PDA

View Full Version : Asynchronous scoring proposal



dogmod
04-22-2014, 05:07 PM
So I think that a good portion of the current community favors an asynchronous sealed format for competitive play with entry fees and prize support.

One of the issues I have seen is that some people feel that an extended scoring system where you could rack up wins with the current best of 3 matches would make playing with one deck for up to 14 or 11 matches feel like quite the slog. One way I feel to make the format go faster without losing the complexity and sideboarding element of the best of 3 series is to make each individual game in a best of 3 match count towards your score.

It might work where your run with a deck finishes when you reach 12 wins or 3 losses.

Each best of 3 would be played to completion regardless of whether or not an individual player reaches there limit while in the actual match. (which could result in 13-1, 13-2 records or x-4 records) To address this prize support will not solely depend on win totals but will be based on final record or ratio if you prefer. (So that a 13-1 is not worth as much as a 12-0 and a 6-3 is worth more than a 6-4) I think this is important as I feel that it would be a bad play experience to start up a match and if you win the first round and the opposing player reaches their loss total to have the match end or vice versa to lose the first round and if they reach their win total to have the match end. Not to mention the fact that if you are doing asynch you may only have time for 1 match and if it ends prematurely you will feel that you missed out on a play experience.

I would also like to see a way for you to prematurely end your run with a deck.. I.e. if you are 10-0 there is a risk involved with going for 12-0 in that you could possibly lose rounds which puts you into a lower prize pool. So that 10-0 is worth more than 12-2 but 12-0 is worth considerably more than 10-0. This would help counterbalance the fact that you can go over/under on wins and losses and would prevent people throwing games if they have reached their win total or loss totals and makes each game meaningful even the ones where you have reached your total. It would also add that feeling of risk each time you went to begin a match as you are risking ending up with a worse loot pile to go for a truly amazing haul. I think that the difference at lower levels should not be very significant. I.e. the difference between 2-0 and 2-4 should be negligible where as the difference between 10-0 and 10-4 should be very large.

And obviously you would be match with people in queue who are near as possible to your win/loss totals.

This would mean that the most rounds you could play would be 15, and the largest number of matches would be somewhere around 7 or 8 (brain getting tired writing all of this, can't do math.) This would not be an extremely onerous total I don't think and would run 8 hours at the very likely shorter runs. To prevent stalling anyone who runs out of time automatically loses any remaining games in that match. (I.e. if someone stalled out in the first round of the match and ran out of time their opponent would get a 2-0 for that match... not satisfying but appropriate)

I think that this proposal would make for an extremely compelling asynchronous experience and addresses some of the issues brought up by various members of the community.

Thoughts?

Adding this to my ideas compilation at:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_ekhon1GYf3OgtXlFAuFonHkbDCxMiI_HTaryRgXhc/edit?usp=sharing

dogmod
04-22-2014, 06:30 PM
In retrospect a 12-4 or 5 system may be better.

sukebe
04-22-2014, 07:28 PM
We do not really know what they plan to do for their asynchronous sealed yet so speculation does not seem to be very useful right now.

Also, I do not want to give up normal sealed events and do not think it would be required to do so.

dogmod
04-22-2014, 11:55 PM
We do not really know what they plan to do for their asynchronous sealed yet so speculation does not seem to be very useful right now.

Also, I do not want to give up normal sealed events and do not think it would be required to do so.

Eh not really speculation just an idea. They have their hands busy with the basics but it would be cool to some day see one of my ideas percolate some way into the game. Excitedly waiting to get off work tomorrow to play in my first for real draft.

Kroan
04-23-2014, 12:01 AM
Why is it so horrible to have 3, 4 or 5 round swiss instead of "3 lives"-system?

dogmod
04-23-2014, 12:13 AM
Why is it so horrible to have 3, 4 or 5 round swiss instead of "3 lives"-system?

It wouldn't be horrible. I would be very happy with that type of system as well. I think there is less tension in that type of system and I think it is less outside of the norm than what I proposed. That doesn't make it a bad system. I merely am offering up another suggestion which I think would be fun.

Just think how great it would be to talk about the time you finally went 12-0 with your sealed deck.(Achievement anyone? Double back too!) And the narrow escape you made in that one round. And your epic comeback. And the fat lewtz that dropped.

All of those things are still available in a swiss as you say but to a lesser degree. Just one man's opinion.