8th Trials - Suggestions and Feedback

[MyNameIsJoey]

I would suggest masters get less free points. They are masters, theyw hould be able to defend their titles.

[rob77dp]

I would suggest masters get less free points. They are masters, theyw hould be able to defend their titles.

By my count, the current standings show 2 of the 6 defending masters having more points than the top challenger.  This would seem counter to the point you're trying to make, ji.  It is possible I am misinterpreting your meaning... can you explain further the rationale here?

EDIT:  It seems the masters' tourney has yet to add any points, hence the above situation and stated conclusion is likely to change in the near future.  I'm not yet sure if it will invalidate the statements and conclusions.

[MyNameIsJoey]

I'll take Odii as an example.
You guys did not have to do phase 1 and received 6 free points.
Odii lost all his matches in masters tourny and received 5 points.
So that's literally 11 points for free.

[Odii Odsen]

1. I didn't lose all my matches.
2. Why should I prove my worthiness again?

[MyNameIsJoey]

1. I didn't lose all my matches.
2. Why should I prove my worthiness again?

If you did not lose all your matches I am sorry, that's how it appeared to me. The thread says you don't have wis in the pool and that you lost in round 1 of the elimination bracket.

[Zawadx]

/late

I would suggest to make more restrictive meta-altering deck-building rules, e.g. what Oni did previous Trials was fun with that graph-walking (even though we complained about the complexity, but at the end it was really interesting). The current rules allow pretty much open-meta, especially for the master's battles, where we do not even have bans. The even-game shard is a good rule in this sense (a step in the right direction), but it is not enough IMHO. More tweaks like that would be nice.

Possible rule ideas to include:
- you are only allowed to use any in-element card maximum two games per match (to avoid over-using an OP card)
- you are allowed to use a total of 10 copies of each in-element card (except for pillars/pends) per match -- an alternative way to achieve the above

I like that there is a pool-phase for the masters and it is not just a single-elimination tourney -- kudos for that!

Master's tourney is at the apex of PvP on the forums, so we wanted to give Masters as much freedom as possible. So a huge meta altering idea like Oni's last Trials wouldn't be nice. For challengers we came up with a few meta ideas (though they were also quite free), and settled on Phase 1 affecting Phase 2.

However, your tweaks might be nice for the next Trials!

I would suggest putting a time limit between matches.
I agree to postponing and continuing another day if needed but taking an hour between 2 matches is just ridiculous.

There isn't really anything we can do here; RL stuff happens. As long as you can finish the match before time ends, you should be good. So you can postpone the match if you can't wait too long in most cases.
This might be a good point for universal PvP rules tho.

I would suggest masters get less free points. They are masters, theyw hould be able to defend their titles.

Masters get 6 points in Phase 1 since they don't have to prove worthiness again. Getting 6 points by the challnger isn't too difficult, and you may even surpass the master by getting bonus.

Also, masters get 4 free points in Master's tourney as a bonus for being Masters. Masters have proven themselves to be veterans, and this make the task of snatching mastership more difficult for the challengers as it should be. Of course, the 4 points could be reduced a bit, but these free points are part of Trials.

[theelkspeaks]

I would suggest putting a time limit between matches.
I agree to postponing and continuing another day if needed but taking an hour between 2 matches is just ridiculous.

There isn't really anything we can do here; RL stuff happens. As long as you can finish the match before time ends, you should be good. So you can postpone the match if you can't wait too long in most cases.
This might be a good point for universal PvP rules tho.

jijo's talking about something else here than you are, I think.

If I understand correctly, jijo's talking about the time one takes to decide on/tweak a deck between games, and even says he understands if players have RL reasons to postpone to another day mid-match.

[Zawadx]

Yes. People can also have RL reasons to keep the opponent waiting for an hour (which might be too long for the opponent's schedule). So in such a case you should postpone.

[Vangelios]

Well. this feedback is not meant to be aggressive or indirectly to anyone, only serves to help avoid future discussions and unpleasant and bad manners.

Vote based on who you think would make the best Master of that element. Do not vote based on who is the best player or who you know personally. Try to pick someone who you think would help the community the most as the representative for their element.  If you do not have any preference for who should be Master, or cannot decide between the candidates, please select the "None Worthy" option.

To help you make the best decision possible, feel free to ask the candidates questions.  Both challengers and defending Masters ought to answer the questions in this thread to help the voters make the best possible choice.


Well to start  I believe as text orientation,
"Do not vote based on who is the best player or who you know personally"
If you did a question (one of the few best I've ever witnessed be here, and he did a difference in all the competitions that participated, Now I'll ask everyone what is a master ?) I'm sure this contradicts the text orientation of the trials.
see again, the question exalts one of the contestants in public and then raises the question for the others remaining...

Another question, "I already voted for Jones Now I ask James why you failed? Jimmy because you do not understand things? "
Here, if already voted, do not need to question anyone. if the vote will change, ask the question in a neutral manner.


The concept of master

Try to pick someone who you think would help the community the most as the representative for their element.

What is a master? I actually no longer know
is only a general of War? which best represents an element ?
assume that a player who has skill. with the element, only in the war? on in another competitions? participating in other areas of the forum?

Soon can happen of a master go to war as a soldier in another different team of your element.
For me a master is a player who knows very well use the element, and that demonstrates attachment with this element.
For example I accept Marsu as Master of Life, but not Deuce as a Master of Life, do not just have war skill need have a connection, a story with element.

I really do believe this feedback into improvements and best meaning of being a master.
I wish everyone good luck and have fun.

[CCCombobreaker]

Thank you for the disclaimer, and I hope my response comes through clearly any translation you need.  I agree there are some issues, but as best I can see they are not really issues to be solved by the TrOs.

Spoiler for Vangelios:

The Trials overseers are not responsible for what questions the community asks the Trial-ists.  I agree some questions are not helpful, and other questions are borderline insulting to some of the participants.  However, it is up to the challengers to determine which questions they will answer and how to answer them.  I read through all the questions, posts, and answers in all 12 of the elements, and there was nothing there I felt needed intervention or discipline from the TrOs or the forum admins.

As Trials Organizers our primary tasks are: 1) involve as much of the community as possible in the Trials and 2) create an event that determines who is best fit to be the Master of each element.  Given our first task (community involvement) allowing anyone to ask the candidates questions and to vote for who they think is the best Master is important.  What qualities people value in the role of Master is different.  For some it is most important they are a good General in War, for others they value that the Masters are present to represent and embody the element they represent.  Maybe there are some people that think Masters being involved in Brawl is very important (like Naesala).  They are allowed to express their opinions and ask questions about them and then vote based on them.  We as TrOs cannot tell them what is most important.  We do tell people to not vote purely based on PvP record or vote for their friend (if they have one in Trials) but to try and look at the big picture, but ultimately who they vote for and why they vote for them is a personal choice.

The second goal was to design Trials to help select the best Master of each element.  And as weird as it sounds, the TrOs don't decide what that means.  The Council decides what the role of Master is, and the WarMasters get to decide what role Masters can or can't have in war.  In previous Wars, Masters either had to be the General of their element or they could not participate.  If that changes, it isn't the TrOs' decision or a function of the Trials, it is a War issue, and your feedback should be in the War subforums.  And I believe I have made my position clear on this in the past.

Perhaps these changes to the role of Master will lead to changes in future Trials, and so we need to change Trials to better select people for the newer tasks the Masters are expected to handle.  But as of the start of this Trials, the role of Master is as we described it: Someone who is the face of their element in the chat and forums.  Someone who will lead their element in War.  Someone who will lead their element in Brawl.  I know that not all the competitors intend to do all those things, but that is not reason enough to simply disqualify them from the event.  It is a tough balance.  And the Organizers of War and Brawl are allowed to relieve Masters of these responsibilities as they see fit, like allowing Masters to appoint another General in their place to lead War.    Those are decisions they make, and not ones the TrOs have authority over.

[CCCombobreaker]

Spoiler for Zso_Zso:

I would suggest to make more restrictive meta-altering deck-building rules, e.g. what Oni did previous Trials was fun with that graph-walking (even though we complained about the complexity, but at the end it was really interesting). The current rules allow pretty much open-meta, especially for the master's battles, where we do not even have bans. The even-game shard is a good rule in this sense (a step in the right direction), but it is not enough IMHO. More tweaks like that would be nice.

Possible rule ideas to include:
- you are only allowed to use any in-element card maximum two games per match (to avoid over-using an OP card)
- you are allowed to use a total of 10 copies of each in-element card (except for pillars/pends) per match -- an alternative way to achieve the above

I like that there is a pool-phase for the masters and it is not just a single-elimination tourney -- kudos for that!

Given that I really like how Challenger Phase 2 went, I will spend more time prior to the next Trials trying to re-vamp the master's tournament.  As I have shown I like tying Trials to War, people should probably expect a more restrictive meta next time that feels more vault-like.  But nothing is set in stone yet, and there is a lot of time before it will be implemented.  But I agree, this Phase 2 was probably a little too open.

Spoiler for ARTHANASIOS:

Well, I suggest important rules like the elements' usage per matches should not be just bold but also colored with a strong color like orange or yellow. That way, there would be less noobs like me who missed a few important deckbuilding rules of the event.

We will continue to do our best to spell out the rules with as much clarity and precision as possible.  Using color and/or bold can be helpful at times, but at the end of the day all the rules are rules, and breaking any of the deckbuilding rules results in an illegal deck.  If we make some bright colors and people miss the other ones, we end up making them all colored and then none of them stand out.  Although maybe color coding them and referring to them by colors would help.  Also under consideration is numbering all the rules for easy reference.

Spoiler for ji412jo:

I would suggest putting a time limit between matches.
I agree to postponing and continuing another day if needed but taking an hour between 2 matches is just ridiculous.

The closest thing to a time limit between matches is going to continue to be the overall Phase timers.  Anything more restrictive than that would require a whole list of additional rules that lead down a road we do not want to go.  We don't want to award more forfeits because someone's parents made them leave between games to do something or glennfoo's university gets hit by lightning so he loses the entire match.  The auto-loss for 1 game if you leave the game is harsh enough, and we want as few series as possible decided by people's internet connections and forces of nature.  If someone schedules a match by the final deadline as then something like that happens, all the evidence would have to be considered on a draw/forfeit ruling.  Those kinds of rulings are bad for everyone involved because it is always better if the match can be played out.  Adding more timers that will result in more forfeits or draws is bad for the event.

I would suggest masters get less free points. They are masters, theyw hould be able to defend their titles.

The fact of the matter is they do have to defend their titles.  As Zawad and I have made clear, they get a pass in Phase 1 because they already proved their worthiness.  (well the last TrOs sort of let them off the hook I guess... but they did win a Final Battle before, which makes them worthy enough).   Also as Zawad pointed out, we gave challengers the opportunity to show exceptional worthiness and outscore Masters in Phase 1.  Sure it wasn't free, but it was a chance to outscore them.  Any defending Masters next trials should expect similar treatment, as that is one of the benefits of defending your Title.  Not all Masters do this (6 did this Trials), and this Trials we even had a Master forsake the easy road to the Finals in order to challenge another element.  So no, those 6 points weren't free.  They earned them in Trials 7 by winning (or defending) their title then.

In Phase 2 we set up a multi-part tournament that clearly rewarded people for winning more than losing.  The fewest points they could get is 4, and the most they could get is 16.  Challengers by contrast could get between 0 and 12.   This is not to give the Master 4 free points, this is Masters playing against Masters to try and get points and Challengers playing against Challengers to try and get points.  The requirements to enter Trials as a Challenger as set pretty low, and as such for a Challenger to make it to the Final battle we expect them to perform very well in Phase 2.  This may be against unknown and untested opponents, so you have to earn all your points.  Losing just 1 match (sorry RootRanger) can mean the difference between making the finals or not making the finals.  And as Fippe showed, doing very well in Phase 1 and 2 can put you on even footing with a Master who did well in the tournament; a tournament where winning games is expected to be much harder than in the Challenger Phase 2.   Again, the Master have earned this position last Trials, and are competing against other people who earned this position.  You could get 4 points for Phase 2 because you lost 3-2 to a mediocre player and beat someone who signed up, doesn't read the rules and uses all illegal decks.  That is a possibility in Challenger's Phase 2 (I am not saying that did happen, only that it is a possibility).  That doesn't happen in the Tournament of Masters, and those kinds of opponents can't just sign up to be in the Tournament of Masters.  So the Masters get more points for competing in their Phase 2 because it is harder and they previously earned that challenge.

And Odii and deuce22 had a draw that would have been ruled the same if any two other competitors were in that position.  If you and Regy were unable to play your match despite both putting in quite some effort and trying to work out schedules, you both would have gotten 1 point for that.  That is how the rules work for the event.

[Vangelios]

Ahh, sorry I forgot to apologize for my bad english
I'm improving in steps turtle each day, sad but true

Really did not need to TrOs intervene, is only a orientation that I suggest,  is not a law that has to be fulfilled.

But if a question is asked to me, extolling my competitor, I have the right to have a different point of view (because I'm the direct competitor) and if my answer is carried out in public answer, I'll answer in public too, this can lead to situations not very nice (I personally liked it but would not recommend)

Well the master concept has always been controversial, and I can see difficulties to solve, because the forum has many areas, and not everything appeals all. i agree with you, but anyway would want to see some basic features of the purest affection of player with the element.