Fake AI Challenge

[brettbstock]

I posted this in the wrong section. I mean, the exact opposite of where I should have posted it. So... sorry about that. Buuuuuut... here is my idea! Now in the correct section!

Maybe something like this:

1. Every person sends in the (unchangeable) deck that they will use throughout the event to an organizer.
2. The organizers rate the decks from ai1-ai5. (Upped cards allowed, but if upped cards are used, the minimum ranking for your deck will be ai4)
3. The event begins. Throughout the event, people can play each other as many times as they want. Every victory earns the player the ranking of their opponent's deck in points. Example: I defeat a person whose deck was ranked ai4. I get 4 points. Every loss results in you losing the points for your deck. For example: I lose using a deck ranked ai1. I lose 1 point. (Every player's deck ranking would be posted publicly)
4. The event ends. The person with the most points wins.

[MyNameIsJoey]

Hmm... could sound interesting.
But, id have the decks rated by multiple people ( the whole PvPO team, per exemple), because some people have different thinking about different decks, and what deck i could think wont do great another person could use it differently and make a better use of it.

[RootRanger]

This is a bad idea.

This is basically equalizing out people with poor decks. The worse a rating your deck recieves, the fewer points you lose for each loss. It's giving an advantage to players that make horrible decks.

Also, I think that Elements already involves enough luck. One's success in this tournament heavily relies on the opinion of the director.

[brettbstock]

This is a bad idea.

This is basically equalizing out people with poor decks. The worse a rating your deck recieves, the fewer points you lose for each loss. It's giving an advantage to players that make horrible decks.

But they also get less points per win. It all evens out.

EDIT: Ignore me. I forgot the rules to my own event. They don't get less points per win... but they would lose a lot more often using a bad deck.

[RootRanger]

I defeat a person whose deck was ranked ai4. I get 4 points.I lose using a deck ranked ai1. I lose 1 point.

So if you have an AI1 deck and beat AI4 you gain 4 points. If you have an AI1 deck and lose to AI4 you lose 1 point. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier.

[brettbstock]

I defeat a person whose deck was ranked ai4. I get 4 points.I lose using a deck ranked ai1. I lose 1 point.

So if you have an AI1 deck and beat AI4 you gain 4 points. If you have an AI1 deck and lose to AI4 you lose 1 point. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier.

Yes. If you have a good deck, and beat a bad deck, you get a low score for that round. Use a weak deck, and somehow defeat a good deck, then you get more points. Excuse me if I don't understand why you think it's unfair.

[RootRanger]

Because talented deck builders would be disadvantaged because they would lose more points for a loss. Weak deck builders will have an advantage because they lose fewer points for a loss.

Deck building is a big part of Elements. Good deck builders are usually good players. However, you are causing good decks to lose more points for a loss, thus good deck builders lose more points for a loss, thus good players lose more points for a loss, and thus good players are disadvantaged like I said earlier.

Why do you want to handicap good players?

EDIT: OK, I decided to include a suggestion. How about the deck is rated by how many upgraded cards it has. For example, no upgrades would be AI1. Up to 25% upgrades would be AI2. Up to 50% is AI3. Up to 75% is AI4, and up to 100% is AI5. This way you still have the AI system, but talented deck builders that use few upgraded cards will have a low ranking and be rewarded for their talented deckbuilding.

[brettbstock]

Because talented deck builders would be disadvantaged because they would lose more points for a loss. Weak deck builders will have an advantage because they lose fewer points for a loss.

Deck building is a big part of Elements. Good deck builders are usually good players. However, you are causing good decks to lose more points for a loss, thus good deck builders lose more points for a loss, thus good players lose more points for a loss, and thus good players are disadvantaged like I said earlier.

Why do you want to handicap good players?

EDIT: OK, I decided to include a suggestion. How about the deck is rated by how many upgraded cards it has. For example, no upgrades would be AI1. Up to 25% upgrades would be AI2. Up to 50% is AI3. Up to 75% is AI4, and up to 100% is AI5. This way you still have the AI system, but talented deck builders that use few upgraded cards will have a low ranking and be rewarded for their talented deckbuilding.

Not trying to be mean or anything here, but here's a different version of the same rules.

Every person builds a deck. Organizers rate it from ai1-ai5. For every win, you gain points based on the ranking of your opponent's deck. For example: I defeat an ai4 deck, I get 4 points. This is so people who continuously "grind" off of ai1 decks will not have as high of a score as people who grind against ai5 decks. However, if you happen to lose a game, you lose points based on the ranking of your deck. So, if I use an ai1 deck, I'd only lose 1 point per loss. This was made so people who use wimpy decks don't lose as many points. However, they are also less likely to win than an ai5 person.

These are not biased, IMO. I'm not sure I completely understand why you think it is. I mean, yeah, a person using a lower deck rating would get less points lost per game, but they'd also be less likely to win. As opposed to an ai5 deck user, who would be more likely to win, but when s/he loses, it would hit his/her score harder.

[RootRanger]

Usually in a tournament if you are incapable of creating a good deck you will face the consequences and a good deck builder will probably win. In this tournament, there is less/no consequence for being incapable of creating a good deck and someone who cannot make a good deck could easily win. I believe that the winner of a tournament should be someone that can both create great decks and play them well. In this tournament, the winner only has to play well. The winner can be completely incapable of making a balanced deck.

Also, as said before, this tournament involves large amounts of luck (assuming the personal opinion of one person can be called luck). For example, two people could try to create a deck that is as bad as possible while remaining an AI1 deck. One deck could be significantly better than the other, but the tournament director could make them both AI1. This is why I suggested concrete requirements in my previous post. Thus, everyone knows what to shoot for and the rankings of the decks are not luck/opinion.

[brettbstock]

This is why I suggested concrete requirements in my previous post. Thus, everyone knows what to shoot for and the rankings of the decks are not luck/opinion.

IMO, that'd be biased towards people who can't afford upped cards. I'll agree that concrete requirements aren't a bad idea, but it shouldn't be based on the number of upped cards. Perhaps cost of a deck?

[RootRanger]

Cost of a deck would make decks centered around low cost creatures because those are the cheapest. I can imagine rainbow being popular because it spams a bunch of low costing creatures, spells, and permanents.

Perhaps,
AI1 = No upgrades
AI2 = 1-3 upgrades
AI3 = 4-6 upgrades
AI4 = 7-9 upgrades
Ai5 = 10-12 upgrades

I think an unupped deck would have about a 1/6 chance at beating a 12 upgrade deck. Besides, 12 upgrades is not much. The tourney tommorow/today is all upped.

[brettbstock]

Cost of a deck would make decks centered around low cost creatures because those are the cheapest. I can imagine rainbow being popular because it spams a bunch of low costing creatures, spells, and permanents.

Perhaps,
AI1 = No upgrades
AI2 = 1-3 upgrades
AI3 = 4-6 upgrades
AI4 = 7-9 upgrades
Ai5 = 10-12 upgrades

I think an unupped deck would have about a 1/6 chance at beating a 12 upgrade deck. Besides, 12 upgrades is not much. The tourney tommorow/today is all upped.

I'd prefer to make it more centered around the ais. So, since ai2 in the actual game has no upgrades, that wouldn't work out too well. However, the whole 'Concrete Requirements" thing is good. I'll have to think on what the requirements themselves would be. Perhaps, just to make everything easier, entrants can only use decks from the deck archives.