Elements PvP Tournament - Suggestions and Feedback

[glennfoo]

We need a more fair way for tiebreaker.
If two people are actively searching each other during tourney, and either the net fails or the server is, it's not their fault. (though, the net part is partially their fault)
A coin flip does nothing to decide who deserves to win (= who is more prepared and skilled this week)
There are 2 suggestions in tourney chat:
1. Both players PM the TO their deck choice. TO then judge which deck is likely to win.
2. Both players PM the TO their deck choice. TO then put both in xeno's game simulator (for one game) and decides the result there.

Both of these suggestions are very easy to do, shows deckbuilding skill of each player (though not deckplaying), and are generally regarded as "more fair".

To be honest, i would be mad too if my skill does not count in my win or loss, but rather, the damned coin does.

I also prefer this way than the coinflip. at least it is something. today i just lost again due to coinflip when i am trying to search my opponent. maybe TO can put those 2 deck in simulator?? i mean letting the ai decide then. definitely better than coinflip. since both also may depend on RNG but the ai sud give a better definite answer. and they will not take lots of time too??

[drolly]

I agree that a coin flip is not the ideal solution. I witnessed two of them today and it was, well, cruel. I really like the idea to use the deck simulator. People know which decks can be played well by the AI and will be able to adjust their submissions. However, it still takes about five minutes and Higurashi is right that this is undesirable in a tournament environment . Therefore, I would suggest the following:

• The player with fewer tournament wins so far gets the win. The rewards for a tournament are especially valuable for newcomers, so it might look fair to give them a greater chance to acquire them. Well, I hope that this doesn't invite people to stonewall a veteran after going 1-1 against them.
• In case the rule above results in a tie, flip a coin. The winner advances, the loser gets a star. The next time a match is about to be decided by coin flip, the player with more stars wins and one star is subtracted from their account. That would require some logging but looking something up in a spreadsheet is fast enough in my opinion.

Alternatively, the number of tournaments the players already participated in could break a tie. Show interest in ("grind"?) tournaments to eventually get an advantage.

[Higurashi]

1 is not an option in any way.
2 appeals to an idea of general artificial fairness, but isn't fair for each individual tourney. There's no good reason a player should autowin because he's been in more tourneys and two players can't connect. Although this might seem to conform to what a normal person would call "fair" in general, it's not fair in an isolated environment such as our tournaments.

Although y'all are missing the point, I appreciate the ideas.

[bogtro]

How about this:
Player A has x game losses this tourney
Player B has y game losses this tourney

A random integer is chosen from 0 to x+y+1 inclusive. If the number is between 0 and x inclusive, player A loses. Otherwise, player B loses.

IE: Player A wins his first 2 matches 2-0, while Player B wins his first two matches 2-1. Then A has lost 0 games, and B has lost 2 games. A number is chosen from 0 to 3. If it is 0, A loses. If it is 1 to 3, B loses.

This has the advantage of giving a greater chance to those who have won by greater margins, which should supposedly measure skill.

Though I still prefer the send decks to organizer option.

[furballdn]

Topic brought up in chat. There needs to be another qualification for joining tourneys. In addition to 30 posts, make sure someone has at least a two week old account. This prevents noobs from spamming 30 low quality posts last minute to join, and also stops noobs from joining just for one tourney and leaving. It'd be like a test to see who is really interested in tourneys.

[justaburd]

Rather than 2 weeks, make it say... 5 days, but at least 20 posts must be more than 5 days from the tourney deadline.

[Cheesy111]

Rather than 2 weeks, make it say... 5 days, but at least 20 posts must be more than 5 days from the tourney deadline.

Topic brought up in chat. There needs to be another qualification for joining tourneys. In addition to 30 posts, make sure someone has at least a two week old account. This prevents noobs from spamming 30 low quality posts last minute to join, and also stops noobs from joining just for one tourney and leaving. It'd be like a test to see who is really interested in tourneys.

No.  People who don't listen will be people who don't listen and will be banned. People who are genuine and friendly shouldn't have to wait some alloted amount of time to join a tourney.

[ddevans96]

One or two-week rule forces the noobs to acquaint themselves with the community and learn our ways a little bit before getting involved and likely banned for spamming. It does negatively affect the good people as well, but so did adding the 30-post rule. It's a lesser of two evils thing, just like the 30-post rule was, in my eyes.

[Xenocidius]

A rule like that would, I believe, be detrimental overall. People generally only want to participate in a tournament for a bit of fun - they don't want to waste time acquainting themselves with the community. The 30-post rule is guilty for stepping on these people too, but the proposed rule would do so even more.

Here's an alternative I suggested in Chat, which could potentially replace the 30-post rule: reinstalling Quizzes and forcing everyone to complete a quiz on tourney rules before they can participate. This is quick, easy, and ensures that people read the rules. I understand that this was suggested before and possibly used, though my memory fails me. One of the reasons against this was that it did nothing to prevent cheaters using multiple accounts. I believe that this was before the new chatroom where all mods could see IP addresses was installed, so this may not be such a problem any more.

[Annele]

A rule like that would, I believe, be detrimental overall. People generally only want to participate in a tournament for a bit of fun - they don't want to waste time acquainting themselves with the community. The 30-post rule is guilty for stepping on these people too, but the proposed rule would do so even more.

Here's an alternative I suggested in Chat, which could potentially replace the 30-post rule: reinstalling Quizzes and forcing everyone to complete a quiz on tourney rules before they can participate. This is quick, easy, and ensures that people read the rules. I understand that this was suggested before and possibly used, though my memory fails me. One of the reasons against this was that it did nothing to prevent cheaters using multiple accounts. I believe that this was before the new chatroom where all mods could see IP addresses was installed, so this may not be such a problem any more.

I like this. It would stop the spamming we're currently getting.

Spoiler for and lots of it:

+1 if this gets implemented.

Also, the quizzes looked fun. I was sad when they stopped them before I could get an account.

[drolly]

I've just had another idea for a qualification. As I get it, the purpose of the rule is to prevent people who don't know much about PvPing from joining a tournament. They should be familiar with exchanging IGNs, entering PvP Duel, what to do in case of a desync, reporting results correctly etc. so that they don't delay the tourney unnecessarily. So what if people were forced to play one or two PvP matches before joining? This can be easily accomplished by joining the league (well, that's what I did when I started) or randomly asking for a friendly match and reporting it in the Duels section, which needs more activity anyway.

A quiz on tournament rules sounds good, too.

[ARTHANASIOS]

I've just had another idea for a qualification. As I get it, the purpose of the rule is to prevent people who don't know much about PvPing from joining a tournament. They should be familiar with exchanging IGNs, entering PvP Duel, what to do in case of a desync, reporting results correctly etc. so that they don't delay the tourney unnecessarily. So what if people were forced to play one or two PvP matches before joining? This can be easily accomplished by joining the league (well, that's what I did when I started) or randomly asking for a friendly match and reporting it in the Duels section, which needs more activity anyway.

A quiz on tournament rules sounds good, too.

 This sounds as a pretty good idea. I personally had a bad experience with the first weekly tourney I participated two weeks ago and, despite the fact I have read the rules, I was totally inexperienced with the chat, friendly PvP and IGN which made people to think I hadn't read the tournament rules at all. Drolly's suggestion would prevent things like this from happening again, so my +1 goes to drolly for this suggestion.