Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game
Elements the Game => Trials => Events and Competitions => Trial Archive => Topic started by: Afdarenty on March 29, 2017, 11:51:05 pm
-
Liked something? Didn't like something? Have a cool idea for next Trials? Let us know!
Your posts here will have a big impact on the rules for the 12th Trials, so every tiny detail is greatly appreciated.
-
Allow Warmasters and Brawlmasters to receive the war bonus points from brawl bonus points respectively. I'm not suggesting a full 5/4 points like 1st place General/Boss, but even something small like 2 points for General/Boss of the last place teams.
Both sets of staff work hard to run their respective events and most likely put an equal effort of time and work as those teams participating, it is sad to see them lose out at points for hosting instead of participating.
EDIT: Also to add to that what about Brawl's Voter's panel? as the most recent brawl required a voting panel and members who may have abstained from participation due to taking on the role of voter's panel now also miss out on the Brawl's bonus points. If Brawl continues to have such extra roles removing from possible participants, will Future Trials allow other possible ways to gain those missed bonus point opportunities.
-
For the warmaster part, I remember thinking about that at some point, too. Then I forgot.
Anyway, unless the organizers were really lazy, I'd go so far as giving them a bonus that equals what their opponent gets. It's only for the final battle, so you're only just taking the disadvantage away.
I suppose you could do something similar for brawlmasters... but I don't agree with doing it for the voting panel. Not the full amount, anyway.
-
IIRC there were a few people during Brawl who said to me that Master's shouldn't get first dibs on being Boss, that it should be seperate from mastership. I pointed out to them that this is because Trials and Mastership has always had connection and that I couldn't just remove it since some people might have become Masters at least partly because of Brawl, and because Masters are "expected" to be Bosses (even if this is not happening too much). This (the removal of Msaters as Bosses) is not something I neccessarily agree with myself, but if you do think that Brawl and Mastership should be split, this is the place to complain folks! (I guess?)
-
IIRC there were a few people during Brawl who said to me that Master's shouldn't get first dibs on being Boss, that it should be seperate from mastership. I pointed out to them that this is because Trials and Mastership has always had connection and that I couldn't just remove it since some people might have become Masters at least partly because of Brawl, and because Masters are "expected" to be Bosses (even if this is not happening too much). This (the removal of Msaters as Bosses) is not something I neccessarily agree with myself, but if you do think that Brawl and Mastership should be split, this is the place to complain folks! (I guess?)
I think, as with general in war, masters should be allowed first dibs, but it shouldn't hold back non-masters, should they want to be a boss too... seems like current system is fine imo
-
How much interest is there in a General Discussion thread? We'll add one if it looks like it will see some use.
-
How much interest is there in a General Discussion thread? We'll add one if it looks like it will see some use.
I think with so many subplots in trials it could be a good place for centralised banter and discussion
-
How much interest is there in a General Discussion thread? We'll add one if it looks like it will see some use.
+1
-
Something I would like to suggest is for brawl bonus to be adjusted.
Bosses do not deserve more points than members. I refuse to gain extra points for no reason. Hell Jenkar and kaempfer deserve those extra points much more than I do.
-
How much interest is there in a General Discussion thread? We'll add one if it looks like it will see some use.
I think with so many subplots in trials it could be a good place for centralised banter and discussion
Seconded.
-
There's 30 hours left to sign up and we only know 4 defending masters. On occasion, people sign up based on the chance to play a specific defending master (for example, I got criticized for backing out of last trials) so in my opinion this uncertainty takes some of the fun out. In the future, I think masters should have to declare defense at least a couple days before the challenger signups are over.
-
There's 30 hours left to sign up and we only know 4 defending masters. On occasion, people sign up based on the chance to play a specific defending master (for example, I got criticized for backing out of last trials) so in my opinion this uncertainty takes some of the fun out. In the future, I think masters should have to declare defense at least a couple days before the challenger signups are over.
I agree with dd. Not only is it easier for you TrO guys but it doesnt create the confusion like it does now.
-
This is a suggestions for both trials, war and brawl, where rules are very similar each year.
There should be a post made only of what rules have changed since last time.
-
Now that Phase 1 is over, we'd like some feedback on the new system. Was it too much work? Did it feel like a chore? Did you decide to not Trial because Phase 1 was too much workload? Were you frustrated by the points system? What were you aiming for with submissions, scraping a 2, managing a solid 3 or shooting for a 4? Were you daunted that a 4 seemed impossible, and even a 3 way too much work?
All feedback is appreciated. Phase 1 is always a topic of discussion for TrOs and trialists, and we want to come up with a system that's best for everyone. Your feedback would be a great help :]
-
I took for granted that everybody would have 2, and that the 3 and 4 would be subjectively given only to the elites(and not so elites, sometimes O.o)
-
Next trials we'll probably remove all differences between masters and challengers in phases 1-3. This means masters and challengers would no longer have seperate phase 2s, and there would be no special points for beating masters. Masters would still get to final battle directly.
Thoughts? All remnants of master's tourney is going away, how do you feel about that? Do you think masters should get no benefits at all i.e. they souldn't get to final battle if two challengers have more points?
While you're here, I'd love feedback on my last post.
-
Masters not getting to the final battle would ruin the whole point imo. There's no "defending master".
The rest seem okay, though I personally enjoyed facing other masters as a master instead of random people. If this is removed, I'd still like the extra 0.5 points that was given a few trials ago for beating a master in phase 2, but that's just me.
-
It's hard to give feedback on Phase 1 until points are handed out: only once we know how our effort is rewarded will we be able to tell if "aiming for even higher" would have been too much work.
Masters tournament was great, but the fact that it took place during trials has always been a killer. You really want at least 8 masters participating, but that would not even have been possible this trials. Counting on 8 masters from last term being active AND defending is folly these days, so I have no regrets with it disappearing.
-
Next time, consider appointing STANDIN to withdrawals instead of giving free wins, though I do understand that time can be an issue, I think it would be overall fairer. Anyway, a point to be considered imo.
-
Also, some thoughts on Phase 2:
- If you are going to have bans, please just arrange it via Trials Overseers by default and put a deadline to it on which all bans are published simultaneously. I personally think this is much easier for participants, it certainly is for me.
- For the restrictions on deckbuilding mentioned in rules, avoid conditionals where possible. Right now, there were a LOT of them, like creatures that could not be banned, but only if they were from the opponents' main element; cards that would count as two bans if your opponent had the element twice. The more conditionals you add to rules, the harder it is to get a clear total picture.
- Less restrictions on elemental usage. I'm personally not a great fan of being so restricted in which elements you can use. Also, monos just once? I'd rather see each off-element being unlocked by default for at least one usage, with phase 1 possibly unlocking additional usage.
- Two weeks was good, if I knew bans in advance, it would have been perfect.
As for Phase 1 points: I think it was some really shady business. There should be clear guidelines on what is needed to reach how many points as well as an overview of why whom earned how many. Right now, you can't help but notice TrOs getting ridiculously many. Even if the rating happened fairly, TrOs had the advantage of being the only ones to know how Phase 1 would be rated: they knew exactly how much effort to put in, whereas the participants weren't told shit. This is a horrible system that promotes distrust towards TrOs.
-
we were discussing torb's point in chat, and this happened
[21:08:22] ‹worldwideweb3› I think he felt more than TrO's knew how much to write/do. Don't think he knew we could ask for feedback before end of phase 1 on our tasks
[21:08:25] ‹ji412jo› You're currently 2 points ahead, Aves would need to beat me by 30% votes to go to final, so I'm expecting to face you, with something around the 5 upgrades disadvantage.
[21:08:33] ‹worldwideweb3› *that not than
[21:08:57] ‹ji412jo› ‹@worldwideweb3› we could ask if our tasks were worth at least 2 points, not for if they were worth more.
[21:10:20] ‹Ryli› Mine could have been more, but I switched task on the last day and wrote it up in an hour :silly:
[21:10:30] ‹worldwideweb3› we could ask that too jijo
[21:10:56] ‹ji412jo› ‹@worldwideweb3› I was told we could not, therefore if it was possible then I'll riot alongside torb.
[21:11:18] ‹ji412jo› 3 upgrades can make a big difference.
[21:11:55] ‹ji412jo› I did my phase 1 on the first day it was posted, I would have had a lot of time to try and upgrade it.
[21:12:01] ‹Physsion› Perhaps we weren't clear enough about exactly what could be asked for, I gave a few evaluations suggesting 3 or 4 points myself, not sure what the other two were doing
[21:12:32] ‹ji412jo› ‹@Physsion› Afda told me my tasks were worth 2 points, and that he could not tell me more.
[21:12:40] ‹worldwideweb3› zaw told me it's borderline 2/3 with 3 if I did more work on it
[21:13:04] ‹ji412jo› ‹@worldwideweb3› Seriously now?
[21:13:14] ‹worldwideweb3› I was happy with 3 anyways so it was fine
[21:13:28] ‹ji412jo› I'm taking this chat to S&F.
This needs, well its too late, so this needed to be much clearer. The difference between getting average (4) and max (8) points is huge. This sounds like a clear advantage towards some people.
-
Had some discussion this past week with Afda. Here are my thoughts on some things:
Bonus points
-Overall, way too many bonus point opportunities dilute the actual benefit of bonus points
-War bonus for generals and Brawl boss is fine
-WM bonus is fine
-War bonus for soldiers is way too high for soldiers from winning teams. Just because you were lucky enough to be on a good team and maybe show up for most of your duels does not mean that you deserve more points than a General who probably put in countless more hours of work and finished lower in the standings. Soldiers should get at most the same amount as the last place general. Based on the current ruleset, that would be 2 instead of 4.
-Same thing for brawl bonus
-Trials participation should not be awarded equally. Currently, losing 3 trials and winning 6 consecutive trials get awarded the same bonus...completely illogical. Perhaps change to 0.5 point for trials participation with max 2 points, and 1.0 point for each mastership with max 4 points.
Phase 1
-Waste of time for masters. Many may disagree with me, but trials IMO is about finding suitable challengers, not retesting masters with time-consuming BS. Why do masters have to repeatedly prove their worthiness when they've already done so multiple times. Phase 1 is more "Prove your activity level".
-Not a fan of selecting tasks based on elements to use in Phase 2, especially if you don't know your off-element opponents yet
-similar issue with available upgrades for phase 2. Just drastically increases likelihood of illegal decks
-Personally, I think phase 1 should just be tossed. Or at least award a flat number of points for completion, no graded scale.
Phase 2
-i'm not a fan of off-element duels. Often not facing same opponent, and sometimes not even the same elements. Reducing the amount of duels will benefit everyone.
Phase 3
-fine as is
Phase 4
-change up the deckbuilding and/or bans rules each year
Other thoughts
-Get rid of the "points" system altogether. Master and challenger have same amount of upgrades in final battle, except for bonus point difference
-
Had some discussion this past week with Afda. Here are my thoughts on some things:
Bonus points
-Overall, way too many bonus point opportunities dilute the actual benefit of bonus points
-War bonus for generals and Brawl boss is fine
-WM bonus is fine
-War bonus for soldiers is way too high for soldiers from winning teams. Just because you were lucky enough to be on a good team and maybe show up for most of your duels does not mean that you deserve more points than a General who probably put in countless more hours of work and finished lower in the standings. Soldiers should get at most the same amount as the last place general. Based on the current ruleset, that would be 2 instead of 4.
-Same thing for brawl bonus
-Trials participation should not be awarded equally. Currently, losing 3 trials and winning 6 consecutive trials get awarded the same bonus...completely illogical. Perhaps change to 0.5 point for trials participation with max 2 points, and 1.0 point for each mastership with max 4 points.
Phase 1
-Waste of time for masters. Many may disagree with me, but trials IMO is about finding suitable challengers, not retesting masters with time-consuming BS. Why do masters have to repeatedly prove their worthiness when they've already done so multiple times. Phase 1 is more "Prove your activity level".
-Not a fan of selecting tasks based on elements to use in Phase 2, especially if you don't know your off-element opponents yet
-similar issue with available upgrades for phase 2. Just drastically increases likelihood of illegal decks
-Personally, I think phase 1 should just be tossed. Or at least award a flat number of points for completion, no graded scale.
Phase 2
-i'm not a fan of off-element duels. Often not facing same opponent, and sometimes not even the same elements. Reducing the amount of duels will benefit everyone.
Phase 3
-fine as is
Phase 4
-change up the deckbuilding and/or bans rules each year
Other thoughts
-Get rid of the "points" system altogether. Master and challenger have same amount of upgrades in final battle, except for bonus point difference
I disagree with many of these suggestions, and I'll make an attempt to argue why I prefer the current system to them.
Bonus Points
I think that many soldiers (though certainly not all) do contribute in meaningful ways to the success of their teams, especially those on the most successful teams. It takes a team effort to build, mindgate, test, and so on, and it isn't just playing matches. Likewise, a Brawl Boss is rarely uniquely responsible for the success of their team.
I'm completely ok with revamping the Loyalty Bonus, and giving past masters more points than losing players could make sense. I do think, however, the intent of the bonus is to reward players for sticking to a single element, rather than to reward them for past successes, so I can also see a case for keeping it as is.
Phase 1
I don't think that the existence of Phase 1 exists only to prove a player's activity, or to actually even prove worthiness. Perhaps the name of the round could be changed. The point of the round is to give players a chance to think critically about aspects of the game and their element other than just raw playing skill - designing events, cards, and more. It adds something to keeping Mastership as being more than just another PVP title. Since a serious contender should in theory be able to complete any of the tasks, allowing players to choose which tasks to complete based on available elements and upgrades unlocked adds an aspect of macro-strategy that shouldn't be discounted. This is Trials, not some extended version of a weekly tournament.
I also think that adding the graded scale added some relevance to the tasks, which had previously been free-2-ville, and I think that's a good thing. We want to encourage the most unique aspect of Trials to actually matter, and skill ought to be rewarded!
I could certainly see some benefit to knowing opponents before Phase 1 is completed, but that necessitates adding a phase 0 for signups.
Phase 2
Players within an element are supposed to have a common list of opponents, and the only exception are the Warrior matches. Reducing duels isn't needed, but I wouldn't be against increasing the time limit for the round to help ease whatever burdens might exist.
Phase 3
I also have no issues with Phase 3.
Phase 4
Some variation in deckbuilding and bans from year to year can't hurt, though I hesitate to stray too far from what makes Trials what it is. I like the existence of the points accumulated turning into your upgrades, as it makes EVERY round and match and vote along the way matter for more than just being in the top 2, and playing with an upgrade advantage or disadvantage has an impact on both deck selection and banning strategy in a meaningfully skill-testing way. The advantage is earned, not given, so it seems hardly unfair.
-
a couple responses to elk's comments
re: bonus points for soldiers - I never said, or even implied, that soldiers don't contribute to the war team. Typically, the general of any team (as long as he/she remains active) is going to do more work than almost any soldier. There are of course always exceptions, and there is no way to account for these when allocating bonus points in trials. But just because a team wins war does not mean all the soldiers were more active than anyone else in war (general or soldier). And the notion that war is only won by a team effort is also grossly incorrect. A good team certainly helps and makes winning war more likely, but I'm gonna guess around half the war winning teams were dominated by a single individual calling all the shots.
re: phase 1 - like I said, many people will disagree with my opinion on this, and I have no problem with that. The idea that phase 1 "adds something to keeping mastership as being more than just a PVP title" seems ridiculous to me. Trials IS a PVP event, and it provides winners with the opportunities to lead an element-based team in War and/or Brawl. Phase 1 and 3 are just additional things that slightly affect the PVP. As for the grading scale, see the above comments by torb and jijo on how well that is working out so far. The subjective nature of phase 1 needs to be removed, otherwise others like torb may quit as well mid-trials.
re: phase 4 - I understand your viewpoint on this, and I hold the same sentiments about preserving the structure of war. However, I haven't really had to change my deckbuilding for the last 4-5 aether final battles, which is kind of boring. Granted, Afda promised me the final battle would be a bit different this trials.
-
Why do you allow multiple votes in phase 3? Especially considering you can vote for everyone and none worthy at the same time. It doesn't make much sense and takes away the advantage that a better contender can gain from this phase
-
Why do you allow multiple votes in phase 3? Especially considering you can vote for everyone and none worthy at the same time. It doesn't make much sense and takes away the advantage that a better contender can gain from this phase
Multiple votes were allowed to provide voters with options. If you couldn't choose between two or more people, previously you'd have to decide by RNG or something trivial. People would often vote strategically, to place theirs on a candidate who'd matter later on. We decided to provide everyone with the option to decide how their votes would go, so that they were no longer restricted by these concerns.
Also, this voting system is one of the simplest ways to ensure that the results represent who the voters agree with. It lets you make a relevant vote while also not having to compromise on your own wishes of say voting on a less relevant trialist. Normal polling is not a very good voting system to capture the complexities of human choice, and this system offers a compromise between that and simplicity.
Allowing votes on ALL the trialists was a mistake though. It should have been #(trialists) - 1, as any more votes than that is wasted. I wish I hadn't made this mistake when I made the polls, but it's too late now. We will fix this next time.
-
why must we have a :light final battle? couldnt we just declare no master? Solaris has already been eliminated as per the rules. Nothing personal, but i do not see why he should be given another chance.
-
In addition to this, you may choose up to 2 cards. These are banned for both you and your opponent. This costs 0 points.
For the sake of future spectators (those who wish to learn past bans in future Trials, for example), mind marking bans declared this way in the final bans doc (italicising them, bolding them, writing them in all-caps, just whatever so that the free bans stand out)?
-
a random standin player having an overpowering upgrade advantage over a legit challenger makes no sense to me.
Suggestion: Upgrade count of standin should be equal to the challenger's on the final battle.
-
One can question whether a challenger who gives up less than halfway is legit. If the challenger was trying, they'd have to be doing very badly to only accumulate 9 upgrades. Looking at the standings, 20 is below average for finalist upgrades.
-
One can question whether a challenger who gives up less than halfway is legit. If the challenger was trying, they'd have to be doing very badly to only accumulate 9 upgrades. Looking at the standings, 20 is below average for finalist upgrades.
But with the current rules, trials are not objective meritocracy like you wish them to be, it is a competition hence they are relativistic. A magnificent player would win against a mighty player and become master of A. But it also allows a bad player winning against a worse one and become master of B. From a perspective of merit, this doesn't mean they are equally worthy of being masters.
If godisnowonline hadn't drop but performed even worse than solaris, Solaris would most likely have more upgrades and win. why does godisnowonline dropping from trials have to make it harder for solaris ?
-
One can question whether a challenger who gives up less than halfway is legit. If the challenger was trying, they'd have to be doing very badly to only accumulate 9 upgrades. Looking at the standings, 20 is below average for finalist upgrades.
But with the current rules, trials are not objective meritocracy like you wish them to be, it is a competition hence they are relativistic. A magnificent player would win against a mighty player and become master of A. But it also allows a bad player winning against a worse one and become master of B. From a perspective of merit, this doesn't mean they are equally worthy of being masters.
If godisnowonline hadn't drop but performed even worse than solaris, Solaris would most likely have more upgrades and win. why does godisnowonline dropping from trials have to make it harder for solaris ?
It actually would have been godisnowonline against standin, not gino vs sol, because sol did not do well enough to make it to final battle. (iirc)
-
It actually would have been godisnowonline against standin, not gino vs sol, because sol did not do well enough to make it to final battle. (iirc)
I see. Like i said on other topic, i didn't follow the reasons, just the outcome. I haven't read the rules nor follow the progress of trials. If i cared enough, i would probably join.
I just checked the final battle topics and that looked (still does) silly.
-
STANDIN having the same amount of upgrades as their opponent would undermine all that happened in the first 3 phases of trials, which is not something we want AT ALL. So that is probably not going to happen.
A case may be made, however, for reducing STANDIN's upgrades. As kae pointed out, it might be worth making it slightly less than the expected upgrades of a mediocre player. This would provide an advantage to the challenger, which the community might accept if it was a one-person trial but is probably not on board with if there was a majority vote on None Worthy. We could do 15+phase 3 points for None Worthy to STANDIN and preserve the community's wishes, but that would do nothing to address the issue that hain raised. Another thing we might do is decrease the STANDIN upgrades for weaker elements, since these are more likely to have bad records in off-element matches.
What does everyone think?
-
I see three main problems with STANDIN having the same number of upgrades:
- A good challenger that goes for 25+ upgrades is going to be at a disadvantage, since in the case 2 challengers are in the final battle, he's likely to have more upgrades than his opponent, not the same amount of upgrades.
- It disregards the first 3 phases. You can put 0 effort in and still have no disadvantage.
- the challenger can shape the meta around him, he's good in unupped meta? No effort and go for a low upgrades final
I feel like the number of 20 upgrades is good with the current rules, a challenger that's worthy and puts serious effort in is going to have a 5+ upgrades advantage most of the time.
I propose another change somewhere though: Forget about bonus points for trials and war. There's no reason to give someone upgrades just because he got drafted in the winning team and there's even less of a reason to give someone 5 more upgrades just because he lost 3 trials in a row. I find that these bonus points aren't in the spirit of trials and promote elitism.
And with these bonus upgrades gone, we can safely give STANDIN only 15 upgrades.
-
Do rules prevent two bad players, both of which are worse than a standin player, from playing the final match ? If we want deserving masters, i think the rules should address that issue. Otherwise it is only the ones without a legit challenger and facing a standin that are punished.
ie;
>i join aether trial and duke the final with guest-frog-3945 and get a free mastership
>averagepotato joins life trials and gets LORDOWNER_666 as STANDIN opponent and gets destroyed
How about pitting both finalist against a same standin player first ? And the loser is eliminated, if both win they may go for a bo5 together.
-
Do rules prevent two bad players, both of which are worse than a standin player, from playing the final match ? If we want deserving masters, i think the rules should address that issue. Otherwise it is only the ones without a legit challenger and facing a standin that are punished.
ie;
>i join aether trial and duke the final with guest-frog-3945 and get a free mastership
>averagepotato joins life trials and gets LORDOWNER_666 as STANDIN opponent and gets destroyed
How about pitting both finalist against a same standin player first ? And the loser is eliminated, if both win they may go for a bo5 together.
They do. If none worthy gets more than 50 % votes in phase 3, STANDIN plays the person with most points. Though i guess you could have an OP player vs nub
-
They do. If none worthy gets more than 50 % votes in phase 3, STANDIN plays the person with most points. Though i guess you could have an OP player vs nub
Doesn't the voting phase measure popularity instead of merit ? :D
-
They do. If none worthy gets more than 50 % votes in phase 3, STANDIN plays the person with most points. Though i guess you could have an OP player vs nub
Doesn't the voting phase measure popularity instead of merit ? :D
That's absolutely correct, but it doesn't mean that it's a bad measure of merit. It takes a certain amount of disbelief in somebody's abilities to vote 'none worthy,' beyond mere dislike of a person. If over half of the voting community thinks that somebody isn't worthy, they probably aren't.
-
They do. If none worthy gets more than 50 % votes in phase 3, STANDIN plays the person with most points. Though i guess you could have an OP player vs nub
Doesn't the voting phase measure popularity instead of merit ? :D
That's absolutely correct, but it doesn't mean that it's a bad measure of merit. It takes a certain amount of disbelief in somebody's abilities to vote 'none worthy,' beyond mere dislike of a person. If over half of the voting community thinks that somebody isn't worthy, they probably aren't.
Which is not to say that in all cases that none worthy doesn't get a majority vote, the challengers are, so the problem remains. Maybe guest-frog-3945 comes up with a really good meme to become really popular. Mark of Frog, yo!
-
I have a suggestion for next trials regarding phase one:
If a task similar to that of "The Cultured Contender" is going to be in next trials, perhaps expand it to include more artforms, such as sculpture or musical composition, while removing the writing aspect, which I see as little more than an overflow from some of the other challenges. For writers, there was already "The Elements Scribe" and (to some extent) "The Forum Expert".