THE REVENGE OF THE MALICE CHALICE - TASK 3

For discussing tournaments and arranging matches

  • Exalted Judge Gary wrote:But wait, right at the start I said this ‘Our host Sam, Mr Spite and Malice to you’ but in task 2 you typed this ‘Nice SaM... and thank you Blobka!’ So not showing the required respect means a point off.


    Of all the things I thought I could lose points for in this tournament, poor etiquette was never a consideration :oops: . Mr SpiteAndMalice, sir, please accept my sincere apologies for this overfamiliarity.
    ahMostyn
     
    Posts: 343
    Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:26 pm


  • My reviews of the submissions will now follow:

    Best Tournament Name: Ellume - Lords of Limbo. For a standoff title, I was leaning towards Incarnadine's Speed Slayer, Asynch Assassin but Ellume's worked better for me in terms of a name for a tournament. It also fits into the background of what the tournament appears to intend, i.e., one could justify the fact that the tournament is taking place outside of the realm system by virtue of the Limbo connection.

    Individual reviews:

    Viking - The Feign Game:

    This is similar to a format I tried when I hosted Friday Night Chaos, and I think in theory it should be possible to make a working tournament out of the illusion mechanic. For example, I played some one off games with Mazy I think where an alternate loss condition was receiving three strikes, where a strike came from disbelieving a real creature or killing an illusionary creature. Coming back to Viking's proposal, I think there is merit to try and build a scoring system which is quasi-independent of winning (apart from getting positive/negative points). However, I would sincerely suggest that some playtesting happen before final values are etched in stone. In particular, playtesters should aim at trying to break the format as much as they possibly can so that one ends up with a set of playable rules. I also agree with gary that scoring could end up being a hassle unless the game has an automated system for accepting screenshots (one could just post them on Steam for instance).

    One point I would like to make though, is that given the existence of extra points for things such as pegasi and subverts, I think this format is better suited for Equipped mode than Classic mode (thus allowing players to bring spell binds). In a format where disbelieving matters, players can make up for a talisman disadvantage with better usage of illusions/disbelieve.

    FINAL SCORE: 6 points

    Mr_Twister - The Paradigm Shift:

    Having a tournament based on win streaks would be interesting as long as the player base is large enough to avoid repeated matchups. I also like the idea of bringing in a special forge loadout with the goal of getting to keep it afterwards, and having to use the gear of the foes you defeat is an interesting twist. However, there is one issue that worries me, the idea of troll loadouts (say without talismans) with the goal of losing to force your enemy to wear something useless in the next battle, increasing the chances of ending their streak. This is something a player who already has a long streak going but subsequently being eliminated might do to a rival. It is possible that I am misunderstanding something, but from what I could tell from your rules, an eliminated player still owns their winning streak. So if a method could be found to deal with that sort of gameyness (to make it optimal for players to always bring competitive gear) then I think it could be a fun format.

    FINAL SCORE: 7 points

    Incarnadine - Speed Slayer- Asynch Assassin:

    Fast paced asynch can be fun and playing around with bonuses for direct wizard kills is worth doing, as there is a subset of players who enjoys such play from what I can tell. You clarified that the format was round robin, which is important given the similarities with a simultaneous exhibition in chess that you mentioned. I believe I have finally caught onto the fact that you mean for each contender to play 90 games, or ten games against each opponent. This isn't completely clear from the presentation, so this should be clarified should this become a playable format. Robustness could become a slight issue here, as for example if an even number of games remain between the players, and one has to leave, dividing the games with wizard hand to hand kills would give more points than draws would. So having some way to look at people's games and check for unethical behavior would be helpful.

    FINAL SCORE: 8 points

    Grythandril - 16 to 1:

    Rewarding players based on final mana is an interesting concept, one which again I suggest people playtest to see if it is viable or makes for fun games. I agree with the choice of classic mode because of mana talismans, and you covered why you prefer chaos mode to law mode. Any tournament based around the mana system should naturally ask if law mode or chaos mode is more suitable for playing with. You also get points for providing good documentation of scoring, but just as for Viking there will probably need to be judicial use of screenshots to get the tournament to work. I also think global chat would be much better than the CR forums for organizing games, since they are live anyways. Also note that some people might not be able to make the final even if they qualify, so substitutes might be needed.

    FINAL SCORE: 9 points

    ahMostyn - Challenge Gary:

    I think this could be a fun format if everybody is playing in the right spirit, especially the host who should themselves probably try and create interesting situations. As for Viking's tournament, I think Equipped Mode might be more suitable, since you want to give the host and contestant some control and allow for more flair. I also asked about maps, because I think that many of them are either arranged with nearby wizards in groups of 2 - 2 - 2 or 3 - 3, in which case how close you start to the host will have an effect on your winning chances. One solution would be for the host to select the map, as well as having more options. Custom maps would be very nice for this format.

    FINAL SCORE: 8 points

    blobka - shlemazel:

    This seems like a hastily prepared competition, and I wasn't quite sure how the name fit with the format. Having meaningful rules can be fun if they work well, and in your credit you seem to be aware of the playtesting needed to finalize what works and what doesn't. In the future, a similar idea might be implemented with a vanishing map, rather than being elevation based. I also don't understand why you would want to minimize your VP, if I understood you correctly. Once more, the format might be better suited for Equipped mode, (although maybe with the name classic mode is alright, some people will just be unlucky) and possibly law mode as well.

    FINAL SCORE: 3 points

    clef: Fractured Realms:

    Trying to turn the realm system into a mini tournament seems like a good basis for a proposal. I can understand that you wouldn't be too keen on invaders given your hope that this would reward PvE versus PvP, and I also like how you focused on robustness in your answer, which makes it clear that you have put some thought into the format. In the end it will probably come down to the mapmakers how enjoyable such a minirealm might be, since it could be hard to playtest ahead of time.

    FINAL SCORE: 6 points

    Ellume - Lords of Limbo:

    In terms of the actual ideas, I think this among the weakest in the task, as it feels a bit like a themed but rather generic tournament. I do think that having stuff to tie into the realm system would be a good thing, but perhaps as in clef's suggestion you have events happening within the realms themselves. I do see though with the Limbo concept why you might not feel that to be necessary.

    FINAL SCORE: 4 points + 2 for best name = 6 points

    Mazy - The Mercenaries:

    I'm only going to grade your first proposal, as you turned in two. But I think it is well thought out, and I like the connections to a roguelike. One possible improvement could be for a wizard to keep all equipment (and maybe non-illusionary living mounts) between battles, since roguelikes are based around improving one's gear. Or one could be given a certain number of upgrade points between battles. I don't know why one should stop with two wizards either, you could easily get to a 1v5 or have situations like 1v3v2 as well. But overall a good idea which I would be interested to try if Snapshot made it possible.

    FINAL SCORE: 9 points
    ////// T S U R T //////
    /// I ///////////// E ///
    /// N //////////// W //
    //// RECURRENCE //
    User avatar
    Obsilium
     
    Posts: 783
    Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:06 pm
    Location: Long Island, NY


  • Obsilium wrote:However, there is one issue that worries me, the idea of troll loadouts (say without talismans) with the goal of losing to force your enemy to wear something useless in the next battle, increasing the chances of ending their streak. This is something a player who already has a long streak going but subsequently being eliminated might do to a rival. It is possible that I am misunderstanding something, but from what I could tell from your rules, an eliminated player still owns their winning streak. So if a method could be found to deal with that sort of gameyness (to make it optimal for players to always bring competitive gear) then I think it could be a fun format.


    I thought about that scenario of players deliberately re-entering with bad loadouts to sabotage opponents in their attempt to beat their score. My initial idea was therefore to disallow the top 5 players from re-entering. But I got rid of that for several reasons :
    - Preventing top players from re-entering also prevents them from further increasing their score. Considering that on the last day, someone might beat their current streak, this seems rather unfair to stop them from improving their chances.
    - The idea of re-entering is to encourage players to play more, not less. If the number of active players is limited, this may even stall the tournament by preventing the active players from playing.
    - Players get into games through the queue, so you can't decide who you will play. Impossible to deliberately target a strong opponent with a negative build. Also, the ranking table would only show finished winning streaks, so there is no way to even tell who has a long "still ongoing" winning streak.
    - Given the previous point, this strategy may stop some players, but it can't stop everyone from beating your streak. As such, it seems rather uneffective compared to just playing to improve your own score.
    - With the current small playerbase, any tournament where you have to queue up is open to abuse. This is also true for the current ranked format, where 2 players can easily queue up repeatedly for duels against each other to boost 1 of them in the ranking (although with diminishing returns). I believe a certain amount of fair play is expected from all of us.
    - Playing with no talismans to stop enemies doesn't seem like a fun use of one's time. I would even say you'd have to be a lunatic to go that far for your ranking. :mrgreen:

    There's also the chicken and the egg at work here. Some of these problems are due to the active playerbase being small, but the intention of these tournaments is to have more people playing. If the number of active players stays small, then these competitions have failed either way.
    --------------------------------------------------
    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)
    User avatar
    Mr_Twister
     
    Posts: 319
    Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:58 pm
    Location: Belgium


  • Hi all,

    My guest has just left but I am not really in a fit state to examine the late entries with the same attention I did to the others so please accept my apologies - my scores will be posted tomorrow (Sunday) as soon as I can.

    Regards,

    Jim
    The Battlemage!

    gary is my master now...

    Current Unicoin Total: 54.2

    Twitter / Steam: SlipperyJim72
    User avatar
    SlipperyJim
     
    Posts: 1417
    Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:33 pm
    Location: UK


  • gary wrote:Nice that it would promote people to queue for matches also would give players food for thought in terms of configurations but therein lies a potential weakness in that losing players will just copy kit used by winners.


    Not sure I understand that concern Gary. Eventually you only get to use your kit in the first game, from then on you will have to use the (possibly inferior) kits from your defeated opponents. It's the kits repeatedly losing that will continue the longest in the game, and that's the main point : to get people playing with different configurations then they are used to, and make the best out of it.
    --------------------------------------------------
    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)
    User avatar
    Mr_Twister
     
    Posts: 319
    Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:58 pm
    Location: Belgium


  • Obsilium wrote:
    blobka - shlemazel:

    This seems like a hastily prepared competition, and I wasn't quite sure how the name fit with the format. Having meaningful rules can be fun if they work well, and in your credit you seem to be aware of the playtesting needed to finalize what works and what doesn't.

    You're right here, I had to spend the most amount of time thinking at one direction as it seemed to me as the most challenging and was unable to get it into one meaningful piece, that's why "shlemazel".

    Obsilium wrote:In the future, a similar idea might be implemented with a vanishing map, rather than being elevation based

    The core thesis here, is in the future.

    Obsilium wrote: I also don't understand why you would want to minimize your VP

    Obviously for searching the optimal way to play.

    So should be proud of myself as when i'm bad in something, i'm REALLY bad in it. 8-) :lol:
    In Gary We Trust
    User avatar
    blobka
    DEMIGOD
     
    Posts: 298
    Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 9:09 pm
    Location: over here near river


  • gary wrote:Mana Points. also players could be disbelieve happy as again, more mana. So you may find that games are long as the longer it goes on then the more mana you can get and there may be a mad rush in the last few turns to try get the kill..


    Confused on that part as you don't get any mana for disbelieving.

    gary wrote:Mana Points. Also players may be reluctant to cast thins like blob and trees as its mana rich for their opponents.


    Had though about that and the only solution I saw was burn the card. Not a good option I know
    A Chaotic Wizard in a Chaotic World
    User avatar
    Grythandril
     
    Posts: 404
    Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:34 pm


  • Obsilium wrote:Grythandril - 16 to 1:
    but just as for Viking there will probably need to be judicial use of screenshots to get the tournament to work. .


    Could you explain that a bit please.

    Obsilium wrote:Grythandril - 16 to 1:
    I also think global chat would be much better than the CR forums for organizing games, since they are live anyways.


    That's a very good point as I forgot about that.

    Obsilium wrote:Grythandril - 16 to 1:
    Also note that some people might not be able to make the final even if they qualify, so substitutes might be needed.


    Had though about that too and it would be from players 9 to 16 to be the substitute based on highest mana points. But again I did not mention that so my bad.
    A Chaotic Wizard in a Chaotic World
    User avatar
    Grythandril
     
    Posts: 404
    Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:34 pm


  • Grythandril, there needs to be some way to determine every surviving wizard's mana at the end of the game. The only current method we have (and maybe I missed if you said such a feature would be within the implementation) is via screenshots.
    ////// T S U R T //////
    /// I ///////////// E ///
    /// N //////////// W //
    //// RECURRENCE //
    User avatar
    Obsilium
     
    Posts: 783
    Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:06 pm
    Location: Long Island, NY


  • Obsilium wrote:Grythandril, there needs to be some way to determine every surviving wizard's mana at the end of the game. The only current method we have (and maybe I missed if you said such a feature would be within the implementation) is via screenshots.


    At the moment it is only 12 to 6 to 1 whereas the proposal is for 16 to 8 to 1.

    But I agree under the present CR this would have to be done and it would be time consuming with various screenshots per games etc.

    But because this proposal would be for a possible future implementation, I thought I would have to be completely within CR for the Tournament to Work. The VP system is already implemented so Mana based points could also be implemented but would require coding for that as well as coding to include and display a spread sheet layout as per example.
    A Chaotic Wizard in a Chaotic World
    User avatar
    Grythandril
     
    Posts: 404
    Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:34 pm

PreviousNext


Return to Tournaments and Matchmaking




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests