TPvP #4 Suggestions/Feedback Thread

[bogtro]

If you lose a match, you will automatically have to play at least 2 more matches than a player in the winners bracket to win (you have to play at least 1 more match to get back to where you were, and then win an extra match should you make the finals). While I agree that the way the brackets worked this time is slightly unfair, I don't feel like it's event-breaking. Perhaps I'm biased seeing as how we haven't had to fight through the loser's bracket, but being in the loser's bracket is a "punishment" for losing.

@Higs: Like you said about Discord, your battle elements are your choice, and thus you have only yourself to blame for failing to choose the "correct" ones. You cannot really claim that brackets are unfair because there is inherent luck in the game - this is true for any game, and the amount of luck in anything is arbitrary anyway.

@Whoever it was that said that we only had to win 3 matches to make it to the finals (and implying it was unfair): We received a bye in the first round, which was presumably RNGed and definitely not event-breaking. The first round we played, we won 2-0 over Reapers. The next round, we faced magmanfu. Despite the ruling the previous round, we agreed to play the match, and we won 2-0. The 2-0 was not a result of the ruling, it was us winning 2 games to their none in a legitimate match. We then won our next 2 rounds. That's 4 matches that we won, fully legitimately and without the aid of rulings. While I can understand why it would seem unfair that we played less matches, this is a direct result of us winning those matches. I mean no disrespect to any of the teams we faced, all of which were stronger on paper than us - many matches we really should have lost but were blessed by RNG. However, the fact remains that we did win those matches, and a winning team deserves an advantage over a losing team due to the virtue of having won.

I will agree that a different kind of format would be more optimal, but I don't believe that the winners should have the same amount of matches as the losers to "be fair" - they should have at least 2 less matches to maintain a fair event. It is slightly irksome to have to wait 3-4 matches before we play again.

[Higurashi]

First off, this thread isn't for arguing with other people. It's for giving feedback on the event, but considering how you're specifically addressing me, I'll answer.

Quite wrong, I can easily claim that. The reason is very simple and apparent in your own subsequent statement, where you contradict yourself.
The unfairness of the brackets and the elements you've chosen have nothing to do with the inherent luck in the game and vice versa. My feedback is on the brackets and you're talking about the choices of elements and the game itself. Basically, you're trying to argue with me, and you're convinced you're right, without talking about the same thing. Randomness or unfairness game-wise has nothing to do with randomness of unfairness of brackets, and since the latter can be changed, it should.

You're biased, yes, and not only from having fought less than anyone else, but also from having (soon) only participated in one TPvP. Contrary to what you keep repeating, these "non-event-breaking" issues may very well be event-breaking for someone else in the manner that they've removed the fun of the event through unfairness. That is not for you to decide, nor do you have any perspective whatsoever.

And as I said before, you'd have to try really hard not to have an answer to Discord. Most of it lies in deckbuilding.

[Demagog]

There is no harm in trying a different setup from double elimination. I only used that initially because it was simple and made sense at the time. Additionally, while I do value winning, I find it more fun when I get to play more games. So for those that end up in the losers bracket, they potentially gain access to more of the event than those that don't lose. That's kind of weird but that's how double elimination works.

[deuce22]

If you lose a match, you will automatically have to play at least 2 more matches than a player in the winners bracket to win (you have to play at least 1 more match to get back to where you were, and then win an extra match should you make the finals). While I agree that the way the brackets worked this time is slightly unfair, I don't feel like it's event-breaking. Perhaps I'm biased seeing as how we haven't had to fight through the loser's bracket, but being in the loser's bracket is a "punishment" for losing.

@Higs: Like you said about Discord, your battle elements are your choice, and thus you have only yourself to blame for failing to choose the "correct" ones. You cannot really claim that brackets are unfair because there is inherent luck in the game - this is true for any game, and the amount of luck in anything is arbitrary anyway.

@Whoever it was that said that we only had to win 3 matches to make it to the finals (and implying it was unfair): We received a bye in the first round, which was presumably RNGed and definitely not event-breaking. The first round we played, we won 2-0 over Reapers. The next round, we faced magmanfu. Despite the ruling the previous round, we agreed to play the match, and we won 2-0. The 2-0 was not a result of the ruling, it was us winning 2 games to their none in a legitimate match. We then won our next 2 rounds. That's 4 matches that we won, fully legitimately and without the aid of rulings. While I can understand why it would seem unfair that we played less matches, this is a direct result of us winning those matches. I mean no disrespect to any of the teams we faced, all of which were stronger on paper than us - many matches we really should have lost but were blessed by RNG. However, the fact remains that we did win those matches, and a winning team deserves an advantage over a losing team due to the virtue of having won.

I will agree that a different kind of format would be more optimal, but I don't believe that the winners should have the same amount of matches as the losers to "be fair" - they should have at least 2 less matches to maintain a fair event. It is slightly irksome to have to wait 3-4 matches before we play again.

I think u are probably referring to me as "whoever", but I am not trying to take anything away from your team's accomplishments. I am merely trying to point out that it is possible for a team to make it to finals with only 3 wins, which imo is an inherent flaw in the system. The further this event proceeds, the more I notice how every team that lost early is already eliminated. Some won 4 or 5 matches before getting eliminated, but there seems to be little point in a lower bracket if teams losing early have almost no chance of winning. Winning early should be it's own advantage in that you still have 1 loss to give. With this current setup, you get an additional advantage with each win, which is so horribly unbalanced. In a true double elimination tourney, teams that win initially don't get a bye while all the teams that lost face each other...that defeats the whole purpose of the setup.

Teams that win should play more games than teams that lose (regardless of setup), not the other way around.

[bogtro]

@Higs: I wasn't attempting to argue, I was attempting to provide a different viewpoint. Perhaps my vision is clouded at the moment because of my reaction to your confrontational (and somewhat condescending) tone, but I do believe that it is possible to have conflicting viewpoints.

There is inherent luck in the game - there is simply no way around that. There is still a significant amount of skill in the game (how else could there be consistent top players?), and there is no reason to manipulate an otherwise fair system to accommodate luck. The brackets may be slightly unfair, but I don't feel that the way the brackets turned out this time around is a legitimate reason to overthrow an entire system. I'm not a fan of double-elimination in general, even when the brackets work out nicely (I'm biased from chess), but I don't feel like changing the system is a necessary resolution to an unfortunate bracket.

What I was saying regarding deckbuilding and personal elements is that I do not believe the losers bracket needs to be compensated because there is "inherent luck" in the game. While I agree that there is inherent luck in the game, and we've certainly got more than our fair share of it, this shouldn't have an effect on how brackets are constructed.

In short, I agree with you that double-elim is not the optimal format, but for different reasons than you are stating.

@deuce22: Nitpick: 4 wins
Teams that lose early should, IMO, be at an early disadvantage. The team that we just beat, Armedilgo, needs one more win to make finals, which seems perfectly fair to me. The way the brackets turned out were not caused by the format, or RNG, they were caused by the number of byes that were given. With the number of teams that there were, double-elimination just isn't pretty, as is illustrated.



Again, I'm significantly biased and thus can't really be taken too seriously, but the bottom line is the format isn't broken, just this time was.

[deuce22]

@deuce22: Nitpick: 4 wins
Teams that lose early should, IMO, be at an early disadvantage. The team that we just beat, Armedilgo, needs one more win to make finals, which seems perfectly fair to me. The way the brackets turned out were not caused by the format, or RNG, they were caused by the number of byes that were given. With the number of teams that there were, double-elimination just isn't pretty, as is illustrated.



Again, I'm significantly biased and thus can't really be taken too seriously, but the bottom line is the format isn't broken, just this time was.

My point is that in a perfectly balanced double elimination bracket, teams that lose early already are at a disadvantage since they can't afford another loss. With this setup, teams that lose early have to play 1 extra game for EACH ROUND until finals, which puts them at an even further disadvantage because they are now more likely to lose compared to teams that win.

[bogtro]

You're confusing me :/

What you just said is exactly what I've been saying the entire time: Those who lose are at an inherent disadvantage since they cannot afford another loss. Of course they have to play 1 extra game each round - they need to catch up. Are you claiming this is unfair?

For example, say that 6 wins are required to win the tournament in the winners bracket. Then, the losing team from round 1 needs to win 6 matches, plus an extra one in the finals. They thus played 2 matches more than the team that made the finals from the winners bracket. Is this unfair? No. That's how double-elimination works, and it's really not unfair.

The way the brackets worked out this time, some teams got significantly more than a fair 2-match disadvantage, but this is not a direct consequence of the double-elim system. It's a consequence of the non-even number of teams, forcing byes and thus strange brackets. There is no good solution to this (besides finding a better format).

[TStar]

Currently these are the things I am either planning to change or considering changing for the next TPvP:

Substitution System - It's a big upgrade over what we had in TPvP #3 but it still needs more work.  It's a bit too complicated and restrictive right now which is mostly my fault for taking too many factors into consideration.  The simple fix is probably allowing teammates to sub for each other like they do in War.  I'm open to other suggestions.  What I do not want it a system that allows players not on the team to be involved with building and/or tweaking decks for matches.  The decks should come from the team and not the sub.

Bracket Format - Double elimination worked in the past very well, but we've never had to consider a 30-team format in any event using this system before.  There is just too much lag time between the brackets and too much of a disparity between games played by winners versus losers.  The World Cup-style pool-then-bracket format sounds like an option.

Battle Elements - This one is tricky.  Several players had the unfortunate luck of having the same battle element multiple times, or teammates having the same battle element in a single match.  I've considered making a rule that no player can have the same battle element in consecutive rounds, but the issue there is that their opponent the next round may get a huge benefit from that battle element and it isn't really fair to penalize that player by banning a beneficial element from them.  I've also considered making a rule that a battle element can only be used once per match to prevent repeats and that one I think should be ok.  A slightly more complex modification I've considered that would add a new level of strategy into picking Team and Personal elements is to make a rule that in each matchup the Team and Personal elements of both teams act as bans to battle elements.  That would mean that if your picks Entropy for a team element and you pick Earth and your teammates take Death and Life, then in your battle Death and Life would be banned as battle elements, along with whatever bans you get from your opponents Team, Personal, and teammates elements.  This would influence element selection since you know whatever elements your teammates select would permanently be banned from you.  I'd like to hear peoples thoughts on that idea since I'm not sure yet if that might be too much.  One downside is that players would have an even smaller battle element pool meaning the likelihood of getting the same battle element multiple times would increase.  The benefit is that teams who select power elements would be banning those elements from their teammates, although this might just encourage all teams to go with those power elements to ensure that at least one teammate has access to them and they aren't completely banned.

[deuce22]

Battle Elements - This one is tricky. 

A slightly more complex modification I've considered that would add a new level of strategy into picking Team and Personal elements is to make a rule that in each matchup the Team and Personal elements of both teams act as bans to battle elements.  That would mean that if your picks Entropy for a team element and you pick Earth and your teammates take Death and Life, then in your battle Death and Life would be banned as battle elements, along with whatever bans you get from your opponents Team, Personal, and teammates elements. 

I like this idea a lot.

[majofa]

This will be the next event!!

Just need some feedback on a few things that have been discussed in this thread.

FORMAT
No more double-elimination tournament.

New options:
Double-elimination using the Swiss-style format
World Cup format

ELEMENTS
Battle elements will now ALWAYS be different for teams' matchups
You can still get the same element two matches in a row (sorry about this one)
How do people feel about battle elements not matching team teammates' elements either?

A slightly more complex modification I've considered that would add a new level of strategy into picking Team and Personal elements is to make a rule that in each matchup the Team and Personal elements of both teams act as bans to battle elements.  That would mean that if your picks Entropy for a team element and you pick Earth and your teammates take Death and Life, then in your battle Death and Life would be banned as battle elements, along with whatever bans you get from your opponents Team, Personal, and teammates elements.  This would influence element selection since you know whatever elements your teammates select would permanently be banned from you.

I also thought about a 'tiered' system where, by votes or another method, the elements are separated into 3 groups of 4, and each player must choose from a different group (team element can be from any). Might be too much of a change, but it would mix it up a bit, as opposed to the same decks from the last 4 Team PvPs.

SUBSTITUTIONS
This will always be the most difficult thing to manage in all PvP Events....

I'm thinking this:

You may sub for a teammate only if given approval by the event organizer, and you can't sub for the same player 2 rounds in a row.
(This would have to be changed a little if the World Cup format is used)

Can someone please post a link to this in chat.

[RootRanger]

Double Elimination (whether Swiss or Classic) is superior to World Cup.

With double elimination, I believe that there would be more skill in the event because it takes two unfavorable matchups to be eliminated instead of one.

Last sideboard, many people did not play their matches, especially in the loser's bracket. But if you think that a small chance at winning will hold people back from getting their matches done, just look at how many people played their matches in the group stage when they had already been mathematically eliminated. Double elimination might even encourage activity even more than the current format, as well as making the event more fair and skillful.

I certainly see the appeal of Swiss Double Elimination. It's faster than Classic Double Elimination without any severe drawbacks. I believe it's a little more RNG-based due to the late round byes and 1 loss players being paired with 0 loss players if there is an odd number, but this is a fair enough price to pay.

I have to ask, why is approval from the event organizer needed for substitution. Teams often don't know they have to substitute until they are almost out of time, and then asking the event organizer would delay this even more.

[majofa]

I have to ask, why is approval from the event organizer needed for substitution. Teams often don't know they have to substitute until they are almost out of time, and then asking the event organizer would delay this even more.

So participants are more active in trying to get their match done. Plus I'm on all the time, so it shouldn't be a problem.