I’d like to share with all our great TOs (@vengefulpickle, @mysticjuicer, @cpat, @snoc, and so on) and all community, an idea (maybe already proposed and rejected ) about a kind of team tournament in which each player must create (and play) a team by spending an available number of “stars” (I was thinking about 3 or 4 stars).
Based on the hig/mid/low tier chars definition, we can set:
1 star chars: BBB, Gwen, Vendetta, Midori, Rook, Persephone, Jaina
So, for example, 3 stars team could be:
Grave (2 stars) + Gwen (1 star)
or you want to play Zane (3 stars)? ok, your team is Zane alone
Or maybe 4stars available, to get at least 2 chars in a team…
Team: declared before tournament starts and kept until end
Char select: 1st double blind, then winner must keep his char (elimination type)
Tournament format: DE
Timer: Medium
I’d like to have your opinions / improvements / rejections
Per my other thread about tournament frequency, I want to start running more weekly tournaments. I think Pick-Your-Poison will be my next one, but I’d be interested in running this one after that. (I’m shooting for only having two running at once, so it would be after PYP is down to ~3/4 participation, assuming that IYL is still running).
I think probably 4 stars would be best, so that anyone running a 3-star character can at least pick a low-tier complement and not risk getting permanently stuck on the bad end of a Zane/Troq MU.
Yeah, that’s a good point.
Moreover, number of available stars and assigned star to each char could be improved/more detailed: example, 5 stars available, Zane,etc 4 stars, other chars 3, 2, 1.
Yeah. Hard to know what those break points should be without trying it at least once, I think, though.
I guess I could take a stab at crunching numbers to evaluate the possible teams, and how they match up against each other. Not sure how best to evaluate whether a given star arrangement is sufficiently balanced, though…
Now I kinda want to see if I can bodge together a tournament evaluator that would grade a given tournament on how robust the meta is… But I’m not sure how I’d actually measure that…
I don’t think it’s intended as a conquest/stable style. It’s more of a restriction on counterpicks. So if you had Troq/Jaina as your team, and I had Sets/BBB/Pers as mine, then there might be some interesting counterpick cycles that would just be the standard Troq/Zane/Geiger carousel.
But whatever the team selection, it would still be Bo5/Bo7.
Well, this is my first idea (and that’s why I think to go for at least 4 stars, in order to allow some more match ), but Bo5/Bo7 with team restricted CP seems pretty better.
Heh. I guess I misinterpreted your original design. But yeah, I think having it as a conquest format would be too lopsided, even w/ a team that has Zane on it.
This seems like a pretty good idea, I’m looking forward to playing it. But it should definitely be Bo5/Bo7 format, not conquest.
Here’s a suggestion for character costing. Obviously it’s based mainly on the tier list, but I’ve also tried to account for the fact that some characters become better in this format when strong counterpicks aren’t necessarily available. (Anyone who wants to tell me that I’m an idiot, or otherwise offer feedback, please do!)
I don’t know, I kind of like the uniqueness of the conquest format here. The details of the character costs and the total points to spend on a team might need tweaking a bit, but otherwise I think it’s more interesting than a slightly modified stable format.
You’re definitely right that it’s more unique, but I just don’t think any of the characters in Yomi (even Zane) are strong enough to be worth a handicap of a whole game. So it would boil down to a stable format anyway because no team with less than the maximum number of characters would be worth fielding if you’re playing to win.
I think that’s less set in stone than you make it seem. If 3 chars are the max, I certainly wouldn’t pick 1 char vs 3 chars. But I might pick 2 vs 3. Again, depending on what characters were worth 1 pt, and which were worth 2.
If you could be sure of your 2 characters having favorable MUs against the 3, then maybe. Even then I think it comes down to players’ matchup knowledge and character skill, but that could be interesting, sure. (Would you rather play Troq and Zane, or Gloria, Persephone and Gwen?)
But when you also have to account for the 15 other characters in the game that you might face… you’re going to want the 3 characters. Yes, I think that’s set in stone, honestly. Spotting your opponent a game is huge.
Sorry didn’t realize it was conquest format. I still like it, but the points might need to be adjusted.
Maybe something like this? I think Setsuki/Grave are almost at their level and I’d rather them be overcosted than undercosted.
3: Zane, Troq, Geiger, DeGrey, Setsuki, Grave
2: Argagarg, Menelker, Lum, Onimaru, Valerie, Quince, Gloria
1: BBB, Gwen, Vendetta, Midori, Rook, Persephone, Jaina
Limits:
5 Stars [4 forces a player using a 3 Star to use two chars], but a 3 character limit. [4 sounds like too much and having that variety might be too strong.]
Builds:
3 Chars
3 Star, 1 Star, 1 Star
2 Star, 2 Star, 1 Star
) about a kind of team tournament in which each player must create (and play) a team by spending an available number of “stars” (I was thinking about 3 or 4 stars).
), but Bo5/Bo7 with team restricted CP seems pretty better.