Tournament discussion

[OMGPuppies]

I’m with you guys. Last year I could never figure Iron out. Same with this year.

[skep]

I just got crushed at Iron so far this year. I've abandoned it entirely. Doing very well at Bronze and Silver.

[SouthernStar71]

Nice 4 packs

[Warhawk]

Originally Posted by bailey

I've recorded 31 tournaments and I lost in the first round 16 times and won twice for 8 packs and 600 points. You just have to keep grinding. There is no way to dominate iron.

With the Sun Kings I've now completed 64 32-team iron tournaments and the results have basically been what you'd expect if it was random. You'd expect 2 wins, 2 runner-ups, 4 3rd/4th place finishes; I've gotten, respective, 3, 2, and 4. In my first 32 16-team iron tournaments, the expected number would be again 2/2/4, and I've gotten 3/1/3 (though the 33rd and 34th I entered were both 2nd places).

[skep]

Thanks for the data, I had drawn similar conclusions with my play. Frankly, I do not understand why this seems to be the case. The more well-constructed team with higher quality players should be beating lesser teams but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[neugey]

It's my feeling that in iron, bronze and silver tournaments or lower grade salary cap tournaments (<= gold) that almost all of the teams playing are going to be reasonably constructed because anyone trying it casually will probably give up after taking some L's. I might approximate that optimizing lineups, strategy and personnel choices well or poorly might change your odds by +10/-10% on the whole, at most.

[Grizzlegom]

I thought I had Iron figured out after a few days of grinding and recording the data for the winning teams and constructing a roster with what appeared to be the 'best' players. Between Thursday night and Friday, I won 5 tourneys and came in 2nd or 3rd/4th in 9 more.

Then yesterday I didn't place in a single Iron tourney, haha

[skep]

Just saw that they added Iron dailies! Nice!

[Drivehud.com]

I played in 3 out of my first 6 gold tournies and thought this would be easy. Then, nothing since. I've tried every strategy, and I have a deep roster and I can't get anywhere. I understand variance full well, but I'm not even close in most of them now. It seems completely random, and as someone new to the game, I really can't make much sense of the ratings given. The manual doesn't seem to provide much info either.

Is there other data that's being considered besides what's provided in the player profiles? Is there anywhere that matchup data is explained better to understand how each data set effects the other?

[AlaysNalah]

I was crushing the Irons, but have not placed in the last 2 days, prob about 20 tournies. I would highly recommend moving up to Bronze/Silver as soon as you can. The big problem with Iron is most of the 16-32 teams will be using a variation of the same 30-35 cards, and there are very few standout performers that can make a big difference. Now everyone is using nearly the same set, it has just become a bit of an rng fest.

At Bronze and Silver there is still a decent pool of players who do not yet have the best 30-35 cards to choose from, plus a lot of teams just fill up on 69s and 79s when there are better options in the field or batting in some of the lower numbers to choose from.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by AlaysNalah

I was crushing the Irons, but have not placed in the last 2 days, prob about 20 tournies. I would highly recommend moving up to Bronze/Silver as soon as you can. The big problem with Iron is most of the 16-32 teams will be using a variation of the same 30-35 cards, and there are very few standout performers that can make a big difference. Now everyone is using nearly the same set, it has just become a bit of an rng fest.

At Bronze and Silver there is still a decent pool of players who do not yet have the best 30-35 cards to choose from, plus a lot of teams just fill up on 69s and 79s when there are better options in the field or batting in some of the lower numbers to choose from.

Metas are inevitable unfortunately. There is a certain amount of pride we can justifiably derive from finding it earlier than most. There's nothing wrong with conquering the unknown by venturing into the less played tournament types, but there's also a lot of enjoyment to be found in taking the time to research and tinker like a mad scientist from a pool of cards.

Additionally, the higher the tier, the smaller the pool of competitive cards to draw from. We'll be able to tinker around with our iron rosters much longer than, say, a gold team.

Ultimately though, RNG will inevitably play an outsized role in our tournament results. With such a small amount of games to decide the championship, it is inevitable.

[CLK]

Every tournament I've entered so far (only like 5) I get eliminated right from the beginning. Is there something I should be looking for rather than just plugging players in that meet the rules and stay under cap if need be? Thanks

[neugey]

Now that we've had a few weeks to play, it seems like the Quick iron and bronze tournaments are all the rage. Not nearly enough people playing the Quick Salary Cap modes (whether they have the gold/diamond upper restriction or not).

My suggestion is the rewards for Salary Cap tournaments should be bumped up to a 6 pack reward for a 1st place and 3 packs for a 2nd place finish in the 32 team event. Similarly, a 3 pack reward for 1st and a 2 pack reward for 2nd in the 16 team event.

My rationale for this is it takes more time, care and generally more potent cards to try a build a consistent winner in Salary Cap mode. The extra effort and expenditure should be offset by better reward payouts. Just my 2 cents.

[Warhawk]

Freakin' Bronx Bombers man. Last 32 team open tournament I was in I got swept by them in the semis. This time I go up 3-0 on them in the first round, and they win 4 in a row to knock me out.

[Drivehud.com]

Is there any tool available to extract tournament data into a collective whole?

This def needs to be an added feature at some point.

[macacks]

Originally Posted by neugey

Now that we've had a few weeks to play, it seems like the Quick iron and bronze tournaments are all the rage. Not nearly enough people playing the Quick Salary Cap modes (whether they have the gold/diamond upper restriction or not).

My suggestion is the rewards for Salary Cap tournaments should be bumped up to a 6 pack reward for a 1st place and 3 packs for a 2nd place finish in the 32 team event. Similarly, a 3 pack reward for 1st and a 2 pack reward for 2nd in the 16 team event.

My rationale for this is it takes more time, care and generally more potent cards to try a build a consistent winner in Salary Cap mode. The extra effort and expenditure should be offset by better reward payouts. Just my 2 cents.

This is probably due to the fact that most teams don't have a very robust roster, yet have much more Bronze and Iron cards.

[WrigleyRyno]

deleted

[cavacom]

People aren't playing the cap tournaments because the filter for them is gone, u have to filter to OPEN tournaments to find the cap tournaments. And most people on a Limited Budget are not interested in OPEN tournaments

[bailey]

Originally Posted by Drivehud.com

Is there any tool available to extract tournament data into a collective whole?

This def needs to be an added feature at some point.

It's "easy" enough to export the data into a spreadsheet, but to eliminate the duplicate lines is the hard part. If someone could just explain how to do it and sticky the info, that would be really helpful. Kris? Matt? anyone?

[neugey]

Originally Posted by cavacom

People aren't playing the cap tournaments because the filter for them is gone, u have to filter to OPEN tournaments to find the cap tournaments. And most people on a Limited Budget are not interested in OPEN tournaments

Not sure about the UI being a problem; there is a checkbox for "Show only capped tournaments"