Quote:
Originally Posted by steamrollers
As it stands now lots of new players or lower tier players will only continue to be discouraged without changes and despite whales loving the chance to beat up on teams right now and just rolling in PP, cards and packs for the health of the game we should all want adjustments to be made and I have 100% confidence they will make some outstanding changes to tourneys in the near future.
|
I agree that adjustments can and will be made. I'm hoping useful discussion about it will help Marcus and co. to find some good options that will help bring balance.
I wanted to make a couple of observations that I think can be helpful in thinking about the capped tournaments.
I know I've faced my share of dominant starters. I've beaten some, and lost more. The way probability works, it is possible for me to beat any given team in one of the capped tournaments, but if I face that
every single round it is inevitable that I'll get crushed at some point. The issue with the whale rosters isn't that it gives any one whale the advantage, but that it is impossible for a non-stacked team to run a full whale gauntlet for the entire tourney. It's that
a whale will win, even if the odds aren't necessarily better for any particular whale.
Obviously people with stacked rosters have the open tourneys to enjoy using the absolute best cards that are out there. So part of the intent of the cap is assumed to be penalizing the heavy use of those cards. Currently the only way in the system is to lower the cap limit - I suspect that is already being considered. A 1500 has room for 7 perfect cards if you punt on the rest - still potentially dominant. They had a few with caps below 1300 last week - that would certainly help (max of about 3 perfects), but even then three perfect starters in the rotation would probably make mincemeat of the competition at that level.
There are lots of ideas about how to create heavier penalties. I know I've proposed a fluctuating value for the cards based off usage (or other factors), and some have proposed cutting off just the 100 level.
Another idea might be to double the point cost of every card above the base level for that tournament. So, one with an average of 65 would levy a cost of two points for every point value the card has about 65. Or triple it, perhaps - I haven't crunched any numbers to see how that would affect roster decisions. But that is all assuming there is a way to code that in the system, which I very much doubt.
My recommendation at this point would lower the caps in general (65 or 70 average seems just too generous), and put the work in for more sophisticated adjustments next year. In the meantime, silver and bronze have become the butter to my mashed potatoes. I'm pretty happy sticking with that and refining my teams at that level. My one request would be more iron only tournaments - a slate of those at the same frequency as silver or bronze and I'd have three levels to tinker with.