Tournament Format - 2006/10/30 12:00Side Decking: Before each match, players receive two minutes to look through their opponent's market and then return it back. Then each player has three minutes to replace any number of cards in their market with the same number of cards from their side decks. In-between matches, players must rearrange their decks to their original state. Then players choose which starbase and three outer regions they will be using for that match, and place the remaining starbases and outer regions aside.
I really don't know what to say to that, other than I'm gobsmacked - looking through your opponent's deck pre-game is possibly the single worst idea I've ever seen in a card game
I'd like to hear some of the reasoning behind this. If Eve is to be a 1-game-per round format (personally I think the game heavily supports 3-round games, which would allow for side-decking between games), then side-decks should not be neccessary, or at least, shouldn't be used in this way.
Post edited by: Calmdown, at: 2006/10/30 12:02
Post edited by: Calmdown, at: 2006/10/31 08:10
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Ryuteki
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 679
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/30 16:57Oh, I HIGHLY disagree with this concept as well - just a Bad Idea (TM).-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.
Ertai_Vodalion
User Scout
Posts: 7
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/30 17:01I´d prefer sideboarding (only) in between the matches aswell.
Having an opponent looking through my Deck before the 1st match doesn´t make me feel comfortable (although I can do the same..).
The administrator has disabled public write access.
schubi
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 259
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/30 17:17who came up with that idea? it somehow spoils all the fun and surprises, doesn't it? not to mention that i would be forced to bring all my cards along to be sure i get the right ones when i need them
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Magius Paulus
User Frigate
Posts: 15
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/30 17:56When i first read the tournament rules i found this to be very interesting, because it is the 1st time i see this in a CCG. However, the more i think it over the more i think it is a very bad idea. (a big) Part of collectible card games is the surprise element of playing against a mystery deck. As you can look through the deck before you even play a game, the surprise element is spoiled and this means it is not rewarded to play original decks (of course every deck is original now, but i'm absolutely sure that a Meta game is going to develop sooner than you think).
There are several more reasons why i think (or simply "know") this is spoiling the game, but as i have not tried it i think i'll leave it to this for now...
Post edited by: Magius Paulus, at: 2006/10/30 20:43First learn the meaning of what you say, and then speak. --Epictetus
The administrator has disabled public write access.
AgentZero
Admin Admin
Posts: 410
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/30 20:39The idea is to continue emphasizing preparation. Not only do you get a free redraw, but you can now base that on what you think is in your opponent's hand. Sure, looking through decks and working in sidebars can take some time, but this will streamline in a short amount of time.
Something else to consider: You don't have to have all your good cards in the deck. You can keep all four copies of three different cards in the sidebar, and your opponent won't know they're there. Show them your crap cards when they perform their "reconnaissance," and then swap in all your nastiest cards. Sidebars of 13 cards means your opponent only gets to see a quarter of your actual deck.
I can see what you guys are saying, though. We'll see how the Fan Fest tourney goes, and adjust from there, if necessary.Zack Walters EVE: The Second Genesis Organized Play Coordinator White Wolf | CCP North America
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Magius Paulus
User Frigate
Posts: 15
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/30 20:47AgentZero wrote: Show them your crap cards when they perform their "reconnaissance," and then swap in all your nastiest cards. Sidebars of 13 cards means your opponent only gets to see a quarter of your actual deck.
True, didn't thought about that one. Might indeed be fun. However, you probably mean your opponent will see 3 quarters of you deck right?
Post edited by: Magius Paulus, at: 2006/10/30 20:48First learn the meaning of what you say, and then speak. --Epictetus
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Before I explain the reasoning for the side decking subject, I need to tell you that the current tournament rules are of course not final, but act mainly as a guideline to event organizers. I expect these rules to evolve considerably during the course of the coming weeks and months with your help. So, if you prove me wrong on this subject, or any other subject for that matter, and help to propose a better solution that serves the game better, we are always open for suggestion. In the end, this is your game.
Thank you for expressing your concerns about the side deck rules. I decided to put this reply off schedule until I some more players had posted their thoughts, and now you have. I can see why this rule might sound like a bad idea to some of you at first, but I truly believe that it isn’t. I will do my best to explain why.
Please don’t give up on me while I explain the following, because it’s a crucial element in my argument.
We’ve always felt that each mach should be only one game, instead of best out of three; not only because some games take up to 30-40 minutes, but mostly because that with the cumulative income in EVE: TSG, the relatively small deck size and the very generous EVE mulligan: players very rarely loose games only because they have a bad draw. Therefore, we felt that one game was enough to declare the winner and at the end of a tournament, the winner is a player who has won many different opponents, but not a player who has won few opponents, twice each (in a best out of three).
Of course, there will always be a certain amount of luck involved in the game since after all you are drawing cards from a shuffled deck. But with the multitude of options that players face each turn, invites them to do more play mistakes and thus the importance of playing your cards right vs. drawing the right cards, is definitely higher than in most all other CCGs.
Brokkur, get to the point!
Having only one game in a match surely made it more difficult to find the perfect solution to side decking. We of course gave this a lot of thought and we talked about and play tested a myriad of different side decking rules.
If players would be allowed to side deck blindly before the game, it would… a) …give a huge advantage to either player who has found out, in one way or the other, which sort of deck his or her opponent is playing. b) …be stupid.
If players would be allowed to side deck during the game, with some sort of penalty (believe me, we tried all of them), it would… a) …still give a huge advantage to either player who has found out, in one way or the other, what sort of deck his or her opponent is playing. b) …still be stupid for the same reason.
In a competitive game such as EVE: TSG, we needed to find a way to even the ground when it came to side decking. When you compete in a CCG tournament, as I’m sure most of you have, you should know that after round 1 or 2 a lot of people have found out what sort of a deck their next opponent is playing before the round starts, either from glancing at the games in the previous round or talking to other players at the tournament. We don’t think that players should gain an advantage by accumulating this knowledge. But you know this already; since this is the reason why in a best out of three in other CCGs, players are only allowed to side deck after the first game.
We felt that it was right to let each player skim very quickly through their opponent’s market before side decking, and therefore making that information open to everyone, instead of being exclusive to those who make an effort in-between rounds to learn about their opponents.
By no means does this say that your opponent will have learned about all your tricks and surprises, because any key cards that you want to keep hidden, you can hide in your side deck – even if you plan on playing them in every match. You might even arm your deck with a fake strategy to trick your opponent into side decking differently than he would otherwise.
We have talked about the possibility of making the final single elimination rounds best out of three and if that becomes a popular demand, we will. However, after consulting with many pro-CCG players, the feedback has been very good both regarding the side decking rule as well as the one game per match.
Please continue to let us know what you think.
Best Regards, PeturLead Designer EVE: The Second Genesis
The administrator has disabled public write access.
AgentZero
Admin Admin
Posts: 410
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/30 21:15Magius Paulus wrote: However, you probably mean your opponent will see 3 quarters of you deck right?
um...yeah. Math is hard.
Post edited by: AgentZero, at: 2006/10/30 21:17
Post edited by: AgentZero, at: 2006/10/30 21:17Zack Walters EVE: The Second Genesis Organized Play Coordinator White Wolf | CCP North America
The administrator has disabled public write access.
impresario
User Frigate
Posts: 27
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/30 21:18Actually, Brokkur, I was going to mention that argument if you had waited much longer to reply. While I totally understand the idea that having an actual look at the full contents of a deck takes away some if not all of the element of surprise, if you're going to allow sideboarding, this isn't a bad solution to the problem of unequal information. Basically, it makes sure that the game is unfair in a very fair, equal way.
I don't know that I like it as a solution either, but you at least have to admit that it does address the problem in a very equitable way. If nothing else, CCP has been very vigilant about trying to keep unfair advantages out of the game as much as possible, and I have to thank them for that.
I guess what I'm saying is that while it may be a bad solution, it's still a solution, which is more than you get in a lot of other formats.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Ryuteki
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 679
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/30 22:21To be frankly honest, I would say then that the best solution may be to NOT allow sideboarding in EVE tournaments. Consider whether you are really gaining a true benefit with allowing a sideboard, or if you are rather simply trying to shoehorn one in because "competitive CCGs are supposed to work that way."
I've played several CCGs - some use sideboards, others don't. I've been quite happy with the lack of sideboards in the ones that don't, and those are also usually the more tactical games that do NOT play 'best of 3' matches, such as Legend of the Five Rings.
Scouting will be an issue no matter what you do, as it will affect the mulligan and play choices - your Kamikaze 1 is a lot more significant if your opponent's low-cost ships are 0/1 and 3/1, for instance, and your high-cost locations might be less so if he's running location destruction. I don't do the whole scouting thing, which may have cost me a few games, but I'd rather win on my merits as a gamer than on my merits as an industrial spy. -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.
impresario
User Frigate
Posts: 27
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/30 22:55I don't necessarily disagree with you. Of course, in a tournament setting, sideboarding may be the only way to get a deck to perform at all consistently against a variety of decks, given how tight things usually have to be to work at all.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Onyx Verde
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 660
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/30 23:52I had spotted the new sideboarding rules when i was looking at the fanfest format, and was about to start ranting venemously when i spotted Calm's post.. that boy's a mind-reader!! Seriously though, despite some well-meaning and convincing exlanations from Brokkur and Zero, so far i think the knee-jerk consensus is that this is a bad idea... Big-badda-boom bad idea. I'm actually totally unfamiliar with the whole idea of sideboard cards (yes, i am actually one of the three people in the world never to have played MtG) and any tournies i have competed in have always been 45min one-off rounds, no Best-of-3 nonsense. Which boils down to this: to win you have to hit the tourney with your honed, finely-tuned Deck of Pwnage and GOD HELP ANYONE WHO STANDS IN YOUR WAY!! i.e. Deckbuilding time is over... it's time to test the actual cardplaying skills, and that's the essence of the tournament.
Seemingly a big motivation in introducing the rule is the issue of scouting at tournaments. I dont know about anyone else but I'm usually too busy playing cards, and im not trying to be facetious here. People who have time to scout are usually winning fast or losing fast, and in either case, minor changes to your deck is going to have very little effect on your win / lose ratio. Specific scenarios aside - either your deck is a wrecking ball or it's not, and if it wasn't in the first place the no amount of last-minute tweaking should remedy that. If it already is then why bother changing? I know there's strategic 'bluffing' but this doesnt seem appealing enough either for me to feel comfortable with my opponent seeing my market.
I realise though that, even if i dont agree with the extent of the problem, it was still sufficient enough for the devs to feel they had to address it. But it's the 'using-a-sledgehammer-to-crack-a-walnut' analogy. So that's why i'll stop whining and maybe make a suggestion...
If, according to me, it's all about having enough faith in your tourney deck, how about if you can choose not to use a sideboard, in which case your opponent is not allowed to look through your market pre-game? If you want a sideboard then the rules stand as they are and your opponent gets a quick flick through your cards. This would reward good deckbuilding as well as still permitting the use of sideboards, albeit at a penalty. Plus it also puts the decision whether or not you want your cards looked at back in the hands of the player, not as some automatic poorly-thought-out rule.
Im curious as to how this will all turn out. At the minute it just seems like the devs have found a way to implement the phenomenon of carebears into the CCG.============================ "There is always Hope...." - Elessar Telcontar ============================
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Brokkur Helfari
Admin Admin
Posts: 33
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/31 00:03Im curious as to how this will all turn out. At the minute it just seems like the devs have found a way to implement the phenomenon of carebears into the CCG.
Hahahahaha
Some very nice posts guys. I'm looking forward to see how the feedback from the FanFest turns out; after that, we'll have a thorough discussion on the matter.
Best regards, PeturLead Designer EVE: The Second Genesis
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Blatherskite
User Cruiser
Posts: 162
Re:Tournament Format - 2006/10/31 04:38First of all I'd like to say that sigle game matches are the way to go! Second, on the matter of sideboarding....great intentions...bad idea. Most of the reasons have been listed...just wanted to put my two cents in.Blatherskite Caldari Propagandist
A PRINCE ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline… - Machiavelli
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Sidebars of 13 cards means your opponent only gets to see a quarter of your actual deck.
