Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Discussion: Treasure Hunting Marathon - II

Discussion in 'Single Player Forum' started by Azimuthus, Apr 11, 2015.

  1. Azimuthus

    Azimuthus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    47
    upload_2015-4-11_19-29-8.jpeg


    Let me say, I'm really pleased with how "Treasure Hunting Marathon v 1.0" (also known as "Barbarian Borthers Tourney") goes, even though we don't have many participants in there. Ye, the idea of MF tourney without exhausting boss or one-and-the-same area grinds is fascinating indeed, so I don't see any obstacle not to start 2nd MF marathon over time.

    However, to make it even more interesting, I invite you to a discussion. Feel free to post your comments, ideas, arguments. Keep in mind, though, that the last word is mine, so it may happen that I'll approve some ideas and dismiss some (due to my personal liking and technical difficulties with the spreadsheet).

    ***

    So. Let me first express my observation about 1st marathon.

    -= While the background story is cool in itself, it is sometimes "a bit" tiresome to play MF barb (well, you know what I mean if you ever gave it a try). What is more, it takes too much time to finish all 3 diffs. So, for the 2nd marathon I want something faster, but haven't yet decided what exactly.

    -= I really like Softcore MF marathon version, because you are not distracted too much by survivability. The idea of obligatory getting corpse is also fine (don't be too negligent!). But in the 2nd tourney I'd like to add penalties for each death. Maybe something like -50 points for normal, -75 for NM, and -100 for Hell (per each death).

    -= I really like general score system and in-game geometrical progression score build-up, however some minor changes will be made (see below the thoughts). Also, each collection scores should be made more even. For example, lets take normal boots and normal armors. Score range should be equal like from 10 to lets say 100, though for boots score increment will be more than for armors, because there are less boots than armors. But in the end the best normal boots gives 100 pts, and best normal armor 100 as well. Same in every collection (with some exceptions for extra rare uniqs).

    -= Act 5 merk is cool and he, as it seems, even more durable than one from the 2nd act. And 2nd act merk can make all the way too easy, up to point where he kills everything, and not you, so I'm still thinking about making a rule to exclude all A2 merks from the tourney. Waiting for your thoughts though.

    -= P1 for horking-barb-single-pass is more than enough, but is too boring for other chars. However, again, have no ideas about it since this is connected with the char you play. For some chars p3-p4 is optimal, for some even p8 is not a problem at all. But I don't like the sitation where you must choose p1-p8, especially when it affects the number of drops (and so - chances for every participant are different, which is bad). However, got 1 idea: we select only one class (we can make it even randomly btw) and then establish predetermined /players X for each difficulty, depending on this class.

    ***

    Now answering ToTgi proposals:

    Ye, you may ))

    Yes, I see the point. However, its not that easy. First of all, keep in mind that the intrigue will be significantly reduced if we make all items equalized (or almost equalized). Result - no fun. Even now we see that, generally, people have ~same score in each act/diff - no big disbalance. And, probably, there will be even less disbalance if we make all items equal. The winner will be one with (lets say) 10463 score, and 2nd place is one with 10453, 3rd 10420... which is really boring.

    Then, we should keep in mind that on Normal we have only normal whites/uniqs, on NM we have normal and (a bit) exceptional, and on Hell we have normal, some exceptional and a bit of elite items - even white - not speaking about uniqs! So finding elite uniq must be a rewarding event, because it is, well, really rare. On the other hand, indeed, one super-drop should not affect general score too much, but still on the other hand, finding extremely rare item and getting just a bit better points for it is frustrating as well.

    Probably I'll make a cap on "very rare" items so it won't affect general score too much.

    This will not be done and here is why. I don't like the situation when you must choose either to spend every rune you find on "at least some runeword" to get points, or to wait and spend them on some useful item later even if you have to cube many-many runes you found and get only a few points for that. This is a frustrating dilemma, really.

    What is more, I find it satisfying that even EL rune is at least a bit useful, because it adds to your score a little bit. Though, probably, I'll cut down treausure points for runes and also make a cap for hi lvl ones so they won't affect general score too much.

    While this idea sounds fine, this is troublesome in terms of technical realization, at least, for me.

    This will be tiresome to track for me (or any other tourney host). However, I can make informative cells on the Main Page (in the spreadsheet). If one wants, one can fill them in. If not - then not (so not to bother him) -)
     
  2. SunsetVista

    SunsetVista IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    152
    The current iteration's scoring system really works for me. The smallest rune is still worth Something, and even the lowest set or unique is worth several low runes in points.

    I've been really surprised by how much I've found with Find Item, even on /p1. It was also neat to not be overleveled at all through Normal, and to wait to get a merc until Act 5.

    I like the idea of a death penalty to score while still remaining SC. I also like the idea of somehow tracking progress by Act so we can compare our scores at different times along the way, although I don't know how to best implement that.

    Doing this with other characters seems neat, too, but one at a time! We don't really have enough people/data from the Barb one yet. I'm not opposed to trying with some other class in the future though.
     
  3. Gynli

    Gynli IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    197
    I appreciate the extra time you've put in to reply to my suggestions. It was, really, just meant for a simple 'Ok thanks, I"ll keep that in mind for nxt tourney.' =P

    first thing first, I'ts ToGgi with a G, not ToTgi heh.

    about runewords, yes I do agree if you only give points to a completed runewords, it will for sure end up with parrticipants cubing and completing unnecessary rune/runewords. At the time, my focus was on the fact that high runes give too big of a point spike, and should be adjusted.

    I personally prefer having one class over many different, as - like you mentioned - some chars do better than others. Same goes for difficulty since it has a big impact on number of drops.

    Death penalty sounds great. 1 vote for that.

    if i could just expand on my suggestion about readjusting points for high end items..
    lets say normal s/u are worth 1 point and elite s/u are worth a 100.
    If participant A puts extra effort or gets lucky with normal s/us early in the tourney and ends up with
    extra 50 points compared to participant B; this extra 50 points matter so lil in the end game, that all participant has to focus on is getting just one more elite s/u than participant A.

    on the other hand, if we adjust the point system to reflect the difficulty in which the item was found in, and have
    normal s/u to be worth 10 if and only if they were found in normal;
    participant A would have an extra 500 points over participant B at the end of normal.
    Participant B will now have to sacrifice some of his survivability in higher difficulties to catch back up.

    with a 'relative' score, the chance of hitting a jackpot or two at the end of hell and winning the tourney then and there will become much lower.

    With points readjusted, - and with a record of point at the end of each act - players will then have a choice of adjusting his/her play style to really 'compete' with others. So far, to me at least, the tourney feels closer to 'matke a char and play it through and see how many points you have at the end of it all.'; then 'Oh he's slightly ahead of me, I should swap in some more mf and catch up' OR 'Oh im quite ahead, I can tank up and avoid death penalties.'

    It is really, a discussion for now, but I am already looking forward to Treasure hunting marathon V2.0.

    p.s. barbarian brothers at first. amazon sisters for second? =P
     
  4. ThomasJohnsen

    ThomasJohnsen IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,138
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    179
    I also think that the spreadsheet has been extremely neat and a good and quick way to record data. I can easily see it being resued in many other tourneys with slight modifications.
    It has been really fun also for me to record everything - meaning that every session has given at least some points; maybe only 10 or 20 but play an hour and you will almost allways see a green/gold/rune. This lets me feel that I am progressing continuously.
    I will most definately try any other tourney you start @Azimuthus, provided I can find the time to do so.

    On another note, I agree with Sunset on the death penalty. Maybe even an extra penalty, provided you are unable to recover your body (if you choose to allow that in future tourneys).
     
  5. Gynli

    Gynli IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Wrote all that yesterday night while half asleep, and now that im reading it it seems rather all over the place.

    Let me try and point out things I wanted to emphasize.

    1) runes.
    point per runes - seems to sum up a large chunk of points in the tourney v1.0.
    My suggestion of points per runewords completed seem not align with the whole point of a Treasure Hunt; and would like to retract my earlier statement. I agree that the El found in late Hell should still be useful, even by a small margin. Earlier statement of wanting to remove runes from point system came from the fact one Vex rune found - or not found - seemed to have such a big impact in the score.

    I would like to suggest a slight change to the rune points - from exponential growth to a ?x-type growth; this means, instead of the current increasing point difference between two runes per level, the point difference between super high runes will be minimal.

    2) death penalty.
    I almost wish this was in place in the current tourney. I believe this will add another layer of play style - of risking death with super high mf and low survivability, or playing safe with minimal mf.

    3) randomly assigned S/U per player.
    When I first made the suggestion, I was thinking of having one cell in the main page of the spread sheet for linking it to the number-of-items-found cell of the randomly assigned S/U; and another cell for simple number-of-items-found*bonus -point. However, the spread sheet is of your design and effort, and if it this seems to be a big annoyance, I am fully content w/ or w/o this perk.

    4) faster run of the tourney.
    Tbh, I believe the only difficulty that takes a long time to finish is normal. Once the player has found avg gear with necessary skill points invested, Nightmare and Hell flies by compared to Normal.

    One possible version of this would be to simply free up the restrictions in Normal and let participants speed through it all, and removing Normal - or a portion of Normal - out of the point system. You could, of course, keep Normal untwinked, and allow some wanting players to put in the extra effort early on to have slight edge against other players.

    Some may argue that a tourney should begin from the very possible start of lvl 1, but I believe, because this tourney is a mix of a regular tourney with skill/item restriction AND an MF tourney, a mid-Normal/Nightmare start could fit in quite well.

    This was just my two-cents, thanks =)

    p.s. im glad im a part of tourney discussion ;)
     
  6. Azimuthus

    Azimuthus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    47
    Ok.

    By the way, any ideas about merk?


    This is an interesting proposal btw -) Bow ama will be thrice slower than barb though - but furizon may be okey -)
     
  7. Gynli

    Gynli IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Id want to join that tourney haha.
    With points into valk, I think bowazon could do better than barb, but without a decent tank though, aka no points into valk, things will definitely get much harder.

    in regards to mercs; and if you like that proposal of amazon sisters
    I'd look forward to paladin version of it as well w/ act 3 mercs xD
    act 2 mercs, well... everyone uses them in the first palce.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2015
  8. Azimuthus

    Azimuthus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    47
    The problem is, well, in bows. For good one you need insane runes, and with bad ones your damage will be like "500", while barb's berserk average damage in hell is at least 2000 and non-elemental (no mob resists). That is why it will be slower. Maybe a good idea to combine fury with bow (you don't need to put much into bow skill tree anyway) so do deal somehow with light immunes. Thus, the speed will be good enough. But still I wonder what /pl option to make: 8 for normal, well, okey, 8 for nm - with furyzone its easy yes, but what about hell... need some tests, didnt play furyzone solo for some time..
     
  9. Gynli

    Gynli IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    197
    just had a small thought;
    wouldn't it be cool if we had enough players interested, to run this with all 7 chars in a row,
    and allow item transfers from 1st to the second and so on? xD

    let all 7 chars share the same stash, and eventually the last char will be geared well enough to run higher difficulties in hell =P
     
  10. Azimuthus

    Azimuthus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    47
    You mean 7 different participants? Well, it seems we have only 5 active players in 1st tourney, and even more than that - speed is very different. Again, why share same stash? This is, well, not competitive. And if you mean that each participant should lead 7 chars (all classes) - oow, that will take like eternity to finish the tourney -)

    Though, I have another interesting idea, but not sure it is realistic. There can be some teams of 2 ppl participating, they must play either via b-net or tcp-ip or somehow together. Each team has 1 treasure table, but there is no limit on the class choice - because here we have nice variety of options how to support each other. However, it will always be /pl 2... and another problems is to find time to play together - this is a real obstacle.
     
  11. ThomasJohnsen

    ThomasJohnsen IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,138
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    179
    Has a tourney of runewords ever been tried?
    I was thinking something along the lines of assigning each rune with a rating corresponding to it's level requirement, except Hel which will be assigned a rating of 33. Then each runeword would have a difficulty rating, as decided by the rating of the highest rune appearing in it, and a total rating, as decided by the sum of the ratings of all runes appearing in it. This would yield a score table of something like:

    Code:
    Runeword             Rating     Total      Runes             
    ============================================================
    Steel                13         24         tir+el             
    Nadir                13         26         nef+tir           
    Leaf                 19         32         tir+ral           
    Stealth              17         32         tal+eth           
    Zephyr               21         36         ort+eth           
    Strength             25         38         amn+tir           
    Malice               15         41         ith+el+eth         
    Rhyme                29         44         shael+eth         
    Lore                 27         48         ort+sol           
    Smoke                37         50         nef+lum           
    Splendor             37         52         eth+lum           
    Edge                 25         55         tir+tal+amn       
    Radiance             27         55         nef+sol+ith       
    Ancients' Pledge     21         57         ral+ort+tal       
    Prudence             49         62         mal+tir           
    White                35         66         dol+io             
    King's Grace         25         67         amn+ral+thul       
    Black                35         71         thul+io+nef       
    Myth                 33         71         hel+amn+nef       
    Wind                 61         72         sur+el             
    Holy Thunder         21         72         eth+ral+ort+tal   
    Insight              27         76         ral+tir+tal+sol   
    Peace                29         77         shael+thul+amn     
    Melody               39         81         shael+ko+nef       
    Principle            53         83         ral+gul+eld       
    Rain                 49         85         ort+mal+ith       
    Spirit               25         86         tal+thul+ort+amn   
    Crescent Moon        47         89         shael+um+tir       
    Honor                27         91         amn+el+ith+tir+sol 
    Enlightenment        45         91         pul+ral+sol       
    Harmony              39         94         tir+ith+sol+ko     
    Treachery            43         95         shael+thul+lem     
    Wealth               43         95         lem+ko+tir         
    Venom                49         97         tal+dol+mal       
    Duress               47         99         shael+um+thul     
    Voice of Reason      43         104        lem+ko+el+eld     
    Passion              43         106        dol+ort+eld+lem   
    Lawbringer           43         107        amn+lem+ko         
    Lionheart            41         111        hel+lum+fal       
    Memory               37         114        lum+io+sol+eth     
    Bone                 47         121        sol+um+um         
    Sanctuary            49         127        ko+ko+mal         
    Fortitude            59         128        el+sol+dol+lo     
    Delirium             51         129        lem+ist+io         
    Fury                 65         133        jah+gul+eth       
    Gloom                47         133        fal+um+pul         
    Enigma               65         143        jah+ith+ber       
    Chaos                57         145        fal+ohm+um         
    Dream                65         145        io+jah+pul         
    Dragon               61         147        sur+lo+sol         
    Obedience            41         151        hel+ko+thul+eth+fal
    Bramble              61         152        ral+ohm+sur+eth   
    Grief                59         155        eth+tir+lo+mal+ral 
    Stone                47         158        shael+um+pul+lum   
    Oath                 49         160        shael+pul+mal+lum 
    Heart of the Oak     55         162        ko+vex+pul+thul   
    Rift                 53         168        hel+ko+lem+gul     
    Death                55         173        hel+el+vex+ort+gul 
    Faith                65         176        ohm+jah+lem+eld   
    Ice                  65         178        amn+shael+jah+lo   
    Famine               65         184        fal+ohm+ort+jah   
    Kingslayer           53         190        mal+um+gul+fal     
    Chains of Honor      63         192        dol+um+ber+ist     
    Wrath                63         194        pul+lum+ber+mal   
    Silence              55         194        dol+eld+hel+ist+tir+vex
    Breath of the Dying  69         194        vex+hel+el+eld+zod+eth
    Exile                57         194        vex+ohm+ist+dol   
    Call to Arms         57         201        amn+ral+mal+ist+ohm
    Beast                63         209        ber+tir+um+mal+lum 
    Hand of Justice      67         212        sur+cham+amn+lo   
    Pride                67         222        cham+sur+io+lo     
    Brand                65         226        jah+lo+mal+gul     
    Infinity             63         226        ber+mal+ber+ist   
    Eternity             63         227        amn+ber+ist+sol+sur
    Phoenix              65         234        vex+vex+lo+jah     
    Doom                 67         263        hel+ohm+um+lo+cham 
    Destruction          65         281        vex+lo+ber+jah+ko 
    Last Wish            65         368        jah+mal+jah+sur+jah+ber
    
    Originally I was thinking just assigning as score the total rating of each runeword, but there could be bonuses made for runewords with higher rating; Holy Thunder for example is somwhat easier to make than Wind, even though they have the same overall rating totally.
    One could also apply bonuses for the base in which a runeword was made (ie. eth/non-eth, superior/non-superior, staffmodded/non-staffmodded, normal/exceptional/elite, etc.), and/or apply bonuses for runewords completed in normal (high bonus) and nightmare (lower bonus).
    Or there could be bonuses for the number of different runewords made.
    There could also be additional bonuses for making non-existing runewords spelling something like a boss (Mephy = MalElPulHelIo for example or Andy = AmnNefDolIo etc.).

    The advantage of this setup is that the rules could be very simple. Any char, any merc, any player setting etc. It would be all about gathering runes and bases during a single-pass and trying to use and/or cube them as efficiently as possible. One simply posted screenshots of the runewords made and kept an updated score.
    But maybe the lack of low-level runewords and the relative rarity of bases and runes (well higher runes that is) makes this too difficult - just wanted to air the idea.

    Thomas
     
  12. Azimuthus

    Azimuthus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    47
    Well, there are 4 things I see as minuses in such kind of scheme.

    1) (this one I mentioned above) --> player will try to use all runes he find, even though they can be very useful later (so he will regret and have this annoying dilemma - either to use them or keep them or cube them).

    2) It is very complicated to decide what exactly and when exactly to make to get the best score (and again, there will be a frustration if later you realise that you could have used runes earlier to get better score).

    3) This is hard to make such complicated formulas in the spreadsheet itself. Maybe some talented programmer could do it easily, but I'm not a programmer and for me this is a hard task indeed. Easiest variant - just to count each completed runeword as 1 uniq item with a definite score, but in this case rune score should be eliminated, otherwise we get double-counting. Well, this is okey with sets, but looks not so good when you start spamming "Ancient's Pledges" ... ))

    4) Generally, as I see it, people will get ~same ammount of particular runes, so hardly there will be any surprises. Things will go in somewhat predictable way - unlike uniqs finding, where you can't be sure at all which item you will find (well, apart from some low lvl greens as hated cathan seals _)))
     
  13. ThomasJohnsen

    ThomasJohnsen IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,138
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    179
    Yeah all points are valid.
    Points 1-2 is what makes this type of tourney interesting imo though. The strategy of determining when to use/cube/save runes will make/break the score, and the player with the best foresight of what might drop later vs. what can I safely use now will most likely come out on top.
    Points 3 is true. Such a tourney cannot rely on a spreadsheet. It must have it's own point system.
    And point 4 is what makes this kind of tourney a possibly bad idea imo. The fact that most players will have almost identical runewords/collections, and the decider will be the one lucky drop.

    So while I agree with you on all 4 points, #4 is the only one that makes me consider this a bad idea.
     
  14. Azimuthus

    Azimuthus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    47
    -) This will turn it into some version of "chess game" ))) Not so much playing, but thinking, analyzing, calculating )

    By the way, I tried to offer using my table in MF-tourney-discussion thread on d2jsp forum (similar to this our topic), but they deleted my post -( However, I also wrote that if their tourney will not be held (it seems it won't as a host said), people who want to play can PM me. Will see, maybe we'll get a bit more participants in the 2nd marathon (or maybe even in the current one, since it is still opened). Also, I think I should add a rule that if a person is inactive for 1 week, he gets "inactive" status and so when the last active participant finishes, all inactive players automatically finish as well with their current score. Otherwise a tourney can last for months )
     
  15. ThomasJohnsen

    ThomasJohnsen IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,138
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    179
    Well that was what was appealing to me. Result not so much determined by hours spent, luck of drops or other random factors, rather on skillful and thoughtful use of the resources found. Or at least that was the idea - but as you point out, the outcome might be determined by a small margin after all and depend upon a single lucky drop. But I don't see any way around lucky drops affecting outcome of such tourneys without some complicated formulae or rules that ~eliminate some of the best and worst drops and pretty much give each player an average score. And that is not a direction, I think a tourney should take.
    I really liked the spreadsheet because it allowed for very simple rules and a transparent and graphical scoring system, that was both easy to use and understand and made even low greens/uniques/runes count. I will gladly try out any tournament based around (a version) of it, provided I have some free time to do so. Whichever way you decide to implement it.
    Though d2jsp is not exactly my cup of tea.
     
  16. Azimuthus

    Azimuthus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    47
    Thanks -) I've already updated it to ver 2.0 which now includes death penalty and score-per-act table (yes, that was a nice proposal). Also changed a bit the number of points for normal/excep/elite uniqs in such a way that getting excep. uniq will always bring a bit more points than any normal uniq, and elite uniq will bring more than exceptional version. However still not sure about the rank-score system - it seems it needs to be reworked again if the information SunsetVista gave is correct. The best thing, ofc, is to make a test-run to see score efficiency on /pl 8, but well, this will take some time...

    Why is that?
    I don't mean I will host tourney over there, no ofc. But maybe members or just readers from that forum will join marathon over here (but something tells me they will delete even my 2nd post )))
     
  17. ThomasJohnsen

    ThomasJohnsen IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,138
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    179
    In my experience (limited though as it may be) jsp is a site that allows behaviour in the memberbase, that I consider damaging to the dii community. For me it is a site that is at the root of all that has corrupted this great game; the bnet experience anyway. But granted that is a biased opinion formed by a few online encounters with players utilizing that particular site.
    Personally I would prefer a tournament with a few players from this site over a much larger tournament with participants from both sites. The members here are nice, helpful and adhere to the same gaming principles as myself; at least some of the members on jsp does not.
     
  18. Azimuthus

    Azimuthus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    47
    Ah I see, thanks for clarification.
    Anyway, I still received no msgs from there.
     
  19. Azimuthus

    Azimuthus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    47
    How do you think - what variant is better for such MF marathon:
    1) Faster speed and less Challenge
    2) Medium speed and some Challenge
    3) Slow speed and a lot of Challenge

    ?
     
  20. ThomasJohnsen

    ThomasJohnsen IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,138
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    179
    I'm leaning more towards 1 or 2; fast results are allways nice, and I prefer it if ~all participants complete the tournament.
    I consider your current tournament a ~2 and the current S/U-lover tourney a ~2.5 to give you some clue.
    A 1 in my opinion would be a free character-choice and a pretty lax gear-restriction.

    Which do you prefer?
     

Share This Page