I think it sounds more incestuous in its affects than it is.
Under the proposed system:
Results influence tier list.
Tier list does not influence INDIVIDUAL match results.
Tier list will likely influence which character players choose to play, especially if players feel the tier list is incorrect and players move to capitalize on that arbitrage.
(but better tier data would lead to non-material arbitrage opportunities… and a solid tier chart)
The system itself, and its usage of results to adjust tier data, is very similar to sports betting: historical performance (+ speculation) determines the odds.
I think it’s a great way to have fun with the game, can give you some amazing player/character matchups, and can generate some stuff you’d never see outside this type of setting.
Stop posting after your own posts. Edit the last post you made if you have more to say and no one else has posted a reply yet. You’ll be infracted if you keep it up.
Without delving into the messy realm of personal opinions, two obvious logistical issues immediately spring to mind:
It’s wayyy more complicated than any other good system. Tourneys are already hard enough to run.
It depends on other, conventional tournaments to establish the matchup charts that would be used.
These may or may not be problems to you based on who you are and how you look at it, but they are both definite issues.
An additional and important note I’d like to make, a countinuation of the train of thought inevitably sparked by my second point, is that your proposed format is a procedural oddity in that the metagame that emerges from an already-decided game format is being used to alter that very game format to create itself (this/a/your new format). I believe that some of my colleagues have already touched upon that very issue during previous posts of this thread. I suppose this could be thought of as a slow system of self-improvement, like a robot building itself a new part. However, it can also be thought of like sick, selfish parents raising a child specifically so that it can take care of them. Finally, by nature it leaves itself wide open to a sick and never-ending recursion, where each new format eventually gives rise to another, newer format. This could continue indefinitely, with common sense and decency as the only things that could arbitrarily insert a tolerance limit to reign in the whole thing. At this point, one is left with the sticky matter of whether that current format is acceptable enough to be accepted on a permament basis–and if not, the question of just how far back the formats should be turned, by how many iterations the system needs to be regressed to reach an ideal, agreeable one. Furthermore, th
As far as tourneys being hard to run, I think that depends on a lot of factors, like:
size of tourney
organizers, # people helping
venue
how much time you have to set it up
how much time you have to run it
is it going on at same time as other tourneys
has it been run before, how frequently
are the players seasoned tourney vets or not
“fun” tourney or hardcore
I wouldn’t try to run it in any set-up that has the above factors at a complicated level.
So it would be a “fun” format to try with a small number of players with, generous amount of time, and with experienced players.
IF that went well and it was figured out how to run it well, then you could flirt with trying more complicated stuff… IF you really wanted to.
#2 is a weird issue.
In order to populate a matchup chart you are going to have to settle on a protocol to do it.
You can use “expert” peer review (Ex. http://curryallergy.blogspot.com/2008/11/super-turbo-new-arcadia-diagram.html), subjective material data (from online sites, tournaments, or even set-up exhibition matches with top players), or some blend.
I think it’s important to first look at it from the perspective that as it stands now, all current tourneys run with every character matchup assumed to be even.
Even if the matchup chart you use is incorrect, that should be par for the course.
I think as long as you either:
provide the matchup chart VERY early in advance, or
have a player pool who are playing strictly in the spirit of a casual/experimental format
… then you are fine.
I’m a big proponent of managing expectations to avoid friction.
If you try the format with noob players, you really can’t use their results to modify the matchup chart… unless you intend to run a noob-only tournament with a noob skill level chart.
If you run ANY tournament, you can use the results data to populate a matchup chart. (for a chart proportionate to the skill level of the players in that tournement)
That includes data from this format.
And while creating a matchup chart is required for the format, it is not a consideration for how I arrived at the format in the first place.
In fact, you can simply run the first tournament with a chart that assumes all matchups are ever, and you are techincally running both “my” suggested format AND a traditional format.
There are actually many sports that rely on their own results to shape their play: seeding in tournaments, sports betting, rankings, accolades, invitationals, draft order, handicaps, salary caps, etc.
The format is the same.
The matchup chart can change.
But the matchup chart (if actively handled with good, public protocol) is reflective of the existing metagame out there.
I think it really depends on how hardcore the specific tournament using it is.
If it’s just for fun, you can roll dice to populate the matchup chart for all that it matters.
In fact, that could be a fun format too, as people game the chart to pick for the tourney.
If you want a hardcore format, you would need to set a protocol on populating the chart.
I think the chart could only include data from tournaments/matches deemed skill level and up to date enough.
If they a game breaking mechanic tomorrow, gameplay pre-mechanic would be comprimised and dismissed if appropriate.
I think peer review could only include data from sources deemed skill level and up to date enough.
But I think peer review is prone to be unreliable (people with agendas or just bad bias/perspective)… US College Football anyone?
Best bet would be to ID specific existing tournaments to pull data from.
Only pull data from say the top performing x players with each character.
Or run and invite-only exhibition session to populate the chart.
After speaking with Kuroppi, I would adjust the format to the winner being the first to hit their #, rather than you have to get 1 more than your number.
I don’t want to threaten existing tournaments.
I think they’re neat and effective.
I’m just submitting an additional format to play around with.
One that appeals to different things than existing ones.
