Your two tables aren't the same. One is based on power, the other is based on players left. Going by your first one: only 1-2 battle would be best-of-5. The second one could cause problems in the frenzy at the beginning of the event. (The numbers weren't random btw)
When this tourney is run again, I'd like to increase the amount of participants to 50-60, then the final battles would be between players with ~30 power. As it stands right now, there are 3 players left with 6, 13, & 13 power.
Yeah, I got totally mixed up when doing those tables, so the latter makes no sense. What I meant was that the system would be that when half the players are gone (on average), battles become best-of-5. Other option is to raise the duel number when 75% are gone.
Here's what the numbers would look if matches were done in tournament style:
1st Round: 32 players, each with a power of 1
2nd Round: 16 players, each with a power of 2
3rd Round: 8 players, each with a power of 4
4th Round: 4 players, each with a power of 8
5th Round: 2 players, each with a power of 16
So if we changed the number of duels for imaginary round 3, that would give us this kind of table:
| # | Battles |
| 2-7 | Best-of-3 |
| 8-31 | Best-of-5 |
| 32 | Best-of-7 |
Which would mean this:
24 best-of-3 matches
6 best-of-5 matches
1 best-of-7 match
All those numbers are of course what would happen
on average. It's probably not the perfect solution, but I like rules that are based on math. Is there a similar system on which the current numbers are based on, or are they just what "feels" right?
The number of participants is an interesting dilemma. Problem with going as high as 60 is that the more players there are, the less useful it is to gain more power.
Lets say only us two are left. You have 15 power and I have 45. My issue would be that I have more power than I need. Although gathering more power means that you have less, it's still not as useful as going from power 29 to 30 because I am wasting upped cards.
Something between 40 and 50 would probably be optimal.
One option would be to implement something like what I talked about earlier, the "special card" thing. Maybe we could give some players "special cards" that only they can use, and others "power" which translates to upped cards. You could then challenge other players based on whether you want upped cards or a specific "special card".
Or we could give players both.
You may not win by decking out your opponent. If a player decks out, it does not count as a win for either player, and the duel continues. (If this happens, both players may change their decks)
What is the reasoning behind this rule?
Because you need to 'kill' your opponent, as in, drop their HP to zero. With this rule you would need to actively attack your opponent instead of just targeting his creatures and waiting for him to run out of cards.
I dislike that rule. Beating a player who has upped cards advantage is hard enough as it is, and having a rule that prevents the building of deck-out decks, makes it even worse.
If unique deckbuilding rules were introduced, I think they should change the way players build their decks or choose their strategy, not simply ban certain types of decks. The latter doesn't really give us new interesting options, it only dramatically limits our current ones.
