Posts: 5,607
Threads: 618
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
This is about Alliance. Warlords, when it is available in a month or so in 3rd Cycle, can just tell support who has what kingdom. I'm not trying to sort that out for you, or even suggest to you what you want to do in that format. I am talking about 12 player, 4 Alliance games.
Acknowledging that the strength of a team on an objective measure like Valhalla standing should at least determine tiebreakers seems more than reasonable. Let's hear the argument why it isn't. Yes, in sports, the defending champion generally gets the last draft choice.
We have started so many formats, so many variants, so many house rules....Just pick a different format or variant if you don't want a new 3rd Cycle draft.
I have no problem spending an hour to conduct a draft when games of that format form. And I expect Captains will find it as enjoyable an hour as most others.
Posts: 985
Threads: 31
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
0
I'm also willing to throw my hat in when the new draft options are finalized to become another "draft monkey" person available (especially when LD, JF, and HH all want to be in a game).
Posts: 2,570
Threads: 39
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
0
We are not at this level yet in 3rd cycle but 2nd cycle basically the first pick was RD. So by having a system where tie always goes to the lower ranked player I could effectively be never allowed to play the RD in this example. To me that is unfair. I also could easily see almost always getting my 3rd choice for draft order. I can remember a game I picked two brand new players I still got the 3rd choice of 4 do to using a ranking system. The other teams had no new players. I am using my example because it is likely the extreme but happen to me more than enough. Following the baseball example yes if they win the season the next draft they have a bad pick, but they are not told they must always have the bad pick because they have won more games or scored more than the other teams over the last few years.
I would actually be fine if the last game finished was the ranking. But for it to be always the case is just not fair when I am paying the same money for the game. I have no issue giving non podium guys a bonus but do not effect or dictate what kingdoms I can play by forcing a set position in the draft.
Maybe a fair tie breaker would be by podium winning percentage for the last 10 games. This would be a revolving list and reflect who is hot at the time not just who plays the most.
Posts: 5,607
Threads: 618
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
Yes, in 2nd Cycle Red Dragon was usually 1st or 2nd. Now it is, I guess 10th? 3rd cycle is not 2nd Cycle.
Posts: 2,570
Threads: 39
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
0
It is an example we do not know the favorite kingdoms for 3rd cycle yet. Same as your using baseball draft as an example.
Posts: 2,149
Threads: 107
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
1
Personally, I would be more willing to accept just a basic random draft where each team is randomly selected to pick a kingdom until all teams have selected their single choice for the round before heading to the next round. That way, kingdom choices will be entirely random, team compositions of which kingdoms they will play will be entirely random, and Jumpingfist will have the same chance as anyone else to select a kingdom that they would want to play. Sometimes, the simplest solution is the best...
Posts: 1,962
Threads: 70
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
0
It is simple, and if the participants are up for that, it would totally work. It does raise the specter of being hosed by luck, however, which is what the more evenly distributed draft orders are designed to minimize.
LD has done it, JF has done it, and so can you, I have no doubt.
