New Tournament Reward System

[moehrpi]

In defence of the new format: you will get more marks than you did before. Somehow no one seems to acknowledge that to its fullest. The issue is that it does not feel as rewarding to win, myself included. But I also feel that people dismiss this approach too quickly. Winning a tournament with fewer than eight players is not as impressive as you want to make it appear AND doing reasonable well (not losing the first game (!)) already gives great rewards in comparison to first place but also to previous rules. I am not the biggest fan but see the silver lining: getting rid of DE.

However, winning an 8+-man tournament should come very close to what it's been before. Rewards for 2-3/4 place should be on par with smaller tournaments, however.

I'd like to know if people could see themselves playing round robin in a tourney with up to 6 players. Even playing Bo2 was feasible. This could go well with the current distribution of prizes.

[Manuel]

u get more marks because u are turning everything into a giant league

i play 30 tour in a year = i can get several marks without even winning one tour
i play 3 tour in a year = i win one of them and i can't even get a mark from it

this new system give a bonus to mediocrity and be a tryharder (getting codes without winning) and punish occasional/new players
rerevamp leagues if u want to do something similar to this, don't touch weekly tournaments

[shockcannon]

If we're going to stop doing electrum codes do you think I could just grab like 20 of them? I could really use some electrum codes.

[Dm]

I think a point based system is fine, but the amount of points one is able to gain overall from a tournament should be strictly related, and scaled to, the amount of people in the tournament, and not have a set amount per victory regardless of the tournament size. I would enjoy this change with this in mind.

In other words, I support pretty much everything TORB said.

Spoiler for Quote:

Personally, I am of the opinion that prizes should be directly proportional to the number of matches played, 16 players = 4 matches = 1 Mark code for first place as a starting point. If you play less matches because of a bye, your win chance increases accordingly, so I think it is not unfair to reduce the amount of points gained due to a bye. You still always get a trophy for first, so it is always better to have a bye for a better chance at rewards.

For second place, about half the points seems right. Third is barely worse than second (same amount of matches won), fourth is just bad and should not get any reward, or barely any reward. Great contrast between third and fourth helps motivating for playing third place match, too.

[JonathanCrazyJ]

In defence of the new format: you will get more marks than you did before. Somehow no one seems to acknowledge that to its fullest. The issue is that it does not feel as rewarding to win, myself included. But I also feel that people dismiss this approach too quickly. Winning a tournament with fewer than eight players is not as impressive as you want to make it appear AND doing reasonable well (not losing the first game (!)) already gives great rewards in comparison to first place but also to previous rules. I am not the biggest fan but see the silver lining: getting rid of DE.

However, winning an 8+-man tournament should come very close to what it's been before. Rewards for 2-3/4 place should be on par with smaller tournaments, however.

I'd like to know if people could see themselves playing round robin in a tourney with up to 6 players. Even playing Bo2 was feasible. This could go well with the current distribution of prizes.

You might get more if you regularly tourney.
I would get less, even after winning my occasional tourneys. With this in place, if i was in chat and tourney needed an extra person and i was available, id think "whats the point" and might not play when might i have played before.

I have lots of marks any nymphs. I see no problem with mark inflation tbh. Anyone who does is being elitist and just wants to say "my marks are worth more than yours". We struggle for players, we should be more enticing to the few who still play, not less. I have no issue with 4 players turning up, single elimination, winner gets a mark. At least they showed up.

This directly makes tournaments less exciting, it is a terrible idea which i guarentee will show a drop in attendance

[PlayerOa]

In defence of the new format: you will get more marks than you did before. Somehow no one seems to acknowledge that to its fullest. The issue is that it does not feel as rewarding to win, myself included. But I also feel that people dismiss this approach too quickly. Winning a tournament with fewer than eight players is not as impressive as you want to make it appear AND doing reasonable well (not losing the first game (!)) already gives great rewards in comparison to first place but also to previous rules. I am not the biggest fan but see the silver lining: getting rid of DE.

However, winning an 8+-man tournament should come very close to what it's been before. Rewards for 2-3/4 place should be on par with smaller tournaments, however.

I'd like to know if people could see themselves playing round robin in a tourney with up to 6 players. Even playing Bo2 was feasible. This could go well with the current distribution of prizes.

You might get more if you regularly tourney.
I would get less, even after winning my occasional tourneys. With this in place, if i was in chat and tourney needed an extra person and i was available, id think "whats the point" and might not play when might i have played before.

I have lots of marks any nymphs. I see no problem with mark inflation tbh. Anyone who does is being elitist and just wants to say "my marks are worth more than yours". We struggle for players, we should be more enticing to the few who still play, not less. I have no issue with 4 players turning up, single elimination, winner gets a mark. At least they showed up.

This directly makes tournaments less exciting, it is a terrible idea which i guarentee will show a drop in attendance

After some thinking I have to agree with pretty much all of this. I can only speak for myself, but with the current tourney scheduling I can only (unfortunately) make it to a very small amount of the tournaments. And just like you I probably won't bother if I don't get a shot on the code without participating (and doing kinda well) twice or even thrice - seeing there might be several months in between my participations. And I guess that is the case for several others too, including JCJ.

[Submachine]

After hearing everyone's opinion, it is time for our first improvement to our suggested system.

The biggest unsatisfaction seems to arise from first place rewards not always guaranteeing a nymph/mark code. That is a fair point. But at first, we should decide what is the absolute minimum effort that's worth awarding a nymph/mark code. To measure this, we ask the following questions:

• What is the minimum number of wins that should award a mark code in a single tournament?
• Should a bye equal a win?

The answer to the second question affects the meaning of the first question. For example, if the threshold is winning 3 times and byes count as wins, then winning only twice and getting a bye would award a nymph/mark code.

People who get first place without reaching the absolute minimum would still get almost enough points for a nymph/mark code.

[DoctorWho42]

I personally support this system, largely because it stops pretending electrum is really a reward (since it's so easy to obtain from the game's AI and arena) and instead offers more opportunities for players who can't get to first because there might be one person better than them. It rewards people who get second, for example, consistently, which the current system doesn't do because people who get second only get a measly 5,000 electrum with out current system. And I must say, I'm still waiting on my 3,000 from last week's tournament.

[Manuel]

in 99% of sports u achieve the same reward if u get a bye

giving out a code to someone who win a tour with only 2 wins = bad
giving out 10 codes in a year to someone who didn't even reached a final = good

there is no logic, if there aren't enough players reschedule the entire tournament or do whatever you do in this case

[JonathanCrazyJ]

just give a code for a win of a tourney regardless, and allow 4 player tournaments. Jesus the game is dying, flash is likely dying what's teh harm in a few extra codes flying around, and at least it means that if someone turns up to a tourney and there are 4 players they get to play normally, and might show up again to the next one. Encourages people showing up and fosters the likelihood that the next one will be more than 4 players

[moehrpi]

I personally support this system, largely because it stops pretending electrum is really a reward (since it's so easy to obtain from the game's AI and arena) and instead offers more opportunities for players who can't get to first because there might be one person better than them. It rewards people who get second, for example, consistently, which the current system doesn't do because people who get second only get a measly 5,000 electrum with out current system. And I must say, I'm still waiting on my 3,000 from last week's tournament.

If you get second consistently you do something wrong. In fact you should not make more than 50% more second places than first places. It equals a 40% win rate in the finals. If you 'consistently' fail to do so it indicates that your decks aren't good enough and you should not win. I very much include building the strongest possible deck, winning against most decks and having to face a counter in the finals and failing to adapt.

Electrum is useless, though. Let us trade 100k worth of electrum codes for a nymph!


Addressing Sub's questions:
Two wins is too few. That's why double elimination was introduced in the first place. Of course, you can have  a discussion about it but most people seem to can get behind the idea and I don't see the need to set a precedent. I like to point out again that 8+-man tournaments should reward the winner with a mark code.For fewer attendees double elimination ensured the winner had to play at least a third match.

Concerning the second question, generally yes, but starting with unbalanced bracket, say 6 players, unfairly (imo) favours some players over others. So, no. A bye should not count as a win an winning 2 matches in a 7-player single elimination does not merit a mark code.


Alternatively establish round robin for up to 6 players. Or just listen to JCJ.

[Submachine]

if there aren't enough players reschedule the entire tournament or do whatever you do in this case

If there aren't enough players, we host double elimination, but that's what we are trying to avoid.

give a code for a win of a tourney regardless, and allow 4 player tournaments.

To the question of "What is the minimum number of wins that should award a mark code in a single tournament?", this answer translates to "2". And we will act accordingly if this becomes the most popular answer.

Let us trade 100k worth of electrum codes for a nymph!

That could work in a similar system to what we originally suggested, but with tweaked numbers. For now, we are trying to build from bottom to top.

Alternatively establish round robin for up to 6 players.

We haven't dismissed this idea yet either.