|
||||
|
11-13-2019, 07:10 PM | #61 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,782
|
Quote:
In my case anyway, it makes no difference. I don't think the rewards are so great that people will join and just try and scrap together a bronze powerhouse, because that bronze powerhouse won't be worth it to most players. Plus it's limited by the fact that the other best bronze and below teams should win a good deal of them, esp. single elimination if they would otherwise have the best team in most best of 7s
__________________
|
|
11-13-2019, 08:46 PM | #62 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,152
|
Exactly, anybody can be a bronze "specialist" because we all have all the cards already, so you really can't create a team that's much better than the field
|
11-13-2019, 09:19 PM | #63 |
Minors (Double A)
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 152
|
Personally I love all the LIVE only tournaments... gives some hope to FTP players.
|
11-13-2019, 09:55 PM | #64 |
Minors (Rookie Ball)
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 41
|
I personally like the best of 7, since I can't be on all the time. Have a tournament run its course overnight or during the work day is fine by me.
I'm not sure I see the utility of tournaments with a built in delay to starting - I think I'd prefer all formats to start as soon as filled. If there is an issue with weeklies not being able to overlap updates on Monday or something then that makes sense. I feel of two minds about the availability. There are a lot of tournaments, and it takes a bit to sort through, but at the same time, it can feel like there isn't enough of the kind I'm interested in - themed or capped tournaments mostly. I'd also be up for a greater variety of different capped or themed limitations. Limited to a certain historical time frame, certain teams, or even a curated range of cards based off a certain theme. |
11-13-2019, 10:00 PM | #65 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,272
|
Quote:
Rather, I think having lots of choices (maybe even more than we have now) with really powerful tools to sort them would be preferable. Being able to sample more tournaments per unit time instead of getting stuck in a Bo7 128-team tourney with 30-min sims ties in to this. I also think perhaps renaming the tournaments or giving them nicknames might help us find what we're looking for easier, rather than constantly deciphering Q-Open-Bo7-DEL-ID9 or whatever. That is a barrier to entry although I am getting more used to navigating it. 2) Yes, quick tournaments should be...well...quick! Right now it seems like people are just sorting by what's closest to being full rather than what their preferred format is. Making more 8- and 16-team tourneys that can fill up quickly, that people with odd work schedules, insomniacs, or people that live elsewhere than East Coast of the USA can pop into any time of day or night would be good. More quick ones means I can do more tourneys and sample more of the variety per unit time (ties into point 1 above). 3) I would also think of the "big" tourneys more as "grand slams" like in pro tennis. These types of tourneys should pay out more substantial rewards because they'd be harder to achieve. Something has to entice you to enter one of your three slots into something that will use up that spot for days. Maybe some of these could be even more rare and be on an invitation-only basis, based on some criterion/criteria related to how your teams have performed in previous tournaments. 4) Quicker sims would be preferable because we can get through more tourneys quicker. A potential drawback would be having less time to adjust between sims. With only 10 min, you really can't be too deliberate with making roster moves, changing strategies...leave the computer for the porcelain throne and you just might miss it. Overall, I'd be in favor of shorter sims though. You'd just have to be paying attention a little bit more. Bonus #1) I strongly agree with the idea that a particular tournament should have a like series of rewards. All PP, all packs, all SE cards. Different tournaments can be different, but I don't want to hear a bunch of whining about how person A likes packs more and person B feels cheated because he would've rather had 2K PP to play with on the AH. First place gets 3K, second gets 1K, third gets 500 PP (or something) would completely solve that issue. First place gets 5 packs, second place gets 3 packs, third place gets 1 pack an so on. Bonus #2) I think capping our entries at 3 is a very smart idea. I'm not tied to 3 exactly, but we should really have to deliberate over which tournaments to try without being able to saturate them all. This will prevent the Tournaments from getting manipulated in the same way the AH can be by a handful of tycoons controlling the economy. If you can't enter tons of tourneys at the same time, then you can't win all the awards either. Having a cap of 4 or 5 or 2 or [insert single-digit, non-zero positive integer here] works well and I'd be hesitant to change that.
__________________
|
|
11-13-2019, 10:02 PM | #66 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,782
|
Seems like the cap tourneys get 8-16 pretty easily often but not much more. Maybe those should be smaller.
|
11-13-2019, 10:05 PM | #67 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,782
|
I was thinking maybe a few of the weekly or other special tournaments could be signed up for outside the limit of 3 if that's possible.
Limit of 3 + special tourneys. |
11-13-2019, 10:50 PM | #68 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,635
|
Please setup a tournament with 26 to 30 man rosters?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
|
11-13-2019, 10:56 PM | #69 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,635
|
Likes:
Diamond, Gold and Silver player or below tourneys. But need more Diamond and below! Historical only Open Dislike: Best of ones To many live only. Point caps are too low and way too many. Would like a friends only tournament? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
|
11-14-2019, 03:55 AM | #70 |
Developer OOTP
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 24,739
|
Nope. That would get us into dangerous (legally) gambling territory.
|
11-14-2019, 04:00 AM | #71 |
Developer OOTP
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 24,739
|
No, sorry.
|
11-14-2019, 06:38 AM | #72 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,943
|
>2) Quick tournaments should not be bigger than 32 teams
going to amend my comment/thoughts on this one a bit now that I've had a few days to play around..... the Q-64 and Q-128 tourneys are perfect for overnight and/or work-day choices (for those of us who can't log in during the day).... I signed up for a Q-128-Gold, Q-64-Silver and Q-super-big-bronze (128 teams) before logging out last night.... this morning, the Gold and Silver have filled up and are currently running (Silver in the quarterfinals; Gold in the second round)... the Bronze just needs 8 more teams to kick off... assuming my teams play well, they'll stay busy for hours (and hopefully win me something finally ) |
11-14-2019, 07:14 AM | #73 |
All Star Reserve
|
I tried and don't care for the Do or Die tournaments. Just too brutal when you're one-and-done. Maybe more double elimination events?
|
11-14-2019, 07:24 AM | #74 | |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 258
|
Quote:
With three teams its hard to find enough separate tournaments for all teams to play - especially quick tourneys.
__________________
Tigers only Featuring stars from the 60s, 70s, & 80s |
|
11-14-2019, 07:38 AM | #75 | |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 219
|
Quote:
That would give elite teams a playground, and allow those of us without such a roster a chance of being competitive in the other tournament categories.
__________________
|
|
11-14-2019, 07:42 AM | #76 |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 219
|
I would like to see more cap-based options for the majority of tournament categories: Historical, Historical + Cap, Bronze, Bronze + Cap, Silver, Silver + Cap etc. You get the idea.
I also think the caps should be much more agressive. IIRC, the current bronze cap is 65 * 25, but maybe it should be as low as 60 * 25 to really force the player into making calculated decisions about which players to field. Or perhaps you could even do Bronze + Low Cap (AVG 60), Bronze + Medium Cap (AVG 65), Bronze + High Cap (AVG 69)? I find there's a much stronger strategy element to the capped tournaments, as well as still allowing those who don't have the strongest squads a chance at being competitive.
__________________
Last edited by micpringle; 11-14-2019 at 07:52 AM. |
11-14-2019, 09:11 AM | #77 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,798
|
The Daily Cap 1750 Bo3 is at 35/128 with 4 hours to go. I will be surprised if it doesn't get pushed back. There are NO other active tournaments that one can join with a 1750 cap team that is not all-Live. The next possibility starts in 20 hours.
Markus, I know you like big tournaments with big rewards. However, what difference does it make if they never launch? Meanwhile, I have a 1750-cap team that I would love to play for any prize, and I haven't been able to enter any tournaments for over 24 hours. How about having the cap tournaments not be exclusive to Live cards? Why is that important? |
11-14-2019, 09:16 AM | #78 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,127
|
I'm thinking that in addition to the 3 regular slots, everyone should be entitled to an extra "free" entry into a 64-man "Featured Daily", which should be something different everyday, but accessible to F2P (i.e. no unrestricted). For example gold only, iron live only, salary cap historicals, hardware hero only and so on. (Probably should announce day before what it will be). Starts as soon as filled and another one opens, First one 6AM last one starts after 8PM. Tournament should be lengthy and exciting as possible so best-of-7 single elimination only, maybe 1 off day between rounds otherwise no off days . Awards should be exceptionally generous, I'm thinking 2 diamond and 3 gold packs to winner 2nd 5 gold packs 3-4th 2 gold and 3 regular 5-8th 5 regular and 9-16th one regular. In addition to this special points can be awarded. This could be the basis of the Grand Slam tournament "tour". 1st Place each tournament get 16 points 2nd 8 points 3-4th 4 points 5-8th 2 points 9-16th 1 point. If a player plays more than once per day, his results are averaged. After 6 days, the 16 or 32 highest scores enter into the Grand Slam Tournament on Sunday for truly exceptional prizes.
|
11-14-2019, 09:17 AM | #79 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 735
|
So here are my thoughts after playing these for a few days:
1. First of all, things were very well thought out. I think things work very well already. 2. I strongly agree with the point mentioned earlier that the type of tournaments are the most important criteria, with formats (Round Robin, bo5, bo7, etc.) less important. There should be quick tournaments available for all the different types (open, different caps, diamond, gold, silver, bronze etc.). I actually think that quick tournaments are the best place to do the different formats because daily tourneys should take longer and offer better rewards than quick tourneys, so daily tournament formats should generally be b05 or b07. Maybe have all daily tourneys have 30 minutes between sims, and all quick tourneys be 10 or 15 minutes between sims. 3. For me, bigger, longer tournaments are better as I can enter a few before I go to work or go to sleep and don't have to check on them a lot. 4. The idea mentioned about daily tournaments starting as soon as they fill up is pretty funny --- then they are quick tournaments! However, daily tournaments shouldn't be delayed 24 hours if they don't fill in time. Then they should start as soon as they are full. What I hate is to sign up for a daily tournament that is supposed to start in 4 hours, then go to work. When I get home, some of the tourneys I signed up for are now listed as now being 20 hours away! 5. Rewards: I love tournaments with cards as rewards, however they shouldn't be SE cards, they should be cards that are required for collections. This way there is a synergy for collections. SE cards, over time, become much less expensive relative to their value due to the fact they are not locked whereas cards that are needed to build collections are. Therefore, we should get rewards that help us build collections.
__________________
Last edited by allenciox; 11-14-2019 at 09:25 AM. |
Bookmarks |
|
|