Elements PvP Tournament - Suggestions and Feedback

[Vineroz]

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.

[Theboss1248]

Seemed interesting, lost solely due to bad RNG in the first round against a mirror deck.

[dragonsdemesne]

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)

[Vineroz]

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.

[dragonsdemesne]

You wouldn't need 36 polls.  Using your compilation of votes here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0An7rzZAC3RVUdEN2SWUzRnA4V1JzR3RwV2NLMDVzM0E&single=true&gid=8&output=html

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. 

[Jen-i]

Love the monthly schedule idea guys!

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!

[dragonsdemesne]

Just wanted to toss in my two cents and say that the meta produced by the July 5th tourney was great, and one of the most balanced ones I've seen in quite a long time.

[Vineroz]

Love the monthly schedule idea guys!

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!

It will now show the schedule of current month and the month after.

[Vangelios]

I think we may have a schedule for shards too, and every 4 tournaments upgraded one being with shards upgraded.

[Marsu]

I'd much rather see an unupgraded tournament with shards, as they really are not dominant in the unupped unlimited meta and they might just not be in limited either.

[rob77dp]

I am hereby formally suggesting (and requesting) that TO's begin locking each week's Tournament topic from time of topic creation until start of tournament.

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

[Higurashi]

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.