Shadow Era Guild Battle

[Maldazar]

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.

I would prefer a decklock. Just because else luck will play a bigger factor, the ideia of a best of 3 is exactly that with only one game it is hard to decide who really is beter because luck may play a big part in that, in a best of 3 you get more consistency so the chances of luck winning the match are lower.

By changing decks in between you totaly remove this consistency, it now are totaly diferent decks, so you are now just playing bests of one. After the match you still don't know who is beter.. because I might have the best deck in the world, but if my opponent gets the change to perfectly tech against it, he can win easy, even if in his first match he lost.

[OgAusp]

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.

I never mentioned anything about deck locking during Bo3s.
What I was saying is that, the hero lock is the problem. I think the best option is to allow players to use whatever heroes they wish between challenges while keeping the deck lock during Bo3s. If its not done that way, a lot more plays in. The match up factor will play in a lot more and teching as well, which is a big disadvantage and even destroys certain heroes/classes.

If that's the kind of event that you want, then its your event and by all means, please ignore me. However, I find these a lot less enjoyable. I like to give myself a chance, at least as even as I can have it. The match up factor will always come into play. Its in almost every competitive game. Once there is a difference in characteristics between opponents, it matters to some extent. I just wish to have it matter less.

[Wtzky]

D, I'm loving this format idea!

Not sure if we have enough players in A1 to play in all three, but we would like to sign up to this one!

I'll find our team of 5 and post here once you finalize rules etc

[danae]

I would prefer a decklock. Just because else luck will play a bigger factor, the ideia of a best of 3 is exactly that with only one game it is hard to decide who really is beter because luck may play a big part in that, in a best of 3 you get more consistency so the chances of luck winning the match are lower.

By changing decks in between you totaly remove this consistency, it now are totaly diferent decks, so you are now just playing bests of one. After the match you still don't know who is beter.. because I might have the best deck in the world, but if my opponent gets the change to perfectly tech against it, he can win easy, even if in his first match he lost.

You make some good points there. I got to thinking that to even out the odds of possibly having bad matchups, I would allow changes in deck contents in between games. However, if someone was able to come up with a unique teched deck against a hero that would normally be a bad matchup, having the ability to change cards during the match would also work against the innovative player. The only games where one would not know their opponent's hero would be one where it's the first for both. Anything after that they can tech their decks accordingly. I'll bring back the original rule of deck lock within a match. Thanks for your valid arguments.

I never mentioned anything about deck locking during Bo3s.
What I was saying is that, the hero lock is the problem. I think the best option is to allow players to use whatever heroes they wish between challenges while keeping the deck lock during Bo3s. If its not done that way, a lot more plays in. The match up factor will play in a lot more and teching as well, which is a big disadvantage and even destroys certain heroes/classes.

If that's the kind of event that you want, then its your event and by all means, please ignore me. However, I find these a lot less enjoyable. I like to give myself a chance, at least as even as I can have it. The match up factor will always come into play. Its in almost every competitive game. Once there is a difference in characteristics between opponents, it matters to some extent. I just wish to have it matter less.

There have been plenty of tournaments of varying formats. One where you're forced to use different classes, others with limited hero choices, as well as locked hero and deck choices. The variety is great and it allows people to see who excels best in the different formats. The theme for this one is guild coordination and not the individual. There are two ways where bad matchups can be dealt with to a certain degree. One is the ability to tech against a known opponent. The other is through guild strategy. Think about it this way, in a real battle, an archer can be devastating but is at a great disadvantage in melee combat. As the commander, you need to protect your archers so you create plans to do just that. I'm trying to provide a tournament where some sort of strategy can also be employed by each guild and hopefully it will create a different experience from the other tournaments out there.

[SamuelJ]

I for one really like this idea, it seems to me like a great tournament where a guild really needs to works as a team to take out certain players quickly so other team members can avoid bad matchups and the like. It will take some nice strategy and teamwork to come out on top.

[danae]

I've updated the rules with the latest changes and also placed the prize for this tourney: 10,000 Shadow Crystals from a private contributor. Thanks!

I really want to make this tournament more about guild coordination and communication rather than the individual players so if there any ideas that would help foster that, please suggest it and I'll consider implementing it.

[OgAusp]

There have been plenty of tournaments of varying formats. One where you're forced to use different classes, others with limited hero choices, as well as locked hero and deck choices. The variety is great and it allows people to see who excels best in the different formats. The theme for this one is guild coordination and not the individual. There are two ways where bad matchups can be dealt with to a certain degree. One is the ability to tech against a known opponent. The other is through guild strategy. Think about it this way, in a real battle, an archer can be devastating but is at a great disadvantage in melee combat. As the commander, you need to protect your archers so you create plans to do just that. I'm trying to provide a tournament where some sort of strategy can also be employed by each guild and hopefully it will create a different experience from the other tournaments out there.

That is the impression that I got but with the limited tools, "save" and "team up" options, and their quantities, it would still be too dependent on those things I wish to avoid. Here is a suggestion I have that could allow you more strategy in the approach of games:

Let each guild select a Captain and Vice Captain that would act as General and Deputy General on the field of battle. The purpose of the General is to lead his/her army in battle, and the purpose of the Deputy General is to replace the General if he/she falls. If both the General and the Deputy General is defeated at any point, the guild loses.
The General will have some special abilities. The General will be able to intercept challenges, from an opposing guild, on a guild mate, if the General is not already engaged in battle. When the General intercepts a challenge, the General will fight the battle instead. Also, the General cannot be challenged directly by any members of the opposing guilds. It is only after 2 members of the guild have fallen, then the General becomes exposed to challenges. If the General falls and the Deputy General was already defeated, then the guild loses. The Deputy General is treated as a regular player in the campaign until he/she is promoted at the demise of his/her General

I hope my suggestion came across clearly. What do you think?

Also, 7 players instead of 5 could make things a lot more interesting. I am not sure how it would affect anything in the speed of things. In any event, 5 is fine. If 7 does become a preferred amount, I would suggest to have 3 members of the guild fallen before the general becomes exposed.

EDIT:
I just thought about how your listed options would work in tangent with my suggestion.

If the General dies and he/she is replaced with the Deputy General, the dead General can be "saved". The dead player that was the General would then return as the Deputy General.
If a Deputy General dies and the "save option" is used, the player will return as the Deputy General. His/Her status would not be affected.

[pjoe0211]

the save option is ok, but the team up option is so complicated in my opinion

[danae]

That is the impression that I got but with the limited tools, "save" and "team up" options, and their quantities, it would still be too dependent on those things I wish to avoid. Here is a suggestion I have that could allow you more strategy in the approach of games:

Let each guild select a Captain and Vice Captain that would act as General and Deputy General on the field of battle. The purpose of the General is to lead his/her army in battle, and the purpose of the Deputy General is to replace the General if he/she falls. If both the General and the Deputy General is defeated at any point, the guild loses.
The General will have some special abilities. The General will be able to intercept challenges, from an opposing guild, on a guild mate, if the General is not already engaged in battle. When the General intercepts a challenge, the General will fight the battle instead. Also, the General cannot be challenged directly by any members of the opposing guilds. It is only after 2 members of the guild have fallen, then the General becomes exposed to challenges. If the General falls and the Deputy General was already defeated, then the guild loses. The Deputy General is treated as a regular player in the campaign until he/she is promoted at the demise of his/her General

I hope my suggestion came across clearly. What do you think?

Also, 7 players instead of 5 could make things a lot more interesting. I am not sure how it would affect anything in the speed of things. In any event, 5 is fine. If 7 does become a preferred amount, I would suggest to have 3 members of the guild fallen before the general becomes exposed.

EDIT:
I just thought about how your listed options would work in tangent with my suggestion.

If the General dies and he/she is replaced with the Deputy General, the dead General can be "saved". The dead player that was the General would then return as the Deputy General.
If a Deputy General dies and the "save option" is used, the player will return as the Deputy General. His/Her status would not be affected.

I did think of something like this initially but more on the keep the VIP alive kind of thing but I'm looking for a tournament where everyone gets to play at least one match. I like the idea though and if this tournament is enjoyable for most then I can organise another with your suggested format.

[danae]

the save option is ok, but the team up option is so complicated in my opinion

Team up should not be too complicated. Here's another way to look at it.

1. Guild A member 1 challenges Guild B member 1 and gets Guild A member 2 to be his backup.
2. If Guild A member 1 loses, his backup takes over.
3. If the backup wins, then Guild A member 1 is alive again and Guild B member 1 is dead.
4. If the backup loses then both members of Guild A are dead.
5. Same procedure if it becomes Team Up vs Team Up.

Hope that clears it up.