Firstly, the point made about the mulligan and the fact that it's hard to lose a game to a 'bad draw'. This is simply not the case. In any given game with as much luck as a CCG involves, you will *never* be able to give as fair a chance of avoiding a bad pull as multiple rounds can give. Despite mulligan, we regularly see people lose games of eve off of bad draws, and people win off of having great ones. The mulligan is a fabulous idea and I love it, but it's not a substitute for multiple rounds.
Eve has plenty of super quick games, and lots of still fast ones. It's plenty fast enough to have 1 hour rounds with 3 games per, even from a time-constrained tournament organiser's point of view. But I guess time will tell this (or not), as will tourney organiser preference. I'd like to point out, though, that the most successful - realistically, the only *truly* successful - ccg in the world uses 3 rounds or more for all of it's tournament formats. It gives a true 'tournament' environment by really feeling like you have games to play and eliminating as much dumb luck as possible.
I know Brokkur has said that the Fanfest is kind of a 'dry run'. At the very least, though, I'd really like to see at least the Fanfest finals, if not the top 4 and top 8, decided by a best of 3. No end-game of a tournament should ever be decided on a single game, mulligan or otherwise. From personal experience, losing to a bad draw in a major final is crushing.
I do agree with side-decking (bah, Im just gonna call it sideboarding ), and I do agree that traditional sideboarding before a game won't work as it promotes scouting. However, searching your opponent's deck is really not a good option for the reasons mentioned above; also, 'hiding' cards in your sideboard may be a valid strategy, but then we're back to scouting again. Not to harp on, but this issue is again solved by 3-game rounds and the more traditional method of changing your deck between games.
Post edited by: Calmdown, at: 2006/10/31 08:09
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Vardemis
User Frigate
Posts: 61
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/31 10:29If you want to prevent scouting just publish the decklists of each player in the tournament, including sidedecks. So everyone can look at each deck if he is interested and you don't waste time at the beginning of the match. Without the knowledge of the different cards, the sidedeck is pretty useless anyway. We are not talking about thousands of cards, just about 240. Not using public decklists will only result in teams of players that gather the information of the opponents deck as fast as possible resulting in a even more competitve way of scouting and thus it will not level the playing field at all, the more intel you get before the better. Rather have it available to everyone not only to those with lots of contacts in the community.
Sidedecks, well for a 'best of one' I don't really think you should have a sidedeck at all. Either you build your deck that it can beat all the others or you don't, but just have some safety cards in your sidedeck for the odd deck that you might face sounds pretty wrong to me.
'Best of one' vs 'best of three' a rather important aspect in my opinion. For a 'best of one' environment you will try to streamline the deck as much as possible to avoid a bad draw. But even with the current mulligan rule, I was not able to prevent a draw that lost me the game in around 5% of the matches for each deck I tested. (Yes, I am talking about close to 100 matches each.) 5% is a rather severe number in my opinion and you may very well lose a final of a tournament due to that. Additionally the biggest part of my matches so far, didn't last longer then 20 minutes at all, so I think with a rather typical 1h per round a 'best of three' is really not to far off. In my experience only the first matches between new players tend to last a bit longer, because they are not comfortable yet using the rules to the full extend and are afraid to lose to a calculating error they made. After this phase of a player has passed eve matches tend to be the fastest I have seen in any of the ccg's I played (magic, battletech, netrunner, star wars) and that by far. The game is brutal and it is likely that you lose to even a small mistake.
Overall, with the reasons posted by Brokkur, I would prefer no sidedeck at all, open decklists (no scouting at all) and a 'best of three' to avoid something silly like a final lost due to a bad draw.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Onyx Verde
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 660
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/11/01 10:18Blatherskite wrote: First of all I'd like to say that single game matches are the way to go!
Totally agree...
Calmdown wrote: realistically the only *truly* successful - ccg in the world uses 3 rounds or more in all of its tournament formats
...and what? Should we just make all CCGs clones of MtG, simply because that one is very popular and successful? The EVE:TSG game mechanic / round structure is already uncomfortably similar to MtG, but i can live with that because of the differences in content. The CCG with which i clocked up the most tourney experience was Decipher's Lord of the Rings (which I believe, although not as globally popular as the only *truly* successful CCG, still managed to clock up more sales in the year of it's release than MtG) and the standard format for all the constructed tourneys was single game. It proved very successful, games usually went for the full 45mins, you got to face more of a variety of opponents and everyone went home happy. Dont see why the same shouldnt apply here.
Bad draws are part of CCGs, and i dont know why this apsect should be factored out - it can allow a weaker player to occassionally trounce a grandmaster, which can be very gratifying for the n00b and it keeps the experts humble. All this Best-of-3 pretty-boy talk makes me wanna puke in my boots ============================ "There is always Hope...." - Elessar Telcontar ============================
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Calmdown
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 284
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/11/01 11:37 ...and what? Should we just make all CCGs clones of MtG, simply because that one is very popular and successful? The EVE:TSG game mechanic / round structure is already uncomfortably similar to MtG, but i can live with that because of the differences in content.
Thats nothing to do with MTG. That's Swiss, that's the way it goes. As to game mechanics? Eve has almost nothing in common with Magic.
The CCG with which i clocked up the most tourney experience was Decipher's Lord of the Rings (which I believe, although not as globally popular as the only *truly* successful CCG, still managed to clock up more sales in the year of it's release than MtG) and the standard format for all the constructed tourneys was single game. It proved very successful, games usually went for the full 45mins, you got to face more of a variety of opponents and everyone went home happy. Dont see why the same shouldnt apply here.
By no means at all should we attempt to clone M:TG. I'm not a MTG fanboi, incidentally. I quit about maybe 8 years ago.
But learning from the past, and learning from others is natural. See how this game is being compared to MTG already, not just by me, but by others? That's because MTG is *huge*. Everything gets compared to something else. And to be compared to the best is nothing short of flattering.
Games of Eve are *not* 45 minute games on average, once you get to a good standard, although they can be obviously. They tend to be somewhere between 5-30 minutes long. LotR did have longer games, so three round was impossible. And where is Lord Of The Rings now?
Bad draws are part of CCGs, and i dont know why this apsect should be factored out - it can allow a weaker player to occassionally trounce a grandmaster, which can be very gratifying for the n00b and it keeps the experts humble. All this Best-of-3 pretty-boy talk makes me wanna puke in my boots
Bad draws can never be factored out, nor should they be, because luck is a part of these games, and good deckbuilding mitigates the amount of luck you need to win. However, truly bad draws - or your opponent having 'god' draws - can happen no matter how good your deck is or how bad his may be. Random, out of the ordinary chance should be eliminated as a deciding factor as much as possible. You can't tell me than a 'grandmaster' losing to a 'noob' because of dumb luck is right or desirable for a game. Skill at deckbuilding and play should decide a winner.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
impresario
User Frigate
Posts: 27
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/11/01 13:57Calmdown wrote: And where is Lord Of The Rings now?
I think a fairer question might be "Where is Decipher now?"
I think that the final should be played underwater. That would really even out the playing field.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Onyx Verde
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 660
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/11/01 14:18Calmdown wrote: As to game mechanics? Eve has almost nothing in common with Magic. The turn structure (when you draw, manage cards, fight etc) is more similar to MtG than any of the other CCGs i've played. The combat system is similar, but then the same can be said if you compare EVE:TSG to a dozen others too...
But learning from the past, and learning from others is natural. See how this game is being compared to MTG already, not just by me, but by others? That's because MTG is *huge*. Everything gets compared to something else. And to be compared to the best is nothing short of flattering. Fair enough... My point here is that we have a brand new game here and with it comes the opportunity to try and explore new ground i.e. not just emulate previous successful formulae. I think that's the essence of the new tourney rules, and although i'm not over-the-moon about a lot of them i think it's commendable to try and do something new. As Brokkur's been saying it will all need to be thrashed out a bit more before everyone's (largely) happy, and that's just because we're all just used to different systems and styles.
And where is Lord Of The Rings now? In a warm snuggly place in my heart / collecting dust in a million attics. Touche...
Bad draws can never be factored out, nor should they be, because luck is a part of these games, and good deckbuilding mitigates the amount of luck you need to win. However, truly bad draws - or your opponent having 'god' draws - can happen no matter how good your deck is or how bad his may be. Random, out of the ordinary chance should be eliminated as a deciding factor as much as possible. You can't tell me than a 'grandmaster' losing to a 'noob' because of dumb luck is right or desirable for a game. Skill at deckbuilding and play should decide a winner.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about deckbuilding and gameplay, but you cant just dismiss out-of-the ordinary chance simply because it only occurs 0.00025% of the time - No matter how improbable it is, it still can happen despite all your best efforts. Does that make it invalid then? I dont think it should. If luck is a big part of these games then what's the problem with a beginner getting a lucky win over a veteran? Didn't you ever watch Rocky??!! I admit to being biased here because I'm more from the noob end of the spectrum, but i think if wins like these are going to happen (and realistically we're talking very infrequently here) then they should be accomodated or else we're just protecting the big players' egos. All this will change of course if I ever become one of these big players... Then I'll be hollering for Best-out-of-3 the first time i get skinned by someone with a starter deck ============================ "There is always Hope...." - Elessar Telcontar ============================
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Calmdown
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 284
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/11/01 14:35From the point of view of having good tournaments, too, best of three is better. It's longer, more interesting to watch (and to read about later), and you see more of the players doing their thing. The most embarassing moment of CCGing I've ever had was playing at an L5R nationals final, and my deck dying to a piss poor start. I wasn't embarassed because if happened, but I was embarassed because the 50 people watching the game on chairs didn't get to see anything interesting.
Like I say, I agree with you that trying out new stuff is good. Great even, and I'm behind it 100% - but all ideas need to be thrashed out, and I just happen to be on the negative side of the thrashing Sidedecking and seeing your opponents deck is fine, I can live with trying that out, but best of one in the first big tournament, at least for the finals/top4/top8? I think that'd be a real shame.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Ryuteki
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 679
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/11/01 15:29Calmdown wrote:Games of Eve are *not* 45 minute games on average, once you get to a good standard, although they can be obviously. They tend to be somewhere between 5-30 minutes long.
Uh, Ian? You can't base your tournament time on the Good Players. You must base it on the Lowest Common Denominator player, because they will show up. If your typical LCD player's game takes 30-40 minutes, then going Best of Three guarantees that they will get called on time and probably have their matches decided on their first game anyway.
I'm not opposed to Best of 3 for the top 4 or 8, but I think it may be unrealistic for the entire tourney.-Ryuteki, Owner of the Rules! We're playing Monday evenings in IL, see www.games-plus.com for the address or email me at ryuteki AT gmail DOT com.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Onyx Verde
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 660
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/11/01 16:38<backpedal> I suppose all things considered that Best-of-3 would be good in terms of building excitement in the semi-finals / final </backpedal> especially if some matches have a 1-1 tie after 2 rounds, but I also agree with Ryuteki - it just wouldnt be largely feasible in the early stages. Best-of-3 later on in the tourney would also deal with any players who just got thru on a lucky win, but wouldnt necessarily preclude them.============================ "There is always Hope...." - Elessar Telcontar ============================
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Magius Paulus
User Frigate
Posts: 15
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/11/01 19:28Although i've hardly played a game yet, i'd still like to participate to the discussion
1. About Magic Comparison I think any discussion about this is useless. Obviously a lot is similair to Magic:
* deck limit of 4 * deck size is almost indentical (60 vs 52) * using 'The pile' (the stack, with the difference that once you start resolving you can't add anything). I find this the most important comparison. * using 'sidedeck' (vs sideboard) * Duration (upkeep), draw (draw, also the phase that you can't play anything in both games), management (main phase), Battle (Combat), end phase (end step) * active player and initiative is the same * Target (target)
I think it is not wrong to say part of the 'engine' of this game is build on the Magic concept and i don't think the developer will deny this (right?). However, i don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, The Stack (or the Pile if you will) is a thing that every CCG should have as it is simply the most easily system in complicated situations. Also, some rules (like the mulligan thing) is even better than Magic and there are some things which are quite unique for this game.
2. About number of games I really can't say anything sensible about this as i really have to play it. Obviously beginners take a lot longer than experienced players, but there probably is a lot of middle ground here.
3. About sideboarding Uhhh, i mean sidedecking I think it is worth a try. I don't agree that you should play without any sideboard. Some decks will eventually prove itself to strong and there is probably some 'silver bullet' against it. Sideboards keep the metagame interesting and have a good reason to exist. The only risk that we have to sideboard before any game is the rock, paper, scissors idea, but we'll have to see about it.
A lot of text, but in the end it all comes down to testing and experimenting i think.First learn the meaning of what you say, and then speak. --Epictetus
The administrator has disabled public write access.
mikelosaurus
User Cruiser
Posts: 124
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/11/03 12:47I'm inclined to agree that even with the 'mulligan' you can still get a bad draw.
I'm inclined to favour the best-out-of-three format because yes, the game plays like M:TG, and it is a good one to average out any decking problems.
Not sure about sideboarding, I've never been big on it as a concept. Personally I'm happy just to play a deck and just see if it stands or falls on it's own merits.
I am very much against people looking through my deck beforehand though. If you're worried about players scouting, then just have it stipulated in the floor rules that players must leave the play area after their games are finished.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Calmdown
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 284
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/11/03 13:23Ryuteki wrote: Uh, Ian? You can't base your tournament time on the Good Players. You must base it on the Lowest Common Denominator player, because they will show up. If your typical LCD player's game takes 30-40 minutes, then going Best of Three guarantees that they will get called on time and probably have their matches decided on their first game anyway.
I disagree. You never get better at anything if you're spoon fed; on the other hand, if you're constantly under pressure to finish faster, you'll eventually get used to finishing faster.
Also, if two newer players games are finishing based on one game and not three because they run out of time, then that's fine. At least the more experienced players - likely the ones for whom having best of three means more - will get their best of three games.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Eve seems like it can really be a great game. I learned to play at GenCon, have taught a couple friends the game and they seemed to really like it. I am now worried that it may be shooting itself in the foot. I'm not a fan of sideboards at all, but I can live with them. What I can't live with is having my opponent look through my deck before a game. I do not like this rule at all. Please, Please reconsider this rule. I have played many different card games and have never seen anything like this.
I bought several starters and packs at GenCon and was looking forward to my loacal game store getting thier order of cards but I think I am going to hold off on buying any more until I see the final tournament rules.
Thanks!
The administrator has disabled public write access.
), and I do agree that traditional sideboarding before a game won't work as it promotes scouting. However, searching your opponent's deck is really not a good option for the reasons mentioned above; also, 'hiding' cards in your sideboard may be a valid strategy, but then we're back to scouting again. Not to harp on, but this issue is again solved by 3-game rounds and the more traditional method of changing your deck between games.
I admit to being biased here because I'm more from the noob end of the spectrum, but i think if wins like these are going to happen (and realistically we're talking very infrequently here) then they should be accomodated or else we're just protecting the big players' egos. 
I think it is worth a try. I don't agree that you should play without any sideboard. Some decks will eventually prove itself to strong and there is probably some 'silver bullet' against it. Sideboards keep the metagame interesting and have a good reason to exist. The only risk that we have to sideboard before any game is the rock, paper, scissors idea, but we'll have to see about it.
