Jump to content



Photo

Online Tourneys


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Zjb12

Zjb12

    Member

  • Members
  • 502 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 10:01 AM

Hi! A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, or so it seems, I along with people like Juicebox hosted some online competitions here. A few of us were wondering if there would be interest for this again. I have just recently started playing again after about a 2 yr hiatus. Not sure what I can commit to, but want to throw it out there and see what people think.

#2 Vase

Vase

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 11:34 PM

Come on people, these "tournaments" are fun!  I got a much more satisfying playing experience when I knew I was going to post results and try to get a top 10 score.



#3 faith_star83

faith_star83

    Member

  • Members
  • 262 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 06:38 AM

I would definitely be in!



#4 Tracker1

Tracker1

    Member

  • Members
  • 690 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 06:54 AM

Sure, as long at it does not have a time frame to complete it in.
'At last' said Aragorn 'Here are the tracks that we seek!'

#5 Zjb12

Zjb12

    Member

  • Members
  • 502 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 12:19 PM

Sure, as long at it does not have a time frame to complete it in.

So, just checking, would you be against having a tournament that only lasted say 1-2 weeks?  Are you thinking something that could be open ended and updated every time a new score hit say the top 10 or 25?



#6 Tracker1

Tracker1

    Member

  • Members
  • 690 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:00 PM

I like the second option better because at least it will change over time. Once a two week tournament is complete that's it. When it's open ended, any player can jump in at anytime. With set dates players who want to play might not be able to participate baed on schedule conflicts or not enough time to participate, or whatever.

I would be happy to participate in set time frame tournaments assuming I'm able to fit it in, but if I am allowed to enter results at my own leisure i'd be able to chip away at any scenario i want, in any order. Which seems like a more relaxed way of going about it and a bit more fun.

I would rather see an ever changing leader board for scenarios, and overall scenario leader. Then snap shots of tournament results, but both might be have a place. For instance a tournament that focuses on monosphere deck builds might be quite interesting.

Whatever works for the community that's fun would be great. I just hope we would get some participation.
'At last' said Aragorn 'Here are the tracks that we seek!'

#7 Zjb12

Zjb12

    Member

  • Members
  • 502 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:25 PM

So, another thought is this, could we have open ended as Tracker1 noted, but multiple ways to play for a variety of players. For example, let's say we did Hunt for Gollum. We could have Easy Mode: Restricted; Easy Mode: Open; Normal Mode: Restricted; Normsl Mode: Open; and finally Nightmare Mode, which would always be considered Open. Question for Restricted, does it include thru the scenario played, or the whole cycle the scenario is a part of? Thoughts?

#8 Zjb12

Zjb12

    Member

  • Members
  • 502 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:26 PM

Sorry, Open means all cards usable and mutilate core sets allowed. Restricted would be only 1 core set.

#9 Tracker1

Tracker1

    Member

  • Members
  • 690 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:34 PM

I posted this in another thread that you started, so sorry for the redundancy, but it gets to the question above.


My suggestion would be that:
Core set scenarios, with the exception of Dol Guldur, be played only with core set cards.
For the Shadows of Mirkwood cycle you can only use cards from core set and that cycle.
For Kahazad-dum you can use all cards printed up to then including Dwarodelf cycle.
Hobbit saga same as above.
Heirs of Numenor and Against the Shadow a player can use all cards printed including Black Riders.

Scores should not be kept for the VoI and the new cycle until the cycle is complete. Any new Saga expansions that come out during the cycle should not be included in scoring until the cycle is complete.

Basically, what this tries to do is create a space for players to use only what was available to a player at the end of a cycle.
That way any new player can come in and compare their scores with a consistent card pool, and it avoids power creep from later expansions.

As for Dol Guldur and any GenCon scenarios, I think any cards can be used.
This will should be the same for Nightmare scenarios, and a player can use any cards they want.
'At last' said Aragorn 'Here are the tracks that we seek!'

#10 Tracker1

Tracker1

    Member

  • Members
  • 690 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:49 PM

So, another thought is this, could we have open ended as Tracker1 noted, but multiple ways to play for a variety of players. For example, let's say we did Hunt for Gollum. We could have Easy Mode: Restricted; Easy Mode: Open; Normal Mode: Restricted; Normsl Mode: Open; and finally Nightmare Mode, which would always be considered Open. Question for Restricted, does it include thru the scenario played, or the whole cycle the scenario is a part of? Thoughts?


Yes, you could certainly do it that way, but that's a lot of subcategories, and once you put in number of players that adds way more to it. Not everyone has more than one core set, and some people have 2 sets and others have 3.

To make it simple. Maybe a one core set restriction should be enforced through all scenarios until you get to nightmare scenarios and GenCon PoD scenarios.

Another way to do it, would be that all easy mode quests assume one core set, normal mode 2 core sets, and Nightmare whatever you have 1 to 3 core sets. Of course that limits players with one core set to easy mode.

So, here is my next solution. Easy and Normal mode players can only use 1-2 core sets. Nightmare mode anything goes.

Players should be restricted to cards up to the end of the cycle, so Hunt for gollum, a player can use any cards up to and including Return to Mirkwood. I tried to flesh this out in the post above this.
'At last' said Aragorn 'Here are the tracks that we seek!'

#11 Zjb12

Zjb12

    Member

  • Members
  • 502 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:40 PM

Thanks Tracker 1. I kind of feel easy and normal mode should be limited to 1core set in my own opinion. Also, to keep from throwing games to get the lowest amount like I think Vase mentioned in that other thread, it should be 3 games in a row. But I don't want to really get into big calculations like Juicebox used to if someone loses a game, so I'm tempted to say that in ordere to post a game, you need to either play and win 2 or 3 games in a row. Is that too much?

#12 Tracker1

Tracker1

    Member

  • Members
  • 690 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 08:06 PM

Keeping it to one core set will certainly level the playing field. I'm fine with that, but if we actually look at what a legal deck consists of it's no less then 50 cards and no more than 3 copies of any card. I understand that it may not be feasible for some players to invest in 3 core sets for only a handful of cards, but should this be the reason to not allow cards in a "tournament" that can technically be added into a legal deck. Another route might be that players who do not have 3 core sets are allowed to use proxies of cards from the core set if they choose to. Mini tournaments that focus on even more deck restrictions might be a way limit certain cards from decks. Just suggestion. Would love to hear from more players about number of core sets and what would be a deal breaker for them. Either way one of these groups will not be happy, but I think it would be better to stick to what a legal deck can contain rather then impose limitations based on what we purchased.

In terms of scoring. Juicebox's system way very good, but took a lot of extra effort to enter results, so a simplified version might be better to encourage easier participation. Having a player play through the scenario 3 times is a must. I think they should be allowed to enter their score even if they only won one of the games, since some scenarios are very difficult like Dol Guldur, 1 victory out of 3 is pretty good. A player can not play a scenario, 10 times and just give there 3 best scores. It's three scenarios with the same deck no modification between games. Then they can list then list there 3 scores. Someone will then have keep a list of the top 20? Scores for each scenario. If we want an overall leaderboard then a player with the top score for a given scenario should be given 20 pts and down from there with the player holding the 20th spot getting 1 point. Spread out over enough scenarios the player with the highest points is the leader. This will all be a pain in the ass to do and would probably need an excel file to keep track of all the calculations and then edits would be need to be made to the forum pages.

Since many solo players play with two decks that should be a category separate from two player games.I don't think it is necessary to keep scores for 3 or more decks for solo player.

Two handed play, and games with two or more players should probably sum the the scores of each player and divide it by the number of players to get a final score for the game. 3 game rule still applies, but it is only necessary for one of the players to enter the scores for the 3 games. It should probably list the heroes of each players deck, and the final score of each deck.

For leader boards if you want to do that, we should have a leader for 1 hand play, two hand play, 2 player etc.
we might want to have a overall leader which sums a players ranking in all the leader board settings, but I'm not sure it is necessary.

What do you think of all that? At the very least there would be you, me and a few others battling it out for the top spot. Worth it? Or is this a "build it and they will come" type situation?
'At last' said Aragorn 'Here are the tracks that we seek!'

#13 Bullroarer Took

Bullroarer Took

    Member

  • Members
  • 946 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:12 PM

Proxies!
  • Vase likes this
Nearly all of my comments are from the perspective of the single handed solo player.

#14 Zjb12

Zjb12

    Member

  • Members
  • 502 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:35 PM

What I don't seem to remember is the way Juicebox figured out the equation for when you don't win all 3 of your games, it was a type of inverse I think. I remember it made sense and came after a long discussion here on the forum like 2 years ago. If you scored say 110, 116, and Lost out of three games, I think he averaged the 2 wins but then multiplied it against a ratio that penalized for the loss. I suppose you could put win percentages next to the results, like 1.000; .667; .334; and 0.000.

#15 Tracker1

Tracker1

    Member

  • Members
  • 690 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 05:27 AM

Proxies!


That is what they are called, right? I guess you do not like that idea. Do you think it should be limited to one core set?
'At last' said Aragorn 'Here are the tracks that we seek!'

#16 Tracker1

Tracker1

    Member

  • Members
  • 690 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 05:33 AM

What I don't seem to remember is the way Juicebox figured out the equation for when you don't win all 3 of your games, it was a type of inverse I think. I remember it made sense and came after a long discussion here on the forum like 2 years ago. If you scored say 110, 116, and Lost out of three games, I think he averaged the 2 wins but then multiplied it against a ratio that penalized for the loss. I suppose you could put win percentages next to the results, like 1.000; .667; .334; and 0.000.


Here is the equation used and the information required for each game.


**The RGun formula has been designed to value both Final Score (per game) and overall Win Ratio (from your 3 games, cumulative). The formula is: (Average Score of Games Won) x (Total Games Played/Games Won). For an expanded discussion on how this formula was created, you can read the thread called Measuring Success.
Posting Your Results (Required Information):
When posting your results for this tournament you are encouraged to cut and paste from the following template and complete the requested information:
Heroes:
Game 1 Result: (Report Final Score or Loss)
Final Threat Level:
Threat Cost of Each Dead Hero:
Damage Tokens on Remaining Heroes:
Victory Points Earned:
Number of Rounds Completed:
'At last' said Aragorn 'Here are the tracks that we seek!'

#17 faith_star83

faith_star83

    Member

  • Members
  • 262 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 07:04 AM

Hey Guys

 

I'm also very motivated to participate in Living Tournaments, I think the Community could need something like it, too.

 

But unfortunately I don't have that much time to play on my hands, with family and all. So I think the way the torunaments used to be is perfect: Each Player can post their progress individually once they have their results.

 

I also would not try and get everything complicated (with difficulty and everything) but I do think that Tracker1's suggestion seem reasonable in terms of Cardpool limitation.

 

I think to organize, manage and update all the results and everything is very time consuming and I am afraid I cannot be the one to do it, because I simply don't have enough time on my hands.

 

But I really appreciate the workd everybody puts in these tournaments.



#18 Zjb12

Zjb12

    Member

  • Members
  • 502 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 08:32 AM

What I don't seem to remember is the way Juicebox figured out the equation for when you don't win all 3 of your games, it was a type of inverse I think. I remember it made sense and came after a long discussion here on the forum like 2 years ago. If you scored say 110, 116, and Lost out of three games, I think he averaged the 2 wins but then multiplied it against a ratio that penalized for the loss. I suppose you could put win percentages next to the results, like 1.000; .667; .334; and 0.000.


Here is the equation used and the information required for each game.
**The RGun formula has been designed to value both Final Score (per game) and overall Win Ratio (from your 3 games, cumulative). The formula is: (Average Score of Games Won) x (Total Games Played/Games Won). For an expanded discussion on how this formula was created, you can read the thread called Measuring Success.
Posting Your Results (Required Information):
When posting your results for this tournament you are encouraged to cut and paste from the following template and complete the requested information:
Heroes:
Game 1 Result: (Report Final Score or Loss)
Final Threat Level:
Threat Cost of Each Dead Hero:
Damage Tokens on Remaining Heroes:
Victory Points Earned:
Number of Rounds Completed:

Yeah, I seem to remember this, in fact I remember that thread, it was a long discussion if I recall right.

#19 Zjb12

Zjb12

    Member

  • Members
  • 502 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 11:19 AM

What I don't seem to remember is the way Juicebox figured out the equation for when you don't win all 3 of your games, it was a type of inverse I think. I remember it made sense and came after a long discussion here on the forum like 2 years ago. If you scored say 110, 116, and Lost out of three games, I think he averaged the 2 wins but then multiplied it against a ratio that penalized for the loss. I suppose you could put win percentages next to the results, like 1.000; .667; .334; and 0.000.


Here is the equation used and the information required for each game.
**The RGun formula has been designed to value both Final Score (per game) and overall Win Ratio (from your 3 games, cumulative). The formula is: (Average Score of Games Won) x (Total Games Played/Games Won). For an expanded discussion on how this formula was created, you can read the thread called Measuring Success.
Posting Your Results (Required Information):
When posting your results for this tournament you are encouraged to cut and paste from the following template and complete the requested information:
Heroes:
Game 1 Result: (Report Final Score or Loss)
Final Threat Level:
Threat Cost of Each Dead Hero:
Damage Tokens on Remaining Heroes:
Victory Points Earned:
Number of Rounds Completed:

And what happened if someone lost all 3 games, the computation would be zero, so did we just consider that an overall failure?

#20 Vase

Vase

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 07:48 PM

For scoring, I say we stick with that old equation Juicebox was using.  It woked perfectly and it's not that hard to figure out.

 

I also agree that we should use the standard rules of 3 copies of a card per deck, 50 card min.  Proxies are the way to keep the playing field level, along with limiting certain scenarios to certain groups of cards.  I have only invested in one core set, but quick use of a scanner and scissors has given me extra copies of the few cards I needed more of.

 

I vote for having an open-ended time frame.  I for one do not have tons of time to devote to this game.  It would be so awesome to be able to participate when I am able, and not feel pressured to meet a deadline.  Having a deadline would disqualify me from lots of events.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS