TPvP #3 Feedback Thread

[TStar]

Well, needless to say this running of TPvP hasn't been as smooth as hoped.  There have been a variety of issues and concerns.  With most of the teams eliminated it seems like a good time to discuss some of the issues involved.  Some of the issues I'd like to hear feedback on:

* No editing rule
* substitution system

Post your thoughts on these and add any other suggestions or issues you like.  Look forward to hearing from everyone!

[willng3]

I didn't mind the no-editing rule personally.  Given that this was the first time I had joined TPvP, I made sure to read the rules from top to bottom before attempting to take part in the event.  However, there were a few issues with this that I did feel were very problematic.

Firstly, the location of the rule itself.  Yeah, it's listed in a red font, but it's not where it's supposed to be located which would be underneath of the specific rules for this event.  You can tell people that they needed to read the rules all they like, but the the bottom line is that if the rule isn't specifically pointed out in the section for rules exclusive to this event, then it will go by largely unnoticed.  Unless some announcement is made beforehand that things have changed, I know that I personally don't normally reread the standard set of rules for PvP Events since for me they're the same unless indicated otherwise.

To go along with what I said above, the only way this rule would have been accepted was if it was either added in that exclusive rules set for this event list or if it was applied to all TPvP Events.  It also makes little sense for this rule to be applied to this event specifically when all other PvP Events have the same potential for this type of cheating to transpire (not to mention it's not an effective method of stopping the cheating at all).  This rule was applied during the last TPvP Event because of a certain happening which forced the residing PvPO to take action to prevent the drama from getting out of hand; there was no reason to assume that this drama would resurface in a new form just because this just happened to be the same event, restarted.

None of this is an excuse for starting drama during the event itself, however.  We do have a set of forum rules for a reason.


Yeah, I don't like that substitution system, but I really don't see a better way of doing it.  I mean, I guess you could improve on it slightly by having one reserve member for each team just in case someone does drop, but there's no way of stopping someone from leaving if they really want to.  Of course not allowing a substitution would really be unfair to the other players on a team if their member dropped without notice, putting them at a disadvantage and causing them to wish they had selected another member as that 3rd leg.  I think the system's fine, even if I wish that it didn't have to exist to begin with.

[truddy02]

This probably applies to all PvP events, though other problems in this event highlighted it, but I think there needs to be more restrictions on time extensions.  I understand that it isn't always easy to matchup with people on the other side of the world and the point is to get matches done and not disqualify people.  However, giving an extension to those that cannot get their matches done is essentially saying that they are more important than those that do manage to get their matches done within the time limit.  I propose that each team gets one 1 or 2 day extension and that it is strictly enforced.  If every team needs the extension in the first round then there would be no more extensions allowed.  It may need to be worked out differently or discussed more but I think it would help the event run more smoothly and in a timely manner.  As it is now, people just expect an extension and might not put as much effort in to get their match done.  Particularly in this event which is in its third running and shouldn't have as many questions or issues with exactly how it works.  It was particularly magnified in this event because of the rules controversy and changing organizers but I think if we are going to have time lines for when rounds are to be completed that we should stick to them.

[TStar]

I should probably clarify what I meant about a substitution system.  I don't mean not allowing teams to permanently replace a player who quits.  What I mean is creating a system where if, for example, a player will be away for a week on vacation/business/etc. that some sort of temporary substitute can be named to play that game for them.

My initial impression is that I'm hesitant to just having teams add a 4th "sub player".  That's just more players on teams that might need to be replaced, plus it can limit the number players available is a replacement for a quitting player is needed.  I've been contemplating whether a "floating sub" system might work better.  A player not on a team can register as a sub, so whenever a team needed someone to fill in for a game they can just pick anyone on the list to take over that one time.  The bonus here is that subs won't be tied to teams which should make it easier for teams to find them in a pinch.  It also means that a single sub can fill in for multiple matches in a single round if required.  It sounds good in theory having that flexibility to keep things running more smoothly.  I'm sure I'm missing some obvious drawbacks though.

[QuantumT]

I think the no editing rule needs to be thrown out. It was put in place to prevent cheating, but it doesn't even do that. All it does is punish random people who aren't aware of the rule.

[RootRanger]

The no-editing rules is able to stop people from posting an illegal deck, being accused of an illegal deck, and then changing their deck to something legal that they did not use. People could delete their post, but other users would have seen their post before the accusation. The no-editing rule would be in this event instead of other events because people accidentally make illegal decks in this even more often than some others, because this event has the 2/3 rule. Removing the no-editing rule could cause just as much conflict.
Perhaps we could remove the 2/3 rule. Without the 2/3 rule, illegal decks will be less common; thus, there will be no need for the no-editting rule.
The original Team PvP, with the 2/3 rule, was created in a metagame without pendulums. In that metagame, decks with no more than 2/3 of one element were more difficult if a player was only given 3 elements to use. Without pendulums, the 2/3 rule caused more creativity in deckbuilding. However, with pendulums, duo decks are better than before. Mono decks have almost gone extinct; just look at the decks in war (very few monos). If the 2/3 rule is removed, people will still run duos, just like previous events with the 2/3 rule. But with the 2/3 rule removed, a lack of a no-editing rule will have far fewer consequences.

[Scaredgirl]

Yea, any kind of 2/3 rule is a bad idea. We should use two kinds of percentages: 100% and 50%. All others are a fail because someone will fail in math for sure, and events shouldn't be too much about math.

I haven't looked at all the evidence, but having some kind of special "no editing" rule in this event, that is not on any other event, sounds pretty bad. It should be gotten rid of, and if that is not possible, then I can resort to drastic measures and tweak the permissions if this forum section so that you cannot edit posts.

[TStar]

Yea, any kind of 2/3 rule is a bad idea. We should use two kinds of percentages: 100% and 50%. All others are a fail because someone will fail in math for sure, and events shouldn't be too much about math.

I haven't looked at all the evidence, but having some kind of special "no editing" rule in this event, that is not on any other event, sounds pretty bad. It should be gotten rid of, and if that is not possible, then I can resort to drastic measures and tweak the permissions if this forum section so that you cannot edit posts.

I'm still on the fence with the 2/3 rule.  I understand the purpose of it originally, and while pendulums have changed the metagame since, I'm hesitant to scrap it completely.  I don't want to open the door for people to simple run a mono deck, or even War-type decks (monos with a splash of something else run off the Mark only).  I think abandoning the rule completely would stifle creativity more than promote it and creative deckbuilding is a major part of this event.  A 50% rule might work but with only 3 elements available to people I worry that could wind up being too restrictive.  Maybe adding a table to the Rules showing the maximum number of cards of a single element by deck size might solve the math problems.  I'll keep thinking about it.

I'm inclined to go back to the honor system and scrap the no-edit rule entirely, but I'm waiting to hear feedback from players who are more familiar with the reasons it was instituted in the first place.  There was some issue during TPvP #2 I believe that led to this.

[MrBlonde]

I'm inclined to go back to the honor system and scrap the no-edit rule entirely, but I'm waiting to hear feedback from players who are more familiar with the reasons it was instituted in the first place.  There was some issue during TPvP #2 I believe that led to this.

It was just a whole lot of "he said, you said" between Nils and KDZ. Nils posted a wrong deck by accident fixed it and KDZ said that wasn't the deck, yada yada yada. So just a whole lot of drama and accusations. This also happened another time during the event with Nils as well (don't remember what that incident exactly was).

IMO this was an unfortunate isolated incident that for the most part does not ever appear. Going back to the standard honor system really is the better way to go. Losing because of an edit is terrible (and this coming from someone who benefited from it this tourney).

[BBs22]

Where is the TPvP #2 page anyways?