PDA

View Full Version : Hex Invitational Final Standings Explanation?



OutlandishMatt
03-13-2016, 06:51 PM
Could I get an explanation of how exactly the final standings were determined? I cannot wrap my head around how MasterMattchu got 5th place for an overall record of 2-5 after the draft and Cyriius got 8th place after going 4-0 on Day 1. Below is a rough draft breakdown of stats.



Rank
Name
Day 1 Final
Day 2 Final
Overall T4 Cut


1
Koma
3-1
2-1
5-2


2
JadiimJedi
1-3
3-0
4-3


3
Eaglov
3-1
2-1
5-2


4
Vazrael
2-2
2-1
4-3


5
MasterMattchu
2-2
0-3
2-5


6
ValueCity
2-2
1-2
3-4


7
Bootlace
2-2
2-1
4-3


8
Cyriius
4-0
0-3
4-3

Armies
03-13-2016, 06:54 PM
can't there only be 1 0-3 in 8 player swiss why does mastermatchu show 0-3 and cyriius 0-3? my guess is its a typo on his score

also I think day 1 scores were solely to make day 2 and not relevant for day 2 standings

OutlandishMatt
03-13-2016, 07:07 PM
can't there only be 1 0-3 in 8 player swiss why does mastermatchu show 0-3 and cyriius 0-3? my guess is its a typo on his score

Just going off of this: https://www.hextcg.com/hex-invitational-standings/

It shows both MasterMattchu and Cyriius never winning a match on Day 2. There is definitely a mix up.


also I think day 1 scores were solely to make day 2 and not relevant for day 2 standings

Yes, we just recorded Episode 113 of Threshold and I go on a rant about how I think it's sad going 4-0 on Day 1 does you no good. It almost encourages players to go 2-0 and just concede the rest and not waste any time.

hex_colin
03-13-2016, 07:25 PM
Could I get an explanation of how exactly the final standings were determined? I cannot wrap my head around how MasterMattchu got 5th place for an overall record of 2-5 after the draft and Cyriius got 8th place after going 4-0 on Day 1. Below is a rough draft breakdown of stats.



Rank
Name
Day 1 Final
Day 2 Final
Overall T4 Cut


1
Koma
3-1
2-1
5-2


2
JadiimJedi
1-3
3-0
4-3


3
Eaglov
3-1
2-1
5-2


4
Vazrael
2-2
2-1
4-3


5
MasterMattchu
2-2
0-3
2-5


6
ValueCity
2-2
1-2
3-4


7
Bootlace
2-2
2-1
4-3


8
Cyriius
4-0
0-3
4-3



Day 1 matches were solely to make it to Day 2.

The draft existed to qualify 4 people for the Top 4, and determine 5th - 8th based on the same tiebreakers used in every draft we ever play.

Then it was single elimination, with a 3rd/4th place match.

5th through 8th was determined from the final draft standings in the client. I also remember watching one of mastermattchu's matches knowing that he had a chance to make Top 4 - I'm guessing the published standing infographics are wrong (the Round 2 results between Bootlace and mastermattchu was in mastermattchu's favor 2-0).



Rank
Name
Day 1 Final
Day 2 Draft


1
JdaiimJedi
1-2
3-0


2
Koma
3-1
2-1


3
Eaglov
3-1
2-1


4
Vazrael
2-2
2-1


5
MasterMattchu
2-2
1-2


6
ValueCity
2-2
1-2


7
Bootlace
2-2
1-2


8
Cyriius
4-0
0-3



The combined Day 1 and Draft scores are irrelevant.

knightofeffect
03-13-2016, 07:38 PM
Day 1 matches were solely to make it to Day 2.

The draft existed solely to qualify 4 people for the Top 4.

Then it was single elimination, with a 3rd/4th place match.

Not sure how 5th through 8th was determined in the final reckoning.

Seems like total record with a round 2 tie breaker would be pretty legit., if think that would result in an order of Bootlace, Cyriius, ValueCity, MasterMattchu

hex_colin
03-13-2016, 07:39 PM
Seems like total record with a round 2 tie breaker would be pretty legit., if think that would result in an order of Bootlace, Cyriius, ValueCity, MasterMattchu

Nothing from Day 1 was supposed to carry over. Day 1 existed solely to get from 12 (10) to 8.

knightofeffect
03-13-2016, 07:41 PM
Nothing from Day 1 was supposed to carry over. Day 1 existed solely to get from 12 (10) to 8.

Yea, I got that, but the results don't make sense for that and I don't see how the two 1-2s got tiebroke in day2.

OutlandishMatt
03-13-2016, 07:44 PM
Day 1 matches were solely to make it to Day 2.

If that's the case, aside from being a d*ck to Hex Entertainment (especially if they were the feature match), what would stop someone from just conceding once they got the wins they needed to qualify?

I mean, think of how Cyriius must feel going 4-0 Day 1 and then being in 8th overall.

hex_colin
03-13-2016, 07:49 PM
If that's the case, aside from being a d*ck to Hex Entertainment (especially if they were the feature match), what would stop someone from just conceding once they got the wins they needed to qualify?

I mean, think of how Cyriius must feel going 4-0 Day 1 and then being in 8th overall.

There were sportsmanship rules requiring the matches to be played to the best of folks' abilities. The only match where there was allowed to be any sort of agreement was the last match, and even then there were parameters in place to ensure that there was something on the line.

Cyriius (and others) made the tactical mistake of forcing the archetype they were most comfortable with. Unfortunately, 3 other folks tried the same thing despite the really clear signals that other shards were way open. Such is life. I'm happy that the event was an overall test of HEX ability, rather than just one discipline.

hex_colin
03-13-2016, 07:57 PM
Yea, I got that, but the results don't make sense for that and I don't see how the two 1-2s got tiebroke in day2.

They get tiebroken the same way they always do in the client: your win percentage, opponents win percentage, etc. Also, there were 3 1-2's including mastermattchu. I'm almost certain one of the Round 2 Draft matches graphic has the winner in the wrong spot.

Wuggalix
03-13-2016, 08:50 PM
3) Actual tournaments :
- The tournament was divided into 3 parts, and the first two part's point was to remove 4 players from the pool each time... While on paper it was cool, I think it would have been better to do something more like a small championship followed by a top4.
- I've found that there was too much waiting time between the games, while it was cool to have interviews and all, I'm sure we can reduce it a bit to have more game play.
- It would have been cool to see all competitors playing (which is very feasible for a 10-12 person event).
- Maybe something like a championship (swiss rounds) would have been better before top4, because the way it was set up 2 players did not have a chance to prove their draft skills... Basically someone who do poorly in either constructed or limited is out of top4 the way it was, it was rewarding actually average performances (2-2 then 2-1).
=> To picture it a bit, both JadiimJedi and Cyriius are 4-3 overall before top4 (if we exclude the extra game JJ played against his teammate) but one went to final while the other ended up 8th... So big difference on the paycheck for a similar performance.
- I think it would have been better (assuming we are keeping the 12 players per event for next time, which might not be the best) if there was 6 rounds of constructed in day one, followed by 6 rounds of draft (2 drafts) on day 2, followed by a top 4.
- Best of 5 sounds better for the top 4 by the way, there is a lot of money at stake and doing best of 5 would diminish the variance in the outcome (and gives more impact to proper side-boarding plans since it means more game post-board).
- Would not mind a larger event (in terms of players) next time but that's another topic.

The real problem was how the tournament was setup in the first place.

Players were obviously OK with that since they did not have the choice, but it sounds far from the best option to me.



I'm happy that the event was an overall test of HEX ability, rather than just one discipline.

It was clearly not, it was mostly about draft... Well you had to go at least 1-3 the first day as well but that's not what I'd call a harsh cut.

Malicus
03-13-2016, 10:30 PM
It was clearly not, it was mostly about draft... Well you had to go at least 1-3 the first day as well but that's not what I'd call a harsh cut.

The problem is mostly about Visas here - the cut for day 2 would have been 2-2 if everyone was there.

If the day 1 stats stuck then you have the possibility of going 0-3 in draft and making top 4 which I think would have been worse personally. I think having the reset made more matches relevant in the end and it was known information going into the tournament.

Finding the ideal spot for cuts is very difficult in a small tournament with a limited number of rounds - however they went about it was gonna cause some issues the ones they picked seem decent to me.

Tinfoil
03-14-2016, 06:48 AM
The first rounds of constructed and then drafts were structured as "qualifying rounds" for the final elimination tournament. You don't have to be the best in the "qualifier rounds" but you also need not to fail completely. That actually gives you some strategic choices. Is your strongest focus on making it to top 4 or is it winning top 4 once you are there?

lightreaper
03-14-2016, 06:58 AM
It was clearly not, it was mostly about draft... Well you had to go at least 1-3 the first day as well but that's not what I'd call a harsh cut.I'm not seeing how this is the case, even if you discount the first day of Constructed entirely (which I think is foolish to do so, but that's a matter of perspective), the Constructed portion for the top 4 was arguably far more important because that's where all the large cash amounts were being played for. Just because the number of 'rounds' were 2 instead of 3, doesn't mean that the draft had more impact.

tecnophi
03-14-2016, 07:38 AM
People seem to care a lot about day 1 results, and in many cases it felt to me they were more interested in the deck rather than the player. The tournament format didn't reward a player for doing well in day 1, maybe if there was a prize for placing high in finishing 4-0 or 3-1 would be a popular idea.

ossuary
03-14-2016, 08:40 AM
The standings were never intended to be based on overall wins and losses. It's a series of heats to move on, nothing more. Your total wins for each stage only determine whether or not you proceed, they have no bearing on your standings in future stages. That's how it was designed and always meant to be. How is this not clear still?

Eetabee
03-14-2016, 11:34 AM
It's just like most major (American) sports. You do well all season but still have to perform in the playoffs. It's relatively rare that the team with the best regular season record wins each round of the playoffs and the championship.

Wuggalix
03-14-2016, 02:16 PM
The standings were never intended to be based on overall wins and losses. It's a series of heats to move on, nothing more. Your total wins for each stage only determine whether or not you proceed, they have no bearing on your standings in future stages. That's how it was designed and always meant to be. How is this not clear still?

It was perfectly clear, and the players themselves haven't complained about it as far as I know... I'm just saying that this was not the best choice, and that it would have been better to do 6 rounds of constructed day1, followed by 6 rounds of limited day 2... and then a top4 (best of 5).

This way we've got :
- more matches and therefore more chances to see everyone on camera
- more rounds so less variance in the outcome
- a chance for everyone to prove their skill in both format
- as for BO5, the idea is to reward preparation (because of the increased proportion of sideboarded games), and lessen variance's impact (more games in a match means less chances that the match will be decided by variance).


I'm not saying it was not supposed to be the way it was etc... I'm saying that the way it was planned to be (and then executed) was original, but not great, and then I'm offering what I think would be a better system for next time (assuming they keep the small number of players - which I think is not the most suitable but that's another topic).

magic_gazz
03-14-2016, 04:12 PM
It was perfectly clear, and the players themselves haven't complained about it as far as I know... I'm just saying that this was not the best choice, and that it would have been better to do 6 rounds of constructed day1, followed by 6 rounds of limited day 2... and then a top4 (best of 5).

This way we've got :
- more matches and therefore more chances to see everyone on camera
- more rounds so less variance in the outcome
- a chance for everyone to prove their skill in both format
- as for BO5, the idea is to reward preparation (because of the increased proportion of sideboarded games), and lessen variance's impact (more games in a match means less chances that the match will be decided by variance).


I'm not saying it was not supposed to be the way it was etc... I'm saying that the way it was planned to be (and then executed) was original, but not great, and then I'm offering what I think would be a better system for next time (assuming they keep the small number of players - which I think is not the most suitable but that's another topic).

I would guess part of the way they structured it was down to time constraints. If that is the case then your plan doesn't work.

I don't see why people have a problem with what happened. The format was set out, the players knew what they needed to do.

OutlandishMatt
03-14-2016, 04:13 PM
How is this not clear still?

I understand it. I just think it's dumb. See below.


It's just like most major (American) sports. You do well all season but still have to perform in the playoffs. It's relatively rare that the team with the best regular season record wins each round of the playoffs and the championship.

Teams are usually rewarded for their regular season performance. Most of the time it's byes or home field advantage. Being 4-0 on Day 1 doesn't mean crap.


I don't see why people have a problem with what happened. The format was set out, the players knew what they needed to do.

I don't see why more people aren't upset that a player went 4-0 on Day 1 and somehow finished 8th! It makes me feel sad for Cyriius.

Would anyone here honestly be okay with going undefeated the first day and then place 8 out of 10 overall?

magic_gazz
03-14-2016, 04:19 PM
I understand it. I just think it's dumb. See below.



Teams are usually rewarded for their regular season performance. Most of the time it's byes or home field advantage. Being 4-0 on Day 1 doesn't mean crap.



I don't see why more people aren't upset that a player went 4-0 on Day 1 and somehow finished 8th! It makes me feel sad for Cyriius.

The guy got flown to the USA and got $2,000, I cant really feel sorry for him.

Had he drafted differently he would probably have done better. I don't see why his day 1 record means he should get let off of drafting well.

OutlandishMatt
03-14-2016, 04:23 PM
I don't see why his day 1 record means he should get let off of drafting well.

I don't see why a Top 4 playoff should be almost entirely decided on a draft either. I think it should use a combination of constructed and draft to determine the Top 4. (ie. Overall record)

Timlagor
03-14-2016, 04:34 PM
I agree and posted elsewhere that it's a bit weird for the second half of the first day not to matter at all if you win first 2. I think I'd have liked there to be one final-4 seat to play for there and 3 from the draft (possibly with players 2-9 in the draft) but i certainly don't see it as the big deal the OP seems to.

Wuggalix
03-14-2016, 04:45 PM
I don't see why a Top 4 playoff should be almost entirely decided on a draft either. I think it should use a combination of constructed and draft to determine the Top 4. (ie. Overall record)

Yup, that's precisely what I'm thinking as well.

The way is was setup, too much credit was given to the draft, and too few to the first part.
It's cool and all to have sportsmanship rules to force players to play (rounds 3 and 4 of day 1) but that should not be necessary if the performance of day 1 was actually relevant going forward.

It's not about drafting well or not, everybody knows that there are variance in events... It is very possible that you're doing it perfectly (ie:making the choices that give you the highest chance of winning) but still looses in the end. Sometimes you're just going to miss, no matter how good or bad you are... And that's why more rounds is always better in order to determine the "best players".

Hence my proposition to do 6 rounds of constructed and then 6 of limited... It's not all about Cyriius, and how unfair it is for him. It is also somewhat unfair for Sadolution and Neo not to be able to kick it in drafts... They might have made a wrong deck choice for constructed (that happens, often), but they should at least have been able to recover (or not, but that's not the question) in draft...

The way it was setup was rewarding not good finishes, but "meh finishes", and punishing too harshly one error (both in constructed for deck choice and limited with only one draft, and final standings depending on that one draft).

magic_gazz
03-14-2016, 06:30 PM
I don't see why a Top 4 playoff should be almost entirely decided on a draft either. I think it should use a combination of constructed and draft to determine the Top 4. (ie. Overall record)

4 out of 12 people qualified did not make the draft.

I think peoples views may be skewed by the fact that 2 players never made it to the event, so it looks like the draft was more important than it was.

Constructed - 4 players would be eliminated
Draft - 4 players eliminated
Top 4

If you look at it like that the draft and constructed were worth the same.

nicosharp
03-14-2016, 06:37 PM
It's funny people now have an issue with the RNG of Day2 of the $100,000... when the IQ tournaments were huge tests of RNG, many which the cut to Top8 had no merit on placement anyways. This seems inconsequential to raise an issue on. The format was fine, and speaks very specifically to the type of game we are playing, and what everyone should expect and anticipate going forward.

Think of day 1 as a elimination round - 12 will enter, 8 will leave.
Day 2 part 1 = elimination round - 8 will enter, 4 will leave.
Day 2 part 2 = elimination round - 4 will enter, 1 will leave.
The order has some meaning for all days, but not much.

magic_gazz
03-14-2016, 06:42 PM
Yeah we need more rounds in all events.

I came 21st in the most recent fiveshards event and I had the same win loss record as the guy in 8th and maybe 7th. Doesn't seem fair that they can make top 8 on equal number of wins.

Wuggalix
03-14-2016, 06:50 PM
That's indeed what was planned... 3 small tournaments.

But still, it doesn't really make sense to divide it into 3 parts instead of 2 (swiss + top4)

I guess the low number of people might be the reason, since it would have been complicated to setup a draft with 12 players... But that's the issue for small tournaments, some people might not show up, especially when they need to travel the world to be there physically.

Therefore, a larger tournament sounds better to prevent something like this (well to lessen the impact of people not showing up I mean)... In any case they should have something prepared for drafts with less than 8 people, because it will happen eventually, even if you setup it all nicely for the number of players day1 and 2 being a multiple of 8, there's still the possibility of one guy not waking up the D day.
And of course, those kind of issues are less relevant in a lesser personal and/or bigger environment.


Anyway, what's done is done, and I just hope it will be bigger and better next time... Not in term of prizes, 100k for the whole was enough, would change a bit the way it was given though, especially if the next one has more players.


-------------------------------


Regarding the number of rounds of "regular events", when it's swiss the number of rounds is computed in a way that all X-1 will make top8 (and there will always be one or two lucky X-2) assuming there is no draws. I'm perfectly fine with that.
Basically, every time you're doing X-1 or better, you're sure to be in, and every once in a while you'll make it with 2 losses.

As to answer Nicosharp, I'm not totally sure what you mean with the RNG and the IQs.

noragar
03-15-2016, 07:04 AM
On the surface, it might not seem like that big a deal, but having a 12-man draft is very different from having an 8-man draft. It totally changes the ability to read signals and the percentages of whether a card wheels or not. Another consideration would be having to alter/test the game engine to be able to handle it. The draft for the $100k tourny shouldn't be totally different than any other draft ever done before. While it might be interesting to watch, it would be just as unfair to the participants as if they did a blind draft of Set 4 instead of drafting Set 3.

Starting the tournament with 8 instead of 12 isn't a good option either because then you're stuck if not everybody shows (as happened this time). While I'm fine with minor tweaks, like going to best-of-5 in the final 4, I think the basic structure was excellent and does a good job of combining constructed and limited skills.

Also, for those saying that it's wrong that going 4-0 in Day 1 didn't matter at all for Day 2, maybe if it did matter for Day 2, that player wouldn't have gone 4-0. Since those last two rounds were meaningless for both players, it's possible players weren't as focused as they would have been otherwise, and/or didn't want to show off all of their deck tech in case they were rematched in the final 4.

OutlandishMatt
03-15-2016, 07:27 PM
didn't want to show off all of their deck tech in case they were rematched in the final 4.

Considering players knew each others a day or two before, that wouldn't have been the case.

I just think none of us would be happy going 4-0 Day 1 and then somehow finishing 8th. Day 1 record should have SOME leverage for final standings. At least use overall record for 5-8.

wolzarg
03-16-2016, 06:12 AM
Why would it when the whole point of it is to reduce it down to 8 contestants? If someone won 5 IQ qualifiers should they have skipped day 1 because they had a previously good record?

noragar
03-16-2016, 06:50 AM
I just think none of us would be happy going 4-0 Day 1 and then somehow finishing 8th.

Going 4-0 in Day 1 would have guaranteed me at least 8th place. So finishing 8th is the worst possible finish after going 4-0, so of course I wouldn't be happy, and I think your statement that none of us would be happy is a reasonable assumption.

But by repeatedly saying this, you also seem to be implying that finishing 8th is in some way unfair. That's what people are reacting to. It's totally fair.

juzamjedi
03-17-2016, 04:31 AM
On the surface, it might not seem like that big a deal, but having a 12-man draft is very different from having an 8-man draft. It totally changes the ability to read signals and the percentages of whether a card wheels or not. Another consideration would be having to alter/test the game engine to be able to handle it. The draft for the $100k tourny shouldn't be totally different than any other draft ever done before. While it might be interesting to watch, it would be just as unfair to the participants as if they did a blind draft of Set 4 instead of drafting Set 3.

Starting the tournament with 8 instead of 12 isn't a good option either because then you're stuck if not everybody shows (as happened this time). While I'm fine with minor tweaks, like going to best-of-5 in the final 4, I think the basic structure was excellent and does a good job of combining constructed and limited skills.

Also, for those saying that it's wrong that going 4-0 in Day 1 didn't matter at all for Day 2, maybe if it did matter for Day 2, that player wouldn't have gone 4-0. Since those last two rounds were meaningless for both players, it's possible players weren't as focused as they would have been otherwise, and/or didn't want to show off all of their deck tech in case they were rematched in the final 4.

This post is spot-on. It was supposed to be draft and constructed matter. You can't predict if all 8 people will make the tournament or not. So The First Cut is just to get it down to eight people.

I remember asking Chark about the final standings as well before the tournament started. He wanted each stage to determine who went on. We were all aware that overall highest records might not advance.

I think the goal was to make it like a sports event. If you have a team doesn't win in a certain round they don't advance.

OutlandishMatt
03-17-2016, 07:27 PM
I think the goal was to make it like a sports event. If you have a team doesn't win in a certain round they don't advance.

Except in sports, you're usually rewarded for finishing the season with the best record.

We just finished recording Episode 114 and in it I think I make a great point. Half of the players that qualified for the IQ did so from sealed qualifiers. Because of that, it puts them at a disadvantage if the tournament starts off with an elimination constructed event. I mean, if you were Vegas and placing odds on players, you would have better odds on all the constructed qualifiers advancing than sealed.

I think Day 1 should be comprised of 4 rounds of Constructed and 4 rounds of Sealed then cut to Top 8 for draft on Day 2. Magic plays 9-10 rounds usually on Day 1 then about 7-8 on Day 2. I don't see why Hex can't.

juzamjedi
03-18-2016, 03:16 AM
Yes day 2 favored constructed, but that's more about visas than gameplay. Djinni and Vagabundo were international players that couldn't get visas (from what I was told). Neo was sealed and SaDOlution was constructed so the remaiming cuts for day 1 were split.

noragar
03-18-2016, 07:45 AM
I think Day 1 should be comprised of 4 rounds of Constructed and 4 rounds of Sealed then cut to Top 8 for draft on Day 2. Magic plays 9-10 rounds usually on Day 1 then about 7-8 on Day 2.

And in the tournaments where you put up the $100,000 in prize money, you should definitely be allowed to dictate the tournament structure just like the structure for this tournament was decided by the people that put up the money.

OutlandishMatt
03-19-2016, 04:00 PM
And in the tournaments where you put up the $100,000 in prize money, you should definitely be allowed to dictate the tournament structure just like the structure for this tournament was decided by the people that put up the money.

You're right. We should never offer up our own opinions and viewpoints to try and make this game better to the masses. Please let us just never discuss anything Hex Entertainment or Gameforge does because obviously they do it right every time...

Lock this topic. Even though I never got an official response, Colin answered it after, I assume, he got the information from the source.

noragar
03-19-2016, 08:04 PM
You're right. We should never offer up our own opinions and viewpoints to try and make this game better to the masses.


Your first 2 posts in this thread made your opinion and viewpoint quite clear. Repeating the same thing over and over again in your next 6 posts doesn't add much else to the discussion.

OutlandishMatt
03-19-2016, 10:37 PM
Your first 2 posts in this thread made your opinion and viewpoint quite clear. Repeating the same thing over and over again in your next 6 posts doesn't add much else to the discussion.

Yep, I definitely did not offer rebuttal or insight into my viewpoint in any of those posts. From now on we'll have a limit of one post per person to every topic here.

I am curious why there is no sealed represented in the Invitational when it's used to qualify. It's like qualifying for the Olympics in hurdles then told, "Yeah, we're only doing long distance running on Day 1 and then sprints on Day 2."

hex_colin
03-19-2016, 11:42 PM
Yep, I definitely did not offer rebuttal or insight into my viewpoint in any of those posts. From now on we'll have a limit of one post per person to every topic here.

I am curious why there is no sealed represented in the Invitational when it's used to qualify. It's like qualifying for the Olympics in hurdles then told, "Yeah, we're only doing long distance running on Day 1 and then sprints on Day 2."

Sealed is less interactive than draft - there's basically no opportunity to make good TV out of the period before the matches begin. Also, the skill required for Draft is greater than that for Sealed (your pool can doom you). However, it's really hard to allow large groups of people a chance of qualification based on a Draft - you'd need multiple pods feeding into more pods, feeding into a final pod (complicated tech). So, it's easy to see why the qualification limited format was Sealed, but Draft at the Invitational because of what they wanted to accomplish from the point of view of the stream.

Going forward, the hope is that we'd have equal number of qualifiers from Constructed Qualifiers, Sealed Qualifiers, Constructed Ladder, and Limited Ladder. The Limited Ladder will hopefully be a combination of folks' performances in both Draft and Sealed over the qualification period. Thus hopefully making your criticism invalid.

OutlandishMatt
03-21-2016, 07:44 PM
Sealed is less interactive than draft - there's basically no opportunity to make good TV out of the period before the matches begin.

I think you could easily do sealed ahead of time. There's no need to stream the opening and creation but there's a giant pool of streaming material that can be made from sealed. You could easily do sealed construction on Friday with interviews about the players pools and choices, then stream the games on Saturday while playing the commentary before and in between matches.

It sounds like the biggest hurdle for these tournaments is the client. It sounds like they cannot just make a game state. (ie. Throw whoever against whoever with whatever decks.)

hex_colin
03-21-2016, 08:38 PM
I think you could easily do sealed ahead of time. There's no need to stream the opening and creation but there's a giant pool of streaming material that can be made from sealed. You could easily do sealed construction on Friday with interviews about the players pools and choices, then stream the games on Saturday while playing the commentary before and in between matches.

It sounds like the biggest hurdle for these tournaments is the client. It sounds like they cannot just make a game state. (ie. Throw whoever against whoever with whatever decks.)

Apart from the huge overhead that involves (including effectively extending the tournament another day), it doesn't cover losing the skill contribution from reading signals, etc. (that JJ used to great advantage) in Draft, and that fact that Sealed pools are a crapshoot. Not to mention the development time you'd need to support this taking away from delivering all the other stuff we're expecting.

Wuggalix
03-22-2016, 04:34 AM
For what it's worth, there is less variance overall in sealed than in draft. Especially at high level.
It might be counter-intuitive at first, but this was the case for MTG so it should be (and actually is) the same here.

I still think draft should be the "go to" limited format for the important events, as it is easier to broadcast and more interesting for the audience.
But I had to disagree with that "common knowledge" (or should I say common misunderstanding) saying that sealed is more variance based than draft.

Elwinz
03-22-2016, 04:42 AM
How sealed is less variance tha draft?

Wuggalix
03-22-2016, 09:32 AM
Variance might comes in many forms in a card game... But if we just look at the one that interest us and the limited format, the following should be taken into account :

Sealed :
- Variance in pool quality
- Variance in pairings
- Variance inside the games

Draft :
- Variance in opening
- Variance in the other people's opening (especially the ones close to the player)
- Variance in pairings (stronger)
- Variance inside the games


When I was saying that it's "counter-intuitive", I meant that for most people, it's obvious that you have less control on your final deck when playing sealed than when playing draft... But it's actually not totally true.

First of all, the variance inside the game is the same for both format, so we won't really touch it here.
Then, the variance in pairings. While it might sounds like it's the same, it's not actually the case, since decks are stronger in drafts because people are drafting archetypes, not just putting all their best cards together... Therefore, a given deck will have a higher tendency to have good and bad MU in draft than in sealed (where decks are more lookalike).
It's minor I won't deny it but still.

Then comes the more interesting points.

In sealed, you're opening 6 packs, and while it is true that some pool are way better than others, it's usually not the case, and 95% of the time you will end up with something at least decent and playable... It sure won't be as good as your average draft deck, but same is true for your opponent's decks.

In draft, while it might seem that you have entire control on what you ended up playing, it's definitely not the case. And even a very good drafter might ended up with a crappy deck, because you're only getting what the other's are passing you.
I don't really like giving an example because they are always bad, but if you're doing the right pick for the first 8 picks, and then one or 2 guys change their mind beside you, then you'r entire draft might be screwed and you can't do much about it... Same goes when the packs are "looking good but actually awful at signaling"...

Let's do an example still : you're opening 2 bombs in the same color, and get that for the first 3 picks, and nothing beside that... You can be sure that the guy to whom you're passing cards will interpret that as a clear signal that you're not playing that color... But when packs will get emptier and there will only be 1 good card of that color, things will suddenly look awful for him/her.

A guy changing it's mind, a sequence of packs lacking a given color even if this one is not picked, forced wrong signals, and other people's sub-optimal picking strategy (or just different ones) are just some of the reasons that your draft is way more out of your control than you think it is.


My point here is that there are many factors that could screw you up in a draft that are out of your control (and people usually don't pay attention to them, or don't understand how important they are in the outcome)... And you really can't do much about it.
Don't get me wrong I'm certainly not saying that draft is skill-less as I clearly don't believe so, but I am certain that sealed are actually less random... Because in the end there is only the packs you're getting at the start that is a source of actual variance... And it's not that big of a deal usually.



To conclude, I'll talk a bit about the "results" and how easy it is to misjudge them... It looks like at every large event there will always be 1 or 2 guy that plays poorly but got the god pool that pushed them to the top... It does happen indeed, but it does not mean that sealed is all about luck... It only means that you can be lucky and get a little boost from a great pool.
Very likely a great player would have been on top of the ranking with the same deck as well... But what's actually interesting is when players manage to consistently have great results with average pool or poor ones. When someone start winning consistently with all sorts of "meh" pools, it definitely start to means something on his/her level of play.

As for drafts, people are really way too results based again... If someone ended up with a good deck it's often understood like he's a good drafter (not that he's been lucky to be passed all the cards that fit well in his deck), if someone win a draft he has to be a good drafter as well (same + game & pairing variance).... Except it's clearly not the case for both.
Again, the only thing that matter is how consistently a given player will do great in draft, because on the long run variance is 0 and only skill matters... But for that to be properly understood, we need to only focus on the big picture, and not only on a small sample.

ossuary
03-22-2016, 11:16 AM
I think sealed has a negative connotation in terms of the random factor because when you look at a good draft deck, you tend to think to yourself, "Yes, I could have drafted that deck as well," especially if you opened X card at the start. Whereas when you see someone with a god sealed pool, you think to yourself, "I had no chance here, this guy was guaranteed to win from the start."

In that respect, draft decks tend to drift more towards the middle of the bell curve than sealed decks do - a draft deck is more likely to be average to good on the quality scale, while sealed is FAR more likely to have outliers on either end (terrible pool, god pool).