5th Trials - Suggestions and Feedback

[kev]

The final standings further illustrate my point concerning how points are dispersed to Masters and Challengers. Only i personally have a considerable advantage over my opponent and all i had to do was win War AND the Masters Tourney. Every other Master who has an advantage has a very marginal one. But perhaps i am thinking about this the wrong way as maybe the goal is for Masters and Challengers to be as even as possible. I just think it's harder for Masters to actually receive a card advantage with how our current system is setup.

Nilse, TorB, Willng,and Napalm all had point disadvantages going into phase 3 despite scoring the same amount of points in Phase 2 as all their challengers (Higs was tied). Only myself and 10men could have actually gone into phase 3 with an advantage. I personally don't think that current Masters should have to win the popularity vote to catch up to our challengers or have a very modest advantage. I think modding the points for an even dispersment to Masters would be better. One master does not need to hog all the points as i did this trial.

I think giving Masters additional points for phase 1 would even things out. Perhaps give us a total of 15 points to earn and perhaps more work to do. I loathe to even suggest that but it would give the Masters who truly want to keep their title a point boost we need (or just give us some free points, that would be nice too ).

Anyhow i am speaking from purely a Masters viewpoint and i have never had a card disadvantage in any trial but i don't think it makes any of my points invalid.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AqCh8-BfWOzYdGJXdFNmbkl6Zk8zN1BKemNqd1NSTVE&single=true&gid=16&output=html

More devil's advocate to stir up discussion: Why make it easier for Masters to keep their position by handing them free points?  If a Master boycotts Phase 1, doesn't have time to play during Phase 2, and puts no effort into Phase 3 but shows up for the Final Battle, why should s/he be given any points against an up and coming player who is more active and busting his ass?  Is that really better for the community?  One might argue Masters who feel they are owed a free pass from Phase 1 are proving they deserve the title less.  I really can't see why a Master would deserve more points from Phase 1 than a Challenger.

Phase 3 is skewed towards Masters only because the community tends to vote for reelection.  Masters averaged 4.25 points in Phase 3; the Challengers they're ultimately facing averaged only 3.5.  During Phase 2 Masters averaged 4.75 points and the Challengers they're ultimately facing averaged 6 points.

Lesson learned from the above: Challengers earned half an up more than their Masters during Phases 2 and 3.  Let's not everyone go crazy complaining about injustice.

The real question, I guess, is whether it makes sense to give free points to Masters to make them harder to oust.  I shared my thoughts above but there seem to be many within the community who feel differently and it's not just limited to current Masters.  I'd love more feedback on this issue.

Please note my tone above probably comes off harsher than the way I really feel.  I recognize those who have commented on the issue, especially MrBlonde, aren't really looking for free handouts as much as they are trying to improve a system.

[~Napalm]

Free points is almost never a good idea. Ways to EARN more points though... why not!

[Onizuka]

Possibly a reconstructed master's tourney point giving? 
4-6th place in an optimally 12 player double elimination gets 3 points, which is easily gotten even if you're not the best in your element or facing the opp element.
12 points has always seemed a little excessive for me, but I guess you can say its reward for what element are master of/favorable pairings.

Still against war bonuses too, but I doubt that'll ever change.

And a master who doesn't try in phase two should just get 0 points.

[~Napalm]

So recently I had what I believe to be my greatest idea ever. I've always wished the Final Battle could be completely upgraded and that we could come up with another system to ensure people put forth effort. And then kev happens. Ban points! What if... both participants in the Final Battle could use fully upgraded decks but the amount of effort and success they put into phases 1-3 determines the amount of bans they have? Just a thought, but I think it's something to think about.

[YoungSot]

I like that idea. It makes the points more important, thus putting more emphasis on earlier phases compared to the final battle.

[bogtro]

I think the idea is decent, but I don't think there are enough people who could field enough upgrades to make several competitive decks. I had trouble getting enough with just 19, and I was grinding quite a bit. A plethora of upgrades shouldn't be a requirement for being a master. Other than that, I really like the idea of points translating into bans. This would slightly reduce the number of bans (on average), which is probably a good thing considering the large number of bans this time.

[UTAlan]

I think the idea is decent, but I don't think there are enough people who could field enough upgrades to make several competitive decks. I had trouble getting enough with just 19, and I was grinding quite a bit. A plethora of upgrades shouldn't be a requirement for being a master.

Speaking as someone who would love to be a master, and missed the finals by a single point, and does NOT have very many upgraded cards, I (mostly) disagree. No, it shouldn't be a direct requirement, but if you can't be competitive in a fully upped match, you may not be ready to be a master. In-game experience is an important part of being a master. (See: Performing well as a War General.)

[MrBlonde]

Phase 3 is skewed towards Masters only because the community tends to vote for reelection.  Masters averaged 4.25 points in Phase 3; the Challengers they're ultimately facing averaged only 3.5.  During Phase 2 Masters averaged 4.75 points and the Challengers they're ultimately facing averaged 6 points.

Lesson learned from the above: Challengers earned half an up more than their Masters during Phases 2 and 3.  Let's not everyone go crazy complaining about injustice.

I guess that's really my argument. If anything the Masters should get an innate advantage  (having ousted a prior Master) rather then on average have less cards then their challenger (regardless of how big or small). I don't think they should be free points by no means (although i wouldn't say no  ) but something that would equalize it a bit better. I'm thinking if all work is equal a 2-3 card advantage on average per Master wouldn't be a terrible thing.

Anyhow just my thoughts and again my viewpoint is purely from a Masters bias who has never had a card disadvantage. I do like the direction we are going in though and hopefully i can keep my title one more time and reach the penultimate goal of Grandmaster.

[Onizuka]

Could have a system where every ban point you don't use=another up or two.

Instead of grabbing a filler card you grab another up or two. Could have a system where bans points are raised across the board or some multiplier, then you do bans and whatever points you have left or something like that would be your upped cards.

[YoungSot]

I do like the direction we are going in though and hopefully i can keep my title one more time and reach the penultimate goal of Grandmaster.

Just curious: If Grandmaster is the penultimate goal, then what is the Ultimate goal???

[Jenkar]

I do like the direction we are going in though and hopefully i can keep my title one more time and reach the penultimate goal of Grandmaster.

Just curious: If Grandmaster is the penultimate goal, then what is the Ultimate goal???

Adminhood.

[xdude]

I do like the direction we are going in though and hopefully i can keep my title one more time and reach the penultimate goal of Grandmaster.

Just curious: If Grandmaster is the penultimate goal, then what is the Ultimate goal???

Beating me.