Close

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 103
  1. #11
    Senior Member pyrogene's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,161
    Tournaments Joined
    11
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Interesting format. Just need to know why have "3. Hero lock for the entire tournament once a participant has played their first game"?

    There is also no incentive for challenging 1st too since there is no need to play a match every "round". In an extreme case, someone who never gets challenged can win just by winning a single match. Similarly, there is a disincentive to play/report fast.

  2. #12
    Moderator danae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    In the forums
    Posts
    3,920
    Tournaments Joined
    4
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluejet24 View Post
    Too many events 8/
    Well, I'm hoping to get this started and finished before BDK's and Nataku's . In any case, the various guilds are getting more members now so they have the option of choosing which members join which guild tournament rather than just having a select few participating in one tournament.

  3. #13
    Moderator danae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    In the forums
    Posts
    3,920
    Tournaments Joined
    4
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by pyrogene View Post
    Interesting format. Just need to know why have "3. Hero lock for the entire tournament once a participant has played their first game"?
    I wanted to have players not rely on scouting games to try and get the best matchup but rather rely on creative deck building to address specific known matchups. However, since it would give those who play first a disadvantage in revealing their hero, I think I will have to require participants to PM me the heroes they will be using for the entire tournament.

    Quote Originally Posted by pyrogene View Post
    There is also no incentive for challenging 1st too since there is no need to play a match every "round".
    Well, the incentive to challenging first gives the challenger the choice of who they want to play against. In a normal tournament, some people would rather not get matched up with a specific player so challenging first will allow them to pick their fights.

    Quote Originally Posted by pyrogene View Post
    In an extreme case, someone who never gets challenged can win just by winning a single match.
    It's a guild tournament so one person cannot win the whole thing by themselves. Someone in the guild will need to win against the other players. If the other guilds decide to kill each other while letting one guild just sit idly by then that will be the case. But it's a strategy that will be hard to rely on.

    Quote Originally Posted by pyrogene View Post
    Similarly, there is a disincentive to play/report fast.
    True. That's why either the loser or the winner can report the match. The delay in playing the challenge is something that is an issue in all the current tournaments aside from popups. I initially placed 10 days because I wanted to be flexible to people's schedules but if the majority of participants agree, it can be shortened to 7 days.

    I wanted to provide a tournament where strategy within a guild would play an important part and not just on the individuals. Coordination on who to challenge and when as well as timing the posting of the results could be used to get an advantage in the tournament. Also choosing the right mix of heroes for the members will be something that will make a difference in winning the entire thing.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Keaven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,975
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by pyrogene View Post
    Interesting format. Just need to know why have "3. Hero lock for the entire tournament once a participant has played their first game"?

    There is also no incentive for challenging 1st too since there is no need to play a match every "round". In an extreme case, someone who never gets challenged can win just by winning a single match. Similarly, there is a disincentive to play/report fast.
    You seem to be missing the point of this being a team challenge. Think of it like Tour De Shadow Era.

    Guilds would do best to have their support players challenge the other guilds top players to scout their builds, and tech for them leaving their best/surprise players for last (although they would likely be challenged to scout).

    I think this format is very interesting and adds a new dynamic to strategy for a team to win.
    Shallow Era Channel and Blog
    Enhancing The Community, etc.

  5. #15
    Senior Member pyrogene's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,161
    Tournaments Joined
    11
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by danae View Post
    I wanted to have players not rely on scouting games to try and get the best matchup but rather rely on creative deck building to address specific known matchups. However, since it would give those who play first a disadvantage in revealing their hero, I think I will have to require participants to PM me the heroes they will be using for the entire tournament.
    Yar, that was my main concern although even with prior PM, it means that there is disincentive to play early as it leaves the player exposed to challenges by others who can specifically choose a favourable hero match-up (i.e. the other party can tech but you can't because you don't know his hero). Less of a problem with simply no hero-lock imo. Scouting is unreliable considering the prevalence of alt accounts anyway especially among guild members.

    Quote Originally Posted by danae View Post
    Well, the incentive to challenging first gives the challenger the choice of who they want to play against. In a normal tournament, some people would rather not get matched up with a specific player so challenging first will allow them to pick their fights.


    It's a guild tournament so one person cannot win the whole thing by themselves. Someone in the guild will need to win against the other players. If the other guilds decide to kill each other while letting one guild just sit idly by then that will be the case. But it's a strategy that will be hard to rely on.
    In a normal tourney, yes, you would rather avoid certain players. But now there is a 3rd option available, that of not having any opponents (effectively a bye). Even Kent's Tourney has specific rounds so that this isn't possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by danae View Post
    I wanted to provide a tournament where strategy within a guild would play an important part and not just on the individuals. Coordination on who to challenge and when as well as timing the posting of the results could be used to get an advantage in the tournament. Also choosing the right mix of heroes for the members will be something that will make a difference in winning the entire thing.
    I'm in favour of letting guild strategy play a part, but just pointing out some of the flaws of your current format here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keaven View Post
    You seem to be missing the point of this being a team challenge. Think of it like Tour De Shadow Era.

    Guilds would do best to have their support players challenge the other guilds top players to scout their builds, and tech for them leaving their best/surprise players for last (although they would likely be challenged to scout).

    I think this format is very interesting and adds a new dynamic to strategy for a team to win.
    You can't scout the builds since there is no deck-lock. Overall, the biggest issue is still that there is disincentive to play first regardless of who you are, which makes for a rather warped system.
    Last edited by pyrogene; 07-05-2012 at 06:26 AM.

  6. #16
    Moderator danae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    In the forums
    Posts
    3,920
    Tournaments Joined
    4
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by pyrogene View Post
    Yar, that was my main concern although even with prior PM, it means that there is disincentive to play early as it leaves the player exposed to challenges by others who can specifically choose a favourable hero match-up. Less of a problem with simply no hero-lock imo. Scouting is unreliable considering the prevalence of alt accounts anyway especially among guild members.
    Well, as soon as a player's match is done and he reports it, they can immediately call out a challenge to avoid being challenged. But I do see your point since the player who challenges the one who's hero is already known, will still have the advantage of keeping his hero unknown until the match. So what I'll do is that once a challenge has been posted where one of the players has already had their hero known, I will reveal what hero the challenger will be using.

    As for the favourable hero match-up, I believe that with the current card pool, it's possible to tech your deck against specific heroes even if the match-up might look unfavourable. There are some cards out there that I see as being useful against certain heroes but are never included because they are useless against the majority of the other heroes. I'm hoping that this tournament will allow players to experiment more freely given the confines of a specific hero.

    Quote Originally Posted by pyrogene View Post
    In a normal tourney, yes, you would rather avoid certain players. But now there is a 3rd option available, that of not having any opponents (effectively a bye). Even Kent's Tourney has specific rounds so that this isn't possible.
    Well for this tourney there are no "rounds" so in effect there are no byes. If one guild member can defeat all the other guild members on their own, then it will be better for that guild. It could be a strategy of one guild to have as few people actively engaged in challenges as possible while one guild will try to get the best "player" matchups possible for their guild. It's not about getting everyone to have the chance to play a match but to beat all other opposing guilds while keeping your guild members alive.

    Quote Originally Posted by pyrogene View Post
    I'm in favour of letting guild strategy play a part, but just pointing out some of the flaws of your current format here.
    Feel free to poke as many holes in the format as you see so I can iron out the flaws before it begins.

    Quote Originally Posted by pyrogene View Post
    You can't scout the builds since there is no deck-lock. Overall, the biggest issue is still that there is disincentive to play first regardless of who you are, which makes for a rather warped system.
    Well you can send "scouts" to find out what heroes other players are using and then get the team member with a positive matchup to challenge that player if your scout loses the match. I also think that with the fact that there are no rounds, you can simply go from one challenge to another without allowing others the chance to challenge you. I have several strategies in my head at the moment but I don't want to reveal them as I want guilds to come up with their own strategies.

  7. #17
    Moderator danae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    In the forums
    Posts
    3,920
    Tournaments Joined
    4
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Updated the rules to include "save" and "team up" options to add a bit more guild strategy to this tournament.

  8. #18
    Senior Member OgAusp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kingston, Jamaica
    Posts
    435
    Tournaments Joined
    3
    Tournaments Won
    1
    The format is well thought out and should be interesting. However, I am not a fan of the hero lock feature, considering that you'll get to select (challenge) your opponents. I'll admit that it coincides with the flavour. You're basically that hero on the battlefield, under the banner of your guild, and your card pool is your arsenal.

    Just as argued before though, same for sideboards being implemented/viable, some cards disrupt some classes too much. Such a feature is really just a big disadvantage for those classes from the get-go. What is a battlefield without a warrior in sight?
    Do NOT Click Here

  9. #19
    Moderator danae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    In the forums
    Posts
    3,920
    Tournaments Joined
    4
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by OgAusp View Post
    The format is well thought out and should be interesting. However, I am not a fan of the hero lock feature, considering that you'll get to select (challenge) your opponents. I'll admit that it coincides with the flavour. You're basically that hero on the battlefield, under the banner of your guild, and your card pool is your arsenal.

    Just as argued before though, same for sideboards being implemented/viable, some cards disrupt some classes too much. Such a feature is really just a big disadvantage for those classes from the get-go. What is a battlefield without a warrior in sight?
    Glad you got the idea about being the particular hero for this battle. However, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say in your second paragraph. It did get me to thinking if there really is a need for a deck lock in a match for this tournament though. I will therefore update that rule to remove the deck lock in a match and provide up to 5 minutes to change deck contents in between games if desired.

  10. #20
    Senior Member GS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Somewheres. I forgot.
    Posts
    4,454
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Blog Entries
    9
    The irony... I proposed something exactly like this to gdc. Remind me to not share ideas anymore.
    Signature for rent.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •