requires more tournament organizers to volunteer their time, or the same ones to volunteer more time.
Post by: Higurashi on October 30, 2011, 12:12:38 pm
Post by: jippy99 on October 30, 2011, 01:49:12 pm
Post by: bucky1andonly on November 04, 2011, 06:55:48 pm
Post by: Calindu on November 04, 2011, 07:06:31 pm
Allow the new shards to be used already. There is no point in zanz making new cards if we cannot use them in events.Yeah, basically you just asked for SoSa spam.
Post by: bucky1andonly on November 04, 2011, 09:40:19 pm
Post by: Aves on December 31, 2011, 02:07:16 am
Post by: dragonsdemesne on December 31, 2011, 02:26:01 am
there is no reason to keep banning them.Yes there is; the newbies will cry great rivers of mighty tears if you use shards against them! :p I can see banning shards in some cases in order to let the newbies play, but surely once in awhile they should be allowed.
Post by: bogtro on December 31, 2011, 05:00:51 am
However, in my opinion, shards really shouldn't be allowed into tournaments and events (at all). Particularly with the new shards coming in, we lose a great amount of the metagame in favor of shards - that's not something I'd like to see. Since this will happen in EtG, I'd at least like tourneys and events to remain relatively secluded from what I consider to be this poison of the new shards. Despite what bucky seems to think, were new shards allowed in these events, the entire metagame would have to be based around them. Carrying sundials in a deck that normally wouldn't carry them just because of SoSa is a poor argument to claim that "SoSa sucks" - it's instead a great argument in favor of "SoSa is OP". I won't get into why I feel SoSa is OP here, but the point is there isn't any good reason to allow a card that will take up the entire metagame into these types of events.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on December 31, 2011, 06:39:39 pm
I was just thinking it would be nice to have a thread that consisted of all of those who placed in the top 4 in each tournament each week. Each week a post would be added for the 8 people (4 east 4 west) that got reward codes. This idea was prompted by me trying to figure out how many times I've made it to the finals and lost :p
Post by: jippy99 on January 01, 2012, 12:44:11 pm
And now for something completely different...I did start on that project or one similar but it took so long to get so little accomplished that I decided to stop. Not a bad idea tho.
I was just thinking it would be nice to have a thread that consisted of all of those who placed in the top 4 in each tournament each week. Each week a post would be added for the 8 people (4 east 4 west) that got reward codes. This idea was prompted by me trying to figure out how many times I've made it to the finals and lost :p
Post by: majofa on January 01, 2012, 06:34:28 pm
DATE 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
01/23/10 lehomard2 Silkenfist jmizzle7* LordStriker (no result for 3rd)
01/30/10 XxDevilxX TheoCT didia Dart333
02/06/10 PuppyChow leohomard2 Rubik87 haku86
02/13/10 XxDevilxX PuppyChow Wu_Li_Mammoth bsurma
02/20/10 Irkalia Ragnoros lokiburn4 PuppyChow
02/27/10 E cokeandaspirin PuppyChow Jumbalumba wassd13
02/27/10 Irkalia jmizzle7 Chrissy1988 XxDevilxX
03/06/10 Terroking Jumbalumba PuppyChow vrt
03/13/10 E metahater Belthazar666 plastiqe acelink
03/20/10 E Amilir aryxo xdawnbydeath acelink
03/20/10 W plastiqe Rastafla acelink Justoneguy (test0290=Rastafla)
03/27/10 E Jumbalumba blu CelestrialDre jmizzle7 (CelestrialDreamer)
03/27/10 W plastiqe Philogos Antagon lokiburn4
04/03/10 W icybraker verity_blues Terroking Lord_Jadem
04/10/10 E cokeandaspirin mafiadufa plastiqe Antagon
04/10/10 W Antagon Zeru plastiqe PuppyChow (ziom2150=Zeru)
04/17/10 E mafiadufa Zeru Levgre blu
04/17/10 W Rastafla Zeru Lavgre Sheno13
04/24/10 E Justoneguy Antagon Zeru Rastafla
04/25/10 W mafiadufa Justoneguy Rastafla xKelevra
05/01/10 E Levgre PuppyChow Rastafla acelink
05/01/10 W Zeru Justoneguy The dictator mafiadufa
05/08/10 E Antagon wassd13 Multisingular Belthazar666 (Multisingularity)
05/08/10 W Rastafla Zeru Guitarmankev1 icybraker
05/15/10 E Rastafla Levgre Zeru PuppyChow
05/15/10 W Rastalfa DKane Zeru loophole
05/22/10 E icecoldbro Rastafla plastiqe rotface (crawling94=rotface)
05/22/10 W Belthazar666 Azumi Troh Corrum
05/29/10 E Anothebrother Zeru Antagon Flare
05/29/10 W Rastafla jheamay Corrum bojengles77
06/05/10 E plastiqe Troh Antagon Demagog (socrdawg=Demagog)
06/05/10 W Svenningen Rastafla Antagon* Troh (no result for 3rd)
06/12/10 E Jumbalumba VeryBored Zeru loudog
06/12/10 W Dm1321 Zeru edunavas plastiqe
06/19/10 E Hyroen 1chase1997 Marvaddin markilleruk
06/19/10 W PuppyChow Brion Mntoothpick v6LUR
06/26/10 E kevkev60614 trozman Zeru Anothebrother
06/26/10 W Rastafla ytn2006 Brion SunnyGreens
07/03/10 E harakirinosaru Dragoon1140 Demagog Smokefree
07/03/10 W Troh Essence Svenn Zeru
07/10/10 E Rastafla icecoldbro DeathDealer1 3D House of Beef
07/10/10 W plastiqe Troh girlsgeneration 3D House of Beef
07/17/10 E homoaddictus Zeru ytn2006 Jumbalumba
07/17/10 W killsdazombies plastiqe xuru Higurashi
07/25/10 E xuru implosion thraexis11 RyanVal22
07/25/10 W Antagon the Sage Mac edunavas
07/28/10 E homoaddictus nilsieboy xuru Appawesome
07/28/10 W Antagon nilsieboy Unholy Spirit Dragoon
07/31/10 E girlsgeneration Bubbrubb homoaddictus Amilir
07/31/10 W Smokefree thekillergame girlsgeneration mutantkickass
08/07/10 E Amilir PuppyChow Svenn 7_Deadly_Sins
08/07/10 W Zeru Unholy Spirit xuru Dragoon
08/14/10 E Buubrubb Dragoon1140 smiley56 Rastafla
08/14/10 W Azumi the Sage Unholy Spirit Bubbrubb
08/21/10 E majofa Darkslay mrbzs Zeru
08/21/10 W nilsieboy Poxupum thraexis11 Mntoothpick
08/28/10 E Belthazar666 5pla5h 3D House o Beef Unholy Spirit (3D House of Beef)
08/28/10 W majofa Alderaan Wizardcat The dictator
09/04/10 E Napalm Grenade Smokefree kevkev60614 5pla5h
09/04/10 W vagman13 3D House o Beef kevkev60614 nilsieboy
09/11/10 E naruto lava golem Bluesky plastiqe
09/11/10 W plastiqe Alderaan jippy99 vagman13
09/18/10 E naruto Dragoon1140 plastiqe Belthazar666
09/18/10 W plastiqe Rastafla naruto Zeru
09/25/10 E lokiburn4 Zeru 3D House o Beef Malignant
09/25/10 W Smokefree vagman13 twinsbuster Higurashi
10/02/10 E Napalm Grenade Rastafla mrpaper lava golem
10/02/10 W Zeru vagman13 willng3 mrpaper
10/09/10 E asymmetry 3D House o Beef kevkev60614 lokiburn4
10/09/10 W lokiburn4 QuantumT Higurashi Zeru
10/16/10 E QuantumT ArcanisX chum3 Toimu13
10/16/10 W kobisjeruk Zeru willng3 QuantumT
10/23/10 E Dragoon1140 bioglond nilsieboy mrpaper
10/23/10 W girlsgeneration TheonlyrealBeef nilsieboy* collimatrix (no result for 3rd)
10/30/10 E Napalm Grenade nilsieboy kevkev60614 DesertKnight
10/30/10 W twinsbuster Rastafla vagman13 Nadrin
11/06/10 E Napalm Grenade Malignant Troh asymmetry
11/06/10 W kevkev60164 majofa SunnyGreens QuantumT
11/13/10 E lokiburn4 lava golem Toimu13 Troh
11/13/10 W Napalm Grenade N/A* willng3 Higurashi (2nd place was a hacker)
11/20/10 E kobisjeruk Rastafla Nyma QuantumT
11/20/10 W Zeru Demut twinsbuster thenewguy
11/27/10 E majofa* N/A kevkev60614 icecoldbro (reburntion=fatcatbro Draw Hacker)
11/27/10 W QuantumT Salamence_747 vaskaktusz yc999
12/04/10 E Rastafla triangular nilsieboy N/A* (Metachaos was a hacker)
12/04/10 W Smokefree fenix2011 Kael Hate nilsieboy
12/11/10 E Malignant yc999 nilsieboy Mithcairion
12/11/10 W yc999 Zuphix twinsbuster Ryan666
12/18/10 E Jen-i Shortbus30 Cless H2Owned
12/18/10 W Zeru 3D House o Beef Troh Rainchild
12/23/10 E girlsgeneration TheonlyrealBeef Jen-i majofa
12/23/10 W RootRanger chum3 RavingRabbid killsdazombies
01/01/11 E H2Owned Higurashi SpikeSpiegel girlsgeneration
01/01/11 W SpikeSpiegel twinsbuster RavingRabbid Zeru
01/08/11 E H2Owned Dragon1140 Mithcairion kevkev60614
01/08/11 W TheonlyrealBeef MXXE The Mormegil gavsword
01/15/11 E Shantu vagman13 Mark_Tran Syoxis
01/15/11 W radiant6 VampirII Heavyweight Rastafla
01/22/11 E Jen-i Mark_Tran majofa radiant6
01/22/11 W TheIdioticIdiot crafton OleMAa killsdazombies
01/29/11 E kobisjeruk warfiend Heavyweight nilsieboy
01/29/11 W ji412jo zupermannd nilsieboy masamainio
02/05/11 E TombSimon Tichan Heavyweight jippy99
02/05/11 W twinsbuster thenewguy OleMAa DeathPanda1 (TR15T3N=DeathPanda1)
02/12/11 E majofa Legit Shadoy DesertKnight
02/12/11 W TheIdioticIdiot plastiqe triangular jboyken3
02/19/11 E bioglond BatCountry TheonlyrealBeef Malignant
02/19/11 W SteppingStone81 TheIdioticIdiot TheonlyrealBeef Higurashi
02/26/11 E Noobiecakes Nik_V Malebolgia randomu
02/26/11 W TStar Seraph morningstar Private_14
03/05/11 E yc999 crimsonflippa EvaRia Mithcairion
03/05/11 W TStar yc999 Trench5 blacob
03/12/11 E QuantumT lava golem drogana DrunkDestroyer
03/12/11 W TStar Hisar sunchew deuce22
03/19/11 E blacob majofa chum3 Jen-i
03/19/11 W TheIdioticIdiot Five in One Danade crystleyoshi
03/26/11 E DSSCRA phaedrus agogo majofa
03/26/11 W RootRanger girlsgeneration TStar Falcon4415
04/02/11 E Gorthos xn0ize whitevo DeathPanda1
04/02/11 W TStar Seraph DeathPanda1 Svenningen
04/09/11 E Kuroaitou ddevans96 TStar bjessee
04/09/11 W Kakerlake kevkev60614 pikachufan2164 Onizuka
04/16/11 E Jen-i DevilLoss AnoverX RootRanger
04/16/11 W girlsgeneration RootRanger pikachufan2164 xn0ize
04/23/11 E Zeru TheonlyrealBeef blacob Kakerlake
04/23/11 W Terroking DevilLoss b0uncer52 Kuroaitou
04/30/11 E jippy99 DesertKnight RootRanger majofa
04/30/11 W vagman13 TheonlyrealBeef vinvick3714 Hisar
05/07/11 E whitevo Jen-i Genuinous TheonlyrealBeef
05/07/11 W Shantu jippy99 majofa iCall_uHobo
05/14/11 E majofa tttt TheonlyrealBeef Kuroaitou
05/14/11 W Higurashi triangular QuantumT Kakerlake
05/21/11 E QuantumT majofa bcassol Jen-i
05/21/11 W QuantumT TheForbiddenOracle Wizardcat xn0ize
05/28/11 E Sevs Dwerg TStar DeathPanda1
05/28/11 W QuantumT mrpaper Rastafla bcassol
06/04/11 E Minor Vampire Eishi kirchj33 yc999 (Death Star=Eishi)
06/04/11 W TheForbiddenOracle willng3 scauduro221095 TStar
06/11/11 E Rastafla majofa Dwerg Jen-i
06/11/11 W Rastafla tttt Vazrael naruto
06/18/11 E MatrimKK Eishi kohiwy TheonlyrealBeef
06/18/11 W vagman13 Gorthos Wizardcat TheonlyrealBeef
06/25/11 E manaboy100 SpikeSpiegel Djhopper :) Flama
06/25/11 W Wizardcat TStar Onizuka dracomageat
07/02/11 E DesertKnight calindu221 Odii Odsen Flama
07/02/11 W mrpaper QuantumT MatrimKK Rastafla
07/09/11 E Sevs Dwerg YoungSot majofa
07/09/11 W RootRanger Rastafla Onizuka Bonestorm
07/16/11 E TStar nilsieboy jmdt majofa
07/16/11 W majofa Gorthos Shantu kirchj33
07/23/11 E MatrimKK Odii Odsen Flama 5pla5h
07/23/11 W Shantu DesertKnight Onizuka EarthForce (Master Katie=EarthForce)
07/30/11 E Dwerg Jen-i TStar Dragoon
07/30/11 W TStar Dwerg Higurashi Onizuka
08/06/11 E YoungSot -- Rastafla -- Gillero -- girlsgeneration
08/06/11 W TheForbiddenOracle -- kevkev60614 -- ralouf -- majofa
08/13/11 E calindu221 -- bucky1andonly -- MatrimKK majofa
08/13/11 W RootRanger whitevo Dwerg MatrimKK
08/20/11 E Dracomageat EvaRia BloodlinE213 Rastafla
08/20/11 W vagman13 TStar xn0ize nerd1
08/27/11 E ~Napalm Masterfurry Gorthos Shantu
08/27/11 W phaedrus Bonestorm MatrimKK Rastafla
09/03/11 E Jappert Dwerg calindu221 girlsgeneration
09/03/11 W vagman13 Higurashi dragonsdemesne TheForbiddenOracle
09/10/11 E TStar ~Napalm Kuroaitou Rush6
09/10/11 W PlayerOa MatrimKK kirchj33 vagman13
09/17/11 E Dwerg lokiburn4 MatrimKK Rush6
09/17/11 W RootRanger deuce22 Gorthos Jappert
09/24/11 E vagman13 10 men Vineroz majofa
09/24/11 W Zeru Onizuka RootRanger majofa
10/01/11 E bucky1andonly MatrimKK Onizuka Jen-i
10/01/11 W Onizuka willng3 PoLdeR Shantu
10/08/11 E calindu221 Dwerg Sevs ralouf
10/08/11 W Higurashi mrpaper Dwerg bogtro
10/15/11 E Dwerg dragonsemesne Sevs calindu221
10/15/11 W mrpaper majofa drogana dragonsemesne
10/22/11 E deuce22 Dwerg Malignant ji412jo
10/22/11 W vagman13 Jenkar PlayerOa Dwerg
10/29/11 E 10 men Xenocidius YoungSot Jen-i
10/29/11 W YoungSot Jen-i vagman13 Vineroz
11/05/11 E Jaymanfu Odii Odsen dragonsemesne Jenkar
11/05/11 W Jaymanfu CCCombobreaker dragonsemesne mrpaper
11/12/11 E mrpaper Vineroz TStar majofa
11/12/11 W majofa phaedrus deuce22 Jenkar
...also....
Needs updated as well...
(cokeandaspirin has 3 trophies, but I don't know where the 3rd came from)
10 Rastafla
7 majofa
7 TStar
7 vagman13
7 Zeru
6 plastiqe
6 QuantumT
6 ~Napalm
5 RootRanger
4 Antagon
4 girlsgeneration
3 Dwerg
3 Jen-i
3 kobisjeruk
3 lokiburn4
3 mrpaper
3 Shantu
3 Smokefree
3 TheIdioticIdiot
2 Amilir
2 Belthazar666
2 calindu221
2(3) cokeandaspirin
2 Higurashi
2 homoaddictus
2 Irkalia
2 Jaymanfu
2 Jumbalumba
2 kevkev60614
2 mafiadufa
2 MatrimKK
2 naruto
2 PuppyChow
2 Sevs
2 Terroking
2 The ForbiddenOracle
2 twinsbuster
2 XxDevilxX
2 yc999
2 YoungSot
1 10 men
1 Anothebrother
1 asymmetry
1 Azumi
1 blacob
1 bioglond
1 Bubbrubb
1 bucky1andonly
1 DesertKnight
1 Dm1321
1 Dracomageat
1 Dragoon1140
1 DSSCRA
1 deuce22
1 Gorthos
1 jippy99
1 Jappert
1 Justoneguy
1 harakirinosaru
1 H2Owned
1 Hyroen
1 icecoldbro
1 icybraker
1 ji412jo
1 Kakerlake
1 killsdazombies
1 Kuroaitou
1 lehomard2
1 Levgre
1 Malignant
1 manaboy100
1 metahater
1 Minor Vampire
1 nilsieboy
1 Noobiecakes
1 Onizuka
1 phaedrus
1 PlayerOa
1 radiant6
1 SpikeSpiegel
1 SteppingStone81
1 Svenningen
1 TheonlyrealBeef
1 TombSimon
1 Troh
1 whitevo
1 Wizardcat
1 xuru
Post by: jippy99 on January 01, 2012, 07:54:26 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on January 01, 2012, 09:54:57 pm
Post by: Misfire on January 02, 2012, 09:30:48 pm
After having read the tourney rules thread, two main problems hit me: a large number of players willing to participate almost every time and limited capability of knockout game system in dealing with such situations from statistical viewpoint. Moreover, as card games have some significant factors based on randomness (possibility of meeting a counterdeck, drawing sequence, etc.), elimination of a participant according to his performance against just one of the other 32 players can produce somewhat crooked overall results.
The soultion would be a Swiss tournament system preceding the knockout phase, applied widely in chess competition, where all participants play several games, one game per round (usually total of 7 to 9, it is calculated based on entrants number). Pairing in subsequent rounds is based on results from the previous one(s), precisely on number of wins (a player with 2 wins over two rounds will be most likely paired with another player that scored 2 wins, 0'er with another 0'er, etc.). As it tends to pair players of more and more similar strength (performance), after all needed rounds are played it produces highly credible results, and most tournaments see it as preliminary stage before the knockout part commences (which is usually held for the top 8 swiss participants).
For tournament hosts it's a bit harder to hold a swiss than a knockout, since it needs more games, yet it shouldn't take more time, as the number of rounds stays basically the same or alike, and furthermore, every round means just one game instead of a match, as the 7-9 rounds make the results more viable.
There is a lot of software (also freeware) handling swiss tourneys (pairing, scoring, 1-st round pairing (based on rating) etc.) and, of course, in case the organizers are interested I'll do my best to help any further.
Post by: jippy99 on January 02, 2012, 10:27:34 pm
I'm not sure where I should post this, as my post is a suggestion of a major change in the tournament system rather than discussion of the rule of 30 posts etc. I'm quite new to The Elements (just several months) and I've never posted before, yet I happened to have fallen in love with The Game and secondly, the topic of tournament organization is somewhat familiar to me.While you idea is quite a good idea, it does pose a couple of big problems. First, such a big scaled switch is highly unlikely since we have had this system since we started tourneys and we haven't had many problems with it since. Second, this would actually take longer than a tourney as we have it now. 7-9 games is anywhere in between 2-4 matches. So, by the time you could have had 3 rounds done, you would have just completed this preliminary round. Say we have 32 participants (which we never come close to). By the time we would have played 7 swiss rounds, we would have already completed 2 regular tourney rounds and would be in the middle of a third. This is just game wise, not including the extra time needed for brackets and recording results for the TO each round whereas that is not needed for a knockout tourney. Those two plus rounds with 32 participants will have put gotten us 8 or less participants left with much less work for the TO (less is much much better, trust me). Third, this would be a much more chaotic just because so many more games are being played. Fourth, this is too many games for a tourney. Tourneys are supposed to be short and with few games. This system might be a bit better fit for PvP Events. Although I do appreciate your offer and the thought you put into it, it is very unlikely that this will happen.
After having read the tourney rules thread, two main problems hit me: a large number of players willing to participate almost every time and limited capability of knockout game system in dealing with such situations from statistical viewpoint. Moreover, as card games have some significant factors based on randomness (possibility of meeting a counterdeck, drawing sequence, etc.), elimination of a participant according to his performance against just one of the other 32 players can produce somewhat crooked overall results.
The soultion would be a Swiss tournament system preceding the knockout phase, applied widely in chess competition, where all participants play several games, one game per round (usually total of 7 to 9, it is calculated based on entrants number). Pairing in subsequent rounds is based on results from the previous one(s), precisely on number of wins (a player with 2 wins over two rounds will be most likely paired with another player that scored 2 wins, 0'er with another 0'er, etc.). As it tends to pair players of more and more similar strength (performance), after all needed rounds are played it produces highly credible results, and most tournaments see it as preliminary stage before the knockout part commences (which is usually held for the top 8 swiss participants).
For tournament hosts it's a bit harder to hold a swiss than a knockout, since it needs more games, yet it shouldn't take more time, as the number of rounds stays basically the same or alike, and furthermore, every round means just one game instead of a match, as the 7-9 rounds make the results more viable.
There is a lot of software (also freeware) handling swiss tourneys (pairing, scoring, 1-st round pairing (based on rating) etc.) and, of course, in case the organizers are interested I'll do my best to help any further.
Post by: RootRanger on January 02, 2012, 11:07:50 pm
One of the main problems is that players tend to drop out or stop trying when they no longer have any chance to win. Swiss tournaments could actually introduce more luck because some players will receive many more free wins than others, and the TOs will have a harder time dealing with more drop-outs.
It looks like your system switches from Best of 3 to Best of 1, and this has consequences that you might not have noticed. A lot of the skill in tournaments involves having good decks ready for many different opposing decks and predicting how your opponent will react to the decks used. With a Best of 1 system, some skills no longer become useful. For example, a Best of 1 situation would destroy players with strong prediction and game understanding but weak deckbuilding skills.
Swiss works well in some places, but Elements tournaments are more common and less significant than tournaments that use Swiss, such as chess tournaments. I think the current system is better.
Post by: Misfire on January 03, 2012, 01:44:10 pm
Also you got a point with, and I haven't put my mind to the fact some guys just hightail out of tourney when things start to crumble, it of course makes swiss results inadeqaute at all.
I can't argue or agree with the rest of reasons, as judging by my forum acc stats, I'm hardly near the tourney admission threshold. I try to avoid spam so it will take me a bit to cope with that, yet it's great you guys repeated so fast, thanks for this.
Post by: benthewolf1 on January 03, 2012, 02:17:43 pm
Post by: Jenkar on January 03, 2012, 02:26:38 pm
I think the Prizes should be increased aswell. Spend about 2-3hours in the tourny and come second. You could just spend that time farming fgs or gold or something and gaining more money.The main importance of tournys is gathering experience in pvp, as well as having fun. Also, keep in mind that a code is money that you can actually give to anybody, allowing you to build a mini event if you wish to.
Post by: Djhopper :) on January 03, 2012, 05:27:11 pm
I think the Prizes should be increased aswell. Spend about 2-3hours in the tourny and come second. You could just spend that time farming fgs or gold or something and gaining more money.I agree with this. I think that second and third should get rares (not ultrarares) as reward alongside the cash. It is rather disheartening to do what you consider amazingly in a tournament only to get a measly 3000 electrum.
Post by: Onizuka on January 03, 2012, 05:47:07 pm
Post by: plastiqe on January 04, 2012, 07:27:00 am
Post by: dragonsdemesne on January 07, 2012, 09:35:25 pm
Post by: willng3 on January 23, 2012, 05:05:29 am
I figured it was something like that.What's the policy on waiting past the set Tournament start time for 16 players to join the tourney? Just reviewing the rules makes it seem as if the tourney will be canceled if 16 players are not available when it is set to start or is there an unwritten rule that I'm not aware of here?Right now, it's really up to the TO's discretion.
If enough additional willing participants can be pulled into the tournament room within 15-20 minutes, then I'm fine with that. Any longer, and people start getting restless and it would be wiser to cancel the tournament than to try to spend more time on finding enough people to hit 16.
I bring this up simply because I worry that people become restless far sooner than within 15-20 minutes of the tourney's start time. If people are civilly asking for more participants then that's naturally fine, but it's not at all uncommon for a simple request to become harassment if the desired results are not met soon enough. For obvious reasons, I have a problem with users harassing other members in chat.
Furthermore, it appears that when TOs are not present there is no limit to the amount of waiting time allowed before the tourney can begin. For instance, this occasion (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35029.0.html) seems as if it should have been an unofficial tourney without rewards seeing as how the tournament didn't start until nearly 1.5 hours after it was set to begin.
I'm merely requesting that a reasonably set time limit is added for these circumstances, especially in light of the incident above.
Post by: xdude on February 04, 2012, 05:59:36 pm
Also, having TO's come on time would be also pretty cool, even if there are no participants - that means 15 minutes before the tournament starts.
Post by: Higurashi on February 04, 2012, 06:11:07 pm
I was on time, which you would've noticed if you had checked the chat history before you posted in main. In fact, I had been hanging around for hours and started gathering people before you even noticed we needed more.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on February 04, 2012, 06:21:27 pm
Interestingly enough, Western Tournaments appear to have large issues reaching the set ammount of 16 people lately. Although there is not much that could be done about this, talking to Zanz about implementing that link to the Tournies in the game page would help in general.We had a TO on time today, but Dec/Jan had issues with both reaching 16 players and having TOs being absent.
Also, having TO's come on time would be also pretty cool, even if there are no participants - that means 15 minutes before the tournament starts.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on March 11, 2012, 04:22:04 pm
-The time was rather early for western Canada where I'm from (9am) but I'm assuming this will rotate, and you can't possibly pick a time that will please everyone. The time you did pick is probably about as good as it will get, though, given you're trying to set it up for everyone.
-The actual pyramid concept was a fun one, and I'd play in it or something similar again.
-The prizes were reasonable, given that the two tournaments were merged, and the chances for winning something are about the same. Less people will win electrum (6 in this one vs 8 in the old system) but I think the total amount of electrum being paid out was similar, and people only really care about the mark prizes anyway, and that was the same.
-The turnout was, if I'm not mistaken, 27 players. That's slightly less than we'd get with two separate tournaments, which probably represents those we lost from Asia/Australia, but it doesn't seem to have hurt the turnout too much. It didn't really help much either for turnout, but it does make sure the tournament can actually happen by merging it. It's also better with that sort of size, because with the 16-20 that I've been used to participating in recently, you could win prizes by winning only two rounds; now it takes 3 rounds, if this turnout is maintained.
Post by: glennfoo on March 12, 2012, 01:19:57 am
Post by: aceben3 on March 24, 2012, 02:44:47 pm
Post by: Higurashi on March 24, 2012, 02:53:39 pm
Also, you need 30 posts.
Post by: deuce22 on March 25, 2012, 07:00:24 pm
Starting time at 1600 GMT (like March 10) allows pretty much all US (8-11am) and european (3-7pm) players to participate, which is where the majority of the community resides (sorry asia).
When starting times are at 0800 GMT (March 24), most US players are sleeping. And 0000 GMT (March 17) is when most euro players sleep AND it's friday night for US players.
I'm curious to see if another cycle of this schedule yields the same results. And if it does, I would suggest maybe switching every other week between hosting 1 or 2 tourneys. Where 1 week is single tourney around 1600 GMT, next week is eastern/western, then repeat. Also always have the upped tourneys at 1600 GMT to ensure good turnout. Otherwise, I would suggest maybe a 3-hr rotating schedule around 1600 GMT.
Post by: Marsu on March 31, 2012, 04:28:53 pm
/e: nvm.
Post by: Vineroz on April 09, 2012, 03:45:58 am
Post by: jippy99 on April 09, 2012, 03:51:03 am
With the current prize system, 5th and 6th place will get an amount of 2k and 1k electrum. Many veterans will just forfeit the extra games, but it could mean a lot to newbies. Not sure if it has been suggested before, but I think there should be a designated place that TOs can store the unwanted codes, and put them into next week's tourney. It could even work like lottery, with cumulative bonus to attract people to play out the games.I actually like this idea a lot, and given the fact that we don't have a great attendance as it is, this might help us. Also, due to the fact that so many people have just been forfeiting their 5th-8th games, we might started banning people from the next week's tourney for doing so in order to encourage people to play.
Post by: Onizuka on April 09, 2012, 04:20:34 am
Post by: Higurashi on April 09, 2012, 11:13:10 am
Leftover codes have thus far been stored for use in events like War bidding. Increasing future Tourney rewards with them is certainly an option.
Post by: Jenkar on April 16, 2012, 08:52:49 am
Post by: Cheesy111 on April 16, 2012, 08:58:48 am
I dislike that Shards are autobanned in tournaments. Is there a reason as to why this is the case?I second this. If a card is so overpowered as to be banned (something like, in my opinion, SoF), then ban the card. It's better to refrain from banning a set of cards without having detailed reasoning for each one.
Post by: Marsu on April 18, 2012, 11:07:28 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on April 19, 2012, 12:28:16 am
I dislike that Shards are autobanned in tournaments. Is there a reason as to why this is the case?
As far as I can tell, it's to help the newbies who don't know how to make decks that can beat them. It's not because of the rarity, since we allow other rares and nymphs.
Post by: Jenkar on April 19, 2012, 12:32:11 am
I dislike that Shards are autobanned in tournaments. Is there a reason as to why this is the case?
As far as I can tell, it's to help the newbies who don't know how to make decks that can beat them. It's not because of the rarity, since we allow other rares and nymphs.
Huh.
I don't think that shards, save SoFo, are cards which one *neeeds* to overconsideer to win.
Post by: nilsieboy on April 22, 2012, 08:07:00 pm
Post by: Jenkar on April 22, 2012, 08:09:46 pm
keep shards banned, they don't support creativity and we have leagues for free pvp.Actually, they do. A lot. Let's see.
Mono light stall, unupped, without sod? No possible.
SoR pharaohs/mito sor decks? Bubye.
SoG life firestalls, buh bye too. Add that to any life mark rainbow stall, too.
And that's just a few.
Post by: Higurashi on April 22, 2012, 08:19:17 pm
They are also banned because they're pretty hard to get for a new player. Even more so than normal rares.
Post by: Cheesy111 on April 22, 2012, 11:14:26 pm
The more Shards you allow, the more similar will all deck strategies become, and the less unique will every element and element duo become.I understand the hard to get for a new player part, but what's the basis for the first line? Why would shards make all strategies more similar?
They are also banned because they're pretty hard to get for a new player. Even more so than normal rares.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on April 28, 2012, 03:55:35 am
I know I could've clicked on the thread to see the 'X hours Y minutes' remaining, but I'm extremely lazy :) (also the reason I didn't play in this week's tourney, I am far too lazy to count card values, and didn't even feel like making decks and putting them into Xenocidus' tool to count them :p Yes, I really am that lazy!)
Post by: pikachufan2164 on April 28, 2012, 04:31:46 am
I wasn't planning on playing in this week's tournament anyway, but in future, it might be useful to put the date in the title of the tournament thread like this: Weekly tournament April 27/28. I saw the '28th' in this week's tourney and due to time zones (it is evening of 27th where I am, Canada) I was a bit surprised to see it had already started when I went to browse the forum for war posts. I don't know if this suckered any other people from the West who are also lazy like me, but I thought I'd mention it while I thought of it.That opens up another can of worms x)
I know I could've clicked on the thread to see the 'X hours Y minutes' remaining, but I'm extremely lazy :) (also the reason I didn't play in this week's tourney, I am far too lazy to count card values, and didn't even feel like making decks and putting them into Xenocidus' tool to count them :p Yes, I really am that lazy!)
"Is the tournament on the 27th, or the 28th? Or are there two tournaments (one for each day)?"
The possibilities of misinterpretation are endless.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on May 03, 2012, 09:34:03 pm
Post by: Higurashi on May 03, 2012, 09:37:39 pm
Post by: Absol on June 02, 2012, 01:28:42 am
Apparently, people can still spam all they want if they really want to enter tourney. I've seen several cases before, and it's annoying.
If we have a banlist for those spammers, then no matter how high their post count is, they can never enter tourney. Because they disrespected the rules.
Post by: Cheesy111 on June 02, 2012, 01:35:57 am
We need Tournament banlist.
Apparently, people can still spam all they want if they really want to enter tourney. I've seen several cases before, and it's annoying.
If we have a banlist for those spammers, then no matter how high their post count is, they can never enter tourney. Because they disrespected the rules.
A permanent tournament banlist seems like a bad idea to me, in case a spammer eventually turned into a constructive forum member. Perhaps issue 1-2 week tourney bans for spamming? That gives them time to reform.
Post by: Higurashi on June 02, 2012, 01:55:12 am
Some people get in by posting small comments, but there's a difference between that and spam.
We only ban people from the next week if they disrupt the actual tourney. If someone continues to cause problems, it's pretty obvious we won't let them. Hasn't happened so far.
Post by: Absol on June 02, 2012, 05:09:46 pm
If two people are actively searching each other during tourney, and either the net fails or the server is, it's not their fault. (though, the net part is partially their fault)
A coin flip does nothing to decide who deserves to win (= who is more prepared and skilled this week)
There are 2 suggestions in tourney chat:
1. Both players PM the TO their deck choice. TO then judge which deck is likely to win.
2. Both players PM the TO their deck choice. TO then put both in xeno's game simulator (for one game) and decides the result there.
Both of these suggestions are very easy to do, shows deckbuilding skill of each player (though not deckplaying), and are generally regarded as "more fair".
Post by: Odii Odsen on June 02, 2012, 05:16:42 pm
We need a more fair way for tiebreaker.
If two people are actively searching each other during tourney, and either the net fails or the server is, it's not their fault. (though, the net part is partially their fault)
A coin flip does nothing to decide who deserves to win (= who is more prepared and skilled this week)
[19:02:33] Odii Odsen: A short question as a quiz about elements for example. Who of those two give the correct (or better) answer first has won.
Example: [19:04:45] Odii Odsen: Whats the cheapest (quanta) unupgraded card in elements?: Player A answers first: Golden Dragon. Player B: Said 2 seconds later Bone Dragon. Player B has won cause he is closer to the right answer. Golden Dragon 12 :light vs. Bone Dragon 10 :death
Post by: Higurashi on June 02, 2012, 05:21:51 pm
Worst of all, they take too long. The reason we have coinflips in the first place is to keep the tourney on schedule. That's how it's gonna stay.
Post by: Absol on June 02, 2012, 05:28:51 pm
A quick glance or gamesim should not take more than 2 minutes anyway.
Post by: Higurashi on June 02, 2012, 05:36:24 pm
Additional time when a round has already been delayed isn't acceptable either. Not for people playing or for volunteer workers.
Post by: glennfoo on June 02, 2012, 05:41:54 pm
We need a more fair way for tiebreaker.
If two people are actively searching each other during tourney, and either the net fails or the server is, it's not their fault. (though, the net part is partially their fault)
A coin flip does nothing to decide who deserves to win (= who is more prepared and skilled this week)
There are 2 suggestions in tourney chat:
1. Both players PM the TO their deck choice. TO then judge which deck is likely to win.
2. Both players PM the TO their deck choice. TO then put both in xeno's game simulator (for one game) and decides the result there.
Both of these suggestions are very easy to do, shows deckbuilding skill of each player (though not deckplaying), and are generally regarded as "more fair".To be honest, i would be mad too if my skill does not count in my win or loss, but rather, the damned coin does.
I also prefer this way than the coinflip. at least it is something. today i just lost again due to coinflip when i am trying to search my opponent. maybe TO can put those 2 deck in simulator?? i mean letting the ai decide then. definitely better than coinflip. since both also may depend on RNG but the ai sud give a better definite answer. and they will not take lots of time too??
Post by: drolly on June 02, 2012, 06:15:08 pm
- The player with fewer tournament wins so far gets the win. The rewards for a tournament are especially valuable for newcomers, so it might look fair to give them a greater chance to acquire them. Well, I hope that this doesn't invite people to stonewall a veteran after going 1-1 against them.
- In case the rule above results in a tie, flip a coin. The winner advances, the loser gets a star. The next time a match is about to be decided by coin flip, the player with more stars wins and one star is subtracted from their account. That would require some logging but looking something up in a spreadsheet is fast enough in my opinion.
Alternatively, the number of tournaments the players already participated in could break a tie. Show interest in ("grind"?) tournaments to eventually get an advantage.
Post by: Higurashi on June 02, 2012, 06:42:51 pm
2 appeals to an idea of general artificial fairness, but isn't fair for each individual tourney. There's no good reason a player should autowin because he's been in more tourneys and two players can't connect. Although this might seem to conform to what a normal person would call "fair" in general, it's not fair in an isolated environment such as our tournaments.
Although y'all are missing the point, I appreciate the ideas.
Post by: bogtro on June 28, 2012, 04:04:30 am
Player A has x game losses this tourney
Player B has y game losses this tourney
A random integer is chosen from 0 to x+y+1 inclusive. If the number is between 0 and x inclusive, player A loses. Otherwise, player B loses.
IE: Player A wins his first 2 matches 2-0, while Player B wins his first two matches 2-1. Then A has lost 0 games, and B has lost 2 games. A number is chosen from 0 to 3. If it is 0, A loses. If it is 1 to 3, B loses.
This has the advantage of giving a greater chance to those who have won by greater margins, which should supposedly measure skill.
Though I still prefer the send decks to organizer option.
Post by: furballdn on July 07, 2012, 05:52:53 am
Post by: justaburd on July 07, 2012, 05:54:16 am
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 07, 2012, 05:55:34 am
Rather than 2 weeks, make it say... 5 days, but at least 20 posts must be more than 5 days from the tourney deadline.
Topic brought up in chat. There needs to be another qualification for joining tourneys. In addition to 30 posts, make sure someone has at least a two week old account. This prevents noobs from spamming 30 low quality posts last minute to join, and also stops noobs from joining just for one tourney and leaving. It'd be like a test to see who is really interested in tourneys.
No. People who don't listen will be people who don't listen and will be banned. People who are genuine and friendly shouldn't have to wait some alloted amount of time to join a tourney.
Post by: ddevans96 on July 07, 2012, 06:06:28 am
Post by: Xenocidius on July 07, 2012, 06:32:39 am
Here's an alternative I suggested in Chat, which could potentially replace the 30-post rule: reinstalling Quizzes and forcing everyone to complete a quiz on tourney rules before they can participate. This is quick, easy, and ensures that people read the rules. I understand that this was suggested before and possibly used, though my memory fails me. One of the reasons against this was that it did nothing to prevent cheaters using multiple accounts. I believe that this was before the new chatroom where all mods could see IP addresses was installed, so this may not be such a problem any more.
Post by: Annele on July 07, 2012, 06:39:06 am
A rule like that would, I believe, be detrimental overall. People generally only want to participate in a tournament for a bit of fun - they don't want to waste time acquainting themselves with the community. The 30-post rule is guilty for stepping on these people too, but the proposed rule would do so even more.
Here's an alternative I suggested in Chat, which could potentially replace the 30-post rule: reinstalling Quizzes and forcing everyone to complete a quiz on tourney rules before they can participate. This is quick, easy, and ensures that people read the rules. I understand that this was suggested before and possibly used, though my memory fails me. One of the reasons against this was that it did nothing to prevent cheaters using multiple accounts. I believe that this was before the new chatroom where all mods could see IP addresses was installed, so this may not be such a problem any more.
I like this. It would stop the spamming we're currently getting.
(http://i.imgur.com/wfwLs.jpg)
+1 if this gets implemented.
Also, the quizzes looked fun. I was sad when they stopped them before I could get an account. :(
Post by: drolly on July 07, 2012, 08:41:50 am
A quiz on tournament rules sounds good, too.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on July 12, 2012, 07:59:35 pm
I've just had another idea for a qualification. As I get it, the purpose of the rule is to prevent people who don't know much about PvPing from joining a tournament. They should be familiar with exchanging IGNs, entering PvP Duel, what to do in case of a desync, reporting results correctly etc. so that they don't delay the tourney unnecessarily. So what if people were forced to play one or two PvP matches before joining? This can be easily accomplished by joining the league (well, that's what I did when I started) or randomly asking for a friendly match and reporting it in the Duels section, which needs more activity anyway.
A quiz on tournament rules sounds good, too.
This sounds as a pretty good idea. I personally had a bad experience with the first weekly tourney I participated two weeks ago and, despite the fact I have read the rules, I was totally inexperienced with the chat, friendly PvP and IGN which made people to think I hadn't read the tournament rules at all. Drolly's suggestion would prevent things like this from happening again, so my +1 goes to drolly for this suggestion. :)
Post by: dragonsdemesne on July 14, 2012, 09:28:24 pm
A second thing (which doesn't apply at all to today's tourney, but has been on my mind for awhile) is the numerous banned cards lately. There's a few that I agree with; nova, immolation, and discord tend to warp the game and make things too RNG-dependent, and really aren't appropriate in most tourneys, but for the last several tourneys I've been in, excluding today's, there was like a 10-15 card ban list, most of which just narrowed the metagame instead of expanding it. Stuff like poison or fahrenheit doesn't need to be banned every week.
I guess it really depends on what the goals of the organizers are. In my mind, the best tourneys are the ones where RNG and rock-paper-scissors are as absent as possible, but I may be biased in that those with the least RNG/RPS are the ones I do the best in, so of course I'd want more of those :p
Post by: pikachufan2164 on July 14, 2012, 10:32:44 pm
I played in today's tournament, and I think pretty much everyone will agree that the stalls were too strong; most games were won by whoever had the bigger deck. I know that the TOs cannot possibly conceive of every possible deck and counterdeck in any given environment, but this meta was pretty bad and didn't seem particularly well thought out. (no offense to the planners)I seemed to have dropped the metaphorical ball this week, haven't I? ::)
A second thing (which doesn't apply at all to today's tourney, but has been on my mind for awhile) is the numerous banned cards lately. There's a few that I agree with; nova, immolation, and discord tend to warp the game and make things too RNG-dependent, and really aren't appropriate in most tourneys, but for the last several tourneys I've been in, excluding today's, there was like a 10-15 card ban list, most of which just narrowed the metagame instead of expanding it. Stuff like poison or fahrenheit doesn't need to be banned every week.
I guess it really depends on what the goals of the organizers are. In my mind, the best tourneys are the ones where RNG and rock-paper-scissors are as absent as possible, but I may be biased in that those with the least RNG/RPS are the ones I do the best in, so of course I'd want more of those :p
Here's a little bit of insight on how I plan out a tournament meta (of course, Higs and Jippy will have their own tournament design philosophies which may differ from mine).
After thinking of an initial theme, I first remove any alternate means of victory. For example, if a tournament has a limitation on the creatures that can be used, then I ban pump bolts, Fahrenheit, Poison, and Arsenic, as they facilitate creatureless stalls that don't follow the tournament theme. Next to go are general 'power cards' like Nova, Immolation, Discord, and the like. I try to strike a balance between rush-domination-stall strategies so that there is at least a soft-counter to cards that I know will be built around. After that is some slight tweaks to make sure that there isn't a single deck archetype that dominates all others.
As for the numerous bans, I try to ban 'power cards' and major stalling cards. The reason for the former is to make sure that the tournament meta doesn't stagnate and become Novagrabby City every week, and I ban stall cards (much to Oni's dismay) because they extend the length of time the tournament takes and could disrupt tournament flow -- note the 30 minute time limit per round. I also find stalls to be kind of boring to play and play against because of their largely reactionary style of gameplay (stalls play cards in order to answer threats much more often than to create threats). In addition, stalls cause longer games that are more prone to being replayed in the event of disconnects/desynchs because the AI often has no idea of how to play them when the desynch occurs in mid-game.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on July 14, 2012, 10:47:02 pm
If we could simply have, oh, another couple hundred cards... :) Alas, that is for another topic :D
Post by: furballdn on July 20, 2012, 11:17:01 pm
Post by: justaburd on July 20, 2012, 11:19:57 pm
That way we can say: You're forced to wait at least 3 hours to get those 30 posts so you might as well make them meaningful.
Post by: Higurashi on July 20, 2012, 11:26:32 pm
Post by: bjessee on July 21, 2012, 05:17:02 am
First, no tournament organizer was present for the event. Fortunately, Dm1321 was available to make brackets and graciously agreed to stay and officiate. Several people left since Dm did not agree to help until asked some 15 minutes after the tournament started. I know it is unreasonable to expect a TO to cover every possible start time, and I know RL trumps Elements, but it seems like there should be fail-safes to prevent this. Maybe I am making too much of an isolated incident, but if the tournament had not happened after passing on other options I would have been frustrated, to say the least.
Second, there did not seem to be much variety in the decks. I applaud the effort at diversity by allowing non-list cards, but it was mostly slightly different takes on the same deck(s). When your skeletons have to use the 20 least-used cards, I guess that should not be too surprising. I guess you did what you could given the premise. And maybe it was different in the other side of the bracket.
So as not to be wholly negative, special thanks go to DM1321 for agreeing to step in and run the event. I would also like to give thanks (and some apologies) to my opponents. After my experiences in other card games, it genuinely amazes me how pleasant the members of this community are.
Post by: Annele on July 21, 2012, 07:28:43 am
I have a couple of comments regarding the most recent tourney (even apart from how it ended).
First, no tournament organizer was present for the event. Fortunately, Dm1321 was available to make brackets and graciously agreed to stay and officiate. Several people left since Dm did not agree to help until asked some 15 minutes after the tournament started. I know it is unreasonable to expect a TO to cover every possible start time, and I know RL trumps Elements, but it seems like there should be fail-safes to prevent this. Maybe I am making too much of an isolated incident, but if the tournament had not happened after passing on other options I would have been frustrated, to say the least.
It's not really isolated, the last two tourneys I've been to didn't have a TO either.
Oh, and sorry about my disappearance.
Post by: ddevans96 on July 21, 2012, 07:52:31 am
Post by: Dm on July 21, 2012, 11:48:56 am
I have a couple of comments regarding the most recent tourney (even apart from how it ended).
First, no tournament organizer was present for the event. Fortunately, Dm1321 was available to make brackets and graciously agreed to stay and officiate. Several people left since Dm did not agree to help until asked some 15 minutes after the tournament started. I know it is unreasonable to expect a TO to cover every possible start time, and I know RL trumps Elements, but it seems like there should be fail-safes to prevent this. Maybe I am making too much of an isolated incident, but if the tournament had not happened after passing on other options I would have been frustrated, to say the least.
Hey, I was asked by vineroz about ~15-30 mins after the tournament started, and by then it was around ~21:30 my time, and I needed to take a bath. I told him I'd take a quick bath and if there was no TO available by the time I was finished, I'd host. I agreed quickly 'cause I know that tournaments are interesting and are purdy nice, and it sucks when you prepare a deck and there is no tournament (specially when you wanted that tournament to happen.) As a result I took a ~10 minute bath and hosted a tournament for almost 2 hours after I should've left (Y u so stall, meta?).
TL;DR - I agreed to help after I was asked to, but I needed to do IRL stuff first. My delay was only needed if you take into account I left the tournament room at 00:20, and by then it would probably be too cold (or I'd be too lazy) to go do stuff IRL.
... But ahem, yes. Moar TO's, I guess?
But I'll still thank you for the thanks. =P
Post by: dragonsdemesne on July 26, 2012, 04:12:33 pm
The July 29 tournament idea is the best one I have seen since I've been playing elements, which has been over a year. It doesn't have a ridiculously long ban list like some of the ones that I've seen, it's got a lot of decent creatures left so hopefully it won't come down to who has the largest stall, and it's still got pretty much all the good control/removal, so it also won't just come down to who gets the fastest immodraw. On top of that, requiring adjacent elements on the wheel means that the metagame isn't completely obvious to anyone looking at the list of allowed/banned cards. The adjacent element thing also doesn't have the gimmick feel that some other restrictions have had in the past; it's simple, but makes for some very interesting combinations nonetheless.
I don't know whose idea this one was, but they should get a reward code just for coming up with it :p
Post by: pikachufan2164 on July 27, 2012, 02:21:33 am
Post by: dragonsdemesne on August 18, 2012, 04:05:42 pm
Post by: Higurashi on August 18, 2012, 04:41:27 pm
Post by: majofa on August 18, 2012, 07:14:22 pm
It's basically impossible to have a more varied schedule, and the "vast majority" is an illusion of yours. We rotate by a set of 3 where the next tournament is 8 hours after the previous one. After three tourneys, that time jumps forward one hour. This continues endlessly so that we actually cover all the hours of the day. This is largely why tournaments have been missing organizers more lately. It comes at a cost I warned people about long ago when we were discussing changing schedules. I'm still not convinced this is best, but it's what we're running.The earliest time of the three has been at midnight GMT for the last several rotations.
Post by: Higurashi on August 18, 2012, 07:22:54 pm
If the rotation hasn't been followed, however, I'll see that it does.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on August 18, 2012, 10:00:49 pm
Post by: regen2k9 on August 24, 2012, 03:41:13 am
Post by: Higurashi on August 24, 2012, 11:44:00 am
Post by: regen2k9 on August 24, 2012, 08:56:07 pm
No. We still host tourneys if we don't have codes, then hand them out later. If a tourney's not up, real life has likely intervened and you can expect speedbuilding.
Oh, I'm not trying to rush anyone! Sorry if it came out that way. Pika's on my brawl team, so believe me, I understand that tourney posting won't always take precedence. I just heard it as a rumor floating around in chat, that's all.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on August 24, 2012, 11:11:45 pm
Also thanks for the tourney tomorrow being at a time North America can actually play without suffering sleep deprivation :) It's at 11am for me, so it'll be 10am-early afternoon for the rest of the continent; the last few have been at times I didn't want to be awake for :p
Post by: blueberrymania on September 16, 2012, 02:17:30 am
Post by: Cheesy111 on September 16, 2012, 02:51:54 am
This last tournament wasn't exactly fair, as Trident was allowed, but earthquake wasn't, and regular nymphs weren't allowed, but Nymph's Tears was.
How is that not fair? *confused*
Post by: n00b on September 16, 2012, 02:58:11 am
This last tournament wasn't exactly fair, as Trident was allowed, but earthquake wasn't, and regular nymphs weren't allowed, but Nymph's Tears was.
Not banning NT might've been an oversight on our part, but Trident was intentional. It has never been one of those overly-used cards and we did not expect much of a problem from it in the tournament. Also, unless I'm mistaken, neither of those two cards played a major role in deciding the winner. (This is referring to the Sept 15 2012 tourney for all future readers)
Post by: blueberrymania on September 16, 2012, 03:01:48 am
Post by: n00b on September 16, 2012, 03:04:27 am
Then why weren't nymphs allowed?
Nymphs are not airborne.
Post by: Vangelios on September 16, 2012, 03:14:12 am
This last tournament wasn't exactly fair, as Trident was allowed, but earthquake wasn't, and regular nymphs weren't allowed, but Nymph's Tears was.
Not banning NT might've been an oversight on our part, but Trident was intentional. It has never been one of those overly-used cards and we did not expect much of a problem from it in the tournament. Also, unless I'm mistaken, neither of those two cards played a major role in deciding the winner. (This is referring to the Sept 15 2012 tourney for all future readers)
Cheesy used trident and tnymph tears to get to the end, I used it and won, and also lost to this deck, however as I say, it was fair, the rules were the same for all, and .nymph tears is a common card. Now if the intention was to make a flying tournament, of course failed, even with numerous prohibitions.
Post by: furballdn on September 16, 2012, 06:02:10 am
Nymphs should be banned. They are not airborne.
Nymphs tears should be banned. Not banning it is a loophole just being asked to be abused. Nymphs tears is basically the same as summoning a nymph, only being a spell and costing an extra pillar.
Earthquake and trident are very different. EQ gets out early and is crippling. Trident requires duo quanta, at least 3 :water and 3 :earth, and a one turn delay. There is a reason that trident is often considered one of the worst elemental weapons. EQ is only very useful early game. Its usefulness decreases almost exponentially as the game drags on. Trident allows repeatable EQ, but at a very pricey and slow pace.
Post by: Hawfrey1337 on September 16, 2012, 08:55:30 am
Not banning NT might've been an oversight on our part, but Trident was intentional. It has never been one of those overly-used cards and we did not expect much of a problem from it in the tournament. Also, unless I'm mistaken, neither of those two cards played a major role in deciding the winner. (This is referring to the Sept 15 2012 tourney for all future readers)
My opponent built his deck entirely around Nymph Tears, it did played a major role in deciding the winner in our match '-'
(Just pointing that out :()
Post by: RootRanger on September 16, 2012, 03:38:15 pm
This last tournament wasn't exactly fair, as Trident was allowed, but earthquake wasn't, and regular nymphs weren't allowed, but Nymph's Tears was.If Trident and NT are OP in a tournament's meta, you can just use them. That's how you win tournaments, buddy. You find what's OP in the tourney's meta, and you use it.
What would be unfair is if the OP cards were not available to all of the players. In the last tournament, this was not the case.
Post by: deuce22 on September 16, 2012, 03:48:37 pm
Post by: Vangelios on September 16, 2012, 03:59:11 pm
This last tournament wasn't exactly fair, as Trident was allowed, but earthquake wasn't, and regular nymphs weren't allowed, but Nymph's Tears was.If Trident and NT are OP in a tournament's meta, you can just use them. That's how you win tournaments, buddy. You find what's OP in the tourney's meta, and you use it.
What would be unfair is if the OP cards were not available to all of the players. In the last tournament, this was not the case.
Is true, and yet I posted this option in the tournament topic!
maybe he meant, which was a controversial rule, if that's, he all has reason.
but was fair, of course.
Post by: Jen-i on October 20, 2012, 04:01:00 pm
While I think our T.O.'s do a fantastic job in general, and put up with lots of complaints with great patience, I think there is one area in which they could improve.
Simply keeping the tournament moving on schedule would make a big difference, as it stands many of the delays and problems in my experience come because a T.O. is trying to be fair to the players in an earlier bracket and have allowed them to keep playing as opposed to having declared a winner by coin flip earlier. In my experience with paper CCG tournament play each game was given a fixed length of time to occur (usually 45 minutes) and then there was a brief break (usually 15 minutes) before the next round began. While this schedule is too generous for our tourney environment, sticking to perhaps a 25 minute round (with 5 minutes between duels) could do wonders for keeping us on schedule. And while that might be too tight it at least provides us with a starting place.
P.S. It is not said enough, "Thank you to our T.O.'s for your hard work, your patience and your sleep deprivation - it is appreciated!"
Post by: n00b on October 20, 2012, 07:47:07 pm
As to the other part: thank you. Viney and I are still semi-new to this whole thing, so we're not getting things going as flawlessly as we hopefully will be able to in the future. Vineroz and I both thank all of the competitors for remaining patient with us. Honestly, I feel we have done a decent job thus far, but I know there are many improvements to be made.
Post by: RootRanger on October 20, 2012, 11:09:48 pm
Post by: furballdn on November 03, 2012, 05:42:19 am
Post by: deuce22 on November 17, 2012, 09:42:36 pm
Again, I like the concept of a "newb" tourney, but this one failed pretty hard because the reset trick was allowed.
Post by: inthisroom on November 17, 2012, 10:35:44 pm
Regarding the tourney today, I like the concept of it, but the fact that we could do the reset trick made the tournament awful. I could literally make almost any conventional pvp deck I wanted being allowed to do this. I opened 5 browsers and was able to build staples like bonebolt, devtal, firestall, grabbow, and ghostmare. This tournament was basically beginner's league with the option of maybe using 1 rare weapon. And that's fine for a tourney, but the problem with this setup was that some opponents took forever to reset and try to deckbuild between matches.
Again, I like the concept of a "newb" tourney, but this one failed pretty hard because the reset trick was allowed.
I totally subscribe to that, it certainly wasn't a "newbie" tourney as people could build pretty much whatever they wanted, trying to compete with a true beginner's deck was impossible.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on November 17, 2012, 11:46:34 pm
Post by: Onizuka on November 18, 2012, 02:22:58 am
Post by: deuce22 on November 18, 2012, 03:00:23 am
Grabbow was certainly possible with dark starter deck.
everything was possible with dark starter deck.
Dark deck = 869 (nearly 200 more than most starter decks)
Quests + reset = 289
weapon = 145-150
Total = 1303-1308
and despite exploiting this for all its worth, RNG still managed to screw me in round 1 (grabbow with no creatures for 6 turns, 3 boners hid in bottom 10 cards). Karma's a bitch?
Post by: dragonsdemesne on November 18, 2012, 05:46:01 am
Post by: AnnaMall on November 18, 2012, 10:30:23 am
Post by: pikachufan2164 on November 18, 2012, 11:08:51 am
Yeah you get the rewards for any single quest + the weap. Also i think the tourney timer somehow changed to 1 hour earlier 24-36 hours before the actual tourney and sadly i could not make it. Could it have been a daylight savings time change?The forum's timezone-specific timestamps don't automatically change with Daylight Savings; you'll need to do that manually in Profile > Modify Profile > Look and Layout.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on November 24, 2012, 05:53:47 pm
Pros:
Ruleset was really fun. I saw and used a lot of decks I didn't normally get to use.
Also, I like it when upped tourneys have reasons to use unupped cards even if you own every upped card. (like unupped maxwell was allowed, but upped one was not)
Cons:
Timezone voting was a bit of a pain in that we weren't 100% sure up until like half an hour before it started which choice would be the one, and then it was postponed since we didn't have 16 ppl at the time, though that last is not anyone's fault.
The rule change to disallowing monos and confusion about the ambiguous definition of a mono until a TO clarified it made it tougher to prepare decks ahead of time.
Post by: iancudorinmarian on November 29, 2012, 05:48:45 pm
I really enjoy speedbuilding since all my tourney deck I make is made like half an hour or so before it start.or decks.I don't agree, 4K is almost 3 upped cards, a lot of coins if you need it (I need it, so it's important for me).
The only think I don't understand is that why third place gets 4k and second place get 5K+nympm/mark schould be opposite since 4K is nothing and mark/nymphs is everythig.
And I don't really join tourneys for reward, it's more likely 20% reward, 80% for fun.
Post by: Calindu on November 29, 2012, 06:21:52 pm
I really enjoy speedbuilding since all my tourney deck I make is made like half an hour or so before it start.or decks.
The only think I don't understand is that why third place gets 4k and second place get 5K+nympm/mark schould be opposite since 4K is nothing and mark/nymphs is everythig.
So let's give everyone a mark then?
No, there should be that gap, since being 3rd means you lost before finals.
Post by: Fosius on November 29, 2012, 06:25:54 pm
I really enjoy speedbuilding since all my tourney deck I make is made like half an hour or so before it start.or decks.
The only think I don't understand is that why third place gets 4k and second place get 5K+nympm/mark schould be opposite since 4K is nothing and mark/nymphs is everythig.
So let's give everyone a mark then?
No, there should be that gap, since being 3rd means you lost before finals.
Yeah, reaching the finals is an achievement all of its own, no need to give out free hand outs for marks
Post by: n00b on November 29, 2012, 08:57:28 pm
Tl;dr Rewards staying the same.
Post by: deuce22 on November 30, 2012, 12:28:28 am
As a side note, and I know my paragraph organization fails, but theoretically the person who places second lost to much harder opponent than that who the third-placer had to beat. Theoretically.
And theoretically, the best opponent loses to RNG in round 1 :P
Post by: Blacksmith on December 01, 2012, 12:03:44 am
Please keep all suggestions/feedback (unless it regards a rule change in the current tourney theme) to the Suggestions/Feedback threads. As it is, the rewards will most likely not be changed, or, if they are, they won't be "flipped" (giving third place a better reward than second place). Like Cal said, getting third place means you lost in the semifinals and advanced to the Bronze bracket. However, to get second place, you have to have won in the semifinals and then lost in the finals, which is considered a much harder task to do (get to the finals). In the typical four- or five-round tournament, to get second, you had to have won three (or four) games in a row, which is a hard feat in itself. But to get in the Bronze bracket, you only have to win two (or three) games in a row, lose one, then win your last. As a side note, and I know my paragraph organization fails, but theoretically the person who places second lost to much harder opponent than that who the third-placer had to beat. Theoretically.Well what I mean is that a second place and a 3 is a difference but not an gigantic one. I think it's a bit unfair that 3 only get 4K electrum and 2 gets 5K electrum. I think second could get 3K+Nymph/mark card and third 7K electrum.
Tl;dr Rewards staying the same.
well this scenario only happens 25% of the cases but anyway. In the semifinal Z is meeting X and A is meeting B. Z and B wins. Now Z is figting B and A is fighting X. A wins over X and B wins over Z this means that A and Z has been fighting the same players in the 2 last games got the same results against the same players even so he gets a reward that is much lower than the other player just due to bad luck.
TO Comment: Moved prizing discussion to a more appropriate place (here).
Post by: RootRanger on December 01, 2012, 01:01:37 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on December 16, 2012, 01:57:43 am
Post by: Cheesy111 on December 16, 2012, 04:27:01 am
Post by: Laxadarap on December 16, 2012, 04:28:46 am
Yeah, I dislike tournaments where one nymph or another is very very powerful. In this meta blue nymphs were quite powerful and I exploited that mercilessly with the two that I had.
Used a deck with 5 of them FTW
Post by: glennfoo on December 19, 2012, 09:26:28 am
The December 14th tourney was a fun idea. As much as I rant and rave about how much I hate trying to quanta balance trios, I came up with some fairly creative decks for it, and even though I went out in the first round this week, it was a lot of fun. It would have been more fun if someone hadn't drawn their blue nymphs every game... oh, hi cheesy! :p
lol. I understand the feeling. And I lost to that too... oh hi cheesy :P
only some people has nymphs, and it will not really be fair for those who do not have them.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on December 22, 2012, 03:55:04 pm
Post by: Vangelios on December 22, 2012, 05:28:52 pm
Just wanted to say that I liked the 22 Dec tourney idea. It made things interesting knowing which decks your opponent was most likely to use due to their chosen card, and then modifying/choosing decks based on that.
+1, I think, tournaments like this should happen with the same frequency
of speedbuilding
Post by: Onizuka on January 02, 2013, 01:38:35 am
If Luci is banned, the nymph should be banned.
When there are odd combinations of cards, letting one group be 30 cards=bad.
And when limiting card amounts, probably should ban the nymphs anyway.
Post by: Cheesy111 on January 02, 2013, 02:04:15 am
Regarding last tourney.Luci was banned because of its colorless cost and not its effect (I assume), therefore there was no reason to ban White/Light nymph (as opposed to the earlier situation with blue nymph/UG).
If Luci is banned, the nymph should be banned.
When there are odd combinations of cards, letting one group be 30 cards=bad.
And when limiting card amounts, probably should ban the nymphs anyway.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on January 05, 2013, 08:58:34 pm
I thought this was a fun and enjoyable tourney, but there were two things I'd like to point out that I think could have been improved upon in design.
1) Trident. Trident was not banned, but earthquake was. Given that only quantum pillars were allowed, this meant that trident was very powerful, and I used it in every deck I made except for one I speedbuilt in the semis.
2) The name of the tourney. The tournament was designed to be 'speedbow', but, at least in my experience in the tourney, stalls were the dominant archetype. The reasons were because A) nova/immolation were banned, B) quantum pillar was the only legal quanta source and C) You had to run at least a quartet. The combination of these factors meant that any rush was too slow to compete, due to quanta acceleration being banned and the unreliableness of quantum pillars.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on January 13, 2013, 07:18:13 am
Post by: Jen-i on January 13, 2013, 03:11:27 pm
While I didn`t play in the tourney I did prepare decks for it - planning on being there. And yes Fractal-Scarabs was an obvious deck choice. There were however two options to counter it. Either play a faster creatureless deck - Bolts and weapons, or play a Darkness duo and run Nightmare. Both options were viable in this tourney, either people misread the meta or RNG smashed those who had those decks before they got a chance to use them.
To our T.O.`s - Even though I didn't get to play, thanks for presenting another interesting deck building challenge - I at least got to enjoy that much of it!
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on January 13, 2013, 06:08:33 pm
Post by: treebeard xiii on January 13, 2013, 07:17:10 pm
Post by: rob77dp on January 17, 2013, 03:51:11 pm
Players having questions about the tournament, ban list, or similar inquiries should PM tournament organizers (all of them - three right now I think...) with it. It is frustrating when chat (or even forum post BEFORE the tournament) has questions asked in the open by a player since the response can have non-intended competition effects. This could include, but is not limited to, a player in the chat/forum getting an idea they otherwise would not have had if the TO response is "allowed" or a player's decks/ideas being trashed due if the TO response is "ban"/not allowed.
Legitimate gripes of unfair rules or an incomplete ban list are totally fine - just do it to the TO's. If it ends up banned, the TO can quote the PM question and give the TO answer in that tournament's topic thread. If players want to run around flapping their lips about their tactics or throwing out ideas they have (real or mis-leading, intentional or un-intentional) that is fine. My problem is when it is directed at TO's publicly and requires a ban, not banned, or similar discussion.
Isn't the idea of the weekly tournaments to test deck building, PvP skill, and some luck (bracket draw, RNG, etc) of Elements players individually? Maybe I just don't have the right concept of the weekly tournaments...
In conclusion, thank you for your time reading and considering my thoughts.
--Rob
Post by: n00b on January 17, 2013, 09:08:42 pm
Hopefully this doesn't come across too much as me just ranting and raving, but rather as the genuine feedback that it is.
Players having questions about the tournament, ban list, or similar inquiries should PM tournament organizers (all of them - three right now I think...) with it. It is frustrating when chat (or even forum post BEFORE the tournament) has questions asked in the open by a player since the response can have non-intended competition effects. This could include, but is not limited to, a player in the chat/forum getting an idea they otherwise would not have had if the TO response is "allowed" or a player's decks/ideas being trashed due if the TO response is "ban"/not allowed.
Legitimate gripes of unfair rules or an incomplete ban list are totally fine - just do it to the TO's. If it ends up banned, the TO can quote the PM question and give the TO answer in that tournament's topic thread. If players want to run around flapping their lips about their tactics or throwing out ideas they have (real or mis-leading, intentional or un-intentional) that is fine. My problem is when it is directed at TO's publicly and requires a ban, not banned, or similar discussion.
Isn't the idea of the weekly tournaments to test deck building, PvP skill, and some luck (bracket draw, RNG, etc) of Elements players individually? Maybe I just don't have the right concept of the weekly tournaments...
In conclusion, thank you for your time reading and considering my thoughts.
--Rob
I agree. This would make the tourney threads less crowded, as well as making sure us TOs see your question (and then it would be put into the FAQ post as usual). I will talk this over with Viney and dd, and, who knows... maybe there will be a policy change in the next week or two. :)
Post by: dragonsdemesne on January 17, 2013, 10:53:28 pm
Examples for unclear rules to be asked in thread:
-can I use any deck mark, or just for the 6 (or whatever) allowed elements?
-are upgrades allowed or not? TO forgot to post
Examples for strategy that I would PM:
-are you sure that you should allow nymph's tears? that would let people bypass the ban on all creature cards
-trident sure looks OP this week, maybe you should ban it? (I PMed exactly this two tourneys ago, jan. 4, before the tourney, but either it didn't get to the TO in time or he disagreed) If I'd posted something like that, it might've affected people's strategies, assuming they hadn't considered trident's impact on the meta.
Posting decks isn't allowed, but sometimes if I need to use an example to ask if a particular type of deck is legal, I will post an example deck that is totally useless/unplayable just so that people can see if I'm on the right track or not in understanding the rules, i.e. something like is 6x flooding 6x cloak 18x life pendulum legal in this format. I haven't been called out on that yet, so hopefully it's okay :p
Post by: rob77dp on January 17, 2013, 10:59:04 pm
If someone is asking for a rules clarification, I think that can be placed into the tournament thread, but if it's something involving strategy, I would PM it.
Examples for unclear rules to be asked in thread:
-can I use any deck mark, or just for the 6 (or whatever) allowed elements?
-are upgrades allowed or not? TO forgot to post
Examples for strategy that I would PM:
-are you sure that you should allow nymph's tears? that would let people bypass the ban on all creature cards
-trident sure looks OP this week, maybe you should ban it? (I PMed exactly this two tourneys ago, jan. 4, before the tourney, but either it didn't get to the TO in time or he disagreed) If I'd posted something like that, it might've affected people's strategies, assuming they hadn't considered trident's impact on the meta.
Posting decks isn't allowed, but sometimes if I need to use an example to ask if a particular type of deck is legal, I will post an example deck that is totally useless/unplayable just so that people can see if I'm on the right track or not in understanding the rules, i.e. something like is 6x flooding 6x cloak 18x life pendulum legal in this format. I haven't been called out on that yet, so hopefully it's okay :p
You nailed my sentiment, dragonsdemesne, and stated it much more eloquently than I. I wasn't trying to say that ALL tourney questions have to be PM'd, but the strategy implication questions can ruin it for some people (or un-surprise a sneaky tactic)...
Post by: Dm on January 26, 2013, 01:48:06 pm
Quote
Rules should be the same for masters and new players.
By this logic this tournament should never have started as seen in
Quote
In rules was that we have 30 minuts for building decks,but we had 58 minutes.
Further on;
Quote
If someone need more than 5 minutes,this can only be because:
-he didnt prepared decks (in 58 minutes in this case)
-he prepares counter-deck to win more easily.
Each possibility is not honorable thing and isnt by the rules.
I don't see how preparing a counter deck is not honorable. Further on, internet fails coupled with inreal make it so that five minutes are sometimes not enough (Oh how much this has happened with me.) Further on, I (and anyone, really) could build a counter deck in under five minutes. It's still speedbuilding, although in between matches. Further on, the rules never stated that you can't counter someone.
Quote
I know that most of us playing this mostly for fun,but GREED from some players can ruin tournaments and Etg also.I fail to see the greed of Deuce in your post.
Quote
Also im dissapointed with TO ,,jippy99,, response that he is only substitute fot TO,and that he cant do anything.
This problem again?
Quote
If game and events continue with conditions like this i will consider to stop playing Elements.
It was only two minutes. If I Recall Correctly, we extend that time usually, specially for matches further into the tournament since disqualifying someone for simply two more minutes is pretty senseless. Not only that, but again, in real kicks in the way and sometimes we just can't come back in five minutes.
Quote
And you ,,MASTERS,, just keep helping eachother,this will prevent more people to playing this game.
Conspiracy much?
Quote
Anyway 20 of you can play eachother and that is enough players.
I fail to see how this is related to this whole incident.
Edit: Somehow quote marks turned into deck marks.
Post by: rogerluc on January 26, 2013, 03:27:07 pm
Post by: Marsu on January 26, 2013, 03:38:17 pm
More on topic, I do have to agree with Danieela a bit. Not with the solemn part, but with the core: If the rules say 5 minutes (and emphasize the importance of that rule), it should be 5 minutes, and especially someone in deuce's position should demand high standards of himself. It would be nice to hear a word from him here.
Post by: Vangelios on January 26, 2013, 05:51:18 pm
Now rules, Danieela complained that went from 5 min and deuce not has asked the extra time then is auto-loss. However if the game was played, was because someone accepted, even with 7 min.
Post by: deuce22 on January 27, 2013, 04:41:44 am
For newer members, the current rules regarding pace of play are more "guidelines" than hard rules. Tournaments used to take forever. These "rules" are supposed to make it easier on TOs and players.
I participate almost every week in these tournies, and I often allow my opponents up to 10 min between matches, especially if it is an important match. There have been a couple times where I have expressed frustration with my opponent taking too long, so what do I do? I let the TO know. Which is what danieela should have done in the first place, instead of accuse me of cheating after he lost. The few times I've complained to a TO that my opponent is taking too much time, they make an announcement to my opponent that if the game isn't started within the next couple minutes, he forfeits. The game promptly starts 1-2 min later.
This builds onto what Vangelios mentions. It is the player's role to report rule infractions when they occur. TOs have no idea how much time passes between matches, and frankly they don't care as long as it doesn't delay the tournament (thus guideline more than rule). By entering the match, danieela gave up the right to demand a forfeit from me due to taking literally an extra 2 min. All that will happen as a result of this is TOs adding new verbage to the rule stating "contact a TO prior to starting a match if player is taking more than 5 min".
Regarding specifically what happened with Danieela, we were in the semifinals tied at 1-1. We chat for 1-2 min about how close the games were. 2 min later (at 05:37 ET), danieela says he's ready. I say just a min because I needed time trying to mindgate him, not deckbuild. I determine what I think he will play, and I use a deck I built and used earlier in the tourney that I believe will counter him. I say I'm ready 5 min after he says he's ready (at 05:42 ET). **at no point during that 5 min did Danieela complain to me about taking too long** We search, i get in but he doesn't. I see time mark and AI plays earth pends, so I think I'm hard countered because he probably has grabbies. I immediately exit and search again, same thing happens. Search again and we finally get in. Luckily for me he brought EQ instead of grabbies, and I got a turn 2 trident. So I won. But halfway through the match when it looks like danieela is going to lose, he starts sending me in-game PMs about taking more than 5 min and how that is considered cheating, especially for a speedbuilding tourney (no idea what that has to do with anything, but whatever).
Frankly, I find danieela's in-game and post tourney comments disrespectful and completely inappropriate. I'm sorry I took more than 5 min, but you should have said something to me first, then to a TO if I still wasn't ready. This is just a game, no one is playing for money or their livelihood. Please act like gentlemen to your opponents as we are all just trying to have fun.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on January 27, 2013, 07:53:51 am
Post by: DANIEELA on January 27, 2013, 08:30:43 am
^ Danieela is a 'she', not a 'he'. Just a small correction. ;D
Thank you ARTHANASIOS.
AS I SAY- ,,WHATEVER-I DONT CARE,,
Post by: Marsu on January 27, 2013, 09:21:11 am
^ Danieela is a 'she', not a 'he'.
AS I SAY- ,,WHATEVER-I DONT CARE,,
Q.E.D. :>
Post by: Dm on January 27, 2013, 10:15:38 am
AS I SAY- ,,WHATEVER-I DONT CARE,,
It's hard to believe after two SEVERAL CAPSED COMMENTS and the apparent rage behind them. But as you were.
Post by: Marsu on January 27, 2013, 10:25:25 am
Quote
[11:10] <Marsu> still cant play pvp. :/
[11:10] <DANIEELA-BL> OK.LATER THEN........
Post by: deuce22 on January 27, 2013, 01:31:31 pm
Post by: DANIEELA on January 27, 2013, 08:51:34 pm
Anyway,i still think that rules should be respected.
But as i said-WHATEVER. :-\
Post by: yee on February 02, 2013, 07:16:43 pm
Post by: Calindu on February 06, 2013, 06:14:50 pm
Basically I think that postponed tourneys that are running at that moment should become a mini-event during the week instead of basically postponing it.
I think this should be fair for those that won a match and will allow tourneys to go on their normal route.
Post by: DANIEELA on February 06, 2013, 06:40:36 pm
Gave dd and n00b this idea too but I though of posting this to get feedback on it.
Basically I think that postponed tourneys that are running at that moment should become a mini-event during the week instead of basically postponing it.
I think this should be fair for those that won a match and will allow tourneys to go on their normal route.
I agree with this.
Because of that players with victories should also go straight to 2-nd round,to make fair for them.
Canceled Tournament should be at tuesday-wednesday. :-*
Post by: n00b on February 06, 2013, 09:12:43 pm
Gave dd and n00b this idea too but I though of posting this to get feedback on it.
Basically I think that postponed tourneys that are running at that moment should become a mini-event during the week instead of basically postponing it.
I think this should be fair for those that won a match and will allow tourneys to go on their normal route.
I agree with this.
Because of that players with victories should also go straight to 2-nd round,to make fair for them.
Canceled Tournament should be at tuesday-wednesday. :-*
One of the problems with this is that we have lives... all three of us have class/work that we need to deal with, and a lot of the times the tourneys are not at times that we'd normally be home. Another solution could be for us to schedule it for a time we know we'd be home, but then, because of our time zones, it'd always either be at an appealing Western time or Asian time. Besides, most of the time I'm on, I'm busy doing schoolwork, save weekends, which is when tourneys are.
-n00b
Post by: Dm on February 06, 2013, 09:24:06 pm
If we need to get some kind of rule that cancelled tournaments "will be ran later at...", it means that it is common enough to be given a rule, and that's kind of a problem right there.
Post by: whatifidogetcaught? on February 06, 2013, 11:42:28 pm
Post by: Jen-i on February 16, 2013, 08:14:02 pm
A few comments have been made regarding the legality of decks played in that tourney - I think part of the problem was some inconsistency in the way the rules were written.
In the OP of the tourney thread this rule is stated:
Each deck must contain at least four copies of male humanoids and four copies of female humanoids (8 cards total)
However in the FAQ the rule is modified to
The idea is that you have an equal amount of male and female creatures, so everyone (except dd) has a date on Valentine's Day :3
That is a small by significant difference - and because it wasn't stated clearly in the OP it can easily be missed in the FAQ (I know I did - I happened to see someone comment on it in chat that cause me to mod 2 of my decks which it affected).
In the OP of the tourney thread these three rules are stated:
1) The only creatures allowed are humanoid
2) All shields are banned
3) Rain of Fire, Ice Bolt, Fire Bolt, Poison, Drain Life, and their upgraded variants are banned
The FAQ then lists the banned cards - but only cards from rules #2 & #3 are listed - it was possible to miss the first rule in the OP (some players are more visual and use the card images as a comprehensive ban list)
Some of these inconsistencies have happened before - indeed Poison was originally missed from the ban list in this tourney (but was included in the banned card images) if a little more consistency could be brought to these details I think we'd see less of this sort of illegal deck play.
On the whole I'd like to thank our T.O.'s for the great job they do - I enjoyed the tourney. I was initially a little worried about a nymph heavy metagame (which I thought would preclude many newer players from joining), but was pleasantly surprised when deck building with the number of effective non-nymph decks that were available. Well done!
Post by: Onizuka on March 16, 2013, 02:39:16 pm
-Strip reward of blarp, maybe original second place
-Force checking of decks from semifinals+
-Removal of rewards for people who don't notice an illegal deck, maybe a warning that leads to a future week ban if they keep not figuring it out.
Post by: Marsu on March 16, 2013, 02:52:15 pm
I wrote this in the other thread already, it's like taking away the gold medal from Lance Armstrong for doping and then giving him the silver medal.
I still want to use this opportunity to thank Vineroz, he really spent much time trying to find a fair decision, and was even available for pm-discussion to explain his thoughts, something which not a lot "higher-ups" do, but is needed for the sake of this community.
Post by: Dm on March 16, 2013, 03:13:42 pm
A ruling that awards a person who used an illegal deck the entire tourney with the reward for second place is just laughable.
-Strip reward of blarp, maybe original second place
-Force checking of decks from semifinals+
-Removal of rewards for people who don't notice an illegal deck, maybe a warning that leads to a future week ban if they keep not figuring it out.
I agree with everything besides the lower one. Those that don't notice an illegal deck don't have anything to do with it. It's extremely easy to hide your illegal deck.
I do find it odd he still received his award, though.
Post by: Calindu on March 16, 2013, 03:30:11 pm
A ruling that awards a person who used an illegal deck the entire tourney with the reward for second place is just laughable.
-Strip reward of blarp, maybe original second place
-Force checking of decks from semifinals+
-Removal of rewards for people who don't notice an illegal deck, maybe a warning that leads to a future week ban if they keep not figuring it out.
Fully agree with Oni, winning a mark/nymph using only illegal decks is ridiculous, I still don't get how nobody noticed that blarp's deck was illegal.
Post by: DANIEELA on March 16, 2013, 04:22:42 pm
I agree with all.TO should not give reward code earned with illegal decks.Why are rules then?For all or only for honourable players? >:(A ruling that awards a person who used an illegal deck the entire tourney with the reward for second place is just laughable.
-Strip reward of blarp, maybe original second place
-Force checking of decks from semifinals+
-Removal of rewards for people who don't notice an illegal deck, maybe a warning that leads to a future week ban if they keep not figuring it out.
Fully agree with Oni, winning a mark/nymph using only illegal decks is ridiculous, I still don't get how nobody noticed that blarp's deck was illegal.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on March 16, 2013, 04:41:58 pm
A ruling that awards a person who used an illegal deck the entire tourney with the reward for second place is just laughable.
-Strip reward of blarp, maybe original second place
-Force checking of decks from semifinals+
-Removal of rewards for people who don't notice an illegal deck, maybe a warning that leads to a future week ban if they keep not figuring it out.
I agree with Oni, what happened today was ridicoulus. I don't see how it could struck anyones mind that blarp could be not fully disqualified.
I wrote this in the other thread already, it's like taking away the gold medal from Lance Armstrong for doping and then giving him the silver medal.
I still want to use this opportunity to thank Vineroz, he really spent much time trying to find a fair decision, and was even available for pm-discussion to explain his thoughts, something which not a lot "higher-ups" do, but is needed for the sake of this community.
This two posts sum it up very well imo.
Post by: rob77dp on March 16, 2013, 04:43:43 pm
Post by: Zso_Zso on March 18, 2013, 04:39:28 pm
How about a different solution: adding a tool such as the deck image tool and Xeno's simulator to the forum that would check the validity of a given deck code against the current tournament rules ? Of course, the tool would need to be updated weekly for the actual rules/restrictions.
This way it would still be the responsibility of the players to play fair and check their decks, but mistakes could be easily avoided, plus then everyone could ask their opponent prior to battle: "did you verify your deck's validity with the tool?" just to remind them.
Such tool would still allow speed-building and tweaks between matches of a battle you just need to quickly re-submit the deck which would not take more than a few seconds.
We are all human and make mistakes, let the computer verify our decks for validity!
Post by: Marsu on March 18, 2013, 04:45:54 pm
-Does my deck only contain creatures of this certain list?
-Does my deck not contain spells from this other list?
-Dos my deck not contain Pends or QP?
-Does my mark not match any creatures element?
... That takes 40 seconds and requires an IQ of 70.
Post by: Onizuka on March 18, 2013, 05:40:31 pm
It's simply easier to have TOs check high ranking decks (not to mention if they make a mistake, it highlights a bigger flaw overall than a tool's mistake).
Post by: Dm on March 18, 2013, 06:05:40 pm
We have deck codes with banned and allowed cards, it's really, really not that hard to look at it.
I don't know, really; not too long ago, we didn't even have the banned/allowed images, rules were about as restricting as they are now, and the amount of illegal decks were way lower than what we have now.
This tournament's rules were as simple as matching colors. "Red goes with red.. blue goes with blue.."
Used fire (red) in your deck, and it's a creature, no fire mark for you.
How come one can miss that goes beyond me, unless that person just took a glance at the rules and then said "Okay, time to build the deck!"
Post by: Calindu on March 18, 2013, 06:40:31 pm
But I think there should be a new rule: Have a member to check all the decks that won, if a deck is illegal, it's counted as a loss.
Post by: Blacksmith on March 18, 2013, 09:34:21 pm
Post by: RootRanger on March 21, 2013, 01:26:31 am
3.7 - Deck checkBoth players? Why does it matter if your deck is illegal if you lost anyways?
After finishing a match, both players need to send their decks used in that match to a Tournament Organizer via chat PM. Players need to clearly state which deck is used in each game. If a deck is found to be illegal, an auto-loss will be awarded for that game. If a player is found to be using illegal decks on purpose, it will be treated as cheating. Please refer to rule 4.3 for more details.
Only the winner of the match should submit decks. It saves time.
Post by: Absol on March 21, 2013, 01:49:01 am
This is not needed anyway if we can work on honor code.3.7 - Deck checkBoth players? Why does it matter if your deck is illegal if you lost anyways?
After finishing a match, both players need to send their decks used in that match to a Tournament Organizer via chat PM. Players need to clearly state which deck is used in each game. If a deck is found to be illegal, an auto-loss will be awarded for that game. If a player is found to be using illegal decks on purpose, it will be treated as cheating. Please refer to rule 4.3 for more details.
Only the winner of the match should submit decks. It saves time.
Sigh. People these days...
Post by: Dm on March 21, 2013, 02:53:21 am
3.7 - Deck check
After finishing a match, both players need to send their decks used in that match to a Tournament Organizer via chat PM. Players need to clearly state which deck is used in each game. If a deck is found to be illegal, an auto-loss will be awarded for that game. If a player is found to be using illegal decks on purpose, it will be treated as cheating. Please refer to rule 4.3 for more details.
Because you obviously can't change your deck on purpose to make it legal when you're scared that you are going to lose. If you're gonna be suspicious...
In case it is caught by a player that said deck is illegal, he or she can say he or she modified the deck and did not notice that failure.
Yup, I said it. How can you find that "a player is using illegal decks on Purpose"? After all, he or she can easily say it was non-intentional.
Clarification, please?
Post by: RootRanger on March 21, 2013, 02:58:21 am
This is not needed anyway if we can work on honor code.It's not needed at all, whatsoever. That's just a much more difficult argument to make, and I really am not in the mood to do so. Plus, the people who created such rule are the ones losing the most time from it, so no one is suffering unjustly.
Sigh. People these days...
An honor code is, of course, a terrible idea not only because the cheating prevented by 3.7 is accidental, but also because an honor code is unenforceable.
The excessively nebulous statement you conclude with is quite ironic given that you yourself are one of the "people these days," so I suppose I'll at least give you credit for your accidental literary mediocrity. Viable job, I guess.
Because you obviously can't change your deck on purpose to make it legal when you're scared that you are going to lose. If you're gonna be suspicious...
In case it is caught by a player that said deck is illegal, he or she can say he or she modified the deck and did not notice that failure.
Yup, I said it. How can you find that "a player is using illegal decks on Purpose"? After all, he or she can easily say it was non-intentional.
Clarification, please?
Yep. QFT.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on March 21, 2013, 04:03:16 am
For example (and maybe RootRanger remembers this) I once used a deck against him in a tourney that was illegal by mistake; I hadn't read the rules carefully and I used more of a certain card (cockatrice) than I was supposed to have. At the end of the game, he said something to me along the lines of "I don't want to make accusations, but it was surprising the number of early cockatrices that you drew" because I'd played the allowable number in less than the top half of my deck, and I had a bunch more in the deck that I hadn't realized was illegal. I rechecked the rules and realized that not only was he right to be suspicious, but that I had used an illegal deck. (and funnily enough, lost the game anyway :p) Basically, what I'm saying is that accidental cheating will probably be caught, either by the opponent or even admitted by the accidental cheater themselves. (in this example, both) A deliberate cheater in my situation would have said something like 'lol, rng', and submitted a deck to the TO that only had the legal number of cockatrices, and some pillars or something else instead in place of the illegal cards.
Post by: Spielkind on March 21, 2013, 05:41:51 am
blablabla
i guess you guys are missing the point here... this rule is, obvious, a rule stated for situations like last tourney, where blarp goes through the tourney with the same illegal deck and NONE of his opponents saw it... now the TO´s can check decks, loosing and winning, cause so they can give the loosing player some experience in how building decks and how not.
cheating, and changing decks during winning a game illegal, you cant find out, but thats not the point, i think! as long as zanz did not manage to make a tounrey-pvp-server where TOs can make thinks like changing deck-rules, there seems no legit way to do so.
Post by: Jen-i on March 21, 2013, 07:45:26 am
I think of myself as a reasonably good deck builder, but sometimes I make mistakes, I miss a rule or misunderstand one. Often because I'm building on the fly and forget something. It happens and having an additional means of catching the mistake is a good thing. However I've got a few comments about the new rules. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6997.msg1052731.html#msg1052731)
1) The rule does nothing at all to stop people who plan on cheating. It just adds one additional layer of deception needed to do so. Tournaments will remain governed by the honour system in large part because the deck building rules generally cannot be enforced - its a limitation in what the software can do.
2) I as a deck builder can make a mistake when deck building - a Tournament Organizer who has to look over 100+ decks during a typical tourney can also make a mistake. How does it get handled in that case?
3) I don't like it that the optimal play when you know your opponent has played an illegal deck not to tell them and hope they play it a second time - at which point the'll receive an auto-loss from the T.O. deck filter. (And what happens if the T.O. makes a mistake at this point missing their illegal deck)
I like the additional layer to make sure that an accidentally illegal deck doesn't win a match - but I'm worried that the T.O.'s will get overloaded by a flood of decks and either miss things or slow down tourney play (I'm assuming you can't begin your next match-up until after a T.O. gives both players the go ahead to do so)
Post by: blarp on March 21, 2013, 08:17:54 am
+What I posted in rules thread, the TO's can't show the deck code sent to them to the opponent while the tournament is going on without messing everything up. So doesn't really help. I don't think you should ever lose 2 games of a match because you used an illegal deck unintentionally. Hard to make that work though.
Post by: Dm on March 21, 2013, 09:22:42 am
Let us assume that the Tournament Organizer himself is participating in the tournament. I am not saying that the Tournament Organizer is cheating or anything, but, a completely different thing.
TO is in the quarter finals (Not that hard to do with the low amount of people in tournaments these days.).
TO won his match, checked his (?) and his opponent deck.
The player B in the same blockside of his brackets won his tournament.
Player B will fight TO in Semi-finals.
Is it fair to make Player B send his decks to TO before they fight?
If Player B used an illegal deck against player C ( The one that lost before TO and player B fought), that is, again, unfair.
If player B sends his deck to the TO before they fight, it is common sense to assume the TO is going to tweak his deck so that he does not lose. Not changing your deck and going with the losing one would be an impractical option in this case; therefore giving TO's an unfair advantage.
This means that, as to avoid even further disruption by these rules, the TO must not participate in the tournament.
This rule is really not needed and has several exploiting points. It seems, I.M.O, to be a poorly handled rule when in practical action and easily avoidable either way. There is no way to know if someone is unintentional or not. I would also like to add that, if a player used an illegal deck the whole tournament ( blarp... ) to a point that he won, it is obvious that it is a disruption of the tournament as several people will be angry they lost to an illegal deck and don't have a way back. I'm still surprised blarp received his 2nd place code and, worse, didn't even get a ban from the next week tournament from "cheating" (unintentionally) and disruption... which are also stated in the rules -- Much more clearly than our current 3.7 rule.
Post by: blarp on March 21, 2013, 10:14:04 am
This is the problem I have with majofa receiving all of the WC decks that people used.
Post by: Onizuka on March 21, 2013, 11:22:11 am
And it is a completely different situation over WC (with the TO playing in the same pool as the people they are collecting decks from).
And an illegal deck should be 100% a lost match. It is a waste of time for the other player and the organizer, not to mention an insult to the rules, organizers, and other players that you couldn't be bothered to make sure your deck was legal.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on March 21, 2013, 01:14:45 pm
i guess you guys are missing the point here... this rule is, obvious, a rule stated for situations like last tourney, where blarp goes through the tourney with the same illegal deck and NONE of his opponents saw it...
This is true, and while I can't possibly justify using an illegal deck for the entire tourney, it is very hard for me to feel sorry for blarp's opponents, who should have immediately noticed the deck was illegal as soon as he played the first recluse with an aether mark. He could not have won any games with that deck without revealing its illegality.
I'm also worried about the length of time it might take for TOs to do all this, especially in the early rounds. TOs often aren't playing in the tourney anyway, so I'm not worried about that part, but they might get bogged down by all the deckchecking.
Post by: Vineroz on March 21, 2013, 02:42:01 pm
TOs are always responsible to discover illegal decks, however there was only a vague guideline on this. This new rule will help TOs to find out unintentional illegal decks in a more systematic way.
For the comments on intentional cheating, yes this rule cannot tackle this problem very well, but it has been like that anyway. The only way to find out about this is unfortunately upon the players. However this was not a major problem that we are facing recently.
I believe the deck check process will not take too much time, unless there are like ~10 games finishing at the same time, then some people might have to wait a bit.
Jen-i's 3rd point is interesting. Again under honor system, if you found out your opponent is using an illegal deck for the first game, please play fair and inform your opponent.
Under the new rules, a TO who is hosting the tournament will not be able to participate in it.
At last I would like to point out one thing: It is a player's responsibility to make legal decks. If a player is found using illegal deck, they must bear the consequences. Therefore I advice players who speedbuild at 3AM to remember this point.
Post by: Dm on March 21, 2013, 06:14:44 pm
Seeing the last tournament, I'd say them consequences are pretty light...
Just saying.
Anyway, it is sad indeed a TO can no longer participate in the tournaments that he hosts. Sad indeed.
But that isn't an explicit rule. A TO can still join if he wants to in a tournament. Just would make a few players suspicious...
Oh well.
Post by: Vineroz on March 21, 2013, 07:47:54 pm
"If a player is found using illegal deck, they must bear the consequences."
Seeing the last tournament, I'd say them consequences are pretty light...
Just saying.
Anyway, it is sad indeed a TO can no longer participate in the tournaments that he hosts. Sad indeed.
But that isn't an explicit rule. A TO can still join if he wants to in a tournament. Just would make a few players suspicious...
Oh well.
We look into the future by learning from the past.
And I think if a TO think he can "still join a tournament if he wants" then obviously the Council had made a wrong decision.
Post by: Dm on March 21, 2013, 08:01:55 pm
As for "We learn from the past.." there's no past here, really. There is a rule that clearly says "Disruption" or "cheating" equals an "indefinite ban" or, in another Rule, "will be banned from the next week's tournament."
One thing is learning from the past to avoid the repeated in the future, such as the new rule. But that, that was ignoring the stated rule as a whole.
Post by: RootRanger on March 22, 2013, 01:54:51 am
Post by: bombzero on March 23, 2013, 07:20:40 am
Post by: Calindu on March 23, 2013, 10:26:14 am
The prizes should be greater
The prizes are high enough already, at least for finalists since you get a nymph(not grindable) or a mark(rarest card).
Post by: Blacksmith on March 23, 2013, 12:28:34 pm
I still think that the gap between second and third place is to big, but I have already mentioned that. And to change the prizes I think we have to contact Zanzarino not sure though.The prizes should be greater
The prizes are high enough already, at least for finalists since you get a nymph(not grindable) or a mark(rarest card).
Post by: Marsu on March 23, 2013, 12:35:29 pm
I agree, but the total prizes are enough already. Don't know how that could be changed...
Post by: Dm on March 23, 2013, 12:48:01 pm
But let us not forget that until recently we only had 1st, 2nd, and 3rd prize, with 1st being 5k and the only one with a nymph, so I guess it's quite better than what we had last. I'm satisfied with it.
Post by: blarp on March 23, 2013, 08:27:26 pm
also bombzero is just spamming don't respond to him.
Also, with the new rules about submitting your deck after every match, what happens if a player loses that deck code? Is there an established penalty in place? What happens if that rule isn't followed and the two continue to play regardless?
That problem that occur with me wasn't the lack of rules, it was the lack of precedent on what to do.
Post by: Blacksmith on March 25, 2013, 08:00:46 am
Personally, I think it is only deserving for 1st and 2nd to receive the mark/nymphs. If anything, to raise the prizes, a shard code for 3rd and 4th, 5th, 6th receiving the usual electrum reward.Lets not forget that that was at the same time we had 2 tourneys a week. + if you come 3 there is 50% chance you have meet and won to the same players in the semis, final and bronze match, still 1 gets nymph/mark and electrum the other gain less electrum and no nymph/mark.
But let us not forget that until recently we only had 1st, 2nd, and 3rd prize, with 1st being 5k and the only one with a nymph, so I guess it's quite better than what we had last. I'm satisfied with it.
Post by: Onizuka on April 04, 2013, 06:42:03 am
Post by: rob77dp on April 05, 2013, 06:47:42 pm
I don't agree with removing the thread for the tourney in the past, as all that happens is now the people who looked before have the knowledge and everyone else doesn't.
I'll second Onizuka's comment - why remove past tourney threads? Is it trying to keep players from being able to rewind back and use prior rulings as precedent to compare with new/current rulings? If so, shame shame shame. If not, then what is the reason?
Post by: Cheesy111 on April 05, 2013, 06:56:10 pm
I don't agree with removing the thread for the tourney in the past, as all that happens is now the people who looked before have the knowledge and everyone else doesn't.
I'll second Onizuka's comment - why remove past tourney threads? Is it trying to keep players from being able to rewind back and use prior rulings as precedent to compare with new/current rulings? If so, shame shame shame. If not, then what is the reason?
The reason would be to prevent people from copying the same decks that won the last time the tournament occurred, I would assume.
Post by: rob77dp on April 05, 2013, 07:06:23 pm
I don't agree with removing the thread for the tourney in the past, as all that happens is now the people who looked before have the knowledge and everyone else doesn't.
I'll second Onizuka's comment - why remove past tourney threads? Is it trying to keep players from being able to rewind back and use prior rulings as precedent to compare with new/current rulings? If so, shame shame shame. If not, then what is the reason?
The reason would be to prevent people from copying the same decks that won the last time the tournament occurred, I would assume.
A valid reason, however it appears that only specific tourneys have had that done, and I am not seeing where that same tourney is schedule to be re-done again... Are we sure it wasn't because that thread had a tourney ruling in it?
Post by: mega plini on April 23, 2013, 08:53:00 am
Post by: Higurashi on April 24, 2013, 06:23:54 pm
Post by: mega plini on April 24, 2013, 07:58:03 pm
The problem is that War is very long and tournaments aren't. We'd need many, many tourneys to match up to that and see all the nuances. Still, a possibility.What is the alternative? not testing them and forever ban them? Even if it it takes a lot of tournies, it is still worth it right?
Post by: ddevans96 on April 24, 2013, 08:00:23 pm
Post by: mega plini on April 24, 2013, 08:08:35 pm
The alternative is tournaments like the one we have this week, where a specific shard is featured.
I think it is certainly a step in the right direction. But it is difficult to check if they are balanced when you never combine two or more shards in the same deck.
Post by: Jen-i on April 27, 2013, 02:27:26 pm
This last week the I played a deck with upped SoG's the tourney rule was:
Upgraded cards and shards are not allowed (except SoG).
This rule is unclear - now it it important to note the T.O.'s did a great job answering the question later in the thread about exactly this issue, and if I had been deckbuilding more than 5 minutes before the tourney started I would have had time to read the thread.
However I don't find in unreasonable to assume that the rules would be included in the 1st two posts of each tourney thread, that it should not be necessary to read the entire thread to find the rules.
It's not a significant change - just something small that would prevent similar problems in the future.
Post by: Vineroz on April 27, 2013, 02:32:38 pm
It would be appreciated if the rules were all included in the OP of the tourney thread.
This last week the I played a deck with upped SoG's the tourney rule was:
Upgraded cards and shards are not allowed (except SoG).
This rule is unclear - now it it important to note the T.O.'s did a great job answering the question later in the thread about exactly this issue, and if I had been deckbuilding more than 5 minutes before the tourney started I would have had time to read the thread.
However I don't find in unreasonable to assume that the rules would be included in the 1st two posts of each tourney thread, that it should not be necessary to read the entire thread to find the rules.
It's not a significant change - just something small that would prevent similar problems in the future.
I did made a few critical mistakes in this tournament. Please accept my sincere apologies, and I will try my best to ensure they won't happen again.
Post by: Jen-i on April 27, 2013, 04:08:39 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on May 05, 2013, 02:03:22 am
Post by: Vangelios on June 22, 2013, 01:32:57 am
Post by: Vineroz on June 22, 2013, 02:22:22 am
I think you guys forgot the trophy icon of someone.... ::) ::) ::)
Sorry! There you go.
Post by: Embrada on June 22, 2013, 06:56:55 am
Post by: Vangelios on June 22, 2013, 01:08:49 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on June 22, 2013, 08:12:57 pm
If this idea is done again, something should be tweaked in the rules so that a mix of creatures, spells, and permanents are available. Those few that were available this time were almost all unusable competitively in the meta, aside from water.
Post by: Blacksmith on June 22, 2013, 09:15:38 pm
The idea of voting is great, but only 4 cards per element was very limited, RGN just was king, and coin has never been so valuableI agree the idea was good. Maybe if we wore able to see what others have voted for it would have been better. I know that many people would change their votes when they see how it evolves but I think that would be better.
Post by: Vineroz on June 23, 2013, 03:24:06 am
If this idea is done again, something should be tweaked in the rules so that a mix of creatures, spells, and permanents are available.
Do NOT forget it was you guys who decided the meta, not me. :)
Those few that were available this time were almost all unusable competitively in the meta, aside from water.
I think everyone should learn a lesson by now. Clearly Ice Bolt and Dry Spell are two cards that are most underestimated in the entire game.
Post by: Theboss1248 on June 23, 2013, 03:27:38 am
Post by: dragonsdemesne on June 23, 2013, 05:47:44 am
If this idea is done again, something should be tweaked in the rules so that a mix of creatures, spells, and permanents are available.
Do NOT forget it was you guys who decided the meta, not me. :)
I fully realize that :p But what I'm saying is that perhaps instead of the bottom 4 voted cards in every element regardless of type, it should have been something like the lowest voted spell, the lowest voted permanent, and the two lowest voted creatures, in order to get a more well-rounded set of cards. That way, if all the creatures get, say, 1 to 3 votes, and all the spells get 4-6 votes and all the permanents get 7-9 votes, the list will have two 1-vote creatures, one 4-vote spell, and one 7-vote permanent, instead of the 4 weakest creatures. (If that didn't make sense, I'll do a concrete example from the actual vote table you compiled)
Post by: Vineroz on June 23, 2013, 06:40:19 am
But what I'm saying is that perhaps instead of the bottom 4 voted cards in every element regardless of type, it should have been something like the lowest voted spell, the lowest voted permanent, and the two lowest voted creatures, in order to get a more well-rounded set of cards. That way, if all the creatures get, say, 1 to 3 votes, and all the spells get 4-6 votes and all the permanents get 7-9 votes, the list will have two 1-vote creatures, one 4-vote spell, and one 7-vote permanent, instead of the 4 weakest creatures. (If that didn't make sense, I'll do a concrete example from the actual vote table you compiled)
36 polls in a single thread? I am just a poor TO... :)
But as I said before, this "voting" type of tournament is definitely a good type of tournaments. It is probable that we will host another one given with other interesting limitations.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on June 23, 2013, 07:26:59 am
I'll use fire as an example, since the voting gave fire 4 creatures and nothing else. In the system we used, we ended up with ash eater (7 votes) and crimson dragon, seraph, and fire spirit (8 votes each) In my system, the voting would take place exactly as it did, with 12 polls, 1 per element, but the -winners- of the poll would have been Fahrenheit (lowest voted permanent at 14 votes), Rage Potion (lowest voted spell at 17 votes), Ash Eater (7 votes) and then whichever of the three 8 vote creatures the TO picked, as per the tiebreaker rules.
Post by: Jen-i on July 06, 2013, 12:45:07 pm
If I can make one suggestion - can week make it 4 weeks at a time instead of 1 month. The difference would be that in week 4 of a July, you'll have 1 week of July and 3 weeks of August displayed, so the calendar is always of value, not just at the start of a month.
Again thanks for the idea, its great!
Post by: dragonsdemesne on July 06, 2013, 04:00:40 pm
Post by: Vineroz on July 09, 2013, 01:14:31 pm
Love the monthly schedule idea guys!It will now show the schedule of current month and the month after.
If I can make one suggestion - can week make it 4 weeks at a time instead of 1 month. The difference would be that in week 4 of a July, you'll have 1 week of July and 3 weeks of August displayed, so the calendar is always of value, not just at the start of a month.
Again thanks for the idea, its great!
Post by: Vangelios on July 19, 2013, 11:31:57 am
Post by: Marsu on July 19, 2013, 05:05:32 pm
Post by: rob77dp on July 26, 2013, 02:39:10 pm
I see no need to post any supporting evidence here as it is glaringly obvious in this week's tournament topic and basically apparent after brief review of many past tournaments. It only takes that one person making deck or meta comments.
If it isn't even being considered or simply won't be considered, would the TO's please provide a thorough and succinct explanation as to why? Please and thank you.
Sincerely,
rob77dp
Post by: Higurashi on July 26, 2013, 03:37:10 pm
Community feedback often proves vital to improving the rules and is necessary to build hype.
Post by: rob77dp on July 26, 2013, 03:49:07 pm
Deck/meta comments are rare nowadays compared to before and not that disastrous when dealt with swiftly.
Community feedback often proves vital to improving the rules and is necessary to build hype.
I fully support community feedback. Any player with a forum account (required with minimum 10 quality posts etc etc for entry to tournament anyways) is able to send PM's to TO's of anything they consider as "OMG this one card should be banned it is OP!" or "Is <cardnamehere> allowed?" (my answer: read the rules). It would also cut down on frequency of having to check the newest posts and finding an "I'm in" or "I cannot make it at that time" post, which doesn't add to the purpose of the topic anyways.
When one of these type of PM's to TO's is relevant and determined to have value for all players to see, TO's can post (with topic still locked of course) the PM question(s) (with or without user that sent...) and the response with accompanying rule revisions (as necessary). I just do not see your supporting statement (it is one I have certainly encountered before when making this lock-topic suggestion in the past) as being strong enough to continue to prevent this change.
--Rob
P.S. - No, I do not think I could squeeze in more abuses of parenthetical asides in that post. Yes, I am a STRONG and avid supporter of my suggestion and until recently only passively suggested and supported this change.
Post by: Submachine on July 26, 2013, 07:25:03 pm
You quoted 2 of my posts from the said topic, so I clearly get it that you find them annoying. After you said that I shouldn't post questions about cards being OP IMO, I realized my stupidity and took your advice, being ready NOT to do that again, ever (I even deleted the post afterwards). Now you didn't say it, but I read that you also have problems with posting availability of players. Your points do make sense (however the second one was always a usual thing, so it's easier to get used to it), but I can only say what you said. We are all sensible human beings, so do I (even if I'm not a smart forum-user yet), so you should have just sent me a PM about it, and I would have done the necessary measures. I deleted my annoying comments anyways, I'm just saying that people understand each other, or if not everyone, I do.
So next time if you have something to say targetedly, I have open ears for you (eyes, if we count that we read with those).
I fully support community feedback. Any player with a forum account (required with minimum 10 quality posts etc etc for entry to tournament anyways) is able to send PM's to TO's of anything they consider as "OMG this one card should be banned it is OP!" or "Is <cardnamehere> allowed?" (my answer: read the rules). It would also cut down on frequency of having to check the newest posts and finding an "I'm in" or "I cannot make it at that time" post, which doesn't add to the purpose of the topic anyways.
When one of these type of PM's to TO's is relevant and determined to have value for all players to see, TO's can post (with topic still locked of course) the PM question(s) (with or without user that sent...) and the response with accompanying rule revisions (as necessary). I just do not see your supporting statement (it is one I have certainly encountered before when making this lock-topic suggestion in the past) as being strong enough to continue to prevent this change.
--Rob
P.S. - No, I do not think I could squeeze in more abuses of parenthetical asides in that post. Yes, I am a STRONG and avid supporter of my suggestion and until recently only passively suggested and supported this change.
Post by: rob77dp on July 26, 2013, 08:04:12 pm
I apologize if you felt singled out as it was not my intention to berate you or come down on you. You were simply my perceived "offender" (term used loosely here) my statement pertained to at the time. Side note: it is great seeing your activity in the CIA section - keep it up!
I suppose I will go away quietly (from the tournament scene) if I am told convincingly and by those with that access/command that tournaments are NOT meant to be one-on-one short (ish) competitions of the mind within the confines of rules.
(Also, I am continually amazed by how opposed people are to this idea. Totally amazed.)
Post by: Jen-i on July 26, 2013, 10:39:42 pm
If we really don't want to lock the threads we need some means of either ending the pre-tournament meta-game discussion, or we need to get rid of the rule. One option might be that anyone discussing the meta-game in a tourney thread before a tournament will be asked to leave the next tournament for which they show up in chat. Probably a little harsh, but it will enforce the desired outcome. My preference (because punitive systems are by nature demotivating) would be to go with Rob suggestion and lock the tourney thread.
Post by: Shantu on July 26, 2013, 11:28:09 pm
The main problem with locking is that it prevents discussion, which, as far as I know, the main reason forums exist. Discussion gives feedback and shows there is life and interest in tourneys and might compel more people to join. The tourney topic popping up in unread posts also helps remind people that there is a tourney coming. Personally if I didn't have such a reminder I would forget about them most of the time.
I suppose I will go away quietly (from the tournament scene) if I am told convincingly and by those with that access/command that tournaments are NOT meant to be one-on-one short (ish) competitions of the mind within the confines of rules.
Please don't do that. Take it easy.
Post by: Higurashi on July 27, 2013, 05:13:43 am
No. Forum discussion happens in the open, where feedback begets feedback. People are not robots; they forget and miss out on points that other people can see plainly because they're replying with a more overarching point of view, and thoughts breed thoughts. Same reason I need newbies to ask for deck advice in public instead of PM'ing Staff (me).Deck/meta comments are rare nowadays compared to before and not that disastrous when dealt with swiftly.
Community feedback often proves vital to improving the rules and is necessary to build hype.
I fully support community feedback. Any player with a forum account (required with minimum 10 quality posts etc etc for entry to tournament anyways) is able to send PM's to TO's of anything they consider as "OMG this one card should be banned it is OP!" or "Is <cardnamehere> allowed?" (my answer: read the rules). It would also cut down on frequency of having to check the newest posts and finding an "I'm in" or "I cannot make it at that time" post, which doesn't add to the purpose of the topic anyways.
When one of these type of PM's to TO's is relevant and determined to have value for all players to see, TO's can post (with topic still locked of course) the PM question(s) (with or without user that sent...) and the response with accompanying rule revisions (as necessary). I just do not see your supporting statement (it is one I have certainly encountered before when making this lock-topic suggestion in the past) as being strong enough to continue to prevent this change.
--Rob
P.S. - No, I do not think I could squeeze in more abuses of parenthetical asides in that post. Yes, I am a STRONG and avid supporter of my suggestion and until recently only passively suggested and supported this change.
People talking about the time isn't off topic, and contributes to showing us how the rotating schedule is working. Yes, they're a little low-content at times, but a forum is for posting. I'd rather see people encouraged to do that than see activity die out.
If you do some research you'll find that many times (but still a small minority) the winner of a tourney, if new to the game or just a team player, has gotten help from friends. We're a community and can only keep collaboration away during the tourney, really.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on August 03, 2013, 05:00:53 am
Also, the idea for the halfblood prince looks very interesting, and I'd definitely be there if RL circumstances permitted... but they don't :p At first glance, it looks like it would create a very diverse metagame, and I'm hoping that this will be the case. (and maybe the idea will get reused in a week I can participate!)
Post by: dawn to dusk on August 03, 2013, 05:27:09 am
Post by: ddevans96 on August 03, 2013, 05:35:30 am
i asked ddevans in chat but he didnt know so i might as well post it here. when 1.4 goes live, will we be able to get the mark of chroma (or whatever its called) from winning tournaments and various other PvP events?
No one knows yet because Zanz hasn't said anything about it. Nothing else to add here.
Post by: serprex on August 03, 2013, 11:29:49 pm
What APIs are used by current tools? The tools seem to use PHP, I personally feel there's no need for the computation to be serverside. Would a scripting language designed specifically for ease of use in specifying tournament rules be welcomed?
What I'm saying is that having rules formalized would help clarify rules, and being able to deck check on our own would be helpful. The main caveat is that implementing this on my own would be flawed any time I misinterpret the rules, as then the verifier would misinterpret
In the end it doesn't make errors impossible, but it makes misunderstandings impossible, as everyone essentially agrees on the implementation of the rules. Setting a date (Like Thursday) to freeze rules (Leaving any edge cases defined as is, even if arguable) would make it so that players would have a point in time where they'd be secure in knowing that if they're deck verifies after the ruleset freeze, it'll pass deck check
Post by: Submachine on August 10, 2013, 09:19:16 pm
I encountered the following problems.
1. State The Rules Correctly
This was the second tournament where the rules were not clear enough (Revenge of Half-Blood Prince and RPG Triangle), because a word in the rule list was used incorrectly. I took into consideration that I might be wrong about that word, because I'm not native english, but I looked up the words and turned out that I was right.
Contain - if a deck must contain XYZ cards, it means that the deck can have any amount of any cards, including the stated XYZ specified cards.
http://www.audioenglish.org/dictionary/contain.htm
In a "reveal-rules-15-mins-before-start" tournament it is imperative for the wording to be correct and be Easily understandable for the first time the player reads it, otherwise they won't be able to take enough time into the speedbuilding part. This time a table was submitted with the numbers of usable creatures, permanents, spells and pillars listed in it. There were 2 problems with that:
- The table stated that we can have 12-14 pillars, but only 4 permanents, disregarding the fact that pillars are also permanents.
- The table only stated that we can use 4 creatures. Since it was speedbuilding, I only looked at the numbers separately, thinking that i can use maximum 4 and not exactly 4 of them. There were at least 2 other people who had this same problem as me with this rule, and the TO only posted clarification when the tournament has already started.
Suggestion: Use the words correctly, especially "contain", and use the words "minimum, maximum, exactly, must, can", etc literally everywhere where they clarify unclear informations.
2. Have a Plan-B for unexpected events
Fortunately, this problem was solved immediately. The special rule said:
- Every player needs to declare a class for themselves 15 minutes before the tournament starts.
Suggestion: for future reference, in speedbuilding tourneys clarify what can be done or what happens if someone is late from the pre-beginning but is there in time.
Post by: serprex on August 10, 2013, 10:01:05 pm
... There were at least 2 other people who had this same problem as me with this rule ...I lost both my games, so it doesn't matter, but the second game I played a creatureless deck
Post by: dragonsdemesne on August 10, 2013, 10:20:05 pm
Post by: Jenkar on August 14, 2013, 11:28:37 am
Post by: kisking11 on August 16, 2013, 05:47:11 pm
Thanks for your answer: Kisking
:underworld :underworld
Post by: Jenkar on August 16, 2013, 05:50:32 pm
I don't know if it's possible, but could you make some of the tournaments other time? Because every of the tourneys are at dawn for me, and my work doesn't let me to apply to them. I really wanna be part of at least one, but it's impossible for me in these times. :( Could you make some of the touneys 2-3 hours later?Tournaments are regularly rotated, if i recall correctly.
Thanks for your answer: Kisking
:underworld :underworld
Post by: CuCN on August 16, 2013, 06:54:33 pm
Last week's tournament: 18:00 GMT
Next week's tournament: 11:00 GMT
If all these are at dawn for you, you have bigger problems than being able to attend the tournaments.
Post by: w4sh1ng7on on August 16, 2013, 08:06:36 pm
This week's tournament: 03:00 GMT
Last week's tournament: 18:00 GMT
Next week's tournament: 11:00 GMT
If all these are at dawn for you, you have bigger problems than being able to attend the tournaments.
You live in Alaska?? hauahaha of 3GMT up as18GMT is 15 hours difference. How can dawn on where you live last so long?
Post by: Fippe94 on August 16, 2013, 08:32:52 pm
Post by: kisking11 on August 17, 2013, 09:09:15 am
Next time I will think before I post, you are right. I didn't see they are other times, just saw this and I thought every tourneys at the same time. Thanks :D :darkness :darkness
Post by: RootRanger on August 17, 2013, 09:31:17 am
The Problem: It's really unfortunate for a tournament to be cancelled. People who wanted to participate, who perhaps event spent hours preparing decks, are not given the chance to play because there aren't quite enough people who show up. A dozen people, or even more, are denied the enjoyment of playing in a tournament, even after the time they have put into deckbuilding. Cancelled tournaments are a problem because people lose out on an experience they would have found entertaining.
The Solution: I understand that we can't simply have a tournament with <16 players and still give out the normal prizes. It would devalue the prizes to give a forum icon to someone who won only three matches, or a mark to someone who won only two, because those players received byes in the first round of a tournament involving fewer than 16 players. But is there a way to allow a tournament to continue without devaluing the prizes we hand out? I say there is. We make the prizes smaller, so that it is no more difficult to win a prize in a >16 player tournament than in a regular tournament.
The Implementation: If a tournament has between 8 and 15 players, we instead reward Half-Prizes. 1st Place in a Half-Prize tournament receives 5k electrum and a Nymph/Mark. This is the same prize given to a 2nd place player in a regular tournament. 2nd Place in a Half-Prize tournament receives 3k electrum, the prize given to a 4th place player in a regular tournament. 3rd Place receives 1k electrum, the prize given to a 6th place player in a regular tournament.
The Results: In a tournament with 16 players or more, a player must win a minimum of 3 matches to receive 5k electrum and a Nymph/Mark, and a minimum 2 matches to receive 3k electrum. In a Half-Prize tournament, these rewards are the same. Half-Prizes allows tournaments to continue without rewarding prizes unfairly.
The new prizes would look like this.
| 16 Players or More | 8 to 15 Players | |
| 1st | 7,000 electrum + Nymph/Mark + Trophy (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/awards/132fc6a94e70f8e2029c8b03196580b4_tournament-winner.png) | 5,000 electrum + Nymph/Mark |
| 2nd | 5,000 electrum + Nymph/Mark | 3,000 electrum |
| 3rd | 4,000 electrum | 1,000 electrum |
| 4th | 3,000 electrum | |
| 5th | 2,000 electrum | |
| 6th | 1,000 electrum |
Post by: DANIEELA on August 17, 2013, 10:21:48 am
And some of my ideas....
Postponded Tournament should not ever be at the same time.
If there is lack of participants,and it causes postponding,there is high probability that it will happened again (at the same time).
My idea is also to skip starting time of tournament,if it is postponded allready at this time.
E.g. if last one was at 03.00 gmt,it should NEVER more be at the same time,and we should erase 03.00 gmt as starting time for future tournaments.
So,when rotatoin comes to 03.00 gmt,starting time should be changed to one step ahead-11.00 gmt (if that time was not erased before).
Reasons for that...
Most players are from America and Europe.
So,we can expect that most participants will join at the time that responds to players from those 2 continents.
Must not be true,but i would try...
Not saying that Asia and Australia dont play this game,but there are fewer players,especialy on tournaments.
Post by: dawn to dusk on August 17, 2013, 11:13:25 am
Post by: w4sh1ng7on on September 19, 2013, 01:05:53 pm
Post by: Jen-i on September 19, 2013, 09:34:28 pm
Post by: ddevans96 on September 19, 2013, 09:44:26 pm
Post by: Jen-i on September 19, 2013, 09:52:05 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on September 19, 2013, 11:38:22 pm
Post by: zer0 tolerance on September 20, 2013, 01:33:05 am
Post by: dawn to dusk on September 20, 2013, 09:01:18 am
Post by: Scaramanga on September 20, 2013, 09:09:57 am
Unupgraded tournament, no shards
Only creature allowed: Fate Egg
Ban: All CC (exept pandemonium), dmg dealing spells (such as Fire bolt, Nightmare etc) and all weaponds.
Post by: Submachine on September 27, 2013, 04:26:15 pm
Tournament Organizers review the ideas in the "Your ideas!" section once a week and comment on ideas whether they should make good or bad tournaments or how balanced they are. If TOs have authority to overwrite comments, they should comment "good enough", "plausible idea" or "not accepted" under the ideas (and even put not accepted or already done ideas in spoilers). This way it should be reviewed easier.
I suggest this because it is good to know whether our ideas are OK or just take the place from other good ideas.
Post by: Vineroz on September 29, 2013, 08:38:51 am
Suggestion:
Tournament Organizers review the ideas in the "Your ideas!" section once a week and comment on ideas whether they should make good or bad tournaments or how balanced they are. If TOs have authority to overwrite comments, they should comment "good enough", "plausible idea" or "not accepted" under the ideas (and even put not accepted or already done ideas in spoilers). This way it should be reviewed easier.
I suggest this because it is good to know whether our ideas are OK or just take the place from other good ideas.
Besides the fact that this is a massive work going through hundreds of posts, the review itself is hard to construct. There are no unified guideline to define an idea as "accepted" or "possible with tweaks". Many ideas we had were inspired by some possibly very bad ideas. Sometimes we just look at an idea and come up with something mostly different.
That being said, it could be doable if any one of us has some extra free time.
Post by: Submachine on October 09, 2013, 10:50:29 am
Post by: Calindu on October 09, 2013, 11:02:12 am
Will all tournaments be posted on wednesday nights or after? :/
I have already spoken with you about this, but let's do it again?
I and dd both live in opposite timezones, it's hard to find eachother in chat and setting up a tournament often needs 1 hour or more for balance issues, wordings, etc., which have to be all discussed.
Also we have our own lifes, you can't expect us to simply post the tournaments 1 hour after the one before has finished.
Please consider that if we post the tournaments on wednesday night, you have more than 2 days to prepare. That's not enough? Considering that a tournament takes 2 hours to 3 most of the time, I think that's more than enough.
Post by: Submachine on October 09, 2013, 11:13:38 am
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on November 09, 2013, 07:58:25 am
Post by: Spielkind on November 09, 2013, 08:14:40 am
I'd appreciate if tournaments were posted at least 24 hours in advance, I know TOs have other things to do, but in a 7 day span surely 6 days should suffice? :< This week's tournament both was posted and started during a single sleeping period for me <_<
the same here, tourney-topic posted on 8.11 10.40PM and started 7AM... if you would at least let the monthly schedule up to date, then me would have known there will be a tourney, cause i thought there will be no one this week (what will be ok, when TO´s are busy cause they have life too)... sad fact is its during my available time...
Post by: Calindu on November 09, 2013, 08:29:00 am
I'd appreciate if tournaments were posted at least 24 hours in advance, I know TOs have other things to do, but in a 7 day span surely 6 days should suffice? :< This week's tournament both was posted and started during a single sleeping period for me <_<
Not our time is the biggest problem(we have time problems too), but the timezones of our 2 active TOs(I am in European timezone, dd in American timezone), making meetings and speaking about tourneys hard if one of us can't get up early or stay up late, it's pretty easy to get the time when you simply have to add 8 or 9 hours to the last time the tourney was.
Post by: Submachine on November 09, 2013, 03:03:13 pm
Not our time is the biggest problem(we have time problems too), but the timezones of our 2 active TOs(I am in European timezone, dd in American timezone), making meetings and speaking about tourneys hard if one of us can't get up early or stay up late, it's pretty easy to get the time when you simply have to add 8 or 9 hours to the last time the tourney was.I think TOs should trust each other enough to let a single TO post a tourney. If ddevans, Vineroz, n00b and Higurashi wouldn't trust you then they wouldn't have hired you and this is true for all the TOs vica versa. You guys are all veterans, you know what are you doing and are trustworthy enough to let a single any of you do his/her job without being asked. My suggestion is the following system that I want TOs to review:
1. TOs schedule a day of the week when the next tourneys will be posted. This should be always the day when tourneys are posted.
2. Any of the TOs who is active that day posts the tournament rules after balancing them.
3. Later on as TOs get online, they can modify and review the posted tourney rules, adding further balance. (All TOs have the rights to Edit tourneys)
4. 2 or more TOs saying that the uploaded tourney is bad and can't be balanced is very much unlikely when we take into account that all of you have a lot of experiences.
Edit: Please don't take this message as rude, I trust all of you guys and I just want to make a point, so please, really please: answer me how you think I am wrong here.
Post by: Fippe94 on December 28, 2013, 09:06:47 pm
Fippe94: This reminds me of a suggestion I thought of: If there are less than 16 players, run the tourney anyway, but with half rewards (only rewards to 1,2,3 and those rewards should be the current 2,4,6 rewards)
Rewards could of course be the current 1,3,5 prizes too or something else, but less participants = less rewards, since I guess that having 6 prizes is one of the resons we have the >= 16 players rule. (Don't want it to get too easy to get a prize)
So my suggestion is to do this when we have 8-16 players, so that the players who actually show up still have a chance to play, and we have had several tourneys been canceled because of too few participants.
Post by: ddevans96 on December 28, 2013, 09:12:20 pm
From chat before the last toruney, posting it here so more can see it:
Fippe94: This reminds me of a suggestion I thought of: If there are less than 16 players, run the tourney anyway, but with half rewards (only rewards to 1,2,3 and those rewards should be the current 2,4,6 rewards)
Rewards could of course be the current 1,3,5 prizes too or something else, but less participants = less rewards, since I guess that having 6 prizes is one of the resons we have the >= 16 players rule. (Don't want it to get too easy to get a prize)
So my suggestion is to do this when we have 8-16 players, so that the players who actually show up still have a chance to play, and we have had several tourneys been canceled because of too few participants.
We are currently discussing something like this.
Post by: Vangelios on December 28, 2013, 09:13:20 pm
Post by: Submachine on January 02, 2014, 12:07:22 am
Post by: ddevans96 on January 02, 2014, 06:42:27 am
Post by: dragonsdemesne on January 04, 2014, 11:40:51 pm
I just want to say that in over 2 years of playing in tourneys, today's ruleset was the most complicated of them all, and there were a ton of illegal decks, because everyone kept forgetting one of the 9001 rules in the quest to find a deck that was even remotely competitive. The rules themselves weren't bad, it's just that there were too many of them all at once to keep track of. I think at least 4-5 people had illegal decks, including myself, and I can only remember one time ever where I had an illegal deck in all the tourneys I've played, as I'm normally quite careful.
Post by: Vangelios on January 05, 2014, 12:05:44 am
.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on January 05, 2014, 12:35:49 am
Post by: RootRanger on January 05, 2014, 12:41:30 am
Post by: Vangelios on January 05, 2014, 12:57:06 am
Post by: the dictator on January 05, 2014, 06:48:14 am
Post by: dragonsdemesne on January 05, 2014, 06:50:04 am
Post by: DANIEELA on February 20, 2014, 05:15:51 pm
Sorry for the delay, I've sorted all the codes and everything (because I'm a great guy), so there hopefully wouldn't be any more major delays like this
(first code is mark)
x9b6m1fbhgw07i 6o1zos0p86w
I have been informed (and then later confirmed it myself) that all of these codes are in fact inactive. I sent Higs a PM asking for more codes, so unfortunately, it will be more time. I apologize for this and realize I should have triple-checked everything.
-n00b
I waited,because they told me that Higurashi doesnt have acess to codes at that moment.
But since
So this way i just want to remind them.
I was patient and waited 4 months.
after that i got codes for Dec 28 2nd Place and Jan 4 5th Place,and those were ok.
BTW,I have checked posts from TO-s before this post for sure.
Its impossible to get codes for other tournaments,and not to get codes from previous ones.
Also,i have all recieved messages saved,didnt deleted anything
still need to get codes for
1-st place on 12.oct.=1 nymph/mark+7k coins
1-st place on 25.jan.=1 nymph/mark+7k coins
6-th place on 01.feb.= 1k coins
Post by: Calindu on February 20, 2014, 05:48:58 pm
Secondly: From what I know, other TOs send all the codes to the winners, 1 month ago or even before, so I think you maybe haven't checked it(I'm speaking about the 12th October one, the other 2 should come soon)?
Also, 4 months is little, I received the codes from first WC around the final of the second WC, do the math here.
Post by: andretimpa on February 20, 2014, 08:03:33 pm
First of all, she*.
Secondly: From what I know, other TOs send all the codes to the winners, 1 month ago or even before, so I think you maybe haven't checked it(I'm speaking about the 12th October one, the other 2 should come soon)?
Also, 4 months is little, I received the codes from first WC around the final of the second WC, do the math here.
I can confirm that I have also not received the 2nd place code from Oct 12. The PMs Dani quote are the last I heard from them (I did send PMs to n00b once or twice about it). I'm pretty sure this will get sorted, even if it takes a while, as Cal pointed.
Post by: DANIEELA on March 01, 2014, 07:12:22 pm
Post by: serprex on October 25, 2014, 11:54:38 pm
Quote
[23:51:59] ‹bossitron› thats not spam at all
[23:52:25] ‹serprex› I agree with bossitron
Post by: andretimpa on October 26, 2014, 09:51:40 pm
Post by: CuCN on October 26, 2014, 09:57:58 pm
Arguably, the only thing that the minimum posts rule creates is bad posts.Not if the rule that they have to be good posts is actually enforced.
Post by: Submachine on October 26, 2014, 09:58:11 pm
The reason why we didn't let him play is that we had obvious evidence that he just rushily wanted to make posts, which was the behaviour we want to avoid.Quote[23:51:59] ‹bossitron› thats not spam at all
[23:52:25] ‹serprex› I agree with bossitron
Arguably, the only thing that the minimum posts rule creates is bad posts.I remember at least five times when it prevented a new player with 0 posts to join.
Post by: theelkspeaks on October 26, 2014, 10:00:30 pm
Arguably, the only thing that the minimum posts rule creates is bad posts.I remember at least five times when it prevented a new player with 0 posts to join.
Which is (at least in some people's minds) not a good thing.
Post by: Submachine on October 26, 2014, 10:12:18 pm
People often misunderstand the concept of tournaments; they hear people speaking about it on Kong and create a forum account just to join without reading the rules. The best example is daturabrutality, a player who showed up 1 hour after the tournament started to join. It turned out he didn't even know there are rules. If he showed up in time, there would have been a chance that he somehow is allowed. We also have the knowledge check, but that not only takes time, but it also takes knowledge of who is actually new (new people tend to stick around a lot before actually playing in tournaments, and that is when we overlook them).Arguably, the only thing that the minimum posts rule creates is bad posts.I remember at least five times when it prevented a new player with 0 posts to join.
Which is (at least in some people's minds) not a good thing.
Post by: andretimpa on October 29, 2014, 05:38:43 pm
Post by: Submachine on October 29, 2014, 09:37:08 pm
The knowledge check could be restricted to the members with too few posts and only letting they out if they have no idea of what is happening. This can also be an opportunity to point them to where the rules are.Oh don't worry, that is already how we did it. ;) Quoted from our private section:
"If someone fails the knowledge check, but almost nailed it, he is told the correct answer and is let to play anyway. Unless, of course, if I find out he didn't even check the Main Rules."
Post by: benoit on February 07, 2015, 09:25:21 am
I think a newbie oriented tournament/mini-league would be nice. If you want newcomers to stay, it would help if they had a better chance at winning a match sometimes. For example, shards are not allowed but nymphs are, but a newbie does not have any nymphs. We play against veterans who have a big experience advantage and better cards too.
So I suggest to have a tournament (once a month or so) restricted either by exp. level or by cards easy to get ( no upped, no rares (or maybe only weapons)). Or maybe a beginner's league restricted by exp. level. No need for big prizes (though I'd love a few of those nymphs), the idea is to have an opportunity to learn PvP without being crushed every single game.
Thank you for considering this.
Post by: serprex on February 07, 2015, 02:42:54 pm
Hi,
I think a newbie oriented tournament/mini-league would be nice. If you want newcomers to stay, it would help if they had a better chance at winning a match sometimes. For example, shards are not allowed but nymphs are, but a newbie does not have any nymphs. We play against veterans who have a big experience advantage and better cards too.
So I suggest to have a tournament (once a month or so) restricted either by exp. level or by cards easy to get ( no upped, no rares (or maybe only weapons)). Or maybe a beginner's league restricted by exp. level. No need for big prizes (though I'd love a few of those nymphs), the idea is to have an opportunity to learn PvP without being crushed every single game.
Thank you for considering this.
I've seen new comers take tournaments a number of times. It's easier when a tournament isn't speed building
Post by: dragonsdemesne on February 07, 2015, 08:15:04 pm
Post by: benoit on February 08, 2015, 01:30:09 am
What I meant is that, with PvP1 down, the introduction to pvp is quite rough. I feel I joined too soon; been playing for just 2 months. Other newbies who stay say they have 1-2 years experience (one even 10 years, in a game that existed for 5-6!). I played 8 games in friendly pvp before yesterday's tournament; faced 2 newbies with 60 cards deck, 3 nymphs deck, 1 all-upped all shards deck. 1 upped catatitan. I understand people use friendly pvp to test their new deck and I'm even grateful for the experience they gave me (learned much more in those defeats than in easy victories) but being blasted in 6-7 turns time after time gets discouraging. Many newbies I chat with felt the same and didn't stay long.
I found a speed building tournament a tough start indeed; my main concern was "which cards do I have enough to field a deck without spending 1K+ :electrum?".
I don't even know if my suggestion is feasible, it may have been tried before. What I see is that not many people of my caliber stay long.
I'm staying around though and will try my luck at BL.
See you.
Post by: Zawadx on February 08, 2015, 02:49:38 am
Post by: Robsta43 on February 10, 2015, 04:58:45 pm
Hi guys,
What I meant is that, with PvP1 down, the introduction to pvp is quite rough. I feel I joined too soon; been playing for just 2 months. Other newbies who stay say they have 1-2 years experience (one even 10 years, in a game that existed for 5-6!). I played 8 games in friendly pvp before yesterday's tournament; faced 2 newbies with 60 cards deck, 3 nymphs deck, 1 all-upped all shards deck. 1 upped catatitan. I understand people use friendly pvp to test their new deck and I'm even grateful for the experience they gave me (learned much more in those defeats than in easy victories) but being blasted in 6-7 turns time after time gets discouraging. Many newbies I chat with felt the same and didn't stay long.
I found a speed building tournament a tough start indeed; my main concern was "which cards do I have enough to field a deck without spending 1K+ :electrum?".
I don't even know if my suggestion is feasible, it may have been tried before. What I see is that not many people of my caliber stay long.
I'm staying around though and will try my luck at BL.
See you.
I can sure understand PvP1 being down is rough. When I joined, there was no PvP1, PvP was brutal, but somewhat balanced by the fact that if you ever managed to win a game against someone with 100x your score, you got a ridiculous reward (multiple hundred score and multiple hundred electrum or something like that?) While losses incurred a pitiful penalty like 10 shards/5 score. Thus if you get lucky and they don't, it's well worth your time. Otherwise, pvp is a great way to check out (hopefully) well built decks in action, and also talk to people.
Ok, since the game is only 6ish years old, I must have only been playing for 6 years, and not constantly, I only have around 10,000 games played total. Still rather a lot if you compare it to someone with only 2 months experience. In the past couple of years I created a couple new accounts to test the early levels and/or to help introduce new players to the game. For me, the fastest way to get score to complete the quests for score is pvp, since a single victory gives so much (there are a couple good pvp decks which work with very little electrum cost and no rares).
In all honesty, I usually use AI3 and Bronze arena to test out new unupped decks (I should be able to win against those almost all the time) or AI4/Gold Arena to test out new upped decks (should be able to win against those about half the time). PvP2 is a good way to test upped decks once you're sure you've got a good balance of pillars + aren't forgetting to include that 1 super important card.
As for skill level, yeah, I imagine it must be tough, but 3/4 tourneys per month seem to be unupped decks only, with no shards, so that helps even the playing field quite a bit for newer players. Then it just boils down to skill and luck. The first is learned the hard way, the second is equal for all people (in theory).
Post by: Treldon on February 10, 2015, 05:15:31 pm
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on February 18, 2015, 02:45:21 pm
As someone who would totally love to get involved in tournaments, it saddens me that i'll never be able to make them, as I work at weekends.
I wondered if it would be feasible to run occasional (like once a month or every other week) tournaments in the evening on a weekday? Obviously the problem about different time zones comes about, but it would really be great for me, and if it was that uncommon I imagine getting a minimal group of players would be possible.
Some of the tourney ideas look loads of fun, and I'd love it if I could get involved :)
JCJ
Post by: iancudorinmarian on February 18, 2015, 05:18:23 pm
Hello Folks,From what I know, there used to be tournaments during the week, but there weren't enough players, as most people actually work during the week rather than during the weekend.
As someone who would totally love to get involved in tournaments, it saddens me that i'll never be able to make them, as I work at weekends.
I wondered if it would be feasible to run occasional (like once a month or every other week) tournaments in the evening on a weekday? Obviously the problem about different time zones comes about, but it would really be great for me, and if it was that uncommon I imagine getting a minimal group of players would be possible.
Some of the tourney ideas look loads of fun, and I'd love it if I could get involved :)
JCJ
So I think it's not going to happen anytime soon, sorry :(
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on February 18, 2015, 05:34:41 pm
Hello Folks,From what I know, there used to be tournaments during the week, but there weren't enough players, as most people actually work during the week rather than during the weekend.
As someone who would totally love to get involved in tournaments, it saddens me that i'll never be able to make them, as I work at weekends.
I wondered if it would be feasible to run occasional (like once a month or every other week) tournaments in the evening on a weekday? Obviously the problem about different time zones comes about, but it would really be great for me, and if it was that uncommon I imagine getting a minimal group of players would be possible.
Some of the tourney ideas look loads of fun, and I'd love it if I could get involved :)
JCJ
So I think it's not going to happen anytime soon, sorry :(
Well, if it ever comes under review and it's a case of pooling expected numbers, you got one here :)
Post by: Ginyu on February 18, 2015, 05:44:34 pm
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on February 18, 2015, 08:14:27 pm
Post by: Ginyu on February 18, 2015, 08:32:32 pm
Here you can regularly see the time of the following tourneys.
Post by: Vangelios on February 28, 2015, 05:34:32 am
correct: All decks may contain a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 30 cards of each element used in the deck.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on March 19, 2015, 03:41:32 am
Post by: Ginyu on March 20, 2015, 07:32:25 pm
Post by: RootRanger on June 20, 2015, 09:07:28 pm
Post by: Ginyu on June 20, 2015, 09:16:19 pm
Suggestion: winning player PMs decks to losing player after the match, to check for legality.
I just got the same suggestion from Spike, we will discuss about it. Thanks for the feedback.
We actually already have rule 3.3 (see quote), but I think making it mandatory sounds like a good point.
3.3 - Deck Legality Check
Before you start your match with your opponent, you can ask him to save all his used decks during the duels. If your opponent asks you to save your decks, you must accept it. After the match has ended, you can ask him to show either you or the Tournament Organizer his decks for a legality check. If you miss doing so and later it turns out that you lost against an illegal deck, you won't have the chance to claim the win any more.
Before you start your match with your opponent, you can ask him to save all his used decks during the duels. If your opponent asks you to save your decks, you must accept it. After the match has ended, you can ask him to show either you or the Tournament Organizer his decks for a legality check. If you miss doing so and later it turns out that you lost against an illegal deck, you won't have the chance to claim the win any more.
Post by: ddevans96 on December 26, 2015, 09:10:21 am
- Always read the second post! It contains equally important information most of the time.
- Shards and Upgraded cards are banned.
- At least 8 cards must be a combination of Mutation and Fate Egg.
- The maximum deck limit is 40 cards.
- Bans include: Eternity, Reverse Time, Discord, Nova, Immolation, and Quantum Pillars.
I shared this with MMC, but here's my issue with this - all the rainbow cards are banned, so you're left with a small handful of viable options:
1) run an entropy/time duo/trio (0 dead cards, but limited in scope)
2) run a mono entropy, mono time, duo of either, or trio of either (2 dead cards)
3) ignore both and run a staple deck (8 dead cards)
While there's a few different variants possible in each of these, for the most part I don't feel like this ruleset encouraged good and creative deckbuilding. In order to not have dead cards, you are basically forced into a specific pair of elements, and because of that using dead cards was a strong option here.
I think some possible solutions here would have either been to remove the rainbow bans, since both mutation and fate egg are cards that generally function better with a rainbow base, or reduce the minimum from 8 to 6, so duos other than entropy/time could be free of dead cards. Both of these could bring out more of the central cards.
Other than this, most tournaments have been solid since I started following again a few months ago, keep up the good work.
Post by: kirbylover314 on December 29, 2015, 11:08:49 pm
I really like the changes.
Post by: Zawadx on January 08, 2016, 12:36:09 pm
Post by: Solaris on January 08, 2016, 02:01:03 pm
Why didn't we have increased rewards for the Jan 2 tourney?We weren't quite ready to swap over to the new system.
Post by: RootRanger on March 30, 2016, 08:26:56 pm
If there's anything we should do a blanket ban of, it's Nymphs, which are actually difficult to acquire.
Post by: Solaris on March 30, 2016, 08:29:15 pm
Is there any logical explanation why we are still prohibiting shard? It's been half a decade since Arena came out. For all practical purposes, shards are approximately equally difficult to acquire as the rest of the rares. If the answer is that shards are too powerful, then simply restrict the most powerful ones, just like what you do with rare weapons.We are more apt to permit shard in upped tournaments, as unupped tournaments tend to draw new players, who may not have a full arsenal of shards.
If there's anything we should do a blanket ban of, it's Nymphs, which are actually difficult to acquire.
Post by: RootRanger on March 30, 2016, 08:56:26 pm
We are more apt to permit shard in upped tournaments, as unupped tournaments tend to draw new players, who may not have a full arsenal of shards.Ok, but they don't have a full arsenal of nymphs and rare weapons either. By your logic, we should ban those as well. Nymphs, at the very least.
Remember, a main reason we initially banned shards but allowed rare weapons was because T50 had made it easier to obtain rare weapons, but not shards. T50 is no longer relevant, especially not to new players!
Post by: Solaris on March 30, 2016, 09:18:34 pm
I don't disagree with banning Nymphs, for sure, as they've been a focal point for imbalance as of late. Generally weapons aren't as "gameshifting" as Nymphs/Shards, and in the event that they are, they're usually banned. See: Discord.We are more apt to permit shard in upped tournaments, as unupped tournaments tend to draw new players, who may not have a full arsenal of shards.Ok, but they don't have a full arsenal of nymphs and rare weapons either. By your logic, we should ban those as well. Nymphs, at the very least.
Remember, a main reason we initially banned shards but allowed rare weapons was because T50 had made it easier to obtain rare weapons, but not shards. T50 is no longer relevant, especially not to new players!
We will discuss the matter of Nymphs, though. Appreciate the concern, and thanks for the feedback :)
Post by: ddevans96 on March 31, 2016, 10:26:28 pm
Post by: tereret on April 12, 2016, 04:56:46 pm
Post by: Solaris on April 12, 2016, 04:58:45 pm
I'd love seeing shards like soSer often in the tournamentsWe generally permit shards in upped tournaments for reasons aforementioned.
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on September 22, 2016, 08:52:33 pm
Post by: Solaris on September 22, 2016, 08:57:50 pm
I generally don't like complaining about bad tournament ideas... but 5 speedbuilding in a row is getting ridiculous. Even if it has to be something uninspired like randomized card bans, at least allow people to build decks up front: it's the most fun part of tournaments for people like me and a nice excercise in deckbuilding. You even get to include extra bans based on feedback this way, leading to more balanced tournaments. There's more points to be made against speedbuilding including the fact that they add a significant amount of time you need to reserve for the tournament, but I'm sure I don't need to list them all.We've stated multiple times now that we were doing Speedbuilding September due to War, including here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/pvp-tournaments/weekly-tournament-september-17th-name-a-speedbuilding-game-unupgraded/msg1244953/#msg1244953), and in chat. We did not want to run tournaments that may require prebuilding decks, as this would discourage participation when paired with the sometimes strenuous schedule of War. Perhaps one of our downfalls was not making this knowledge more publicly known, however, we have stated it. We apologize if anyone has abstained from participating due to this, and we hope to see you in October.
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on September 22, 2016, 09:04:15 pm
I don't even bother to read the rules of a tournament if the title itself already tells me I'm not interested by adding "speedbuilding", no. In fact, it's by making them speedbuilding that you discourage participation: people can always opt to speedbuild tournament decks, on their terms. Non-speedbuilding tournaments have never forced people not to speedbuild: so no matter how little time they have, nay exactly when they are short on time, will non-speedbuilding be preferred. Since you are now forcing people to allot a certain timeframe for building their decks rather than letting them choose when and how long to build the decks themselves.I generally don't like complaining about bad tournament ideas... but 5 speedbuilding in a row is getting ridiculous. Even if it has to be something uninspired like randomized card bans, at least allow people to build decks up front: it's the most fun part of tournaments for people like me and a nice excercise in deckbuilding. You even get to include extra bans based on feedback this way, leading to more balanced tournaments. There's more points to be made against speedbuilding including the fact that they add a significant amount of time you need to reserve for the tournament, but I'm sure I don't need to list them all.We've stated multiple times now that we were doing Speedbuilding September due to War, including here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/pvp-tournaments/weekly-tournament-september-17th-name-a-speedbuilding-game-unupgraded/msg1244953/#msg1244953), and in chat. We did not want to run tournaments that may require prebuilding decks, as this would discourage participation when paired with the sometimes strenuous schedule of War. Perhaps one of our downfalls was not making this knowledge more publicly known, however, we have stated it. We apologize if anyone has abstained from participating due to this, and we hope to see you in October.
So, I'm not sure what this "due to War" argument is supposed to be. You will really need to elaborate on this. Or maybe for the TOs? Like I said, just do the exact same ruleset, but reveal allowed cards in advance. Same effort, no speedbuilding.
Post by: Solaris on September 22, 2016, 09:22:17 pm
Some individual opinions may vary between TOs, but the core sentiment should be the same. Apologies for fragmented ideas, phone at 1% and I'm not home.
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on December 10, 2016, 12:45:11 pm
I understand rules were already made more flexible to allow more new people to join... but it seems that they mostly stay away from tournaments regardless. Since I really haven't seen any new faces during the tournaments I've been in recently at all.
What's next? I've received some suggestions that would certainly increase the number of matches played, but there would still be the problem of handing out reward codes too easily. One option would be to introduce another kind of tournament like round robin when there are fewer participants. Codes would obviously have to be scaled regardless. What kinds of codes are we talking about, then? There is a high chance a Mark/Nymph code will not be included for such tournaments, which might defeat the point of joining for some. What should be the true minimum number of players? If not 8. Since if we stick this to 8, I'm not sure we can keep up much of a rotation. Or tournaments altogether.
Of course, this also introduces additional questions: I scrapped a part of the rotation since these times don't really seem to work for our current TOs combined with a low turnout, but they could be re-instated if people really felt like it and if a solid plan is made to ensure tournaments can always start, regardless of turnout. But they will not be the tournaments we have known thus far.
So to sum it all up: what do you feel is needed to increase the number of participants (another way to put this to non-participants: why won't you currently join?), what should a tournament look like if the turnout is not "enough" regardless and when should these tournaments take place? (the current flexible versus a more rigid rotation)
This is a public discussion, so all input -especially from (potential) participants- is valued.
Post by: Submachine on December 10, 2016, 01:21:55 pm
Also use BBCode to give the bandeck a title, e.g: Banned Cards, Banlist. These banlists shouldn't be in Spoilers either.
Post by: deuce22 on December 10, 2016, 03:39:23 pm
As far as overall participation, it's more due to the game than the tourneys themselves. The community gets smaller each year, and since the game isn't changing, players lose interest.
Post by: theelkspeaks on December 10, 2016, 04:05:04 pm
Post by: Ryli on December 10, 2016, 04:10:47 pm
I can make early mornings on Saturday, but staying up for a 3-4am start, then having to postpone as we did last on last week's early start just really sucks.
Post by: DANIEELA on December 10, 2016, 04:15:46 pm
I work in turns,so im rotating with on-line time.
I suggest pool where interested participants can post their available times for that Saturday (or few days).
Then TO can organize Tournament time.
Post by: Lunaris on December 10, 2016, 05:00:41 pm
- A lot of the time they end up on Friday nights, and I take AP and college courses at school, so I have a lot of homework.
- The ones with times I can actually make are upgraded.
- Being much newer to the game than those who usually compete, I get feelings of self-doubt and that kind of "I'm never going to win so what's the point" sort of feeling
- I'm horrible at speedbuilding.
- I get confused by the special rules easily and don't want to inconvenience the TOs with my avalanche of questions.
Most of it is the time factor, but I just thought I'd leave this here in case any of it is helpful in anyway.
Post by: CactusKing on December 10, 2016, 10:06:59 pm
Post by: killsdazombies on December 10, 2016, 11:17:06 pm
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on December 11, 2016, 12:01:22 am
Including not just Saturday, but Sunday as well into the rotation is not something I wish to dismiss without thought, but will not be considered until solving the problem at hand: not getting enough total players per tournament. I would love more input on this part specifically:
what should a tournament look like if the turnout is not "enough" regardless
We cannot currently keep up a full rotation because some times consistently lack people. Although GMT 04:00-09:00 were already omitted, GMT 10:00+ (several hours) are also times with the same problem, as today has made clear. It may mean certain people never get a chance to join which is something we dis-prefer seeing as well, of course. But I must stress the fact that each tournament currently requires at least 8 people to show up. The direct reason for this topic is that not having enough people show up is no longer an exception, but a structural problem. One that I would dis-prefer "patching up" with a rotation over just a few hours (excluding one hour after another for each time a tournament is postponed on such a time).
A problem that may require tournaments not just being held at different times, but a different solution altogether, like changing from single elimination to something else to allow for fewer players. What this something else is, how this will effect rewards and what the "new minimum" will be are topics on which ideas are more than welcome. Already, I feel like 3 wins to victory in single-elimination with 8-15 players is a very low amount for a Mark/Nymph code. But adding more games with the same amount of people will not actually lower your rather high chances of winning.
If it's new faces you need I will happily participate in the next round (assuming i'm awake).I encourage everyone: old and new alike, to join tournaments to have fun. It's what we organize them for! :)
Post by: Linkcat on December 11, 2016, 01:03:41 am
Post by: dragonsdemesne on December 11, 2016, 06:22:34 am
Post by: RapidStar_ on December 11, 2016, 07:05:52 am
Post by: CactusKing on December 11, 2016, 08:26:01 am
One option would be to introduce another kind of tournament like round robin when there are fewer participants.I like this idea. It would allow for fewer people to join while still having a decent and fun competition. Also provides a little protection against bad draws. Can we actually do this next week?
Post by: DANIEELA on December 11, 2016, 11:59:23 am
We could do a Poll and in the poll have maybe 8 different times and we can vote for which ones we area available to participate in?(http://i.giphy.com/8OQwGIFcJgrew.gif)
Post by: theelkspeaks on December 11, 2016, 01:43:09 pm
Post by: Zawadx on December 11, 2016, 01:49:40 pm
Previously, we did a test of running small tournaments (4-8 players arriving) with Double Elimination format to make the victory more earned. I don't remember what feedback was given on the popularity or unpopularity of such a solution - does anyone else remember?
Don't think there was much public discussion on it. TOs did discuss it, it should be in a separate thread in TO section.
We could do a Poll and in the poll have maybe 8 different times and we can vote for which ones we area available to participate in?
If you do choose to poll people, please don't make a simple poll but follow something like STV/instant run-off to get a better idea of what people want.
Post by: deuce22 on December 11, 2016, 02:38:35 pm
I think start times GMT 15-20 would allow the best availability for most players.
I understand that this may be difficult for some/most players in asia, but it sounds like tournament times that are convenient for asian players tend not to have enough players.
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on December 11, 2016, 02:42:50 pm
No, people should be able to plan the timing in advance. Plus, many people simply will not know whether they can be available for a tournament in advance.
Like: "Oh, sure nice tournament, I'll come!" at time of tournament: "ZzzzzZzzz..."
Or: "I have something else planned, sorry!" at time of tournament: "Looks like I can make it after all!".
It might have worked if a huge number of people voted, but even then we would likely end up with similar times each week. Plus, the real issue we are trying to solve is that there isn't a huge number of people to begin with! To still get enough participants, the poll would need something like 4 choices: 19:00 GMT; 20:00 GMT; 21:00 GMT and 22:00 GMT... :silly:
Majority of comments seem to be based on "times" players aren't available. Just make a narrow group of times that are reasonable for european and US participants.But this is a short term solution. These times may end up with less than 8 participants at some point of time as well. Tournaments postponed to this time already have trouble hitting 8 (but that's not on Saturday).
I think start times GMT 15-20 would allow the best availability for most players.
I understand that this may be difficult for some/most players in asia, but it sounds like tournament times that are convenient for asian players tend not to have enough players.
Found it. Apart from taking a long time, there were no huge objections. This might be the most viable option for 4-7 players.Previously, we did a test of running small tournaments (4-8 players arriving) with Double Elimination format to make the victory more earned. I don't remember what feedback was given on the popularity or unpopularity of such a solution - does anyone else remember?
Don't think there was much public discussion on it. TOs did discuss it, it should be in a separate thread in TO section.
Full round robin is a bad idea unless there are exactly 4 players. I thought out and simulated a number of alternatives for 5-7 players. But they -along with round robin for 4- all share one common issue: players that have lost once, with no chances left for big prizes, will get matches with someone that has not lost yet. Meaning you only play for a chance to ruin someone else their prize. Here's one such example I was playing around with.
Participants: miniwally, Kael Hate, TheonlyrealBeef, bogtro, Odii Odsen, Physsion (past Darkness masters, just me having a bit of fun)
Round 1:
miniwally 0 - 2 Kael Hate
TheonlyrealBeef 2 - 0 bogtro
Physsion 2 - 1 Odii Odsen
Round 2:
TheonlyrealBeef 2 - 1 Kael Hate
Physsion 2 - 1 miniwally
bogtro 1 - 2 Odii Odsen
Round 3:
TheonlyrealBeef 2 - 0 Physsion
bogtro 2 - 1 miniwally
Odii Odsen 2 - 0 Kael Hate
Orange has already lost once: they have 0 chance at winning any big prizes.
Red lost twice: removing this match is a possibility since they have zero chances of winning even an electrum code.
However: if Physsion lost his Round 2 match we'd have 4 Oranges and 1 Red. How would you possibly match those? You could end up with the same matches, but bogtro would gain nothing from the round 3 match, whereas Physsion winning Round 3 match also does not make him the winner: it would only tie him for first along with TheonlyrealBeef AND the winner of Odii Odsen vs Kael Hate AS WELL AS miniwally if he beats bogtro Round 3.
Round 1:
miniwally 0 - 2 Kael Hate
TheonlyrealBeef 2 - 0 bogtro
Physsion 2 - 1 Odii Odsen
Round 2:
TheonlyrealBeef 2 - 1 Kael Hate
Physsion 2 - 1 miniwally
bogtro 1 - 2 Odii Odsen
Round 3:
TheonlyrealBeef 2 - 0 Physsion
bogtro 2 - 1 miniwally
Odii Odsen 2 - 0 Kael Hate
Orange has already lost once: they have 0 chance at winning any big prizes.
Red lost twice: removing this match is a possibility since they have zero chances of winning even an electrum code.
However: if Physsion lost his Round 2 match we'd have 4 Oranges and 1 Red. How would you possibly match those? You could end up with the same matches, but bogtro would gain nothing from the round 3 match, whereas Physsion winning Round 3 match also does not make him the winner: it would only tie him for first along with TheonlyrealBeef AND the winner of Odii Odsen vs Kael Hate AS WELL AS miniwally if he beats bogtro Round 3.
Post by: CactusKing on December 13, 2016, 07:11:56 am
- GMT 9 (Suitable for European and Asia-Pacific regions)
- GMT 19 (Americans and Europeans)
- GMT 0 (Americans and Asia-Pacific)
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on December 13, 2016, 12:43:37 pm
We should also remember that people in the Australiasian :time zones make up many of our players. The time zones work that at any point it will be the middle of the night either in america, europe, or australia/newzealand. I assume no one want's to play between 11PM and 7AM local time so i propose 3 different times for pvp events:
- GMT 9 (Suitable for European and Asia-Pacific regions)
- GMT 19 (Americans and Europeans)
- GMT 0 (Americans and Asia-Pacific)
Those times are actually pretty solid tbh, but maybe have 6 times, those 3 and a second set of three which are the same but 1 hour later, so the full set would be:
- GMT 9
- GMT 19
- GMT 0
- GMT 10
- GMT 20
- GMT 1
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on December 13, 2016, 01:03:01 pm
We had a full rotation going for a long time, but there just aren't enough players showing up at "Asia-Pacific" times (anymore).
Post by: CactusKing on December 14, 2016, 08:16:33 am
I think it's worth noting "Asia-Pacific" generally constitutes of 0 - 2 people even during their "favorable times". Recently, those times (~GMT 0 - 13) only got enough people when people from Europe/America got/stayed up in the middle of the night. This is because the participants from just Europe or America aren't at least 7 anymore (at those times, at least).This really sucks for me, cuz I've gotten 3 of my mates into the game but they won't participate in tournaments because they're mostly held at midnight for our time zone. I know the community isn't what it used to be, but we can still revive it to the point where tourneys are viable. I see new players all the time on kongregate, they just don't enter tournaments because they think it's some sort of exclusive club and all the battle's will be insanely hard. We just need to get the message out to potential participants that anyone can enter, anyone can win, and we can get the player count up and have a great pvp event!
We had a full rotation going for a long time, but there just aren't enough players showing up at "Asia-Pacific" times (anymore).
Who's with me?
Post by: Spielkind on December 14, 2016, 10:13:47 am
More flexibility!
Me joins whenever have time. No poll or tourney-theme will change my mind, RL is more important than game for me.
What i want to say, just try making tourney happen with less than 8 players, this is the best solution here.
Just my 2 :electrum
Post by: worldwideweb3 on December 14, 2016, 04:41:50 pm
Post by: CactusKing on December 19, 2016, 03:54:15 am
We should also remember that people in the Australiasian :time zones make up many of our players. The time zones work that at any point it will be the middle of the night either in america, europe, or australia/newzealand. I assume no one want's to play between 11PM and 7AM local time so i propose 3 different times for pvp events:
- GMT 9 (Suitable for European and Asia-Pacific regions)
- GMT 19 (Americans and Europeans)
- GMT 0 (Americans and Asia-Pacific)
Those times are actually pretty solid tbh, but maybe have 6 times, those 3 and a second set of three which are the same but 1 hour later, so the full set would be:
- GMT 9
- GMT 19
- GMT 0
- GMT 10
- GMT 20
- GMT 1
Sounds fine to me. If the TOs could add these times to the next poll that would be great.
Post by: Solaris on December 19, 2016, 04:47:26 am
Hmm, polls? We have a fixed rotation, and I didn't think we were doing anything regarding polls and times.We should also remember that people in the Australiasian :time zones make up many of our players. The time zones work that at any point it will be the middle of the night either in america, europe, or australia/newzealand. I assume no one want's to play between 11PM and 7AM local time so i propose 3 different times for pvp events:
- GMT 9 (Suitable for European and Asia-Pacific regions)
- GMT 19 (Americans and Europeans)
- GMT 0 (Americans and Asia-Pacific)
Those times are actually pretty solid tbh, but maybe have 6 times, those 3 and a second set of three which are the same but 1 hour later, so the full set would be:
- GMT 9
- GMT 19
- GMT 0
- GMT 10
- GMT 20
- GMT 1
Sounds fine to me. If the TOs could add these times to the next poll that would be great.
Post by: igor135 on December 19, 2016, 03:09:47 pm
So I'm a veteran to Elements, but have never participated in a tourney. The primary reason being the amount of time it takes. As a college student, I can usually not afford to spend a couple hours playing.
That being said, I'm looking to participate in this next upcoming tourney :). Have always wanted to join but never had the time. I'll register as soon as I'm sure I can make it!
Post by: bashingbash on December 21, 2016, 02:34:05 am
-bashingbash
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on January 05, 2017, 02:08:47 pm
Post by: CactusKing on January 06, 2017, 12:21:04 am
Personally i think if you're not going to play with others then why bother playing at all but some people still need convincing, and if you want more people then reducing the reward factor is not going to help
Post by: DarthVarda on June 03, 2017, 05:40:15 pm
Post by: Aves on June 03, 2017, 05:55:26 pm
Hi! Sorry, bit new here and I have been looking and well... Lost, completely. May I play using Kongregate or I should enter the game here? thanks!
Both the main website and kongregate connect to the same server, you can play in either.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on June 03, 2017, 07:09:05 pm
Post by: Aves on June 03, 2017, 08:14:38 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on June 04, 2017, 06:04:32 am
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on June 04, 2017, 07:34:25 am
Post by: Zawadx on August 16, 2017, 07:08:05 am
Post by: Manuel on March 10, 2018, 12:53:15 am
(https://s17.postimg.org/vmpfxtdj3/Screenshot_14.png)
clearly my import deck screwed up by himself, is too hard asking a rematch with my fixed deck rather than give a free win?
is my fault but not really lol, looking my pastebin:
(https://s17.postimg.org/51mx2gdsf/Screenshot_3.png)
i didn't copied a single "u" lol, no one really deserve a loss for a thing that has nothing to do with missbuilding or using illegal card, lul i also """blame""" zanz for making a thing where u can memorize AT LEAST 3 decks (even in your browser cache)
sleep well sweet tournament
Post by: TribalTrouble on March 10, 2018, 02:19:04 am
Unfortunately, it sucks but at the end of the day, it is your blunder. Setting up your deck properly is your responsibility whether you're willing to own up to it or not. Not the TO's. On the bright side, this is an opportunity you can learn from so it doesn't occur in the future. ^^
Post by: Jocko on March 10, 2018, 03:18:40 am
Post by: Manuel on March 10, 2018, 03:20:18 am
if i have :time :aether deck and :darkness mark obviously the import didn't work, i declared it to my opponent at turn 1 without even seeing his cards; by showing that screenshot to TO, i can at least try to get a rematch for that battle, using same decks (obviously the last decision goes to the TO), in the worst scenario i still get a lost, in the best i got a rematch, nothing really complicated
obviously the wrong import should be declared asap, not with 3 cards left; in most cases, u will know it because u will have a wrong mark
competitive players feel a need to exploit
pls, half of players that played war was nominated for sportmanship http://elementscommunity.org/forum/war/war-11-sportsmanship-and-favorite-decks/, i am one of the newest guys here and i signed up in september 2015, never seen or read someone faking screenshots
Post by: worldwideweb3 on March 10, 2018, 10:49:03 am
i really don't see how this is different from a desynch or any other decision where the TO is required (still things that u can fake)
if i have :time :aether deck and :darkness mark obviously the import didn't work, i declared it to my opponent at turn 1 without even seeing his cards; by showing that screenshot to TO, i can at least try to get a rematch for that battle, using same decks (obviously the last decision goes to the TO), in the worst scenario i still get a lost, in the best i got a rematch, nothing really complicated
obviously the wrong import should be declared asap, not with 3 cards left; in most cases, u will know it because u will have a wrong markcompetitive players feel a need to exploit
pls, half of players that played war was nominated for sportmanship http://elementscommunity.org/forum/war/war-11-sportsmanship-and-favorite-decks/, i am one of the newest guys here and i signed up in september 2015, never seen or read someone faking screenshots
Thing is, now you know what deck he has, and some people may put in a couple specific cards to give them an advantage (this can go both ways, your opponent also knows your deck and hence can do the same). With desynch, it's not under your control but choosing what deck you play is.
Post by: iancudorinmarian on March 10, 2018, 10:54:28 am
Way better than just storing them as plain text somewhere. You have previews, categories, and a button that selects the whole deck code for you to copy so you don't miss any symbol from the deck code. Plus, it's linked to your forum account, so you can access it from anywhere by just logging in.
Also, I agree with the others, your mistake, your loss.
Post by: Spielkind on March 10, 2018, 02:29:16 pm
Some might argue that if it's an isolated incident an honorable oponent would offer you the chance of a rematch, since we're all here just trying to have fun.
I would say no, cause its not the opponent being honorable to say, lets replay, its you to be honorable and say "sorry, did a mistake, your win. 0:1"
Never can say someone isnt honorable cause he is forced into a situation he cant do anything.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on March 30, 2018, 05:51:32 pm
Post by: MasterWalks on June 08, 2018, 12:56:26 am
The current rule reads as this :Posting about Tournaments Please don't post discussions on the forum regarding the metagame or decks for the upcoming tournament. Also please do not post or give away tournament decks while tournament is still in progress.
This is very loose and vague with many loopholes. I think this rule is in need of a desperate rewrite. I would like to start an unofficial thread to propose some rewrites and to spark some discussion.
My proposal for rule 4.4 rewrite: 4.4: Posting about Tournaments; Please don't post discussions on the forum or ingame chat regarding the metagame or decks for an upcoming tournament or a tournament in progress. Please do not post or give away tournament decks or strategy's for an upcoming tournament or a tournament in progress in the forums or ingame chat. Skirmishes and practices can be done at the players risk of having their decks and strategy's known by the other player; this falls on the players responsibility to make adjustments before the event.
Post by: kaempfer13 on June 08, 2018, 01:46:20 am
As of now, public discussions will be deleted, PMs and casual matches fall under null, not being punished, since we cant follow them anyway, but kind of frowned upon when you announce your intentions publicly. I'd like to collect more opinions on the matter, so if you got an opinion, please post it!
Post by: InsignificantWeeaboo on June 08, 2018, 02:41:51 am
As of now, public discussions will be deleted, PMs and casual matches fall under null, not being punished, since we cant follow them anyway, but kind of frowned upon when you announce your intentions publicly. I'd like to collect more opinions on the matter, so if you got an opinion, please post it!
This seems like the most practical way to go about this in my eyes. Although, I can't exactly see the usefulness in the casual matches due to it basically revealing a potential deck you could just fight against a custom AI with. As much as the AI is faulty, I believe it can give a person a rough idea of what their deck can counter and what counters it. If the AI fails to play your deck correctly, just use the deck yourself and have the AI play a different deck.
Post by: CactusKing on June 08, 2018, 07:02:20 am
As of now, public discussions will be deleted, PMs and casual matches fall under null, not being punished, since we cant follow them anyway, but kind of frowned upon when you announce your intentions publicly. I'd like to collect more opinions on the matter, so if you got an opinion, please post it!
This seems like the most practical way to go about this in my eyes. Although, I can't exactly see the usefulness in the casual matches due to it basically revealing a potential deck you could just fight against a custom AI with. As much as the AI is faulty, I believe it can give a person a rough idea of what their deck can counter and what counters it. If the AI fails to play your deck correctly, just use the deck yourself and have the AI play a different deck.
There's a tool where you can duel yourself and control both decks, a part of oetg iirc. Dueling other competitors before the tournament is both frowned upon and strategically bad, but being impossible to police without constant pvp spectating by the TOs, it's hard to justify punishing people who still do it.
it can be really hard to get into tournaments if you are not allowed to get any help whatsoeverNewcomers can get help with understanding the rules, and deckbuilding is easy enough to pick up by looking at resources elsewhere on the forum.
I don't think tournament decks should be given away to anyone, even beginners.
Post by: Wyand on June 08, 2018, 08:29:11 am
On the one hand, tournament wins should be personal achievements
To me that is the most important aspect. I also agree with Weeaboo about AI play.
As much as the AI is faulty, I believe it can give a person a rough idea of what their deck can counter and what counters it. If the AI fails to play your deck correctly, just use the deck yourself and have the AI play a different deck.
Post by: HearthstonePro on June 08, 2018, 11:42:39 pm
Post by: MyNameIsJoey on September 08, 2018, 09:15:11 pm
What if rather than 1 upped tournament for 3 unupped tournaments we had
1 upped tournament 1 semiupped tournament and 2 unupped tournaments?
Post by: CactusKing on September 09, 2018, 12:19:39 am
Post by: dawn to dusk on September 26, 2018, 08:04:54 am
Unupped Closed Disc
Semi-Upped Closed Disc
Unupped Open Disc
Upped Closed Disc
It would make the meta pretty interesting, and we would be able to see some of the better decks come out, as well as counters to a lot of the popular proposed decks. I think it would be interesting to see at least tried out, perhaps just one week we have a fairly open tourney with a number of deck possibilities, or perhaps the opposite. One pretty heavily restricted like the one this week.
Doing this can also help remove some of the overlooked strong cards in the meta, banning them so they don't become a problem
Post by: Vindilos on September 26, 2018, 11:44:41 am
You can already discuss the meta in private. You can also discuss the meta after the tournament.
Before the tournament you probably dont wanna tell what decks you will play, but it also spoils the fun and challange of making decks.
The TOs often discuss meta, often based on decks I make. People played a lot of different things last 2 tournaments, so balance seems alright.
Edit: some tournaments are reruns of old tournaments, so the balance has been discussed already.
Post by: dawn to dusk on September 26, 2018, 12:02:01 pm
You can already discuss the meta in private. You can also discuss the meta after the tournament.Posting about the tournament, be it publicly or in private, has always been something that was looked down upon. The rules explicitly state public posting, as private posting is hard to mediate.
4.4 - Posting About Tournaments
Please don't post discussions on the forum regarding the metagame or decks for the upcoming tournament. Also please do not post or give away tournament decks while tournament is still in progress. If you think that there is an overpowered card or strategy that should be banned, send them to the organizers who will privately discuss whether the card is really overpowered or not. Feel free to discuss these topics after the tournament is over.
Please don't post discussions on the forum regarding the metagame or decks for the upcoming tournament. Also please do not post or give away tournament decks while tournament is still in progress. If you think that there is an overpowered card or strategy that should be banned, send them to the organizers who will privately discuss whether the card is really overpowered or not. Feel free to discuss these topics after the tournament is over.
Before the tournament you probably dont wanna tell what decks you will play, but it also spoils the fun and challange of making decks.
This is subjective, and why I would think that a test trial would be warranted. Personally, I wouldn't mind being able to talk about the potential meta, what to expect, what to bring, what to tech, etc. It's not about trying to have an edge over your opponents, rather it potentially improves the decks being played. I dunno, I wouldn't mind it, and I'd like to hear other opinions too
Post by: moehrpi on September 26, 2018, 01:01:57 pm
You can already discuss the meta in private. You can also discuss the meta after the tournament.
While I have talked in private about ongoing tournaments after I dropped out, it is not something I'd like to see encouraged. Plus it has only happened in individual cases. I am, however, glad to share a deck with my previous opponent and do not see it as an issue. Although, I am sure some people will.
In general, I like the idea to discuss the meta of a tournament but that does not happen frequently in public. The main issue I see is that the tournament evolves into an RNG fest as soon as rushes are viable. That is if the desired discussion gets rolling in the first place. I spent maybe an hour in total for three tournaments this year. I don't see myself get too involved in a possible discussion. :S
That being said, I appreciate everyone who is interested in my opinion on a tournament I played in and hits me up in chat / shoots me a PM.
Post by: Vindilos on September 26, 2018, 02:34:32 pm
Post by: Manuel on September 26, 2018, 03:47:44 pm
after people post the best decks inexperienced players/people that doesn't have time or are lazy too put effort in it can simply log 5 minutes before the start, take the deck (rather than speedbuild) and play
i'm not saying i'm against it, it simply has more downside than benefits (the only i see is more partecipation maybe)
Post by: ddevans96 on September 26, 2018, 10:56:40 pm
Posting about the tournament, be it publicly or in private, has always been something that was looked down upon. The rules explicitly state public posting, as private posting is hard to mediate.
This really isn't true - I've talked to a lot of people in private over the years about metas, in tournaments and in all other events, and I'm aware of many other conversations. Most of those people are extremely respected in PvP. The scene was built on that kind of communication - some people did it but it was never really frowned upon by anyone.
As the community's gotten smaller, many people seem to want to keep to themselves about such things - that's fine, but it's a newer development.
Post by: Wyand on March 16, 2019, 12:03:44 pm
(https://i.ibb.co/58WnDtq/march.png)
Btw no tourney has been announced for this week. Everyone taking seriously the +1 week rest/deckbuilding time. :)
Post by: Wyand on April 11, 2019, 10:53:20 pm
Post by: Wyand on April 18, 2019, 10:35:12 pm
Post by: Submachine on April 18, 2019, 10:44:21 pm
No tourney this week?This week we will have a fun tourney. :) We will post it tomorrow at latest.
Post by: Wyand on April 18, 2019, 11:05:28 pm
Post by: Wyand on July 20, 2019, 07:06:25 pm
to figure out my style. While others - even when they win - just don't care about posting their used decks.
Please make it compulsory for the TOP 3 to post their used decks after tourneys.
Post by: Submachine on July 20, 2019, 08:05:58 pm
Post by: PlayerOa on July 20, 2019, 10:58:32 pm
Reading your style because of deckposting? I somewhat disagree. Tourney rules are so twisted that one would struggle to get a proper read of someone because they’re playing (and winning with) tier B/C decks. Play some league with me and you’ll figure out my style anyway.
Tldr: I’m fine with obligatory deckposting for winner, and I’ll keep doing that whether it’s mandatory or not. That’d be a neat little legality check as well. But I won’t post decks unless I actually finish well, i.e. 1st or maybe 2nd place.
Post by: Wyand on July 20, 2019, 11:04:44 pm
Reading your style because of deckposting? I somewhat disagree. Tourney rules are so twisted that one would struggle to get a proper read of someone because they’re playing (and winning with) tier B/C decks. Play some league with me and you’ll figure out my style anyway.
I play a lot of league with you, I already know a bit about you. :) Someone might play tier B/C decks, but those decks can also say a word or two about the user's thinking.
Post by: MasterWalks on July 20, 2019, 11:11:03 pm
Tournaments are reused and recycled. By having decks posted, people can look back and see the meta/winning decks and just use those. Its cheap and scummy but ya its gonna happen.
Whats the point of posting decks? Legality check? You should be able to tell a decks legality when you play it.
Also, for people like shockcannon, Oa, and myself, we speedbuild a lot of tournaments. i dont save those. Im speedbuilding a deck every 15 min i dont have time to sit and organize what decks i used and who i used them against.
I am firmly on the stance of optional deck posting.
Post by: Wyand on July 20, 2019, 11:19:03 pm
I am pretty against mandatory posting.
Tournaments are reused and recycled. By having decks posted, people can look back and see the meta/winning decks and just use those. Its cheap and scummy but ya its gonna happen.
If you noticed earlier tourney topics are always blocked when the idea is reused. Often it is not even a 100% reuse, some fine-tuning happens.
Quote
Whats the point of posting decks? Legality check? You should be able to tell a decks legality when you play it.
Legality check is just a secondary stuff (and no, you cannot always tell, it just happens, and nor your opponent nor you doesn't notice it).
Quote
Also, for people like shockcannon, Oa, and myself, we speedbuild a lot of tournaments. i dont save those. Im speedbuilding a deck every 15 min i dont have time to sit and organize what decks i used and who i used them against.
I am firmly on the stance of optional deck posting.
It isn't really hard to open a notepad and copy/paste the deck code. (I know, you play from phone, that's different.) Also don't forget that EVERY sort of PvP Event
(except League, but that's logical) requires deckposting, I think it is pretty understandable that tourneys should follow that path. And I only expect it from the TOP 3.
Post by: moehrpi on July 21, 2019, 09:37:27 pm
Post by: ddevans96 on July 22, 2019, 02:48:11 am
I'm pretty much fed up with the fact that I'm always a nice guy and post my decks thus allowing others
to figure out my style. While others - even when they win - just don't care about posting their used decks.
Let me try to understand your point here.
You dislike the non-existence of a rule. You act as though the rule should exist, and follow it. You dislike that other people don't do the same, and are using that as justification for implementing the rule?
I realize this sounds critical, but I'm genuinely not getting your point of view.
Post by: Wyand on July 22, 2019, 11:25:10 am
I'm pretty much fed up with the fact that I'm always a nice guy and post my decks thus allowing others
to figure out my style. While others - even when they win - just don't care about posting their used decks.
Let me try to understand your point here.
You dislike the non-existence of a rule. You act as though the rule should exist, and follow it. You dislike that other people don't do the same, and are using that as justification for implementing the rule?
I realize this sounds critical, but I'm genuinely not getting your point of view.
Right now players are only encouraged to share their decks. I post decks because I think it is the right thing to do.
If I wouldn't post my decks and someone else would say that we all should post them this be would still a good idea.
Reasons for posting decks after a tourney:
- deck legality check,
- exchanging ideas,
- general sportsmanship.
Players must be really stiff and bored to oppose such an idea. It is pretty obvious that general written encouragement
means nothing to these players and they just discard the idea of posting decks with a lazy "I really don't want to bother with it".
It is bad. Communication is the way.
Post by: ddevans96 on July 22, 2019, 10:15:39 pm
I think the current deck legality rule is suitable, I think your 'general sportmanship' argument is a bit odd given that I've never seen this exact mindset in any other competitive community (several, larger and smaller), and I think 'exchanging ideas' is always something that should be encouraged, but never forced. So I don't really agree with your points, but that's not enough for me to form opposition to the suggestion of a mandatory deck posting rule.
I'm very offput, however, by you calling yourself a 'nice guy' in one post, and calling people with a different opinion 'stiff' and 'lazy' in another post. You cheapen the discussion by doing that.
Post by: Wyand on July 22, 2019, 10:39:07 pm
I'm very offput, however, by you calling yourself a 'nice guy' in one post, and calling people with a different opinion 'stiff' and 'lazy' in another post. You cheapen the discussion by doing that.
Thanks for pointing that out, dd! I agree, it might sound condescending, however it wasn't my intention.
I really think it is fair game to know other players' decks after a tournament, that's all.
Post by: Submachine on July 23, 2019, 08:15:43 am
The reason why I like the idea is that it gives the TOs a better look at the usual meta. If we notice that a deck type wins too much, we can work around that deck type to make our tournaments more diverse.
It also helps with sportsmanship and noticing illegal decks.
Post by: serprex on July 23, 2019, 09:33:27 am
Post by: Wyand on August 11, 2019, 12:08:00 am
meanwhile I kinda feel they just fear entering tourneys feeling they aren't good enough.
But how to determine who is a newbie? Well, those who haven't competed in any PvP events are truly newbies. Those who
competed in a few tourneys and failed to advance a single round are newbies also.
How to reward them? An entire mark code for winning a beginner's tourney would be a bit too much. We should figure out a
point system for them and grant codes by that.
(Btw what about the tourney revamp, like the point system for 2nd/3rd places and round-robin when there are less than 8 ppl?)
Post by: Wyand on August 19, 2019, 11:19:16 pm
Post by: Submachine on October 26, 2019, 11:45:27 am
Does anyone know of a tournament format that is short and where a leaving player only affects the outcome of his current match?
Post by: Wyand on November 03, 2019, 09:42:44 pm
2. Oa vs Sub was decided based on their match against each otherQuote from: SubmachineWe should not do this for first place tiebreakers in the future. For any other tiebreakers, it's fine.
That wouldn't be logical. I think when only 2 players are tied their match against each other
should be the tiebreaker, since that holds more power than how many games were lost
against others. (Thus their match also works as a final, too.)
Counting the losses comes into the picture when there is a 3-way tie where everyone has
one win (match) against the other 2 players tied.
Another topic: 6 player tourneys. SE for these tourneys is such a lackluster.
I propose let's use the format I'll share here. Two groups with 3 players, where
they play round-robin style (2 matches for each players, 3 matches altogether).
The winners of the groups play for the 1st place, the 2nds can play for the 3rd
place (if they wish). The format is also quick, since the 2 group's matches are played
simultaneously (and has 3 phases like an SE as well).
Post by: Submachine on November 04, 2019, 10:20:44 am
Another topic: 6 player tourneys. SE for these tourneys is such a lackluster.If the bracket builder allows it, we can give this a whirl.
I propose let's use the format I'll share here. Two groups with 3 players, where
they play round-robin style (2 matches for each players, 3 matches altogether).
The winners of the groups play for the 1st place, the 2nds can play for the 3rd
place (if they wish). The format is also quick, since the 2 group's matches are played
simultaneously (and has 3 phases like an SE as well).
Before we would do anything about that, my previous question still stands about a format other than Single Elim, Double Elim or Round Robin for 4-5 players. Read the quote below for more information.
Recently we tried out Round Robin rules instead of Double Elimination for tournaments with 4-5 players. It seems better than Double Elim, but the lack of elimination becomes a big problem if someone drops out mid-tournament.
Does anyone know of a tournament format that is short and where a leaving player only affects the outcome of his current match?
Post by: moehrpi on November 04, 2019, 02:44:20 pm
Post by: Wyand on November 04, 2019, 04:30:49 pm
I took it upon me to research round robin tiebreakers. I will post my findings when I finish.A little help (https://www.printyourbrackets.com/tiebreaker-in-round-robin-tournaments.html). :)
Recently we tried out Round Robin rules instead of Double Elimination for tournaments with 4-5 players. It seems better than Double Elim, but the lack of elimination becomes a big problem if someone drops out mid-tournament.
Does anyone know of a tournament format that is short and where a leaving player only affects the outcome of his current match?
Did it already happen? I think such occasions are rare. If someone has to leave I'd say let's just remove his results.
If only 3 players are remaining that is problematic, though when there are only 4 players there to play, players will
now that leaving would doom the event, so they'll leave only if it is really unavoidable.
Wait people are actually in favour of 3-man groups?
Don't know that. I personally like that version better for a 6-player tourney. More play, more chance, more fun, less stressful.
Post by: PlayerOa on February 13, 2020, 08:52:17 pm
Post by: Wyand on February 13, 2020, 09:06:40 pm
but no reaction. I think it is just part of the dying process. Ofc, it is not an official statement, just an opinion. Other than that
it is pretty frustrating that last dozen or so tourneys looked like that we had to catch players with a lasso in order to have a tourney.
Post by: Submachine on February 14, 2020, 09:03:29 am
As I see it, and this is merely an observation, this is not something that the TOs can change on the long run. It is the recurring playerbase that should increase, which would show that they care and it is not pointless for TOs to put in the effort.
Post by: Wyand on June 07, 2020, 08:33:49 pm
frequently. We just have different players pop up at different tourneys. I'd like to ask you guys how do you see it:
what to do on the TOs' end to make it happen? What would facilitate you entering tourneys more often perhaps on a weekly basis?
Post by: worldwideweb3 on June 07, 2020, 09:00:57 pm
Post by: PlayerOa on June 07, 2020, 09:14:08 pm
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on June 07, 2020, 09:38:52 pm
As probably the most enthusiastic TO of the past years, even my motivation was broken by the lack of interest shown by players. I am safe to say Zso and Naiibaf are demotivated, maybe even overburdened.Aww, I'm considered an unenthusiastic past TO ;(
As I see it, and this is merely an observation, this is not something that the TOs can change on the long run. It is the recurring playerbase that should increase, which would show that they care and it is not pointless for TOs to put in the effort.
what to do on the TOs' end to make it happen? What would facilitate you entering tourneys more often perhaps on a weekly basis?Either when the mood strikes me or rules look balanced and interesting. Would probably need a suitable time, on top of that. Last tournaments seemed fine enough on that front, if it weren't for mafia. I ran out of interesting tournament ideas after being a TO for like 3 years, so the interesting part is almost impossible, from my perspective. The most recent "interesting" ones felt more like breaking taboos I was not willing to break as TO.
But don't mind grumpy old Beef, if I was easily persuaded, I'd have been joining more tournaments to begin with :silly: