Elements PvP Tournament - Suggestions and Feedback

[Wyand]

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.

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).

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.

[moehrpi]

I don't think an obligation to post decks is the way to go. That being said I like to see other people do it and generally post mine if I do reasonably well. Unless it's very specific with weirdly bad decks that happen to be the meta. I. e. decks that have little to do with EtG outside of those rules.

[ddevans96]

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.

[Wyand]

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.

[ddevans96]

I don't really care either way if a rule requiring some people (preferably not people who didn't win any matches, however - I'd most prefer only the winner, but top 3 is also fine) to share decks publicly. I save all my decks, it doesn't affect me.

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.

[Wyand]

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.

[Submachine]

We are currently working on a way to implement this, but within reasonable limits.

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.

[serprex]

Start it off with top 2 instead of top 3. Only require posting decks used in finals. Then it'll be like most other events where both players post their decks. Also it makes it straight forward since players can post their decks immediately after the match, whereas often third place goes to whoever is slowest to forfeit 3rd place match, & nobody has to wait around after losing to post decks

[Wyand]

I think it would be great to have tournaments exclusively for newbies. You may say there aren't too much newbies nowadays
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?)

[Wyand]

For next tourney I'd advise a speedbuilding one. 7x7, for example. And a voting about time... UTC 2 is horrid.

[Submachine]

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?

[Wyand]

2. Oa vs Sub was decided based on their match against each other

We 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).