Swiss-Style Co-Op Tournament Feedback

Hey guys! This thread is for posting your valueable feedback on the tournament. Post stories of your conquests or defeats, post any suggestions or complaints or things you liked here.

Thanks to everyone for making this tournament a success, including both our players and our substitutes!


Things I want hear about:

Rules: Are item rules necessary? How was the time limit?

Teams: Were the teams fair? Moreover, would you play another random tournament or would you prefer to pick teams?

Substitutes: Do you have any issues with subs? Should they have been exactly the same character type or not?

Co-op: Did you have any trouble communicating and working with your team? Are there any features of co-op that are lacking?

And most importantly, did you have fun ? killing your team mates by accident?

 

I ran away every game, and I got a bonus prize for it! Pity I didn't shoot my teammate when I had a chance for more bonuses Definitely would play another tourney, and can't wait for something similar to happen again!

EDIT: Also, we really need 30 minute timers. Co-op is longer, and time issues are never fun.

 

My only real complaint is that I only managed to bash 2 or 3 people. You guys should be lining up to get your heads caved in .-.

 

Too much fun! Great idea and thanks for hosting.

For another time, it would be nice to play 2 out of 3 rounds per matchup. Seems like the first round is often largely dominated by technical difficulties. Game 2 and 3 were loads of fun but our first game was mostly a drag due to these issues. If 2 out of 3 would take too long, maybe just the option of a mulligan round being declared instead of a win/loss when more than 5 minutes of game time is lost to connection/attendance problems. Some mechanic allowing for early ironing-out of issues before everything counts.

 

As a sub i enjoyed the amounth of mayhem and bloodshed i was able to dish and i hope to play as a fulltime player rather than a sub next time

 

Yay 8th place! can we get a comforting prize for last place?
No but seriously it was fun even though we lost 2 games and we were about to win our 3rd but our team leader lost connection and we had to get a sub who never played co-op, didnt have their character ready for round 1 and never even heard of this tournament, it was still fun!

 

It was great fun with two epic games. Big thanks Jade for hosting.
I think random tournaments are better, to prevent uber-teams.
Communication worked well and we didnt need a sub.

 

Item rules should be used in the majority of the tournaments. 30 min time limit for co-op is optimal. Subs should be the same character. It would help if there was pinging.

 

As soon as your cleric moved out of position you gave the game to us. You were literally one turn away from losing >_>

We were both saving our damage for when one of you would leap into our jaws for dinner time.

 

Our team actually had a way to deal with that. Before the games started, we all agreed on which way was "North", and then used that to point out certain squares, such as "Flanking Move two North-East", or "That square one south of the VP".

 

Fair teams is a hard nut to crack, wont touch that

In an ideal world, we would have more time i guess... but 40 minutes really takes a toll already.

Did anyone bother to use voice chat? How did that go then?

 

My team didn't wnat to use my Teamspeak server, but i think that could help those who had a time issue (we didn't).

 

we had a unholy wellspring, demonic power and inspiration on preist that plus two dmg cards on mage and two move cards on mage and 1 acid on mage and you dwarf was on 19 hp and if you moved in we would move to see you, kill it go to VP next round both stand on VP and win.
Yea... i think we would have won

 

I know the north, south, east and west of CH because of the board editor - when you chose which was the character spawns it says if you want it to face north, south, east or west (btw north is left,up and you can figure out the rest from that )

 

Teams: I liked the current style of tournament and I kind of feel like it's the way to go right now (since there was a decent range in terms of how experienced various players were and letting all the more experienced players choose to be on the same team could make it less interesting). But if you do want to let people choose their own teams in the future you could assign classes and races to them randomly.

Substitutes: Yes, they should have the same restrictions including class and race as the person they are replacing.
Item rules: I liked the 1legendary item per character limit, but aside from that I don't feel like they are necessary.

And yes, it was lots of fun I'm looking forward to another one in the future!

 

That was the ONLY rule and i failed to follow it

 

Yes, and I think you nailed it. One legendary really levels the field without taking away too many build options.

I liked the structure. I think random teams encourages people of a wider skill level to get involved, which is commendable.

No issue with substitution if they come from an alternate list and are assigned by the tourney director and not the groups. I also feel the sub must play the same char type -- 10 gold for a dwarf fighter (or whatever) is not an unreasonable thing to ask for entry. We def were game planning against what out opponents would bring, and I believe it contributed to our success.

Most fun since I joined CH. A lot of good people involved.

 

I don't think it was necessary,there is plenty of great common-epic. Having more legendaries is barely an tiny advantage over having just 1.
I think a time limit of 25 minutes would be better,still easily fit in the 1 game/hour format but give us a bit more time. Coop battle take longer than normal ones and it is a shame for a game to end in a time out.

Nope,they were not. However,letting us pick team will just lead to top players grouping together leaving newbies in the dust. I think random team is good but make it based on ranking instead of hp(but take the highest ranking reached in the month to prevent people throwing games to lower ranking). In fact, I think it would be better to have us choose our characters AFTER the teams are formed. The problem with random teams is that we don't know our partner(not only talking about skills,but also about how reliable he is,what time is he available,etc),making it quite luck-based. Thus, I believe we should have stricter rules on participation. For example, we must be able to contact you within X days,you must able to meet with your partners for a few hours for training/strategy/etc,you must be willing to learn and take advices(only if they are reasonable, of course) from more experienced partners,etc.

I think we should have an preset list of possible substitutes that are immediatly assigned depending on the dropping out player,not just randomly taking voluntaries in chat. They should be the exact character type. I am sure anyone can spare 10 gold...

Not much trouble. My team was planning on using voice chat but the player told us he cant when it started so we had to use team chat. It was fine other than that.

Yes, but not as much as I hoped for. Betwen random disconnect from my partners, and one of them for good,forcing us to take a substitute at the last minute for the second battle,trying to get said substitute to improve his build, I was quite stressed and exasperated which prevented me to enjoy the battles as much as I could.

 

Thinking about streamlining communication with board means, would the engine allow a flagpost of sorts? Dunno how its called exactly, but ive seen it in some rts games, you can click a spot on the (mini)map to highlight it shortly for your teammates (a location shortly blinks). Highlighting squares could be a fast and versatile tool within a team to direct attention.