Top 8 of the CCS Should be Constructed

    • Yasi wrote:

      Constructed into Limited is not fair on the limited players. Players who qualified for Constructed will have more experience with the Constructed meta. Even if it can be argued that the percentage is small due to players requiring some skillset to play the game, there's no denying that there's an advantage to playing constructed for 2 months as opposed to 1 week preparing for the CCS.

      As for what Jeff suggested, I can't agree or disagree without first seeing the CCS format changed where it doesn't fuck limited players over.
      agree, easy solution - change CCS that u need to be top100 in BOTH limited and constructed :)
    • NeroJinous wrote:

      Calling limited bashing low power cards against each other is an insult to good limited players and really puts down their actual skill and achievement. Limited can really show how good a player is at maximising all game resoures. You have to be good at combat math, card economy, reading plays, etc. There are many "Core" skills tcg players neglect and actually succeed without because they can hide behind high power cards in constructed. For example many control players are actually terrible at combat math because it isn't as needed in the type of constructed decks they play.
      I don't disagree with you on the context of limited taking skill but, when it comes to watching limited, we don't get to see the drafting skill most of the time. We get to see players bashing into each other with draft cards until the first one draws an unanswered bomb and wins. To show the drafting skills we'd need to watch each person draft their deck and explain why they made the choices they did like many of the draft streamers do.
      In a constructed match because the meta is established and more 'known' understanding card choice is more intuitive. In example we know why people play the void stuff twins over the green give your troops spellshield brute in and Agelius reanimator because in the current format voiding board wipes attached single big threats are unusually good against all the midrange playing like mono same cost troops. How am I supposed to know that Drafter X switched or splashed into Blood on the last pack because they tripped over a bomb that made it all worthwhile if they never draw it on screen. I just go "Why is he playing blood if all he has are weird 2/3s for 3? Did he try to go mono and get shafted or what?"
    • Infamousneo wrote:

      You could make the argument that kicking things off with a format that less people want to watch would damage the viewership for the event in the long run. Turn people away at the start and perhaps they find something else to do instead of watching.
      Like many people, I never followed coverage from start to finish. I'm a baseball guy. I don't watch the regular season, I just read box scores. But the playoffs? I watch a few games out of every series. And I watch every game of the World Series.

      The top 8 is the moment that MOST people watch. The only time I ever watched a draft was when Kai Budde and Phoenix Foundation were team drafting in the finals against some other people. Might have been the Dutch, don't recall. The draft portion WAS interesting. It was masters at work.

      You know what wasn't interesting to watch? The actual games that resulted from that. Phoenix outdrafted the other team. The matches were almost a foregone conclusion. Limited at its core is combat skill. I like variety in seeing what gets played. Though I remember constructed top 8s from Pro Tours where every match was Sligh v Sligh, and that got so boring to watch, too.

      Constructed makes for more dramatic matches in the place where the majority of the viewers bother to watch.
    • Loosey Goosey suggestion for CCS:

      Rounds 1-3 Sealed
      Rounds 4-7 Constructed

      -Cut to Top 32 for Day 2-

      Best of 32 - Draft
      Best of 16 - Draft
      Best of 8 - Draft
      Best of 4 - Constructed
      Best of 2 - Constructed

      Why? Well, I think this tackles a few issues at the cost of extending Day 2 by two extra rounds. Well, what does it tackle:

      All three of the formats that can get you in the CCS (Sealed, Draft, Constructed) are now actually played during the CCS. I think it is realistic to think that there are people who make the CCS that play mostly sealed/EVO and get in (as evidenced by them changing how many points you earn from EVO vs Draft) and never get to play that format at all during the CCS.

      Top 8 would have the most competitive (in theory) round of the draft as well as the "high drama" and "better visibility" of constructed when it matters most.

      Both Day 1 and Day 2 would feature some of both limited and constructed.

      Obviously it isn't completely thought out and issues could arise from this, but I feel like it is a solid attempt at steering to a tournament that gets a decent chunk of limited and constructed (6 rounds of each) while also putting constructed, which seems to be the higher viewership, in the top 4 to drum up the most drama.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Ducklett ().

    • Steric wrote:

      Swigmonkey wrote:

      I think Jeff is on the right track here. I would say make the first 3 rounds draft, and anyone without a win after the 3 rounds is eliminated for the following four rounds of constructed. (not that they would have a chance anyways). Everyone else continues on giving the slim hope that a 1-2 start could make the top 8.

      It would not be pod drafting so it would keep with the same type of drafting we currently have.
      Why wouldn't it be pod drafting? The only reason we have async draft is so that the rounds don't have to start at the same time, but if you're drafting in a tournament, there rounds aren't async anyways.
      When we can practice pod drafting I am for it. Until then I am highly against it, as it brings about a multitude of variables that have an impact on drafting vs the idea of the current async which basically says your not getting screwed because others are playing against you in the same group.
    • JeffHoogland wrote:

      What "logistics" make sealed higher variance?
      There is limited control over the contents of each pack (print runs) and no control over which packs are used to create a sealed pool.

      In a digital environment, data could be used to make all pools with a high-level sealed tournament have similar power levels. Additionally, they could increase the skill factor by avoiding pools where it's obvious which colors to play.
    • Rigging pools feels...wrong somehow. It'd have to be created by someone with higher skill than the players themselves. Which...seems self defeating? And what human judgment is correct in saying what makes the right pool balance or not? If they have to create 8 pools, they can't make them all the same, which means they're likely to objectively handicap at least one person. Free of print runs, full digital randomization still seems the best option.
    • The pool doesn't need to be "rigged" by a human tho. You can simply have the computer discard any pool where a color has less than X or a color has more than Y cards to make the shard choice mostly non-trivial for example. Also with full randomization in sealead one would be mostly likely to be handicapped.
      HEX forums resident liker.
    • Mach wrote:

      There is limited control over the contents of each pack (print runs) and no control over which packs are used to create a sealed pool.
      Those aren't logistics - that is just how sealed works.


      Mach wrote:

      In a digital environment, data could be used to make all pools with a high-level sealed tournament have similar power levels. Additionally, they could increase the skill factor by avoiding pools where it's obvious which colors to play.
      This is basically creating a new format. Why create a new format when having draft in the swiss rounds for a large number of players is very easily doable in a digital medium? Drafting is more skill intensive than sealed as well which is probably what you want at your highest level event. If you don't want draft normal sealed should be fine. If it isn't fine for the CCS it shouldn't be fine for events like the Clash either.
    • JeffHoogland wrote:

      If Hex is aiming to have more coverage build up for the game, the top 8 of the largest event should stop being limited. It is a shown fact in other card games that limited coverage has worse interest / viewer numbers than constructed, so having the final rounds of your major event be less exciting is not ideal. People get more excited / invested in decks they can actually play card for card, which constructed allows, but limited does not.

      If the goal is to have the CCS always included limited and standard, perhaps put draft or sealed for the first 3~ rounds of the swiss. Would give the competitors an extra prize as well since they'd get some free boosters for this to happen. I'd assume this would require some dev time to make happen though, so I don't expect this change to happen any time soon, just food for thought moving forward once your giant TODO list narrows down a bit.

      Cheers!
      Foil goyf disagrees.

      (but seriously, half the people qualify on draft, some portion should be draft, and top 8 is the best place for it).
    • I did it read the whole thread but a simple fix would be to alternate between limited and constructed With monthly ccs

      3k instead of 5k
      1 month sealed top draft
      1 month constricted (maybe too 8 eternal formal )

      Ladder resets alternate

      Limited players happy constructed players happy and a ccs every month
    • Portensio wrote:

      I did it read the whole thread but a simple fix would be to alternate between limited and constructed With monthly ccs

      3k instead of 5k
      1 month sealed top draft
      1 month constricted (maybe too 8 eternal formal )

      Ladder resets alternate

      Limited players happy constructed players happy and a ccs every month
      Lots of issues with this...


      Ladder would reset monthly... awarding players up to 14 more free packs than the current ladder configuration, which would cause a dent to the economy

      Forcing players with time constraints less time to climb the ladder since they would have to climb within 1 month

      Less time to sort out the actual top 64 of each format

      Essentially you are making a special Clash and bash with restrictions on how to enter it.
      So not really a CCS

      A great comparison to this would be a Biathlon.. Bicycling + Running... you don't see the cyclist saying "well this is unfair, im not that great of a runner " biathlons require skill in 2 areas to win.

      You could look at the CCS as a Biathlon of sorts. The Clash and Bash are the individual competitions and the CCS combines them with is perfectly fine

      The post was edited 2 times, last by AnomalyCobra ().

    • AnomalyCobra wrote:

      Ladder would reset monthly... awarding players up to 14 more free packs than the current ladder configuration, which would cause a dent to the economy

      Forcing players with time constraints less time to climb the ladder since they would have to climb within 1 month

      No, ladder season is still 2 months. But constructed season end even numbered months, limited : odd numbered months
    • After giving it some more thought, I think the current CCS format is okay. If we're going to change the CCS where top 8 is constructed or first few rounds are limited and etc...then I think a different format that's not tied to the CCS could be created. The CCS is 7 rounds of constructed then 3 rounds of limited. That's just the way it is. I think splitting the CCS into two different tournaments or creating another CCS-esque tournament while keeping the current one intact seems like the cleanest solution. But it all comes down to money and how big the playerbase is.
    • I really don't understand people with the thought process of:

      "If limited isn't good for coverage, the solution isn't removing limited from the top 8 and moving it to the swiss, it is creating an entirely new event that is all limited"

      Why create an entirely new event with formats that are less popular for coverage? I don't think Hex needs more cash events right now. I think Hex needs official, supported coverage of the existing events it has. Events at their baseline should be advertising, while simply having them exist is something, promoting them and letting people follow them pushes them even further and get's Hex's name out there more.

      I'd love to be able to tell people who show interest in Hex "Hey - go to twitch.tv/hextcg every Saturday and Sunday for high quality Hex coverage" but I can't do that currently. Not only do we not have coverage every week of the events we already have, but when we do have coverage it is being done on a volunteer basis that really limits what people are able to invest into their productions.

      tl/dr: Hex doesn't need more events. It needs to optimize the ones it has and start having official supported coverage.