|
Post by Tuism on Aug 7, 2012 15:54:20 GMT -5
Hi guys
(This first post will be updated with the discussion)
I'm gonna start the league, but first we need to get the rules that most people agree on. These are the points under discussion:
1) Yes or no to every player having 3 votes to ban cards? While I like Bronto's idea of everyone having 3 votes to ban 3 cards, and then tallying it up to see which cards get the most votes to ban from the league... I don't really like to ban cards. I was thinking of something a bit more true to the spirit of the game, like for example...
Current consensus: No bans, free-for-all
2) Since we know that Silvio being uncounterable is a bug, if someone's Silvio gets a counter played on it, the controlling player may not campaign (attack or block) with it afterwards. Violation means the player must concede the game, or be banned. The same applies for: > Only one Suleiman/Pre-emptive strike/other beneficial counter can counter Suleiman. No Suleiman spamming on a Silvio.
Current consensus: No bans, free-for-all
3) Timeframe - what do you think of this? Now - End of Friday 10th: registration and deck submission Saturday 11th morning: registration closes, decklist public, league starts End Sunday 26th: League closes, sort out results in the following week, new registration and deck submission starts.
Current consensus: Yes to these timeframes
4) Decks - should it be a single deck throughout the league, or should we have 2 decks that can be swapped between? For simplicity I say let's just have one for this league, we can change the league up later to have either a shorter cycle so we go into a new one with new rules/decks or to have 2 decks that needs to be played on week one or week two, or can be chosen between.
Current consensus: One deck.
5) Best out of three per match or just one game for one point? Playing possibly 3 x 5 games against any single person is probably a bit much. Is 5 games fine?
Current consensus: 5 games and not 5 matches of best of three.
|
|
|
Post by Educatedcollins on Aug 7, 2012 16:04:21 GMT -5
A ban, if any should not happen immediately for sure.
I do however, think that eventually there is going to be a large similarity to the decks created unless there was some kind of deterate to playing those decks or cards in decks.
Also, I'm totally up for it.
|
|
|
Post by TemplarTyler on Aug 7, 2012 16:07:01 GMT -5
I am all for keeping the spirit of the game strong So I agree with that Hmm, I don't think it is fair to stop players using certain cards. But, if people do want some form of 'ban/restriction' maybe a maximum of Rares per deck? (Or something along those lines)? Just throwing a suggestion out
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Aug 7, 2012 16:26:17 GMT -5
I'm still drafting the rules, but the decklists will be secret (but kept by someone so they can't be changed) until the league starts. So deck similarities might happen but so what, that's just a function of the meta. We'll have a brand new league every X time period - so the next time, come back with an anti-meta deck I don't like bans, and for now the only major issue I see is with Silvio being uncounterable when he's supposed to be counterable. So that's my suggestion - if you play him, and he gets countered, he sits out the game. If violated, unless the player concedes to a loss, he is banned. Opposing player should take a screenshot or something as evidence. I don't think it'll get to that point, and I think there will be people who make a mistake, so they have the chance to concede and not get banned outright. Restrictions are also silly in my mind. Everyone's gonna say restrict to one Suleiman, I just don't see the point of that.
|
|
|
Post by kackman73 on Aug 7, 2012 16:31:10 GMT -5
Yes, restrict to zero Suleimans instead. Nah - no restrictions for this first run, I say. See how things play out, and if there's a crazy imbalance, adjust things for future leagues. (The limit on rares, perhaps. Or break it up into divisions based on the previous league. Whatever.) If I happen to play somebody and I notice that they drop Piri and then play nothing but Suleiman, Y. Cistern, Byzantine Ruins, and a bunch of other counters, I'll just let the game sit at the "choose your deck" screen the next time that person's name comes up. Edit to add: I like the Silvio idea. Along with that, the person countering Silvio should be limited to one counter, with the same penalty for violating the rule - no using the bug to spam Suleimans or Preemptive Strikes. 2nd edit: Purely for statistical/interest purposes, at the end of the league I'd like to see the players listed who are using the winningest deck of each faction: best Order, best Crime, best Faith, etc. I know that a lot of us combine colors, but in the interest of simplicity just count all decks that include a color as being of that color. If that means that one person wins two factions (with an awesome Crime/Faith deck or something), so be it. It'd also be interesting in that it might give us a bit more (albeit limited) insight into which factions are strongest at the moment. By which I mean, if the top Crime deck belongs to the 15th ranked player, and the top 7 decks are all Order decks, maybe something is out of whack (for instance).
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Aug 7, 2012 16:38:54 GMT -5
Good point on the Suleiman and Preemptive Strikes. Could get really dirty with that bug. Well Updated OP with some more discussions.
|
|
|
Post by TemplarTyler on Aug 7, 2012 16:40:01 GMT -5
Maybe you could say all 'bugged' cards are banned (Until fixed)
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Aug 7, 2012 16:43:53 GMT -5
Well I do agree that an outright ban is easier and eliminates any confusion. If we can all be adults about it and make sure we don't exploit the bugs we can keep them. If we don't trust us all to remember/enforce the rules then let's just ban the bugged cards.
Anything besides Silvio that's worth banning?
|
|
|
Post by TemplarTyler on Aug 7, 2012 16:54:30 GMT -5
I can't think of any...but most others are more aware than me on this stuff Also, With the deck submission? Is it one deck per person? And how many (If any) alterations can be made (Cus I am not sure on other people, but I know my decks are constantly being altered around... (This is just to clarify for later down the line )
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Aug 7, 2012 16:58:18 GMT -5
For now I'm proposing a single deck, cos it might be tricky getting through everyone with the same deck anyway. We can change it up later. For now simpler is better, I think. But what does everyone think? Updated point 4 in OP. Oh and I've posted the comprehensive rules up on the other thread acreedrecollection.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=tournament&action=display&thread=1952It's comprehensive so please read through it and don't TL;DR, thanks
|
|
|
Post by TemplarTyler on Aug 7, 2012 17:03:08 GMT -5
Yeah, Good point on the simple is better
|
|
|
Post by falkinator2000 on Aug 8, 2012 2:18:39 GMT -5
As simple as possible gets my vote. I might even go as far as saying abusing known bugs is acceptable; it's not like any deck with Silvio is suddenly unbeatable (I don't even plan on using him in my faith deck).
|
|
|
Post by Rob (Roebidoebi) on Aug 8, 2012 2:24:33 GMT -5
Let's just see how abusable the bugs are. Anything goes, no restrictions at all...
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Aug 8, 2012 3:05:30 GMT -5
Updated a poll regarding banning cards
|
|
|
Post by falkinator2000 on Aug 8, 2012 3:51:41 GMT -5
I don't know if this is up for discussion, but I think 3 games to make 1 match is a bit excessive. I'd prefer a format where 1 win = 1 point, max 5 (or 10 or 15) games against each opponent.
With a family to care for, I can often only spare 10 minutes here and 15 minutes there. 3 games to a match would force me to set aside ~30 minutes in case the games drag. If we add some time required for arranging matches, I will probably only be able to play 1 match per day if I am lucky. If matches were 1 game each, I'd be able to play several more because each game would be easier to fit into a tight schedule.
As I see it, the primary argument FOR having 3 game matches is to reduce the impact of variance on results. This makes a lot of sense in a knock out tournament where 1 player might get a bad draw and be out for the rest of the tournament. But in a league, I see no real argument for having 3 game matches; am I overlooking something?
|
|