Serejai Profile Joined September 2010 231 Posts Last Edited: 2013-11-20 11:03:00 #1 This is just data gathering. Feel free to explain your choices in comments but otherwise there probably won't be all that much discussion here.































I HAVE 5 TOAST POINTS

Cyroch Profile Joined August 2013 Germany 5 Posts #2 I am missing an option for all days/entire week as I honestly do not have any preference there... The point of quotations is that one can use another's words to be insulting.

iEchoic Profile Joined May 2010 United States 61 Posts Last Edited: 2013-11-17 08:54:32 #3 Thanks for this thread, a discussion of tournament rules is far-overdue.



Hearthstone tournaments (with the exception of managrind tournaments) are not particularly skill-based at the moment. Constructing decks in Hearthstone does not take skill - you can simply copy a decklist from any tournament result. Playing these constructed decks also involves very little skill - the best play is usually quite obvious, and the optimal play is more often influenced by card draw than player skill.



I hope that tournament organizers eventually realize that the only way to make 'skill' the defining factor in Hearthstone tournaments is to allow deck modification. Right now, the defining factor is a combination of luck and skill - mostly luck.



The current tournament format employed by the Blizzcon invitational and TL opens of "submit decks, you cannot change them ever" is not a good indicator of skill. vileEchoic -- clanvile.com

Cixah Profile Joined July 2010 United States 106 Posts #4 On November 17 2013 17:53 iEchoic wrote:

The current tournament format employed by the Blizzcon invitational and TL opens of "submit decks, you cannot change them ever" is not a good indicator of skill.



I agree with this part of your post, however having the ability to sideboard any of the other 400 cards for a class isn't good either. Without someway to submit decklists and limiting the amount of cards you have in a sideboard, you enter that "skillless" realm where it comes down to luck.



The current iteration of sideboarding is an abomination. The easiest example is that imagine if I was playing Dredge in MTG. Now I win game 1 and we both choose to sideboard. Game 2 could effectively bring Goblins instead of Dredge, because there is no limit to the number of things I can change. That leaves player b, my opponent, feeling both retarded for having sideboarded now dead cards because I am no longer dredge, and stops game 2 from having any sort of indication of skill outside the land of miss plays and bad Dark Iron Dwarf



That being said, I do not think the TL/Invitational is perfect by any means. If you don't have the correct counter deck built prior to the tournament you can just flat out lose some rounds (being single elim doesn't help either but what else can you do in terms of time) because your deck wasn't fast enough to beat spell mage and aggro lock. I think playing with the idea of allowing you to be able to play the same deck in games 2 and 3 as you did in game 1 should be something we look that.



I like the premiss of the 3v3 as it does 2 things for me, It makes it feel like the wow arenas of old which is awesome flavor. Two it also forces players to either have some kind of knowledge in deckbuilding, or makes them do research as to what their other decks should be leading to players being over all better than they were leading to better games ect.



I agree with this part of your post, however having the ability to sideboard any of the other 400 cards for a class isn't good either. Without someway to submit decklists and limiting the amount of cards you have in a sideboard, you enter that "skillless" realm where it comes down to luck.The current iteration of sideboarding is an abomination. The easiest example is that imagine if I was playing Dredge in MTG. Now I win game 1 and we both choose to sideboard. Game 2 could effectively bring Goblins instead of Dredge, because there is no limit to the number of things I can change. That leaves player b, my opponent, feeling both retarded for having sideboarded now dead cards because I am no longer dredge, and stops game 2 from having any sort of indication of skill outside the land of miss plays and badThat being said, I do not think the TL/Invitational is perfect by any means. If you don't have the correct counter deck built prior to the tournament you can just flat out lose some rounds (being single elim doesn't help either but what else can you do in terms of time) because your deck wasn't fast enough to beat spell mage and aggro lock. I think playing with the idea of allowing you to be able to play the same deck in games 2 and 3 as you did in game 1 should be something we look that.I like the premiss of the 3v3 as it does 2 things for me, It makes it feel like the wow arenas of old which is awesome flavor. Two it also forces players to either have some kind of knowledge in deckbuilding, or makes them do research as to what their other decks should be leading to players being over all better than they were leading to better games ect. Hug The Goat! Hug the Goat! Hug the Goat!

iEchoic Profile Joined May 2010 United States 61 Posts Last Edited: 2013-11-17 10:41:52 #5 On November 17 2013 19:00 Cixah wrote:

Show nested quote +

On November 17 2013 17:53 iEchoic wrote:

The current tournament format employed by the Blizzcon invitational and TL opens of "submit decks, you cannot change them ever" is not a good indicator of skill.



I agree with this part of your post, however having the ability to sideboard any of the other 400 cards for a class isn't good either. Without someway to submit decklists and limiting the amount of cards you have in a sideboard, you enter that "skillless" realm where it comes down to luck.



The current iteration of sideboarding is an abomination. The easiest example is that imagine if I was playing Dredge in MTG. Now I win game 1 and we both choose to sideboard. Game 2 could effectively bring Goblins instead of Dredge, because there is no limit to the number of things I can change. That leaves player b, my opponent, feeling both retarded for having sideboarded now dead cards because I am no longer dredge, and stops game 2 from having any sort of indication of skill outside the land of miss plays and bad Dark Iron Dwarf I agree with this part of your post, however having the ability to sideboard any of the other 400 cards for a class isn't good either. Without someway to submit decklists and limiting the amount of cards you have in a sideboard, you enter that "skillless" realm where it comes down to luck.The current iteration of sideboarding is an abomination. The easiest example is that imagine if I was playing Dredge in MTG. Now I win game 1 and we both choose to sideboard. Game 2 could effectively bring Goblins instead of Dredge, because there is no limit to the number of things I can change. That leaves player b, my opponent, feeling both retarded for having sideboarded now dead cards because I am no longer dredge, and stops game 2 from having any sort of indication of skill outside the land of miss plays and badplays (the punts are strong with this one).



I agree that the sideboarding implementation isn't ideal - but I prefer unrestricted sideboarding to the current implementation if for no other reason than that the outcome is entirely in the hands of the player. The current format too often produces situations such as "great, I have a swamp ooze vs a warlock", and "I have a bunch of 1 health minions that I never would have ran against a Mage, I guess I'll just lose". The result is a collection of generic, cookie-cutter decks that are designed to work against everything without modification. What's the point of this gameplay? What does this demonstrate, and is it fun to play or watch? I would argue no.



The most ideal situation is that Blizzard implements a way to sideboard or play Arena in a native format. The second-most ideal situation is that tournament organizers recognize that the restrictions on deck modification are making the format less competitive and less skill-based.



I agree that the sideboarding implementation isn't ideal - but I prefer unrestricted sideboarding to the current implementation if for no other reason than that the outcome is entirely in the hands of the player. The current format too often produces situations such as "great, I have a swamp ooze vs a warlock", and "I have a bunch of 1 health minions that I never would have ran against a Mage, I guess I'll just lose". The result is a collection of generic, cookie-cutter decks that are designed to work against everything without modification. What's the point of this gameplay? What does this demonstrate, and is it fun to play or watch? I would argue no.The most ideal situation is that Blizzard implements a way to sideboard or play Arena in a native format. The second-most ideal situation is that tournament organizers recognize that the restrictions on deck modification are making the format less competitive and less skill-based. vileEchoic -- clanvile.com

Serejai Profile Joined September 2010 231 Posts #6



You start a match knowing what race your opponent is (class) but don't know what build order they will be going (cards). However, you have time at the start of the match to decide what build order (cards) you will be using against them. If it fails, you can change (sidebar) your build order (cards) for the next match, but your opponent can also do the same.



None of these options really lend themselves to the current Hearthstone tournament formats. It's like if you picked Zerg and were forced to use a ZvP strategy all tournament, even when playing against T and Z opponents. Your only saving grace is after you lose your first match, where you are able to switch to your P or T deck... but you're still left praying that your build order is good vs X, where X is your opponent. It's a terrible format any way you look at it.



Given Hearthstone's infancy it's hard to fault tournament organizers for their format decisions. There simply aren't that many options. You can't really enforce things like deck lists or sidebars because everything is manual and aside from having each player write down every card their opponent plays during a match and then comparing it to their deck list... you can't really tell if someone is sticking to what they submit or not.



My proposed situation to this would be as follows:



Each player signs up as one specific class

Sideboarding is allowed at any time; before a set, between matches



The above will mimic a Starcraft match in knowing what race your opponent is, but not knowing what build order they will go. This also increases the skill ceiling a bit as players will be required to understand that even though there may be a hundred possible cards their opponent can use, only X amount of them are viable against your potential class. IE if you're a warlock then you can probably rule out your opponent using Ooze



Granted, it's not as ideal as having an in-game sidebar with a specific number of cards that you can swap; but in my opinion it's still infinitely better than not really being able to adjust at all, and despite the theoretical prospect of being able to choose from nearly any card - in reality you can still narrow down the possible cards your opponent may swap (and the more skilled you are at the game, the more you will be able to narrow them down).



This does leave us with one problem, though - time.



As we saw from this week's TLOpen tourney, some matches last minutes while others can drag on and on. Some players were in the quarter finals while others were still three rounds behind. This causes frustration as players have to sit around (sometimes for hours) waiting on their next opponent. Giving players the ability to adjust decks between every game would further increase the time it takes for matches to finish. You can't really set a timer, either, because there's no way to enforce it. Five minute limit for sidebars between matches? Great... but how would an admin know when a match ended to start the timer? How would they keep track of dozens of timers at once? You need an in-game tool for this and we simply don't have one.



One way to get around this would be to split a tournament into two days. As the poll indicates most people are available both Saturday and Sunday. Another way to get around it would be a more structured tournament in general. Round 1 starts at x time, round 2 starts at y. Give players some extra time so they don't feel rushed to make changes, and so players who finish quick know that they have x amount of time before their next match and can go do something else. Of course this has problems in itself; namely time itself.



If you set each round to last an hour and have 8 rounds... that's a long tournament. A solution to this would be to limit the amount of signups, this decreasing the amount of rounds and the length of the tournament. Perhaps smaller weekly tournaments that culminate into a monthly finals for the top players from the weeklies. Let's compare this to Starcraft for a moment.You start a match knowing what race your opponent is (class) but don't know what build order they will be going (cards). However, you have time at the start of the match to decide what build order (cards) you will be using against them. If it fails, you can change (sidebar) your build order (cards) for the next match, but your opponent can also do the same.None of these options really lend themselves to the current Hearthstone tournament formats. It's like if you picked Zerg and were forced to use a ZvP strategy all tournament, even when playing against T and Z opponents. Your only saving grace is after you lose your first match, where you are able to switch to your P or T deck... but you're still left praying that your build order is good vs X, where X is your opponent. It's a terrible format any way you look at it.Given Hearthstone's infancy it's hard to fault tournament organizers for their format decisions. There simply aren't that many options. You can't really enforce things like deck lists or sidebars because everything is manual and aside from having each player write down every card their opponent plays during a match and then comparing it to their deck list... you can't really tell if someone is sticking to what they submit or not.My proposed situation to this would be as follows:Each player signs up as one specific classSideboarding is allowed at any time; before a set, between matchesThe above will mimic a Starcraft match in knowing what race your opponent is, but not knowing what build order they will go. This also increases the skill ceiling a bit as players will be required to understand that even though there may be a hundred possible cards their opponent can use, only X amount of them are viable against your potential class. IE if you're a warlock then you can probably rule out your opponent usingGranted, it's not as ideal as having an in-game sidebar with a specific number of cards that you can swap; but in my opinion it's still infinitely better than not really being able to adjust at all, and despite the theoretical prospect of being able to choose from nearly any card - in reality you can still narrow down the possible cards your opponent may swap (and the more skilled you are at the game, the more you will be able to narrow them down).This does leave us with one problem, though - time.As we saw from this week's TLOpen tourney, some matches last minutes while others can drag on and on. Some players were in the quarter finals while others were still three rounds behind. This causes frustration as players have to sit around (sometimes for hours) waiting on their next opponent. Giving players the ability to adjust decks between every game would further increase the time it takes for matches to finish. You can't really set a timer, either, because there's no way to enforce it. Five minute limit for sidebars between matches? Great... but how would an admin know when a match ended to start the timer? How would they keep track of dozens of timers at once? You need an in-game tool for this and we simply don't have one.One way to get around this would be to split a tournament into two days. As the poll indicates most people are available both Saturday and Sunday. Another way to get around it would be a more structured tournament in general. Round 1 starts at x time, round 2 starts at y. Give players some extra time so they don't feel rushed to make changes, and so players who finish quick know that they have x amount of time before their next match and can go do something else. Of course this has problems in itself; namely time itself.If you set each round to last an hour and have 8 rounds... that's a long tournament. A solution to this would be to limit the amount of signups, this decreasing the amount of rounds and the length of the tournament. Perhaps smaller weekly tournaments that culminate into a monthly finals for the top players from the weeklies. I HAVE 5 TOAST POINTS

willoc Profile Joined February 2011 Canada 631 Posts #7 Would be cool if Blizzard would support something like giving X packs for tournament winnings (like LoL does with skins for (even small-sized) tournament winners) Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid!

curi Profile Joined May 2009 United States 260 Posts #8 my preferred time to play is 1pm pacific time or later. twitch.tv/curi42

wizard` Profile Joined November 2013 8 Posts #9 On November 17 2013 19:00 Cixah wrote:



The current iteration of sideboarding is an abomination. The easiest example is that imagine if I was playing Dredge in MTG. Now I win game 1 and we both choose to sideboard. Game 2 could effectively bring Goblins instead of Dredge, because there is no limit to the number of things I can change. That leaves player b, my opponent, feeling both retarded for having sideboarded now dead cards because I am no longer dredge, and stops game 2 from having any sort of indication of skill outside the land of miss plays and bad Dark Iron Dwarf



The current iteration of sideboarding is an abomination. The easiest example is that imagine if I was playing Dredge in MTG. Now I win game 1 and we both choose to sideboard. Game 2 could effectively bring Goblins instead of Dredge, because there is no limit to the number of things I can change. That leaves player b, my opponent, feeling both retarded for having sideboarded now dead cards because I am no longer dredge, and stops game 2 from having any sort of indication of skill outside the land of miss plays and badplays (the punts are strong with this one).



Yeah, imagine someone who played a Hunter control deck with the Unleash combo and then sideboarded into a Murloc deck with almost zero card overlap. Being able to sideboard any number of cards is even more nonsense than 'sure glad I

drew Acidic Swamp Ooze Yeah, imagine someone who played a Hunter control deck with the Unleash combo and then sideboarded into a Murloc deck with almost zero card overlap. Being able to sideboard any number of cards is even more nonsense than 'sure glad Idrew

HardlyNever Profile Joined July 2011 United States 135 Posts #10 I think a discussion about what would be the absolute ideal format, given unlimited in game tools to support it, would be best. Then working back from that to what we currently have (which is basically nothing), we might be able to arrive at a format that is more suitable in the interim (assuming there will eventually be some sort of in-game support for organizing tournaments).



I'm not sure where these current formats came from, maybe it is because they are light on the enforcement requirements (which is obviously a big issue at this moment). I'm also not in favor of just adopting like a MtG system wholesale, because it currently exists in a popular game (BO3, 15 card side board, sideboard available in between rounds).



I have a few ideas of my own, but I'm not sure how suitable they are. I think we can all agree (?) that the current formats are less than ideal. Out there, the Kid learned to fend for himself. Learned to build. Learned to break.

ReketSomething Profile Joined November 2008 United States 80 Posts #11 I have faith that Blizzard will create in game sideboarding (10 cards?) and "tournament" style battles. Jaedong :3

Serejai Profile Joined September 2010 231 Posts #12 If anyone has a Reddit account, or is involved with Managrind, and would like to post this over there so we can get some more outside data... that'd be awesome! I HAVE 5 TOAST POINTS

[-Bluewolf-] Profile Joined January 2003 United States 20 Posts Last Edited: 2013-11-20 14:24:08 #13 On November 17 2013 19:38 iEchoic wrote:The current format too often produces situations such as "great, I have a swamp ooze vs a warlock", and "I have a bunch of 1 health minions that I never would have ran against a Mage, I guess I'll just lose". The result is a collection of generic, cookie-cutter decks that are designed to work against everything without modification. What's the point of this gameplay? What does this demonstrate, and is it fun to play or watch? I would argue no.





I disagree strongly with your argument here beyond the entire deck theme changing reasons others listed. If I was playing a Warrior deck, I don't want to think: "Great. Now my opponent will be running two swamp oozes!". Even with a limited size sideboard, allowing players to specifically sideboard in counters to a class inherently weakens some classes that have strong counter cards.



Not allowing a sideboard means players must know the meta to know which classes to "cheat against" (or have more optimal cards against) in their deck building. Class styles that then rely on certain cards to work (like a "Sword of Justice" Paladin) then have a shot of being tournament viable. But what if you face a random one when it isn't popular in the meta? With the three deck format, hopefully you have a deck running some weapon counter cards in it. If not, than you "leaned" too much against non-weapon decks in your choices and need to remember that X deck is a possibility one might face.



All in my opinion. I just don't think Hearthstone is designed for a sideboard at all even if a limited size variety was implemented. I disagree strongly with your argument here beyond the entire deck theme changing reasons others listed. If I was playing a Warrior deck, I don't want to think: "Great. Now my opponent will be running two swamp oozes!". Even with a limited size sideboard, allowing players to specifically sideboard in counters to a class inherently weakens some classes that have strong counter cards.Not allowing a sideboard means players must know the meta to know which classes to "cheat against" (or have more optimal cards against) in their deck building. Class styles that then rely on certain cards to work (like a "Sword of Justice" Paladin) then have a shot of being tournament viable. But what if you face a random one when it isn't popular in the meta? With the three deck format, hopefully you have a deck running some weapon counter cards in it. If not, than you "leaned" too much against non-weapon decks in your choices and need to remember that X deck is a possibility one might face.All in my opinion. I just don't think Hearthstone is designed for a sideboard at all even if a limited size variety was implemented. The melody of logic always plays the notes of truth.

h0munkulus Profile Joined March 2010 Austria 11 Posts #14

- 4 Classes (hearthstone games are fast enough to play BO-7, after a class loses it is eliminated, first player out of classes is eliminated).



- For each class a player can declare 40 cards (maybe 35 would be better).



- For the first match of the series both players blindly choose a class and create their 30 card deck. After the first match the loser can choose a class and create a deck from the 40 declared cards, winner has to stay put.



This format brings us a lot of advantages:

- Keeps it simple for casual viewers, everyone knows what a BO-7 series is.



- Scaleable for big tournaments, make early rounds BO-3 or BO-5, both players simply have to eliminate 1 or 2 classes before the match starts.



- Big class diversity, having to bring at least 4 classes means that you can't just sit on 1 or 2 classes that you like and think are the strongest. Viewers don't just see the same classes from everyone and players have to show versatility.



- Adding the element of deck construction to tournaments. Players having the option to adjust their decks encreases the potential for good players to shine.



- Only allowing the losing player to change class and "sideboard" (it is not really sideboarding in the mtg-sense but simply choosing a new deck out of the 40 cards with the new class), allows for counter-play and increases the odds for exciting and interesting back and forth series.





I think the best system would be a slightly modified version of the innkeepers invitational we saw at blizzcon:This format brings us a lot of advantages:

ChanmanV Profile Joined December 2010 United States 51 Posts #15 I personally like the multi-deck format mostly because it forces every player to have multiple decks in their portfolio and to strategically prepare counter decks for potential decks in the tournament. It also gives each round more variety for the viewers which I feel is more entertaining.



That said, I would like to see single deck w/ sideboard format at some tournaments too.



The different formats can give events their own flavor. I don't necessarily think we should be trying to pick THE format that every tournament should eventually adopt.

tn5421 Profile Joined February 2012 United States 2 Posts #16 I think having 8 (lit: 7.5 is 25% of 30) cards on a sideboard would be the most optimal. I know that you are allowed to have a 15 card sideboard with a 60 card deck in yugioh/mtg (25% sideboard).



I would be interested in running a freebie tournament for Hearthstone.

kiklion Profile Joined April 2011 2 Posts #17 On November 21 2013 02:25 ChanmanV wrote:

I personally like the multi-deck format mostly because it forces every player to have multiple decks in their portfolio and to strategically prepare counter decks for potential decks in the tournament. It also gives each round more variety for the viewers which I feel is more entertaining.



That said, I would like to see single deck w/ sideboard format at some tournaments too.



The different formats can give events their own flavor. I don't necessarily think we should be trying to pick THE format that every tournament should eventually adopt.



But preparing counter decks turns the games into coin flips. 'I have the counter for Hunter UTH and it has an 80% win rate against mage burn decks but 100% loss rate against mage control and rogue control.'



If you want tournaments that reward skill at all, you need to limit the strength of the decks to emphasize the strengths of the player. If people are bringing counter decks and just hoping they get good match ups it's going to get boring.



That's why I would want to see a single deck w/ 6-9 cards of side board. You can play a deck that's a counter to another, yet still not have a near 100% loss if you get matched up against a counter by sideboarding well and winning game 2 and 3.



But preparing counter decks turns the games into coin flips. 'I have the counter for Hunter UTH and it has an 80% win rate against mage burn decks but 100% loss rate against mage control and rogue control.'If you want tournaments that reward skill at all, you need to limit the strength of the decks to emphasize the strengths of the player. If people are bringing counter decks and just hoping they get good match ups it's going to get boring.That's why I would want to see a single deck w/ 6-9 cards of side board. You can play a deck that's a counter to another, yet still not have a near 100% loss if you get matched up against a counter by sideboarding well and winning game 2 and 3.

Ezmod Profile Joined November 2013 Canada 15 Posts Last Edited: 2013-11-20 20:25:40 #18



After seeing the poll created by Serejai, ManaGrind believes that we owe the community a complete explanation on the reasoning behind our format. We have also created our own poll in regards to tournament formats and rulings and would love everyone’s feedback:



ManaGrind has been making successful open tournaments since the alpha stages of the game and is the first community to bring a competitive aspect to hearthstone.



Our main focus was always to deliver the most consistent competitive formats for the players while eliminating the rock-paper-scissor game play (which focuses on constantly switching decks to counter your opponent which leads to an archetype battle as opposed to constructing a singular well rounded deck).



Over the last 5-6 months we have gathered a lot of feedback in regards to which format would benefit the competitive community. Though we are very grateful that Serejai made a poll regarding a few formats as he brings up a very important question, we would like more feedback in determining the best tournament formats and ManaGrind is also misrepresented in terms of what our main format is/was.



In the poll it gives you the following options:



-TL Style(three classes) [This is in fact the Blizzcon Invitational style with a slight variation which includes a best of 3 until the finals which then switches to a best of 5. This format also presents a rock-paper-scissor approach where your aim is to consistently counter your opponents’ class/archetype.]



-Single-Class sideboard [Which is currently used in all competitive card game tournaments and pushes each player to create balanced decks. This format aims to forge balanced decks that are effective against a multitude of archetypes and by doing this, limits the concept of rock-paper-scissors gameplay]



-ManaGrind style(change class each round, sidebar between matches) [In reality this format aims to be as close to a Single-Class sideboard as possible which unfortunately is impossible to enforce on the MLG platform which has created limitations in the policing of maintaining one deck throughout the tournament without anyone cheating. This is due to the lack of a deck registry.]



As mentioned previously ManaGrind has been doing tournaments for over 5 months now and thus has amounted over 30 tournaments. The original ManaGrind format consists of something very similar to all other competitive card game tournaments which is a 1 deck ruling on a Swiss format and seemed to be the preferred choice by in-depth competitive Hearthstone players. Our aim was always in pushing players to construct single balanced decks as opposed to a rock-paper-scissor approach where you are focusing on countering the class/archetype of your opponent and seemed to have been popularized by the Blizzcon Invitational. That being said the poll made it seem as the “Main” ManaGrind format is the one currently used on the MLG platform when in reality we have had over 25 tournaments created with a single deck format.



To summarize it all, separating ManaGrind from the Single-Class format is a bit misleading when in reality we have been and are still focused on providing this type of format. Also the inconsistency of the description for the CURRENT MLG/ManaGrind format (change class each round, sideboard between matches) which misleads one to believe that you MUST change your class each round and that side boarding is only found in this format where in reality it is also present in the TL tournaments (Blizzcon Invitational format) until the top 4 rankings even though that technically it is not allowed. Unfortunately without a complete registry it is hard for tournament organizers such as TL and ManaGrind to police decks when 150+ players participate in them and enforce specific rulings. We hope you can vote on our POLL and give us an idea of what the community generally wants.



P.S. : Again, thank you Serejai for bringing the question up in the first place, we are happy to see that you care for the community!



Kind regards,



ManaGrind Hi everyone,After seeing the poll created by Serejai, ManaGrind believes that we owe the community a complete explanation on the reasoning behind our format. We have also created our own poll in regards to tournament formats and rulings and would love everyone’s feedback: http://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/general-discussion/2292-tournament-format-poll ManaGrind has been making successful open tournaments since the alpha stages of the game and is the first community to bring a competitive aspect to hearthstone.Our main focus was always to deliver the most consistent competitive formats for the players while eliminating the rock-paper-scissor game play (which focuses on constantly switching decks to counter your opponent which leads to an archetype battle as opposed to constructing a singular well rounded deck).Over the last 5-6 months we have gathered a lot of feedback in regards to which format would benefit the competitive community. Though we are very grateful that Serejai made a poll regarding a few formats as he brings up a very important question, we would like more feedback in determining the best tournament formats and ManaGrind is also misrepresented in terms of what our main format is/was.In the poll it gives you the following options:-TL Style(three classes) [This is in fact the Blizzcon Invitational style with a slight variation which includes a best of 3 until the finals which then switches to a best of 5. This format also presents a rock-paper-scissor approach where your aim is to consistently counter your opponents’ class/archetype.]-Single-Class sideboard [Which is currently used in all competitive card game tournaments and pushes each player to create balanced decks. This format aims to forge balanced decks that are effective against a multitude of archetypes and by doing this, limits the concept of rock-paper-scissors gameplay]-ManaGrind style(change class each round, sidebar between matches) [In reality this format aims to be as close to a Single-Class sideboard as possible which unfortunately is impossible to enforce on the MLG platform which has created limitations in the policing of maintaining one deck throughout the tournament without anyone cheating. This is due to the lack of a deck registry.]As mentioned previously ManaGrind has been doing tournaments for over 5 months now and thus has amounted over 30 tournaments. The original ManaGrind format consists of something very similar to all other competitive card game tournaments which is a 1 deck ruling on a Swiss format and seemed to be the preferred choice by in-depth competitive Hearthstone players. Our aim was always in pushing players to construct single balanced decks as opposed to a rock-paper-scissor approach where you are focusing on countering the class/archetype of your opponent and seemed to have been popularized by the Blizzcon Invitational. That being said the poll made it seem as the “Main” ManaGrind format is the one currently used on the MLG platform when in reality we have had over 25 tournaments created with a single deck format.To summarize it all, separating ManaGrind from the Single-Class format is a bit misleading when in reality we have been and are still focused on providing this type of format. Also the inconsistency of the description for the CURRENT MLG/ManaGrind format (change class each round, sideboard between matches) which misleads one to believe that you MUST change your class each round and that side boarding is only found in this format where in reality it is also present in the TL tournaments (Blizzcon Invitational format) until the top 4 rankings even though that technically it is not allowed. Unfortunately without a complete registry it is hard for tournament organizers such as TL and ManaGrind to police decks when 150+ players participate in them and enforce specific rulings. We hope you can vote on our POLL and give us an idea of what the community generally wants.P.S. : Again, thank you Serejai for bringing the question up in the first place, we are happy to see that you care for the community!Kind regards,ManaGrind

Serejai Profile Joined September 2010 231 Posts #19 Sorry for any confusion. I was originally just going to put "Managrind", "TLOpen", etc but wanted to add a very general description as well.



It seems that both of our polls favor the Blizzcon format, which is a shame in my opinion - it's very RNG as you either have a counter deck or you don't. However, your polls seem to be quite confused in their answers.



On one hand, 40% of voters want a Blizzcon format with set decks that cannot be changed. But then 60% want a sideboard, causing these two answers to contradict each other. This makes it really hard to determine what people actually want since a lot of people seem to vote for two different things.



Stream numbers don't count for much, either. You could argue the Blizzcon format is the best because they had 200k viewers during Blizzcon, but well... that's because it was Blizzcon.



Personally I share the same belief as you - that a single balanced deck is a much better approach than playing the rock-paper-scissors format that the Blizzcon setup offers. However, according to both of our polls thus far the current Managrind format isn't popular at all, and the older swiss format and my "single-class" format are about the same - both being completely out done by the Blizzcon format. Bummer.



I'll see if I can edit my poll options to better represent your formats. Thank you for taking the time to make an account over here and correct me! I HAVE 5 TOAST POINTS

Ezmod Profile Joined November 2013 Canada 15 Posts #20 Serejai,



Thank you for your response though I wouldn't worry to much about the Blizzcon format being the standard format for tournaments as ManaGrind has a very large pool of experienced TCG/CCG players and there is also a consensus on the one deck format being more competitive within that specific circle. As always, ManaGrind has plans on making everyone happy and we will do our best to live up to that expectation!



Cheers

1 2 Next All