Author Topic: Ideas for future ROOT rulechange experiments. (Read 51887 times)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #100 on:** February 13, 2012, 12:18:15 AM »

Idk, it just seems weird that 1st and 2nd have 1 loss, 3rd has 2, and all the rest lost half or more of their games. Perhaps it's because I don't really play in any tournaments below Regional level, which typically has at least 7 rounds.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #101 on:** February 13, 2012, 12:35:41 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 13, 2012, 12:18:15 AM

Idk, it just seems weird that 1st and 2nd have 1 loss, 3rd has 2, and all the rest lost half or more of their games.

Actually 4th place also only had 2 losses. And with the number of top level players currently (and typically) participating in ROOT, I'd be surprised if we don't consistently see that many losses most months. Look at the good side....you can lose a couple games and still work your way back up to placing

Praeceps · « **Reply #102 on:** February 13, 2012, 11:45:50 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on December 30, 2011, 12:08:45 PM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 30, 2011, 10:42:23 AM
Quote from: jmhartz on December 29, 2011, 09:40:53 PM
Ban Mayhem/NJ.

2 problems with this one. Firstly, Rob has already stated that he is strongly opposed to banning. Secondly, I agree with Rob, so I'm not inclined to champion this cause. Banning 1 card (or 2) only leads to banning more.

If we asked Rob about all of the proposed rule change experiments for the upcoming (and past) months of ROOT, would we not find even one that he would also be "strongly opposed to"? It's an experiment, like the others.

Banning 2 cards doesn't NEED to lead to more. Just hold a vote where all ROOT participants get to assign, say, 10 points to up to 5 different cards, split as desired, with a minimum of 2 cards. Tally up the points and ban the top two. No questions asked, no arguments, no bans beyond the two winners. Then, in true scientific form, compare the results with the other methods.

I'm not saying anything has to be permanent from this. We already know it's not going to happen. But most (if not all) of the other experimental rules are not going to happen either.

This could be a ROOT only rule that could change from month to month. I've seen it done on another CCG that's played online with a slightly different system. Everyone's votes get tallied, everyone has access to the same cards, it's a level field.

You could have it so that no card could be banned in two consecutive months, and with everyone on ROOT having access to the same cards there's no favoritism against those with newer, better cards that keep getting banned. It could move things along and make people think more.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #103 on:** February 18, 2012, 07:44:42 PM »

I suggest we use a SoS ranking system with top cut.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #104 on:** February 18, 2012, 08:15:57 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 18, 2012, 07:44:42 PM

I suggest we use a SoS ranking system with top cut.

I'm also interested in seeing how this would actually work. With a tournament of say 20 people, how many rounds do you do before the "top cut" and how many people make the "top cut"?

The big problem that I see happening is that many who do NOT make the "top cut" would stop playing for the rest of the month which would cause the few people who still wanted to play to simply get ghosted on (which is no fun).

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #105 on:** February 18, 2012, 08:22:15 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 18, 2012, 07:44:42 PM

I suggest we use a SoS ranking system with top cut.

I don't really think this is really conductive to what ROOT is all about. While I support the idea for the national tournament, I think ROOT differs in a handful of key ways. First off, ROOT is much more community-based than the national tournament is, and I think most of us could pretty much list off most of the players that would make a say, top 8 cut. I think it's going to exclude people, and while at Nats that's might be okay because of the sheer size of it, I don't want to risk someone's feelings getting hurt because they didn't make the cut in a small tournament like this. Plus, as Underwood noted, that would almost certainly encourage ghosting during the last couple weeks of the tournament. I believe at one point in the past, the leaders of ROOT tried splitting people into different "categories" based on skill, and attendance dropped off drastically. Finally, I lost two of my games against strong opponents very early in ROOT last month (Alex and Pol, and I really should have won the latter game

), and I still came back to rank third overall for the month. With this many weeks in a month, it's a lot easier to catch up.

lp670sv · « **Reply #106 on:** February 18, 2012, 09:18:15 PM »

How any times do I have to mention a consolation bracket before somebody picks up on it

I want someone to try this out. If, for one month, you get a lot of people ghosting but got the rest of your concerns about the system address it'd be worth it. If we don't test it out in ROOT it's not likely to get tested, as any event that didn't follow cactus' rules for tournaments could not be official and people wouldn't travel for it, and you need at least a decent sized group to test it out

Edit: And who says they wouldn't play once they're eliminated? What evidence do you have? Do the people at the bottom of the ROOT bracket the last week or do who have no chance of placing skip their game? Why is this any different?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #107 on:** February 18, 2012, 11:22:56 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on February 18, 2012, 09:18:15 PM

How any times do I have to mention a consolation bracket before somebody picks up on it

I picked up on it. I'm just not sure that people would play the games in it.

Quote from: lp670sv on February 18, 2012, 09:18:15 PM

And who says they wouldn't play once they're eliminated? What evidence do you have?

Did you read Chronic's last post where he mentioned that we tried splitting off the top players before in ROOT, and ended up with WAY more ghosting in both groups?

Quote from: lp670sv on February 18, 2012, 09:18:15 PM

Do the people at the bottom of the ROOT bracket the last week or do who have no chance of placing skip their game?

Not too much. In fact, I think there was only 1 ghost out of about 10 game the last week of last month's tournament.

lp670sv · « **Reply #108 on:** February 18, 2012, 11:27:57 PM »

Saying that they would stop playing would be based on them not having a chance of winning it all, yet when they don't have a shot of winning people don't ghost so there is no reason to think that they would in a new system with exactly the same chance of placing.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #109 on:** February 18, 2012, 11:32:42 PM »

I understand your confusion, and I can't explain it either. In fact, I was the one who championed the idea of splitting ROOT into 2 groups a long time ago. The top group played a round-robin, and played for RNRS points. The 2nd group played 1 game a week (like the current system) and played for the prize packs. But then major ghosting happened in both groups and we had to drop the experiment.

lp670sv · « **Reply #110 on:** February 18, 2012, 11:55:03 PM »

Just try it. We haven't liked about half of the rule experiments but without trying we will never know and I, at least, will continue to not play anything but booster at tournaments. I only do booster because I have a rival, other than that I don't play redemption anymore. i don't like the system thats in place. Now i'm not saying change it just because of me, but it would be nice if we could at least try an alternative.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #111 on:** February 19, 2012, 12:05:42 AM »

I'd say a final week top cut of 4, with top cut games going best of three. (You'd probably want a stricter time limit). The winners of the first two games would face each other best of three (that's two games in one week, but I think they'll survive.) Third place could be determined by a consolation match.

Everyone else that week could get matched up for a "for fun" game (pretty much what happens to those who have no chance of placing now)

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #112 on:** February 19, 2012, 03:44:08 AM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 19, 2012, 12:05:42 AM

I'd say a final week top cut of 4, with top cut games going best of three. (You'd probably want a stricter time limit). The winners of the first two games would face each other best of three (that's two games in one week, but I think they'll survive.)

If there's a top cut of 4, then wouldn't that be 4-6 games in the final week (2-3 against first opp, and 2-3 in the championship). That is a LOT of games to ask of people for 1 week.

Master KChief · « **Reply #113 on:** February 19, 2012, 04:17:44 AM »

Has best 2 of 3 with sideboard been done yet? I'm very curious to see if a sideboard can be implemented successfully into Redemption.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #114 on:** February 19, 2012, 10:41:31 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 19, 2012, 03:44:08 AM

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 19, 2012, 12:05:42 AM
I'd say a final week top cut of 4, with top cut games going best of three. (You'd probably want a stricter time limit). The winners of the first two games would face each other best of three (that's two games in one week, but I think they'll survive.)
If there's a top cut of 4, then wouldn't that be 4-6 games in the final week (2-3 against first opp, and 2-3 in the championship). That is a LOT of games to ask of people for 1 week.

Maybe it could be spread out into say the first week of the next tournament? I am infavor of top cut for ROOT sounds cool but I would suggest that those who play top cut shouldn't be allowed to change decks in between rounds. I don't like top cut tech matches.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #115 on:** February 19, 2012, 02:14:32 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on February 19, 2012, 10:41:31 AM

Maybe it could be spread out into say the first week of the next tournament?

I'm not in favor of something that causes ROOT to go longer than it already is. If the top cut of 4 would take 2 weeks, then it would have to be the last 2 weeks of the month. And it would still require people to play double or triple the number of games for those 2 weeks. I'm just not sure how feasible that is for people.

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on February 19, 2012, 10:41:31 AM

those who play top cut shouldn't be allowed to change decks in between rounds.

I'm also not in favor of rules that really can't be enforced. I know there are some already that necessary, but I try not to make more.

Quote from: Master KChief on February 19, 2012, 04:17:44 AM

Has best 2 of 3 with sideboard been done yet?

No, it might work to do this with just the championship game for a month. Again, I'm trying to avoid people having to play too many games in a week.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #116 on:** February 19, 2012, 02:58:11 PM »

If people want to win ROOT, they'll put in the extra effort. It's only four people who have to play a few extra games. If they don't want to, then they don't win.

theselfevident · « **Reply #117 on:** February 19, 2012, 03:00:52 PM »

Why not have two types of tourneys. 1 Round Robin & the other more bracket style with best 2-out-of-3 match-ups per week, that way you can thin it a little and appease both styles.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #118 on:** February 19, 2012, 03:04:21 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on February 19, 2012, 03:00:52 PM

Why not have two types of tourneys. 1 Round Robin & the other more bracket style with 2-3 games in a week, that way you can thin it a little and appease both styles.

Because they already tried that, and it resulted in a large amount of ghosting.

theselfevident · « **Reply #119 on:** February 19, 2012, 03:05:11 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 19, 2012, 03:04:21 PM

Quote from: theselfevident on February 19, 2012, 03:00:52 PM
Why not have two types of tourneys. 1 Round Robin & the other more bracket style with 2-3 games in a week, that way you can thin it a little and appease both styles.
Because they already tried that, and it resulted in a large amount of ghosting.

Well that's unfortunate...

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #120 on:** February 19, 2012, 03:51:23 PM »

I may be wrong but it sounded like the ghosting occured because the top players were separated from the rested of the competition. TSE's suggestion wouldn't neccessarily lump all of the top players into one catagory so I say we try it.

theselfevident · « **Reply #121 on:** February 19, 2012, 03:55:05 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on February 19, 2012, 03:51:23 PM

I may be wrong but it sounded like the ghosting occured because the top players were separated from the rested of the competition. TSE's suggestion wouldn't neccessarily lump all of the top players into one catagory so I say we try it.

I think it would give the people looking for more games an opportunity to have more games, and if you did it on the bracket side then you could have it with a winners and *not-winners bracket

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #122 on:** February 19, 2012, 04:11:48 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 19, 2012, 02:58:11 PM

If people want to win ROOT, they'll put in the extra effort.

This statement is just plain incorrect. I'm on here as much as anyone, but I'm a college student and extremely busy, and trying to schedule games with two different people (up to three games per person, mind) is going to be a logistical nightmare. I'm as dedicated to winning ROOT as anyone, and even I don't know that it's worth that kind of time investment. Requesting that four people play up to six games in a week just for ROOT borders on absurd.

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on February 19, 2012, 10:41:31 AM

Maybe it could be spread out into say the first week of the next tournament?

That would still mean that four players would be playing up to four games in the first week of the next month, which isn't much more ideal than six games a week.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #123 on:** February 19, 2012, 06:26:39 PM »

I'll admit that it has been a long time since we tried the ROOT split thing, and many of the people playing now weren't back then. I'll take these ideas into consideration, and we'll talk about the possibilities of doing something for the April/May ROOT. In fact, there will be a few options for that month's tournament, and I'll be making a poll to allow people to vote on which one they want to try most. It'll be coming in a few weeks, so keep an eye out

SomeKittens · « **Reply #124 on:** February 19, 2012, 06:58:06 PM »

Oh good. I was worried that it would get shot down because ROOT leadership didn't like it.

News:

Author Topic: Ideas for future ROOT rulechange experiments. (Read 51887 times)

Chronic Apathy

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

Chronic Apathy