I think that this format is very interesting in the sense that it incitates us to prove how false is the historical matchup chart.
In most games matchup charts are done from professionnal players winrates. It’s not the case in Yomi where winrates have several bias.
Many people don’t do tourneys with a true playing-to-win mind. They love a character and want to have fun with it
Charts are very popular and some other people love to counterpick, even without truly mastering the cp character.
This is visible on the chart, for example how many unexperienced BBB players face Leontes’Midori who masters the matchup with ease ? Leontes almost wrote this matchup winrate alone ! Rare are people not willing to counter-counterpick on BBB vs Midori except him.
The last thing is that we’re actually casual players, we play for fun, tournaments are free to enter and we don’t mind making some mistakes sometimes. The yomi matchup chart doesn’t reflect characters brought to their true potential. There are 210 matchups in Yomi, we can’t master all them to perfection
I agree with @mastrblastr 's assessment wholeheartedly, but don’t put too much stock into what I said. I’m a big sourpuss and downward spiral very easily, which is not indicative of Yomi’s caliber of player as a whole.
I’m definitely interested in running this again (probably after the next IYL season, which will likely start in the Feb timeframe). I’d definitely consider the “+2 points for a set-win” rule for the next run. As I think more about it, I would consider going to Bo5 as well… That would mean that rather than every player getting the same number of games, it would mean that every set-winner would win the same number of games, which would make the value of those wins relatively more important (and also would make winning the set more important as well, I think…)
If I can scare up some free time in the meantime, I might actually run some simulations about how those changes affect the final tournament standings, too.
Yeah, if I had to do it over again I would just lead with Troq/Oni, rather than what I’ve been trying to do. Now that I’m last place, I have no motivation other than “play the most difficult possible MU and try to lick my way into a big win.” Even though it is by now impossible for me to get remotely close to a good finish in the event. But that’s an issue I have with Swiss more than the tournament itself.
The first two rounds I played against UTRALAW were against Menelker, not Valerie. I have adjusted my points accordingly but I may have made a mistake there as well.
Unless @snoc contacts me before 09.00 UTC tomorrow or thereabouts, we will not be able to play our game before the deadline.
We tried to play on Thursday of last week, but I failed to show at the agreed time thanks to an ill-timed software update. After that we rescheduled and agreed to play today. I suggested 16.00 UTC, but I have received no confirmation and seen neither hide nor hair of snoc. Presumably something pressing came up or he was prevented from contacting me.
As such I would personally think this is a mutual, no-fault failure to schedule, but how do you want to handle that, @vengefulpickle?
Yeah, you’re kind of facing a slippery slope issue right now with that.
I’ve decided to mostly mono- after my vs. set because he has soft matchups against nearly the entire cast but he’s kind of an okay character who can steal games every now and then. Ideal for the format. I’m having a lot of success in it right now, but yeah just like 19XX or LLL or any other oddball format, we’re kind of testing a wider set of skills that don’t all have to do with playing the game well, which is… interesting, at least. You still have to win matches and play well! But maybe the character selection strategy is getting really skewed. Maybe it isn’t, maybe it’s not a problem. Not really a way to tell after only like 5 weeks or whatever.
About “getting +2 points for a set win”: I was thinking about the “ideal” way to win a set in that format. It seems like it’s WAY good to win the first 3 games in a set (and score around 15 points) and then in game 4 you obviously try to win, but if you lose, you get to “hard counterpick” your opponent by going into a 2-8 if they are playing or or something. So their Game 4 pick kind of can’t be any character that has a good matchup because you are guaranteed to get the +2 points already; might as well swing for the fences and go for another 7 points or something and get a 4-1.
I think the thing we want overall is just to see different matchups. I think we can get there by having lots of different types of players, as IYL tends to produce. You have lots of character specialists in all of the different divisions so it tends to lead to some pretty varied gameplay. Maybe the players are the ones who rise to the top at the end? Doesn’t seem to have been that way in last IYL.
Yeah, we’ve got a couple of matches that dropped this week, and the holidays coming up, so I’m loath to schedule the next round. So, I’m going to extend Round 5 out through New Years, and pick up with Round 6 at that point (or, if everyone plays before the deadline, I’ll put the Round 6 matches up whenever they’re ready).
Have a Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays/New Years/etc, everyone!
Hear it @Ivan, we are first in something of Yomi world !!!
By the way, I think that LLO’s aim isn’t to win single set vs opponent, but to earn as much point as one can.
So hereafter my considerations:
I agree with +2 points for set winner, but I’d keep the total 5 games format (not Bo5)
This format motivates to try some little hard MUs (i.e. in my match vs Ivan, apart from 1st blind game, I went always for 4-6 MU, in which I feel some confidence anyway, I wouldn’t have tried vs ) , otherwise with Bo5, I fear that it could become more a standard CPs format (go for less point MU but with more possibilty to win set 3-0 / 3-1 and prevent opponent to earn other points).
Maybe at the end we can just calculate everything and see if there would have been a different winner? Haha. Although week to week the +2 set bonuses would have changed up what matches actually occurred during the Swiss, but yeah. Would be neat to see if it were drastically different results.
0+5 0 Surprise mirror! I successfully banished all of Arthur’s Qs
5+5 0 Arthur returns the “no Qs” favour
10 0+5 Very tense finish on this one.
10+4 5 fishyfish! This was still a close finish. Even though I hardly have any bones to crack 7 is still a good card.
14+3 5 Arthur goes for the hail mary “give me all the points” play, but I start with 3 aces and topdeck the 4th at just the right moment to go for Blowfish Spikes lethal. Also duffing an UP turn with 4K+J with bubble shield up is pretty sad for Jaina.
snoc wins 17-5! No recording of this one because I’m on my laptop with family. But well played, tense games and you did a great job of representing DSD even when you might not have had it.
after my 
vs. 
set because he has soft matchups against nearly the entire cast but he’s kind of an okay character who can steal games every now and then. Ideal for the format. I’m having a lot of success in it right now, but yeah just like 19XX or LLL or any other oddball format, we’re kind of testing a wider set of skills that don’t all have to do with playing the game well, which is… interesting, at least. You still have to win matches and play well! But maybe the character selection strategy is getting really skewed. Maybe it isn’t, maybe it’s not a problem. Not really a way to tell after only like 5 weeks or whatever.
or 
+5
(0,0 - 4,0)
(0,0 - 4,0)
vs