Card Hunter Single-Elimination Tournament (rules discussion)

Sign me up, please!

A tie-breaker for the tie-breaks could be: 1) Most points scored in defeat becomes the 16th player, then 2) If multiple contestants are =16th, the one of those whose opponents had the highest total ELO progresses.

In the 20 entrant suggestion, only 4 go home early, so round 1 is a good 'warm up' with little at stake. If you wanted to give it more weight, you could guarantee that the 6 getting in on a second chance are paired against 1st round winners in the knockout stages.

I think this is starting to look a good structure, especially as 20 is significantly smaller than 32 and should be reached with no problems. If tons of people sign up after 20 is reached, you can always decide to change things if you like

EDIT: Sorry, you'd already posted you were going with 32 and that this wasn't the sign up thread. Still, it's food for thought of a nice way of running a tournament for 20.

 

I really want to sign up BUT .. 8pm GMT is 1.30 am in Sri Lanka which sucks. Specially if its Sunday as got work next morning'!

 

That could work.

Actually I meant that the choice between 20 and 32 participants will be made after we see how many people sign up. If we get 32+, I think it would be better to let those 32 participate rather than randomly eliminate 12 so that we get 20. But if we only get something like 20-25, then it would make more sense to cap it at 20.

Maybe something like this:

0-12 sign up -> event in cancelled and rescheduled.

13-20 sign up -> 20-person tournament, missing participants will be taken from chat 10 minutes before we start
21-24 sign up -> 20-person tournament, participants will be chosen randomly
25-31 sign up -> 32-person tournament, missing participants will be taken from chat 10 minutes before we start
32+ sign up -> 32-person tournament, participants will be chosen randomly

I would assume that it is easy to get a handful of people join by just asking in chat before we start. We might even be able to get 10+ players that way.

This is something I considered as well when I studied Challonge, but it seems like you cannot report any results without making a Challonge account. And 32 participants, each having to make an account just to report a couple of match results, seems excessive to me. Many people don't like to make new accounts, so it could potentially decrease the number of participants.

Good news is that reporting match results shouldn't be too big of a problem for the organizer since we only have a maximum of 16 matches during a round. If participants post their results on the forum topic like they are supposed to, it should go pretty smoothly. And after that first round, the organisational effort goes down dramatically.

Thanks! This will definitely be useful.

Your timezone, GMT +5:30, is really bad for these types of tournaments. I guess if we had two tournaments: EU and US, you could participate in the US one, assuming it would happen late in the evening, which would make it something like.. noon for you? I don't know.

 

Is this still likely to be this weekend?

 

Yes, very likely. If all goes well, I'll post the sign-up topic during the next 24 hours or so. I would have wanted to do it a bit earlier but hopefully about 48 hours before the event is enough.

 

I've been thinking about deckbuilding for this event. I originally planned not to have any restrictions to keep things more simple, but since it looks like the tournament is already pretty simple, adding some kind of deckbuilding restrictions might not be a bad idea. I am worried that if we do not have any restrictions at all, people would just bring their regular decks and matches could be less interesting.

I was thinking about banning all legendary items. This would have two benefits:

1. It would remove some of the most overpowered items, like Vibrant Pain.
2. New players would have slightly better chance at winning because inventory wouldn't have such a huge impact.

Does anyone have any reasons why this would be a bad idea?

 

Awwwwwwwwww..... I wanted to bring my 2x Reliable Armor + 7x Officer's Harness + 2x Duck trolling build...

(More seriously, that's probably a good idea, though I would rather see whirls banned than legendary items.)

 

If you're going to be banning Legendaries I'd suggest banning Epics too. Rares are fairly easy to come across (a few hours of farming and you should be able to get nearly any specific Rare). I mean if you allow Epics you can have people just running tons of Lochaber and Perplexing Horns.

Also, I'd be up for banning WW/WWE as well.

 

Yep, epics are probably a bigger issue than legendaries, but banning epics as well, would take us dangerously close to Peasant though. Then again it might not be a bad idea since peasant matches are pretty popular. Yes, it could work.

I usually prefer banning based on things like rarity, not banning specific cards based on the fact that "people don't like them". But the in the case of WW/WWE I tend to agree. I think that WW/WWE are cards that make the gameplay much worse. I know I personally enjoyed meta much more before everyone started using WW/WWE. I think that they, along with Firestorm decks, cheapen the whole experience, and remove (or lessen) one of the most unique and fun aspects of Card Hunter: positional play. So yeah, I could see banning WW/WWE as a good move that would make the tournament more fun.

There's only a couple of hours left before I need to finalize the tournament rules. There's no time to make any polls or have in-depth discussions, so it looks like I'm going to have to make executive decisions. If anyone has any further opinions about these potential card bans, lets hear them. Thanks.

 

Any chance for a community-vote ban list?

Maybe make a separate thread for it, add up all the options, have the participants vote on it, then you make the final choice on whats in and out?

I personally would vote:
1) WWE
2) Vibrant Pain
3) Robes of Lightness
4) Trembling Staff
5) Maybe rares+

 

We already had a peasant tournament. Banning legendaries might be ok, but I'd be hesitant to ban epics.

I think the card ban list should be limited to whirls, simply because that strategy would break the map I submitted. Firestorm is okay because it falls to a good rush, even if it is boring to watch. (And I expect the onlookers will heckle anyone who's playing FS. ^_^)

 

i would say no legendarys and all the rest is fair game. the maps arent that big for what i know, so ww-wwe should not be that much of a problem

 

While I won't be playing due to timing, I am against banning anything, especially if you plan on having any amount of last minute signups, as removal of one item can force the change of an entire build, and increases potential barrier to entry.

 

Yes, this probably would have been the best way to do it, but unfortunately there's no time for it now since the event is supposed to start in about 50 hours. If we wanted polls like that, we would have to postpone the event by one full week, and I'd much rather get it over with this Saturday.

And there's also the question of which is better: open polls, or small team of "experts". The former could make decisions based on what benefits them (for example voting against Vibrant Pain ban because he/she owns it), while the latter might be more objective.

I'm inclined to ban legendaries, (epics?) and WW/WWE. It wouldn't remove all the problems, but I think it would make the event better, especially for new players.

 

I was planning to just bring my normal PvP build. Banning legendaries only changes it slightly; banning epics and specific cards would force me to build a whole new party for this event. Which to me, isn't worth it due to the blitzy nature of the tournament. If this were a longer-form event with less variance and more room for preparation and metagaming (i.e. best of 3 matches, sideboards, etc.), then I'd be willing to put in the effort to build a party for the tournament but as is I think I just wouldn't join if I had to spend an hour+ making a new party.

I have no comments on WW/WWE because I don't use it and dislike it being used against me and don't want my biases to affect the event.

 

Honestly, if a tournament doesn't have some special rules then it basically boils down to the normal ladder -- which means whoever is currently up there would most likely win the tournament (barring crazy bad rolls... *cough* Hard To Pin Down *cough*). I was actually thinking of running a tournament with Rare or lower and with no WW/WWE. So if you don't want to do it this time I might try that for the next short one.

Allowing Epics isn't *that* bad ... it just means that newer players are at a disadvantage. There are a few problematic Epics that are super strong (Lochaber Axe / Farzil's Perplexing Horn / Whiteglow Flail), but specifically banning items would be kind of weird.

I'd be fine Epic+ and no WW/WWE. I'd expect PaladinGP to do super well though b/c of his 4 Lochaber Axe, but whatever. Would still be interesting I think.

 

I mean, I agree that rare- events are probably better. It's just a time investment to build a party for a one-off thing. *shrug*

 

Eh. That is part of the fun coming up with an interesting team!

I think having weekly tournaments with weird rules would be the best. Something that people have to build into a deck would make it interesting, dynamic, and not just a "have the best cards" or whatever.