5th Trials - Suggestions and Feedback

[Sevs]

In these 5th Trials, Air has 2 contenders, Jenkar and I. Earth has 4 contenders.
This means that all 6 of us had 5 matches to complete.

I managed to defeat all 4 Earth contenders and Jenkar has lost against at least 3, however managed to defeat me thanks to R.N.Jesus, who unfortunately wasn't on my side in this 1 match.

Due to this one match, we both received 6 points in Phase 2. Does this look unfair to anyone else? u_u (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36521.msg490088#msg490088)

Maybe the total amount of wins each contender acquires should also be a factor in the total amount of points one receives at the end. It could even possibly have a greater weight than the current rank system.

What do you guys think?

I understand your frustration but that is the way the system works.

If you were going to propose a fix, it could be like total wins vs total losses.  so since i beat jenkar 3-0 and lost to hyroen 0-3 i would have a record vs air of 3-3, then again this doesnt really fix what is happening.

But you can possibly use that total number to give a percentage of points to each competitor. so Hyroen would get 40% of the points and Jenkar would get 60%. And in the opposite element phase, hyroen will have 12 wins to Jenkar's 4-7 wins.
which would get Hyroen  75% -~65% of the points.

Obviously those are the rules as of this trials and should stay like that till the end but possibly next trials?

[TheonlyrealBeef]

While thinking about Masters' Tournament some more I would also like to present the option of further restricting duos.
In every single match I played I faced a duo, in every single one of these it was the off-element cards that most annoyed me and made me lose. I understand off-element cards were introduced to prevent one element from hard countering another, but when your mono gets countered by them so bad, that in my case, only 1 out of 8 matches feels like a mono would have been a good match-up something feels off. Especially when this mono is as great and versatile as Darkness'.

So here are some options that may or may not help against just this:

• Allow banning of off-element cards: of course there has to be some restriction since some elements would otherwise just ban all PC.
• Allow only 1 kind of off-element card: this is an option I find the most interesting, you can still consistently draw PC if you need it, but won't get inconsistent duos or a reason to complain about their inconsistency. It's not like off-element cards were introduced to allow a wide range of off-element cards to be used, right?
• Remove/restrict Pendulums and Quantum Towers: it's about mono-ish decks, right? So why need all that off-element quanta? I'm not talking about total removal, just being able to use less, like up to 5 or something.
• Further restrict off-element cards to 3 or 4: it should be enough to draw that card that prevents you from getting hard counter by element match-up alone.

I was positive about off-element cards at first, and what they'd allow me to do, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized I'd basically only use them to counter other elements' off-element cards most of the time...

[Onizuka]

I think its a little silly to end part 1 of phase 1 with just one battle. A Bo3 set of battles go go go!

Also I approve for the change of points UTA suggested. Kinda silly to get half the max points in a trial minimum just because you're there x)

[mrpaper]

If we want to make things as fair as possible for future trials, maybe we could think of a system that takes in account the total result of each match since now a 3-0 sweep is the same as a 3-1 or 3-2.  Maybe something like you get 1 point for each game won and another 3 points if you won the match so a 3-0 sweep would give 6 points to 0 but a 3-2 win would give 6 to 2 points.  The number of points could be argued of course, this is just an idea to give a better picture of how well every participant does.  For exemple, I lost 3-2 (would have had 2 points) and 3-2 (2 other points) and won 3-0 (6 points) in my element.. it would be a better way to avoid many 2 or 3 way ties and would look more fair to me.

[MrBlonde]

While thinking about Masters' Tournament some more I would also like to present the option of further restricting duos.
In every single match I played I faced a duo, in every single one of these it was the off-element cards that most annoyed me and made me lose. I understand off-element cards were introduced to prevent one element from hard countering another, but when your mono gets countered by them so bad, that in my case, only 1 out of 8 matches feels like a mono would have been a good match-up something feels off. Especially when this mono is as great and versatile as Darkness'.

So here are some options that may or may not help against just this:

• Allow banning of off-element cards: of course there has to be some restriction since some elements would otherwise just ban all PC.
• Allow only 1 kind of off-element card: this is an option I find the most interesting, you can still consistently draw PC if you need it, but won't get inconsistent duos or a reason to complain about their inconsistency. It's not like off-element cards were introduced to allow a wide range of off-element cards to be used, right?
• Remove/restrict Pendulums and Quantum Towers: it's about mono-ish decks, right? So why need all that off-element quanta? I'm not talking about total removal, just being able to use less, like up to 5 or something.
• Further restrict off-element cards to 3 or 4: it should be enough to draw that card that prevents you from getting hard counter by element match-up alone.

I was positive about off-element cards at first, and what they'd allow me to do, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized I'd basically only use them to counter other elements' off-element cards most of the time...

Usually i agree with ToRB but i am in disagreement here. I want more freedom in deck building then more restrictions. I've been in every masters tourney and by far the worst one was the mono with a ban. I think when it comes to battling other elements we should try to equalize things as much as possible and give more variety of decks available so harder for direct counters. I do love having it being fully upped and would really like a full range of decks to use instead of having constrained deck building.

Also i am of disagreement that the Masters Tourney should show what element is the best (hence the arguement for using more in element cards then less). We are trying to win points here so it should be as even as possible and should be based on the PvP skill (or RNG luck  ) of the individual masters not necessarily the element.

[~Napalm]

*puts on Sparrow hat* "Ah'm havin' a thought 'ere." What if the Masters Tourney was not a part of Trials, but rather the very first step the new generation of Masters would take, even before War? Would people be open to this or is it not even worth pursuing the matter? I have lots of discombobulated ideas if you want them!

And now it's about time I gave some legitimate feedback. Registering for an element AFTER Proving of Worthiness is a great change. Whoever thought of this is a fricken genius, I swear. *butters softly* However, the phase itself could be improved upon. First off, I don't like how you have to do EVERYTHING in a particular task to get any points. I'd much rather see a bonus for completing it, such as earning more points for submitting the final objective for that task, rather than the all-or-nothing fiasco we have going on currently. Along with this though, I'd like to see options. Multiple tasks to chose from where the participant determines which they're most comfortable doing. Yes... this means we'd have to come up with new task ideas and I'd be willing to help.

As for Phase 2, I'd much rather the Masters didn't actually have one. By virtue of being Master, they've previously shown their ability to compete with other players. This would go along with my previous suggestion of removing the Masters Tourney from Trials and instead using it as a determining factor for something War related, of which I have multiple ideas. As far as the Challengers go, including an additional element in the battles is another amazing idea. I wish I knew where these ideas were coming from! *sprinkles sugar* To solve some of the issues we're having with tiebreakers and so forth, we could have a ranking system perhaps. Rather than taking the wins at face value, you could earn a point for each individual game won and lose a point for each individual game lost. With this rating system we could then assign point values for each rank, taking the number of participants into account when we create this ranking system. (Example: If we assign the points to be 6, 3, 1, 0 for maximum participants, both a 3rd of 3 and a 2nd of 2 finish could net 1 point.) Ties would of course need to be broken still, but this might help a little. And then with individual battles, I still support the 9 off-element plea. While trials is about your chosen element, a key part of being a Master is knowing the strengths and weakness of your element and being able to play to your strengths and cover your weaknesses. With the tiny bit of extra wiggle room, this will be much more plausible, while still not allowing for the freedom of War.

As we've not yet reached Phases 3 and 4, I don't have anything to add As a whole though, these trials are going much better and have been more enjoyable than the previous ones! *adds a cherry*

[YoungSot]

*notices kev covered in butter, sugar, and with a cherry on top*

*Eats kevkev*

[mrpaper]

Nothing is said if it it still tie after a 3 way sudden death.. restart or all get the same place?

[UTAlan]

Nothing is said if it it still tie after a 3 way sudden death.. restart or all get the same place?

Talked to kev and he said the method I suggested is used if there is a tiebreaker a second time around.

My suggestion for Tie Breakers would be the following:

If 2 challengers are tied, their head-to-head record determines the winner.
If 3 or more challengers are tied, the players with the most game* losses are eliminated until 2 challengers remain. Their head-to-head record determines the winner.

* As opposed to match losses.

[majofa]

Are you going to not include challengers in the polls that have been mathematically eliminated from contention?

[Jenkar]

Are you going to not include challengers in the polls that have been mathematically eliminated from contention?

Yep, he did say so in chat.

[kev]

When I was a young staff member I got some advice that essentially resulted in me keeping my own opinions out of S&F threads.  Earlier a player expressed a concern that my not commenting on feedback might mean that I'm not considering or even reading the posted feedback.  I just wanted to note this couldn't be further from the truth.  I rarely comment on them, but I do read every post in S&F shortly after it's written and I'm borderline obsessive about reading them all again before making decisions on rules.

I did want to comment on the feedback over the Phase 2 scoring system which will undergo some changes for next Trials.  Ranking challengers by number of wins isn't working as well this time around, mostly due to an unusually high number of ties.  Next Trials it'll likely be point(s) per win.

Keep up the awesome feedback, peeps.  And rest assured, I'm listening.