1st TOC Heek Tournament

[Opa]

I give you one more day to sign up. If you want to participate, leave a comment during the next 24h!

Opa

[Alien]

This is going to sound like sore loser talk, but really it isn't.
4 on 4 sudden death to produce two winners is not fair.
Let me explain:
4 players pick 3 colours. 2 pick blue, one picks red and one picks green.
Blue loses because it doesn't beat one red. Red loses because it doesn't beat one green. Green wins because it beats TWO blue.

The winners were pure luck.

in 1 vs 1 however, I can play tactically.
in 4 on 4 I can't.

So this "sore loser" won't be participating in any more competitions.

[Opa]

Congratulations to Ehren who won the Tournament. You will get your prize within the next week. Thanks to all for participating.

EDIT: For explanation: I think Heek is most funny if you play it with more than 2 players, cause it's not only stone, paper, scissors. It was also 5 games of 4v4 sudden death. I say it before the Tournament began and noone said something against. I'am a human, not a computer. You can talk to me and say me if you don't like the spontaneously changes in the rules if some player who signed up doesn't appear (I don't want to say it's your fault Nicole. I know how it is, if there an important date or something like that). And it's not my problem if you don't participate the next events. It would only be sad that not so much players are participating, cause we will get problems to reach the minimum playerlimit.

Opa

[Ehren]

Blue loses because it doesn't beat one red. Red loses because it doesn't beat one green. Green wins because it beats TWO blue.

It sounds like you don't like how Cyan made heek work with lots of people? Doesn't it make sense the one who beats two would win the point? But do you honestly think you suddenly can't use strategy with 4 vs 4 just as much as you can with 1 vs 1? Granted, luck is a huge part of heek, but I disagree that the 4 player setup was anymore pure luck than ANY heek arrangement in general.

[Alien]

If I try to explain it further, I'll just sound like a sore loser.

[McBeam]

hey i would liked to have made it but got here too late

[Cpt-Jericho]

4 players pick 3 colours. 2 pick blue, one picks red and one picks green.
Blue loses because it doesn't beat one red. Red loses because it doesn't beat one green. Green wins because it beats TWO blue.

There is not only a scoring system that counts the won rounds (i.e. lights) in order to find a winner of the game. There also one that counts the scoring inside an individual round.

In this case it looks like this:

2 Blues have to share one Red - each Blue scores only half on that. (each player gets 0.5 points)
1 Red takes out 1 Green - Red scores full. (player gets 1 point)
1 Green takes out 2 Blue - Blue scores double. (player gets 2 points)

So, Green wins because it has the highest score of that round.
And because a strategy that works on 1vs1 doesn't work on a 1vs1vs1 game doesn't mean there are no strategies for larger groups.