Feedback?

[Death Star]

In general I was very happy with the OCS. And I don't say that cause I won, but cause it was the backbone of my playtesting for euros and worlds. Not having a team, the OCS games were my chance to playtest competitive decks in a competitive enviroment and that was more helpful than any casual or Open League games. So from my point of view, I am against reducing the number of games.

Considering the matchmaking, since I often played the same decks, I waited for others to open tables and seldomly opened tables myself. I consider this the biggest, if not the only flaw of the OCS. When an OCS game is offered, especially away from the US evening hours, it is often possible to deduct from the people you see in the lobby who this game might belong to and then comes the matchplay dance of deck choice that I really do not like (what does he usually play? Do I wanna play against that? Do I have a deck that is good against that? Did he specifically chose a different deck that is good gainst what is good against what he usually plays? yadda yadda). A lesser problem and maybe that was even because of totally unrelated events that my self-centered me just misinterpreted, but it sometimes seemed as if people left their table when I entered the lobby, maybe because they would not like to play against me.

Apart from the OCS matchmaking, I think the lobby and seeing who is online is a very important feature of gemp though in my mind. So here is my proposal, with absolute no grasp of the technical details and how much work it would be to make it work:

1) When you enter gemp, your name is not immediately shown in the lobby but only after a waiting period of 30-60 seconds. That would be for everyone, OCS or not.
2) As soon as you open a table for an OCS game and for as long as that table remains open, your name is not shown in the lobby. The name is either removed from the lobby or, if the above mentioned waiting period is not over yet, will remain to be not shown. That would only be for OCS games and for nothing else.

This way you can open an OCS table without anyone seeing who that table might belong to. And you can join a table without anyone seeing that you entered gemp and might join their table. If wanted, other tournaments could get the same treatment as the OCS games, but I don't think it would be necessary.

[Corran]

OCS is a great way to play competitively and stuff. Barring unforeseen circumstances, I'll be buying a season pass next year.

[tomtom]

1) When you enter gemp, your name is not immediately shown in the lobby but only after a waiting period of 30-60 seconds. That would be for everyone, OCS or not.
2) As soon as you open a table for an OCS game and for as long as that table remains open, your name is not shown in the lobby. The name is either removed from the lobby or, if the above mentioned waiting period is not over yet, will remain to be not shown. That would only be for OCS games and for nothing else.

So much this. The only current incentive for putting up tables yourself is getting games faster.

[Silverglen]

Along with most others I agree that if an element of anonymity is possible within gemp then it’s application would be appropriate in these circumstances. I also wonder if a shake up in the qualifying process might lead to shorter more intense competition rather than the current ‘long haul’.

Maybe 2 three month competitions where 6 qualify from each? The 6 that qualify from the first round then cannot play in the second? Giving flexibility to players to only play either only round 1, round 2 or both if they don’t qualify in the first. It would mean no at large bids but it would also strip out the top 6 for the second round. Then you could have month 7 as a knockout for the remaining 4 open slots from the top 16 non-qualified scores.

Or something.

It might make it faster, more fun, give many people a greater chance of qualifying than before, no need to feel obliged to play 80 odd games for an at large bid etc.

Happy to chat it through further if the TC feel it has mileage!

P.s. of course having had great success in the previous ocs’s no change also suits me fine

[mrfahrenheit7]

1) When you enter gemp, your name is not immediately shown in the lobby but only after a waiting period of 30-60 seconds. That would be for everyone, OCS or not.
2) As soon as you open a table for an OCS game and for as long as that table remains open, your name is not shown in the lobby. The name is either removed from the lobby or, if the above mentioned waiting period is not over yet, will remain to be not shown. That would only be for OCS games and for nothing else.

So much this. The only current incentive for putting up tables yourself is getting games faster.

Agree with this idea

[arebelspy]

I like Silverglen's idea. Two separate 3 month things that reset instead of one long one. Then someone missing a month due to life isn't out of the at-large bids. Or who has a bad couple months gets to start fresh.

[TacoBill]

Someone floated two 3 month 'seasons' that would qualify 8 people each- 6x top 2 and 2 top overall. With a month break in between.

[arebelspy]

Someone floated two 3 month 'seasons' that would qualify 8 people each- 6x top 2 and 2 top overall. With a month break in between.

I like that.

If Worlds is in Aug, I'd do no gap. If it's in Sept, I'd do the gap.

- Seattle GP right before.
- Feb - April OCS 2020 Season 1.
- MPC end of that season (or close enough, mid-April).
- OCS 202 Season 2 from May - July, then worlds in August, or Month break then Season 2 June - Aug, Worlds Sept.

Gives 16 people, 4 at larges, with two different chances at the at large due to the reboot in the middle.

I'm fine doing it either way I plan to play as much as I need until I qualify, and I feel fine qualifying whatever method is chosen. Just as an objective what sounds more fun to me for the most people, I'd think separate seasons where one bad month doesn't tank you, because you can try again in the next 3 month season.

Downside: It went from 8 months to 7 months, now to 6 months? That's less total games for the whole season/year. On the other hand, six months of the year is still a lot. And with the Outrider Cup or Jawa Cup to fill the fall/winter gap, that may be fine.

[Pistone84]

In general, I enjoyed it but would like to see a few changes (echoing some of the previous comments)

1) Reduce it from 12 games to 10 per month
2) Hide OCS participants with an open table from the lobby
3) Better tiebreak system at the end for at large bids. The players tied should just have to play it out to determine a winner - this is more exciting for everyone than figuring out some formulas in excel.

[chriskelly]

I have had fun each year. I’d keep things as as far as qualifying rather than such a large overhaul (save maybe the tie breakers). But whatever you guys decide, I’m in. I miss the ocs games now!

[Weyoun9846135]

I also liked all the changes we implemented from 2018 to 2019.

1) When you enter gemp, your name is not immediately shown in the lobby but only after a waiting period of 30-60 seconds. That would be for everyone, OCS or not.
2) As soon as you open a table for an OCS game and for as long as that table remains open, your name is not shown in the lobby. The name is either removed from the lobby or, if the above mentioned waiting period is not over yet, will remain to be not shown. That would only be for OCS games and for nothing else.

So much this. The only current incentive for putting up tables yourself is getting games faster.

Agree with this idea

I'm very much in support of this. If there is a way to technically implement it, I'd be very happy.

Regarding the format of the season, I don't see the advantage in creating two shorter seasons instead of one longer yet. And I'd prefer to have as many months of OCS as possible (i.e. rather 7 months of OCSQ than only 6). So while I'd be ok to try a new format, I'm in favor of keeping it as-is for now.

Thanks for making the OCS a reality!

[arebelspy]

Regarding the format of the season, I don't see the advantage in creating two shorter seasons instead of one longer yet.

It's really only for the people going for an at-large bid by completing all their games every month. Last year you had to go 8-4 IIRC every month to qualify. If they have a bad month with experimental decks, it pretty much knocks them out. Doing two seasons with a "reset" in points in the middle means you can have a bad month in the first one, and still have a shot via the second one. Or vice versa (you have a good run in the first one and qualify, and you can play more fun stuff in the second).

But for most people who aren't going to qualify, it doesn't matter.

And more months is probably better, if six is not enough.

[aermet69]

I also liked all the changes we implemented from 2018 to 2019.

1) When you enter gemp, your name is not immediately shown in the lobby but only after a waiting period of 30-60 seconds. That would be for everyone, OCS or not.
2) As soon as you open a table for an OCS game and for as long as that table remains open, your name is not shown in the lobby. The name is either removed from the lobby or, if the above mentioned waiting period is not over yet, will remain to be not shown. That would only be for OCS games and for nothing else.

So much this. The only current incentive for putting up tables yourself is getting games faster.

Agree with this idea

I'm very much in support of this. If there is a way to technically implement it, I'd be very happy.

Regarding the format of the season, I don't see the advantage in creating two shorter seasons instead of one longer yet. And I'd prefer to have as many months of OCS as possible (i.e. rather 7 months of OCSQ than only 6). So while I'd be ok to try a new format, I'm in favor of keeping it as-is for now.

Thanks for making the OCS a reality!

I understand why you would have all these weird "rules" in place, to not have people game the system. Just make sure you don't make GEMP a hassle for everyone else please.

If your name is hidden when you have a game up, won't "those people" just look at who 'is' in the lobby. If Justin is in the lobby, then surely it is not his OCS game sitting there. And so on.

[arebelspy]

Maybe we just all agree no one wants to play Justin, and we bye him into the top 16 and then don't worry about anything complicated?





(I'm kidding. Obviously some people like to play the best.)

[Corran]

Maybe we just all agree no one wants to play Justin, and we bye him into the top 16 and then don't worry about anything complicated?





(I'm kidding. Obviously some people like to play the best.)

I mostly only play in the OCS in order to lose games to better players. If I want to win games, I stick to casual tables against players whose names I don't recognize. I love when they start just the Death Star and then concede after my first turn.

[Weyoun9846135]

Regarding the format of the season, I don't see the advantage in creating two shorter seasons instead of one longer yet.

It's really only for the people going for an at-large bid by completing all their games every month. Last year you had to go 8-4 IIRC every month to qualify. If they have a bad month with experimental decks, it pretty much knocks them out. Doing two seasons with a "reset" in points in the middle means you can have a bad month in the first one, and still have a shot via the second one. Or vice versa (you have a good run in the first one and qualify, and you can play more fun stuff in the second).

But for most people who aren't going to qualify, it doesn't matter.

And more months is probably better, if six is not enough.

Thanks for explaining Joe. I get that, my comment was more about the reduction of qualifier months from 7 to 6 that I see critical. Sticking with 7 would be my preference. Whether there's a technical break in between or not - I don't mind either way.

[Corran]

Did anyone suggest 2 3 month seasons with a Jawa month in the middle? Getting back into open has made me realize how open and fun Jawa is as a format, and I doubt it would get solved in one month of OCS.

[gogolen]

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I think we are going to stick with the same format as 2019.

Also, we are trying to lock down making sure games can't start after the month ends.