okay do people know something i dont they always go about talking about playing weak players, aren't game matches random amongst the available players?

They did for the most part. Look at the first tournament. There was a pyramid thing going. Few player on top taking everyone out. then secondary players who avoid matches with the top players and took out noobs in the process. Then third set who played everyone and pretty much got diced on 50%/50%. Then the noobs that got owned Once again that was more apparent during the first week than the second week.

There is no conspiracy or elaborate plan. Just avoid people with high scores. For the most part you can guess who is playing and who is waiting for a game unless one of the stronger players is just waiting there. 5 to 10 wins and 0 to 2 losses is not the kind of person you want check your deck against when you start playing.

The last comment was a suggestion on how to do a league tournament.

With the current size player base you can mostly arrange to play someone if you want too. the match up aren't random they're just first available. So if someone is waiting for a foe and they ask you to join you'll end up playing them. If only becomes a problem is someone else was already waiting first or jumps in before the person you wanted joins. So while you lack full control you can definitely try to arrange a game between to cooperative players and often succeed.

There doesn't seem to be any difference in 3 or your 4 groups though other than their strength as an opponent. You seem to be saying that strong opponents performed well, average did fair, and weak did poor. Additionally a 4th set of players ranked better than average by controlling who they played. And while you do have a fair amount of control over who you play this is true of either the current scoring system or the one I'm proposing. I'm not suggesting an alteration of who you play, just one of how you score who you've played. So while proposing a different system for who you play could be discussed, it's not something that I did. So while I appreciate any feedback and I do agree that being able to have some control over who you play is somewhat odd in a tournament, if you have any feedback towards things I proposed changing verses things that I didn't it would be more personally helpful to me. Otherwise the basic gist of what I can from your comments is that you don't like my proposal for an alternate scoring system because of how who you can play is currently handled in league play.

Well, yeah. That was how this thread got started. Aliron was at least concerned that whatever it is that the top group is doing is unfair - being a blend not only of skill, but also random card selection, predatory match selection, etc. In as much as your score system doesn't address those concerns, Xibvert, it isn't addressing the originally stated problem. It addresses a different (albeit worthwhile) problem of people playing tiebreaker games against people who actually need one of the 15.

So is your solution essentially a judgment that we don't need to adjust that? (Which is ok too).

Re: the pyramid scheme. What if after week 2, we ranked everyone and only let people play within a bracket (say, divide up the players into top 20%, next 20%, and so on).

Although then it's not fair that #4 gets the same amount of points beating #5 as #80 gets for beating #100. After all, it was probably a lot harder for #4.
So maybe scale up the points? Everyone still only gets 1 point for losing, but maybe if you beat a higher ranked player, you get more points for it?

I don't know, I'm just talking now.

_________________
-Minds

Alright, how about something like this for a tournament [type]: Use a real world tournament sign-up.

Before play actually begins, let people sign up for the tournament. Use the normal draft/sealed bracket system. Have a sign-up period (like a week or until full), then use the bracket system to divide up games to be played. Give the game 2-3 days to be played (letting people that can't get on for some reason a time to at least play in the period). Now of course this shouldn't be used for LARGE tournaments like the League ones right now. This should only be used for like 32 man tournaments at most. Giving that time frame for games also doesn't mean people have to sit there at a computer for hours and hours waiting for the next game or to finish the tournament. It gives a little lazy time for people to rest and relax.


Right now, the League-style play is random person playing a random person... while this works, there should be a few adjustments like were said earlier. A person that has 0 games left to play shouldn't be put up against a person that has 15. Maybe a range to where people play other people could be introduced to give people less of a "oh great I'm playing the #1 guy right off the bat" feeling.
Let's say the range is this:
15-11
10-6
5-1
0
-----
15-11 will be for people just signed up and getting into the flow
10-6 is the next step, people know their deck, made possible adjustments
5-1 is for the top players, people have their deck in tune and at the top of the game
0 is for tiebreaker points

Using this will of course limit the matches you'll be placed in (not everyone is around at the same time), but at the same time it won't put you up against someone that's completely in line with their deck and made possible adjustments over the course of games played. This can also give rise to the possibility that someone is alone in their bracket, most notably the 15-11 range. If everyone has played and a new player joins, they won't be able to be placed in a game. If this arises, there are two options that I can think of right now. The person can try to get more people in (yay for recruiting) or the game can set the person to be played against the next person in games left. So if someone had 10 games left, and a new person joined, that person would be put up against him if he wanted. There could be a "You're playing a person that is in a different range bracket than you are in games played. Are you sure you wish to continue to play this match?"


Good/bad idea? Lemme see what you guys think.

_________________
Card List

The biggest problem with the league is that they require a 15hr/week time commitment.

That's ridiculous.

5 games/week is probably more reasonable.

Also, the payout system is too steep.


Top 8 of 150 players getting a prize?

Pay out something to the top 1/3, so that there a reasonable chance of players getting a reward for their effort.