5th Trials - Suggestions and Feedback

[MrBlonde]

Napalm asked us some questions in the Masters Dojo and i would like to put what i posted here (this deals mainly with the Masters Tourney).

a) Could Phase 1 be improved and expanded upon with regards to Masters?

I certainly think so. I don't think we should necessarily be given a free pass like Majofa has suggested but perhaps a partial pass. Say if we had to do 3 out 6 tasks perhaps one of them is a freebie and we get points for them. I still think we as Masters should put effort into retaining our title but perhaps a little less work for us?

b) It seems to me that most Masters would prefer 9 off-element cards*. Do you agree with this sentiment and why?

I think 9 would be great. Honestly the more off-element cards the better. Although there is a limit since the last thing i would want to see is everyone and their grabbows

c) The Masters Tourney is the Phase 2 for the participating Masters. Is there a better system for this?

I love the Masters Tourney, just wish we had a little more time. Basically i don't mind events running long and wouldn't mind all aspects of the trials lasting longer, but thats just me.

d) Would the Masters Tourney being the step between Trials and War be an interesting idea?
*In regards to both Phase 2 and the Final Battle.

Mmmmm i could go either way with this. I would think there would be more participation and less chance of no-plays during the trials but as we can see during this Masters Tourney its not the case. But then again it would mean that we would have all 12 masters available for the tourney.

My general thoughts on the trials... i think more tasks for Phase I and options would be great. Also not a fan of our tasks not being graded. It does make it much easier for us to complete our tasks but it also allows us to just put a bunch of crap together if we so choose and get points for it.

I think our upped card totals could also be tweaked. Perhaps a War participation bonus? Masters who lead War should get something instead of the almost all or nothing. Also if a player is a General of an element i think he/she should get a bonus as well if they choose to try out for the trials in that particular Element. I also feel the point totals for the Masters Tourney really puts many of the Masters at a disadvantage. If you do poorly in the Tourney you virtually get no upped cards. The top challenger who you will face will undoubtedly get a card advantage. We have a new system in place for Phase II points for challengers this time round which is a good step forward but it still could be much better IMO.

If we break it down only 2 Masters will definitely get more upped cards then their challengers in this setup (12 and 9 cards). 3rd place gets 6 cards and if you look at our current setup for Phase 2, the top contenders in 10 of the 12 Elements got 6 or more cards as their bonus (and its most likely the top earners in phase II will go on to the final battle). If you look at the point spread there are 39 total points available for 12 masters which gives an average of 3.25 cards per Master. The challengers will average over 6 cards (point totals aren't complete so i don't have an exact number). That doesn't seem right to me. We should be able to at least average the same amount of points as our challengers. Previous trials it was really bad where the top challenger was guaranteed 10 upped cards

[~Napalm]

Wow. Pro ninja. I had copied your quote and was in the process of posting it here when I absentmindedly checked on the Who function to find you were posting it. Figured I'd let you do it instead, lol.

[MrBlonde]

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

[Higurashi]

Yep, still seems backwards to me that Challengers can get points easier.

[TheonlyrealBeef]

I like the current ban system.

Having the option to ban 2 in-element cards, at the cost of an extreme amount of off-element bans makes you think more about your bans (will I ban that powerful in-element card, or all it's synergies that make it that powerful? More thought = good). Same with increasing cost for banning more cards from off-elements. Would have preferred to see all shards automatically banned, though

[~Napalm]

While I believe this system is an improvement, I would argue that 25 ban points is far too many. Even 15 would allow for 1 in element ban and 10 separate off-element bans, which is an additional 5 bans from previous Final Battles. Sure, you COULD limit yourself to 7 cards with 25 points, but with the ability to ban 16 quite easily, why would you? When all is said and done, my guess is that the average amount off bans will be around 14 per participant. This is an increase of 8. I personally don't like this, but recently I find myself more and more in the minority.

EDIT: I have far too much destructive criticism and not enough construction ideas. So I might put forth this suggestion: Increase off-element bans to 2-4-6 points. This HELPS mitigate the excessive amount of bans without destroying the system or preventing double in-element bans.

[Sevs]

I think it would be much better if the off element bans just stack. so if you ban antlion for the cost of 1 you can ban charger for the cost of 3 and sundial for the cost of 6.

[kev]

There's a lot of good feedback so far.  To those who haven't yet provided feedback: Come on in, the water's warm.    To those who have already provided feedback:  Please make sure you follow up with additional feedback after you've completed your Final Battle.  You may love the system today and later decide it somehow eliminates all fun decks and makes your butt look big in different lighting.  And while first impressions are obviously important, I'm definitely also interested in hearing from participants once they've seen the machine in motion.

[mrpaper]

2 suggestions...
1st, maybe the current master could have a 1 upped card advantage per term he is a master, if his (hers) total bonus from war +master tourney is under 10 cards, giving then more respect to those who are here from a while.

2nd.. that's the one who just hurted me for this trial.  For commmunity vote, as it stands, if votes aren't giving 10 points with the % as in earth it is:
              Terroking30 (40%) CCCombobreaker5 (6.7%)   mrpaper13 (17.3%)   Sevs27 (36%)
to which you give     4                             0                                2                           4    =10
If we go to the closest  of th 10% for a point... Teroking is right on 40% so 4 point is obvious
I am at 17.3 % the closest to the next point (20) so I get 2 point, fine also
But then you awarded 4 point to sevs who it at 36%
while CCCombobreaker got 0 point while at 6.7.% (closer to 10% then sevs is of 40%)
Sevs got the 4th point and CCCombobreaker got 0 because he got more votes, so since he already made more points, he got the last point too.  It should be that the closest one to round up gets the point.  I see no point of giving another bonus to someone for the votes he have since he is already rewared with that with his points.

Just so everyone knows, that little detail is what made Sevs pass in the final and not me.  I might be a bit bitter, but it is also for the fairness of things in the future.  That being said, Good luck to Sevs and Terroking.

[kev]

Just so everyone knows, that little detail is what made Sevs pass in the final and not me.

Just so everyone knows, that's not true.  As I explained in my PM, the rules say "If there is a situation where rounding up would mean more than 10 points given, the player with the most votes gets the advantage", so the 11th and disputed point was taken from CCC rather than Sevs.

If I had mistakenly taken the 11th point from Sevs rather than CCC, (if I'd ruled the opposite of what was written in the rules thread,) you'd have tied with Sevs.  But because Sevs won in your head-to-head matchup he'd have the tiebreaker and he'd still be the one to face Terro.

[~Napalm]

I think it would be much better if the off element bans just stack. so if you ban antlion for the cost of 1 you can ban charger for the cost of 3 and sundial for the cost of 6.

I disagree. The purpose of the ban point system, as I see it, is to elevate the strategy in card banning by penalizing focused strikes and promoting diversity in bans. By lumping all the off-elements together you lose this factor.

[MrBlonde]

I personally think there are too many bans with the current system. I always thought the 6 bans we had before was fine. BUT with that said i do like the diversity we are allowed in our choices. Being able to pick two in-element bans is quite tempting. Do i take 7 bans or a possible 17? I just think it's too many because IMO it gives someone with a large upped card advantage (like me) that much more of an advantage being able to ban more cards. Anyhow if anything i am adaptable and although i may think there should be a system with less possible bans it's more of a preference thing.