The key to not underperforming is not to play.
Winning the tournament works, too!
FINAL ROUND IS EXTRA CRAAAZZZZYYY
thehug0naut vs @Ivan
I wasn’t expecting to be facing Rook and played like I was Arg rather than Grave - turns out that doesn’t work so well
I earned a large life lead but he nearly took it all off of me! I managed to GB to draw aces then play one while secretly still having TPoS in hand and undercut his AA for the win
I hate Geiger, but its pretty cool for him to be played again in this tourney. I was playing a bit too scared and he made a super clutch block to get rid of my secret TPoS. I did GB afterwards but he threw my still-scared dodge.
This is the point it got more than a little wacky. @Leontes was shouting for from the sidelines, and you know what they say about giving the people what they want . My rushdown panned out, perhaps because of how conservative I played earlier in the set.
@Ivan goes for the big points but I switched up to a more conservative firebae. The game ended in a Jaina checkmate with 3x10s in discard and me managing to play repeat Qs into repeat AA into heart of the cards secret Q (though I also had power up for AA checkmate in he case the deck didn’t deliver ). His GB was valiant but I had already cornered him in the burning building.
thehug0naut wins 17 - 10.5!
GGs @Ivan. Great set with loads of back and forth. An awesome final round for an awesome tournament!
What a match!
8.0 (!!!) - This is so hype
So, uh, is this thing over or what?
Announcing @Leontes, Winner of Lum’s Long Odds
Closely followed by a quartet of @Ivan, @MR75, @thehug0naut and @CKR
Congratulations to all!
I hope you all like this tournament format. I suspect I’ll run it again at some point, but I’d love to hear what people think could improve it, as well. Players getting +2 points for winning a set was proposed earlier, and I think is something worth trying. The end of the tournament also highlighted what I think is a standard problem with Swiss style tournaments, which is that the end of the tournament can be a bit anti-climactic for players that aren’t in the hunt for the top spot. Next time, I’d consider running a single-elim for the top 8 players (or something to that effect) to actually secure the number 1 spot.
And now, on to the Yomi Olympics and IYL 6!
Can we know how many points each one scored?
The Top 5
- Leontes: 127
- Ivan: 122
- MR: 121
- thehug0naut: 120
- CKR: 120
It was interesting, thanks for running the event! I’m curious to go back and compare the MU chart for this event with the overall historical MU chart, see if there are any interesting stories there.
Was the +2 points for winning a set supposed to fix the problem with ties? I can’t remember why this was suggested.
I don’t even know that it solves ties though. “Who’s the winner in a tied set?” is pretty , imo.
I will be including this stuff in my final comprehensive analyses!
So I take it all the final unplayed matches are just all forfeits? If so I will begin my numbers tabulations.
Yeah, I’m not really a fan of that proposal. Seems to me it just makes the tournament’s central points mechanic less impactful and reduces hype all round by making it harder to make up lost ground.
It was a very fun and interesting tourney.
I think that “points mode” has led to spectate to some rare (oh well, from my relatively newbie point of view) MUs (i.e. Jaina/Geiger) and it also has a particular strategy component (I mean: ok now should I go for an hard MU to try to earn more points and eventually concede less points or should I go for a easy MU to earn “easy” points but eventually concede too many points?).
Maybe it could be also interesting to check for each player gained points vs conceded points.
Well, @Leontes won almost all games played (apart from small distractions), so surely he didn’t concede too many points…
Regarding possibile improvements, I was for +2 points for set winner (I tied 3 consecutive matches, all 3-2 lost ) but now I’m not so sure that it would help so much, but maybe it worth a try.
End of tourney anti-climatic question could be a problem or not: personally I play mainly because I like to play (even surely always PtW), and so thumbs up for this type of tourney, that allows you to play a certain number of match for sure (I would have played all my matches even if only for fighting for last place! )
Finally I’d like to thank all players for these moments of fun and @vengefulpickle (and all other fantastic TO) for his (their) constant research on Yomi resurrection!
Castanietzsche vs @FaceOnMars
(hehe maybe a bit late but we aren’t on top anyway ^_^)
ggs mate ! these matchs were really exciting ! see you in olympic carnival
I’m so glad we finally got to play! Again, my apologies for being unavailable last week. It sucks to be in Quince’s washing machine. WP!
I really liked this format.
Also, to weigh in on the set tie-breaker, I don’t believe it is needed. The sets themselves are not really important, the games are. Every game is worth points therefore everygame is worth winning. I don’t think adding a bonus for ‘winning’ the set to actually add much.
It adds strategy, especially to the final pick. I’ll let @mastrblastr jump in and tell it.
I can think of two things that +2 points for the set winner accomplishes. It creates additional risk for picking a highly skewed matchup. If I pick a 7-3 MU in my (scoring) favor, then I face an additional risk of losing the set. Whether this is good or bad depends on your point of view.
The second thing that it does is to make the final match relevant in more sets. It is more difficult to lock your opponent out by putting them in a low scoring opportunity in game 5. This is the main reason that I support the idea. It is possible to do a +1 if +2 seems too high.