fwiw i really do not like such setting.
It’s pretty complicated (I mean, in comparison). Out of curiosity, what is the theoretical advantage that this format has over the one you proposed? Additionally, what is the drawback of taking the rules changes you have implemented with the exception of the random select (i.e., still can’t pick a character twice until you’ve picked all three, just you can still select your own)?
Also, the client has a /random number ability where you just give the high limit and it will roll a random number for you on the spot. Would it not be easier to just use that?
I just watched an interview Sirlin had with someone about Fantasy Strike, and he talked about how they’ve added a team battle mode that (to paraphrase) “is good for competitions but also exactly what spectators want to see.” This must be what he meant, huh? I suspect it’ll work better for that game since Fantasy Strike can handle the randomization automatically, but I think it’ll at least be interesting to try.
I do agree that the /random chat command would probably be easier than posting random numbers beforehand in the forums. No opinion yet on whether dropping the randomness and keeping the character select limitations would be better or worse.
Yeah, this format sounds like a hassle and I don’t really see what advantages it’s supposed to have, but it’s not a dealbreaker. I’ll try almost anything once.
I’m pretty sure /random doesn’t work in the Steam client. Or, I thought it didn’t, last time I checked.
Just confirmed it myself, Steam version says it’s an unknown command.
My take on “good for spectators” was that he is attempting to optimize for matchup variety. With classic counterpick, you likely end up seeing the same set of unbalanced matchups a lot (20XX carousel, for example). I suspect the thinking is that standard conquest will end up degerate in a similar way.
With all that said, I think I may try and do some simulations to measure conquest vs randoquest, and see what the results are for matchup diversity, assuming non-transitive triangles in the cast, and various strategies for blindpicking in standard conquest.
the boring cps would happen if everyone would pick zane/troq/geiger.
If u even pick grave/troq/valerie you can’t do very unbalanced MUs, simply u have to stick with the opener you feel more confident about (the char u think u are the best with in all mus) and keep the other 2 as cps. i really think that random would do really bad here, since the player would not be able to control the flow of the game. more than conquest style this is some kind of LLL conquest, something that imho should be tried as something per se.
Yeah, that’s fair. The Yomi Olympics have historically been Conquest (and that’s what I billed them as first) so I think there’s a strong argument for running this other format as a different event.
I took “good for spectators” to simply refer to how every single game would be guaranteed to have a different character matchup, since that keeps things more interesting for those who don’t yet see all the depth that exists in a single matchup. Your point probably is true as well, though.
And yeah, it’s probably a good idea to make a new event with these rules instead of suddenly changing the rules for an event that people have already signed up for.
Yeah. Ok, I rescind my rule change, and I’ll run another event (probably post IYL 6) with the randoquest format.
So the way it was explained to me, the idea was that you’d get a larger character pool played by participants, since random character select from within your pool is not possible. So you could pick a character like Lum (generally strong, but with really vicious CPs in DeGrey and Argagarg) and be able to play him without running into either CP as soon as you win.
It probably doesn’t help characters with a lot of bad match-ups much, and it doesn’t help you if you happen to run your Oni/Lum/X team into a DeGrey/Arg/X team. But you have better odds of playing a character into match-ups other than the most favourable MU (as you CP them) and the least favourable (as they CP you).
Probably this leads to a win-more scenario. Standard conquest means that the loser has the greatest possibility to have a counterpick against their opponent (three characters to choose from after 1st loss). If you keep the “you must play all three chars before you can select one you have already played”, that increases the chances that it is beneficial for the winner.
It’s not quite as bad as “losing character is eliminated, set ends when one player has no characters left” but it probably puts more weight into the first blind-pick than would be good.
I’m not sure the first half of the response makes sense since both proposed rulesets involve a stable, but the second half has some logic to it. Thanks.
Still deciding if I want to enter this. Conquest is weird!
Ok, LLO is wrapping up this week (ish), so let’s kick of the Olympics! Final signups and team selection is due by the end of next week (Feb 2). I’ll send messages out to those of you who haven’t sent me a team yet.
still in doubt, but consider me in with the team that got tme the championship last time. PLz remind me to confirm the partecipation before the deadline.
Only 4 5 more for a perfect 32 bracket!
EDIT: @snoc, you’re off the hook. I just missed that you were already in when you posted your stable… Not reading my own posts carefully enough.