Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Zjb12

Online Tourneys

26 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

No sir, I do not. The rules clearly allow me three copies of a card in my deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so here's my crazy thought: you have your scenario, then within each scenario, you have multiple ways to play: Easy: open; restricted. Normal: open; restricted; 52 Card Pick-Up. Nightmare: open.

Open means all cards can be used, up to 3 copies of a card, minimum 50 card deck.

Restricted means 1 core set; and only cards printed through the end of the cycle from which the scenario comes, min. 50 card deck.

52 Card Pick-up: fun way to play. Deck size 52 cards; made up of no more than 1 copy of each card, all cards usable. (also encourages some of us to break away and use some cards we don't usually use and learn to try out some new tricks.)

Time frame: open and updated either as scores come in or maybe 1x a week on a given day.

Games: 3 games, played with the same deck and heroes, no changes in between. Record scores and losses.

Scoring: normal games scoring for each game. Use RGun scoring (juicebox's) to Account for losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people have 2 core sets, so what category do they fall under? Open or restricted?

Also just because someone used 3 core sets to construct a deck does not mean that the deck will get a better score than a deck with just one set, so I don't really like the idea of breaking up quest results into a lot of subcategories. I'm fine with it either way since I am probably not the one that has to organize the data, which seems like more work with more categories. If you want to do it that way that's fine. I'll probably just be entering 3 core set data, because it is a pain to remember how many copies of which cards we got with one set. To me it seems easier to ask a player with one core set to play with proxies of a few cards they don't have then to ask a 3 core set player to remember which cards came with just one set

So far this thread and the other you created are getting very little attention. Maybe more people are interested and they are just waiting for someone to get the ball rolling. I wonder if there is also some resistance from payers being asked to limit the card pool to a cycle. With all the new cards coming out very soon, and the ones we just got, it may not be that exciting to go back and play older scenarios with a smaller card pool.

So, my suggestion would be to start this thing off slow, in bite sized chunks. Maybe just stick with last cycle and HoN, and then once players get into it we can start work on setting up the older cycles and then the new cycle. If we start with something that is current, player involvement might be higher, and it might be a good time to kick this off as we wait for VoI to show up.

Basically, we can say we're restarting the old tournament with HoN and AtS. You might eve want to start with Just HoN to see if anyone participates as a test. Players can use 3 copies of any card in a Minimum 50 card deck. Use Rgun formula and post your results in a thread for that scenario. You will have to explain the tournament ranking system and things like that. If your getting some scores then open up the rest of the cycle, and hopefully by that point enough momentum would be gained for players to go back and play some of the older quests with a smaller card pool.

Maybe we should inform people this is a trial run to the beginning of February, and if little participation is shown then it's probably not what the community wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we can edit these posts now, versus say 2-3 years ago, but how did Juicebox put links into his other threads within the tournament rankings page?  Just trying to figure out some posting issues if we did hold a tournament.

Edited by Zjb12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far this thread and the other you created are getting very little attention. Maybe more people are interested and they are just waiting for someone to get the ball rolling. I wonder if there is also some resistance from payers being asked to limit the card pool to a cycle. With all the new cards coming out very soon, and the ones we just got, it may not be that exciting to go back and play older scenarios with a smaller card pool.

 

It is just a thought, but the thread is located in the Player Community sub-forum, so many people might not even see it, also me I didn't check this particular sub-forum too often, because I tought it was just for player-meetups.

 

As for the tourney itself, I think keeping it as simple as possible is important for the beginning. The rules can still be adapted for better experience once the first results come in. Too complicated / restrictive rules might disencourage players from participating.

 

I think Tracker1's suggestion to start out with the HoN Box and gather some first experiences as a sort of test-run is excellent. Also advertising the tourney on other forums might be a good idea. Maybe one of the bloggers would even feature an article.

 

It would be nice to get the community together for such a tourney again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0