Elements PvP Tournament - Suggestions and Feedback

[n00b]

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.

Tl;dr Rewards staying the same.

[deuce22]

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

[Blacksmith]

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.

Tl;dr Rewards staying the same.

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.

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).

[RootRanger]

Statistically speaking, the actual skill gap between 2nd and 3rd is very small. They both have the same number of wins and losses (on average). There is a 50% chance 2nd and 3rd both lost to the same person, too. I would not oppose equalizing the electrum reward between 2nd and 3rd as long as the marks/nymphs go to 1st and 2nd.

[dragonsdemesne]

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

[Cheesy111]

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.

[Laxadarap]

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

[glennfoo]

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 
only some people has nymphs, and it will not really be fair for those who do not have them.

[dragonsdemesne]

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.

[Vangelios]

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

[Onizuka]

Regarding last tourney.

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.

[Cheesy111]

Regarding last tourney.

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.

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).