4Most Masters Feedback Thread

For discussing tournaments and arranging matches
User avatar
Obsilium
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Long Island, NY

4Most Masters Feedback Thread

Post by Obsilium » Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:39 pm

How did people like the format? Any changes to scoring that you would want to see in the future? Here are a few ideas I have for four player FFA tournaments in the future (whether hosted by me or someone else):

1: My pairing method where everybody plays each other exactly once in qualifying requires at least that the number of players is a multiple of 4 and the number of opponents is a multiple of 3. Therefore, possible player numbers would be 4, 16, 28, 40 etc.
I chose 16 for this tournament because that is a number of players I could get relatively quickly while keeping the number of asynch games at a time low (5 games). After Jack of All Trades failed, I am hesitant to have a qualifying round take place over multiple subrounds. Now that our asynch limit has increased, 9 games for 28 players might be possible, but playing nine FFA's at a time could get quite confusing. So I'm not sure if expanding to 28 players would be a good idea or not.

2: I think the fairest tournament formats are ones where the pairing is either random or balanced (I play you a fixed number of times). People that want to play more live-friendly tournaments where you play the players who are online can do so on Law & Chaos.

3: That being said, there are other ways to expand the format. For example, one could have two 16 player qualifying groups for which the top two players from each group make it to the final round. But that could be unfair to the players who get placed in the "stronger" group.

I'm also considering dividing future tournaments into qualifying and candidate groups. As a baseline, I would say that players who scored 7 or more points in the last 4Most Masters would get qualified automatically into the candidate group, while other players would have to qualify through some format to fill out the remaining 16 - x players. And in general, for example, one could have that the top 8 players from a candidate group have the right to take part in the next candidate group, while others have to qualify. But this depends on how many people would want to participate.

4: An alternative format for a final round could be more interesting. Here, the top 5 players qualify, and everyone plays four games, with each game missing one finalist. The top scorer from this round would be the champion, with draw odds defined somehow.

5: I'm happy with the scoring system so far as the players with multiple outright wins (apart from Incarnadine who never finished lower than 2nd) are in the final. It suggests to me that understanding how to win games can make a difference. Some people play to survive, but surviving does not equal winning. Also, nobody survived all five games, which tells me something about the skill level of this tournament.
////// T S U R T //////
/// I ///////////// E ///
/// N //////////// W //
//// RECURRENCE //

User avatar
SpiteAndMalice
DEMIGOD
Posts: 6276
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:45 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: 4Most Masters Feedback Thread

Post by SpiteAndMalice » Tue Dec 08, 2015 4:28 pm

I wouldn't change much at all Obs. 4most worked because it was simple and everyone understood how it worked imho.

Raise the number of players to 28 if you get 28 players wanting to play. (or go with 2 groups of 16), but I would start introducing pre qualifiers etc.

For me precident to play in a 2nd season of 4 most should go to either all the people who played in the previous one, or just to whoever signs up first.

I think JoaT didn't do so well partly due to timing around updates, but I think it also fell flat when you announced the 2nd road of fixtures. I don't know if it was just me but I'd only expected to have to do one lot. I think that when you got a bit of a mess, it went from being a tournament which people expected to last for a month, and as such had committed to, to a tournament that was going on and on.
Image

The Guild of the Cephalopods is now recruiting - We embrace all.

- Chief Tentacle Arranger in The Guild of the Cephalopods.

User avatar
RafiRomero
Posts: 1278
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:36 am
Location: Cumbria, UK
Contact:

Re: 4Most Masters Feedback Thread

Post by RafiRomero » Tue Dec 08, 2015 5:23 pm

I'm increasingly wanting to play equipped vs classic.
Image

User avatar
Obsilium
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: 4Most Masters Feedback Thread

Post by Obsilium » Tue Dec 08, 2015 5:55 pm

There is certainly a large void for people who want to play equipped tournaments. My fear is as a player who tends to gravitate more towards classic, I would not be a suitable person to organize an equipped tournament, since I don't understand the format well enough to know what would make for good rules. But I would support anybody who wants to organize equipped tournaments. If overcrowding of tournaments is an issue, there is no reason that something like future iterations of 4Most Masters need to run over the entire year.
////// T S U R T //////
/// I ///////////// E ///
/// N //////////// W //
//// RECURRENCE //

User avatar
SpiteAndMalice
DEMIGOD
Posts: 6276
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:45 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: 4Most Masters Feedback Thread

Post by SpiteAndMalice » Tue Dec 08, 2015 9:53 pm

In terms of tournment numbers I've always thought the more the merrier. People will pick the ones that they want to play, but the more tournaments that are available in total, then the more people in total that will be playing them.
Image

The Guild of the Cephalopods is now recruiting - We embrace all.

- Chief Tentacle Arranger in The Guild of the Cephalopods.

User avatar
MattyRasker
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: 4Most Masters Feedback Thread

Post by MattyRasker » Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:04 am

I saw nothing wrong with the tournament Obs, it works well as it did.

And with regards to Equipped, yes as I have been playing Realms more and more I have felt the urge for equipped more and more. I mentioned in another thread I was thinking of getting a tournament together with full equipped, but that will have to wait until the new year.

User avatar
Mazy
Posts: 1789
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:24 pm
Location: UK

Re: 4Most Masters Feedback Thread

Post by Mazy » Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:21 pm

Cool that's settled then!, Obs can run the classic 4way async league and Matty can do the equipped 4way async league, Spite can run 1v1 classic duels async league...hmm what can Mazy do...lazy me can play in all of them! :D , I think my focus levels are back up to par, sign me up for season two of 4Most....Okay when do we all start? :P

I guess with an equipped one there are multiple format offshoots or variants such as talismans or no talismans, randomised staff/gear or customised staff/gear. Although 'Ranked' is dangerously close to just being a competition to see who can bolt the most amount of newbs and rematch them, it does already cater for specialising in one customised build so there is definitely a gap in the market for a random equipped league at some point, a format that tests the player instead of the build.

User avatar
Obsilium
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: 4Most Masters Feedback Thread

Post by Obsilium » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:39 pm

ContraMinus has been pressing on me to address the draw issue in 4-player FFA, so I'll put out a few thoughts and a proposal for how I'm considering changing the scoring for possible future incarnations of 4Most Masters.

As I've said before on other occasions, I don't think draws are inherently wrong results in games with many players, because when your opponents are protecting their space, spending lots of resources to attack will leave you vulnerable from other angles, and your opponents will use your movements against you. My opinion is that the way to win a 4 player game is to put oneself into the best possible position to kill the last wizard, which can either involve eliminating the other wizards or letting them kill each other depending on circumstances. I do not think a player who kills a wizard only to die from a sharp counterattack deserves anything for the act of taking someone out before their own demise (if you pressure wisely as the third wizard you can often generate such positions for yourself to win). I do not want scoring rules to promote play that minimizes a wizards chance to win the game in the end.

However, I am going to make the following proposal that will benefit aggressive players that survive until the end:

4 way draw: Players receive 0 points.
3 way draw: Surviving wizards all receive 1 point, with the slayer of the dead wizard receiving an additional point.
2 way draw: Surviving wizards receive 2 points, and an additional point is given to a wizard if they killed the other two.

How does this sound? I'm happy to hear feedback or other proposals.
////// T S U R T //////
/// I ///////////// E ///
/// N //////////// W //
//// RECURRENCE //

User avatar
SpiteAndMalice
DEMIGOD
Posts: 6276
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:45 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: 4Most Masters Feedback Thread

Post by SpiteAndMalice » Sat Feb 06, 2016 6:15 pm

It might be worth a try. Another option is to award 12 points total per match, and share those points out between any surviving wizards.

I wouldn't tinker too much though Obs, your tournament format works imho.
Image

The Guild of the Cephalopods is now recruiting - We embrace all.

- Chief Tentacle Arranger in The Guild of the Cephalopods.

User avatar
Mr_Twister
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:58 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: 4Most Masters Feedback Thread

Post by Mr_Twister » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:10 pm

I'm not sure I like the idea of rewarding wizard kills in some cases and not in others.
And it might lead to some scenarios that encourage defense even further.
For instance : if you kill 2 wizards, then there is no incentive to kill the last one. Draw = 3 points (2 for opponent), Victory = 3 points (2 for opponent).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against rewarding wizard kills. But I feel you should then apply it consistently for all wizard kills.
I never really understood why ending 2nd without killing anyone was better than ending 3rd with 1 kill. (not criticizing 4most specifically, as it's the same with ranked in-game) The only thing that player achieved was to survive longer (maybe not even a full turn). The fairest system imho would be to reward 1 point for every wizard kill, and some points for surviving till the end (maybe a fixed number divided by number of surviving players). That would encourage offense, but not blind offense as surviving till the end would still be more beneficial. I also consider a victory where you kill all opponents is worth more than a victory where you wait and just kill the last survivor.

I doubt everyone will agree with me on that, but then I'd still rather keep the current scoring system.
--------------------------------------------------
Oh you ****king fool - you left us carrying your useless pain and now we're trapped here until we die. Remains, remains, the residue. Remains, remains, now is it you ???
(The Legendary Pink Dots - Spike)

Locked