The updating involved with their ranking system is fine, if it wasn't used as their only method for determining placing. I think this system is very good to be used as a seeding process for a final matching tournament system. The reason for this being is that there is no guarentee that a person who went 10-0-0 was ever paired up with someone of similar standing, while another person who played more games and ended up with a record of 10-1-1 could have played stronger opponents in general by comparison. Even with an initial seeding system, someone could still sneak in at the end, given the tie breaker rules, but i think it gives a good indication for "qualifying" for a more structured tournament and the list updating gives incentive for those within qualifying range to continue to try and improve their standings.ANIMEniac wrote:First my thoughts about the event.
The new up-to-date ranking was something you can both hate and love. It was great to know where you stood and how much work you needed to get the top. The hate comes from people knowing what they need to catch 1st, unlike the First tournament everyone played until the passed out XD. Also, it may have discouraged players seeing the ranking records. However, overall, i think it is worth it. We save ourselves form "overworking" in the tournament and also see if someone is trying to "sneak" away with the win. Kudos to the team for getting that set up.
Actually, i think the system setup for the number of players was far too short given the different time zones invovled. This was one of the reasons why i never even bothered entering in the first place, since i knew my playtime would be non-existant durring the weekend this time around and that was when the bulk of the time of the tournament sat within. If the initial seeding occured durring the week, and then finals took place on a pre-determined day, then people with less free time could arrange to schedual for it assuming it was an option.ANIMEniac wrote:TOURNAMENT FORMAT
As people have mentioned, the tournament was a bit too long and competition died early. Competition was pretty fierce early on and the good record holders had to deal with one another. Later on, it cools down. Well, after this experience, it shows that first to top isn't so great. There is the tie-breaker rule and the competition to worry about. I know I complained about the tie-breaker rules. I still feel somewhat irked about it. But i can understand how it fits with how the tournament goes and how it is an incentive to take your time.
Others have already commented on the prize range. There are different ways to handle it, but the current system does detract from anyone starting late, getting an early loss, getting a bad draw (sealed deck only), getting paired up with the same person more than once, and possibly other reasons that aren't comming to mind right now. Basically, even if someone were to get out ahead first and no one else was close to the top 3, the vacccum of people giving up would make it basically impossible to catch up or even finish as the results of this tournament would indicate.ANIMEniac wrote:PLAYING INCENTIVE
How many decided to not try after seeing X/0/0 by second day? Or the X/1/0 first day? There just isn't enough incentive to continue playing as the tournament goes on. This was also shown when half the entrants didn't make the 10 game minimum. Of course, I think most people just stopped at 5 to get their 50 Gran back. CCGs I play have a $3-4 fee for events. You join to play and usually get a promo card for just joining, or a booster pack at least. If there was something people would like to go for even if they know they can't win top, it can be an incentive for them to try, instead of back off after seeing a "hopeless" win.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 15 guests