Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I have struggled a little bit whether to start this topic now or when I get back in a week from my mission trip.  (I leave very VERY soon!) I decided to start the discussion and I will chime in later when I get back.

I SERIOUSLY disagree with the rules dealing with late-comers at tournaments.  MY PoV is that if I'm considerably late then I don't count on playing in those categories.  In my wildest dreams, I never imagined that I would get rewarded for showing late.
   For those of you who don't know...the following is the current rule set.
             1st round you're late:  you get  a WIN and 3 POINTS!
             2nd round you're late:  you get a WIN and 2 points!
             3rd round you're late: you get a WIN and 1 point!
     So depending on the category:  you can show up as late as 4 1/2 hours late and still be undefeated and in the position to win first place by playing only 1 GAME!   

I have issue with the fairness of this...I might have said too much at the last tournament I attended and for that I apologize to those it concerns.  But here is my story....
    We had an odd number in our category and one player was forced a bye.  I pour blood, sweat, and tears to wriggle out a tie trying to recover from a bad starting draw and superb playing by my opponent.  Only to find out, a late comer gets more points than me along with the other person who was forced in a bye and sat bored for an hour and a half!  I ended up playing the late comer and was ahead when time ran out....i.e.  I won.  And low and behold the late comer still was a ahead of me!  I was dumbfounded...1 game and they were in 2nd!  The final round I won and needed the late comer to lose just to have a chance.  I take serious issue with this but it doesn't even compare to my wife's story.
   Wife's story:  She was in a faster category.  At least three late comers (but I think 4), entered 2 rounds late and immediately have a 4 way tie for 2nd!  2nd!  They leapfrogged 4 people just by showing up late!  Can you believe that? 

Now before we get too much farther, I must say that I hold no ill will for the late comers because they had a VERY valid reason for their late attending.  I am just bringing into question the current rule set.

I'm about solutions, not trouble stirring.  So here are my solutions (in the next post to keep from extending this one:)

One other thing to toss into the mix...

If a player is given a bye outside their control, they shouldn't be punished for it in a tie-breaking situation.

I played in a tournament once where by the luck of the draw I was given the first round bye. Despite having a higher average lost soul differential in games played, I lost a tie breaker because I had a 0 differential in the first round.

I agree that the system may need to be changed. I have always thought it was unusual and unfair, but since I was new to the scene I just let it go. Some people may indeed have valid reasons, but if their decks are untested, then awarding points seems presumptuous.

Solution 3 seems most fair, although I prefer Solution 1.

I completely agree that it needs to be changed.  At the last tournament I hosted (which was my first ), there was some one who came in two rounds late and almost came in second (I'm glad that he didn't).  I think that for locals (and maybe district (which will only be the ones that I can host (considering I'm in the same state as Bryon, I seriously doubt I'll host State/Regionals ))), the lost soul count doesn't matter as much.  What I was thinking is that for the first round that they are late, go ahead and give them 3 points and -5 LS.  Anytime after that, it should be 0 points and 0 lost souls.

As with bye's, besides the first round bye, isn't the rest of the byes the last place player?  So it probably won't matter too much what they get (unless it's a small turn out).  Maybe there could be a different set of points for the person who gets a bye the first round.

This is a complicated situation and I understand the frustrations on both sides.  I feel like the current situation encourages people to come to tournaments and play, even if they are going to be late, which is a good thing.  The best players will come on time, because there would be almost no way to win a category with a LS differential of 0 in your first game.  The latecomers may have a better chance at 2nd or 3rd place, but only if they win out once they are there.  For instance, in the tournament Soul Seeker was talking about there were 6 latecomers and only 1 of them placed at all, and it was 3rd place in a Closed Deck category.

Another thing to consider is timing of a tournament.  Again, looking at the timing of Soul Seeker's tournament, it was a Regional tournament and started at 6pm on Friday.  I happen to know that there were 14 people who pre-registered for that tournament, and almost half of them were coming straight from summer school (4pm) and lived 3 hours away.  When half of your expected turnout for a tournament can't possibly get there until 7pm, starting at 6pm isn't really good planning.  For that matter starting any 2-day regional tournament that early is probably not good planning.  Large tournaments like that are going to have people traveling greater distances.  And as a 2-day event, people can spend the night anyway so that it doesn't really matter how late it goes.

I think that the current rules encourage hosts to have tournaments at times when the most number of players can make it.  If the rules changed to severely penalize latecomers, then it will encourage hosts to have tournaments at odd times so that only their local group could be on time, giving them more of a chance.  And it will encourage people who are traveling to not bother attending the tournament at all because they won't have a chance.  I think we should keep the rules the way that they are, and if I'm at a tournament on time, then I'll just try to win my first game or two so that I'll be ahead of anyone who comes in late.  If I lose my game/s, then I had a chance, and I'll deal with the results.

I think leaving early = instant DQ.
I think arriving more than one round late = instant DQ.

I can't think of any other tournament system where you are allowed to even participate if you miss more than a round.  Why should Redemption allow a player to PLACE at an event if you miss two entire rounds of play?

I was unaware that the points for a bye were 3(+3), then 3(+2), etc.  That is way too generous.  I use 3(+0), and only allow one bye per event.  It seems to work just fine.

Hmmm..... this seems to shed a more negative light on the host than the players.

I do not mean to malign any host, and particularly the one in the tournament being discussed.  Travis is an absolutely wonderful host, as is Matt who helped out with many of the duties due to Travis being called to assist in a wedding at the last moment.  I do not think for one moment that Travis would intentionally pick a start time to make it more difficult for people to play.  I am merely pointing out the possibility for hosts to abuse a system like Soul Seeker is presenting, and I don't think that it is good to go in that direction.  But I want to be clear that I am not attacking my friend Travis.

I repeat that you aren't going to win a tournament if you show up late.  So knowledgeable players won't do it on purpose.

I think you underestimate the underhandedness that could be attempted. Not everyone that enters a tournament is trying to win. Sometimes they want their sibling or really-good-friend to win. There are ways to manipulate the system that the current method affords.

I always did 3(-3), 2(-2), 1(-1), 0(0), etc.... but like everyone else said, it has apparently changed.
This worked well for larger tournaments with more rounds, but I agree that especially in smaller tournaments with only 3 or 4 rounds, if you miss the first 1 or 2 rounds, you can come in, win 2 games and place, if not take first.
But, I agree that something does need to be modified.

Eric "byes ftw?" Largent

I find this whole discussion funny because Soul Seeker came in second in the category that he is complaining about.  I think I have the better argument that all major tournaments should be round robin if feasable because I had to play a competitor that Soul Seeker didnt have to play.  The winner went undefeated and beat me, while SOul Seeker tied, timed out winning and won to edge me out by .5 points while never playing the eventual winner of the tournament.

And the person who came in late placed 5th out of 6th so this whole argument is based on what "Might" happen not necessarially on what is most probable or likely to happen.


As far as the suggestions go, I think Bryons sugession of having only one round as a bye could work but even that woudn't be applicable for this argument because the person was only late for one round.  It WOULD have made a much bigger impact on everyone else that came with him because they showed up 2 rounds late for sealed deck and of all of them, only one of them placed and he placed third.  THe top two places were held by people who had played for all the rounds.


I also like guardians Idea.  Starting the late comers at 2-1-0 might help from eliminating them from the competition while not rewarding them for showing up late.  I think keeping the LS differental at 0 is fine but I also like the idea of giving those who have to take a bye due to an uneven number of players at least a + 1 LS differential, if not a +2.  it is not their fault that they had to take the bye and a positive LS differential would have been what they would have had if they had played and won anyway.

Number one (since your a math guy) - Show me a father-son combo in the game where the father "lets" the son win in a tournament.

You want me to name names?!?! 

Actually, I was trying to think of an example that demonstrated love (albeit misguided). My experiences have been friends allowing wins between friends.

Number two - Tournaments are only full of equal players at low levels like locals and districts.  If you are at a state, regional, or national tournament, then there will always be players who are a lot better than other players.

This would seem to encourage the players on the lower tier to try to manipulate the system, since there is no way they can beat Tim Mierz.

This hypothetical situation is extremely unlikely at any large tournament, and I don't really care if someone pulls this off and gets 1 RNRS point for coming in 2nd at a local tournament. 

I was just providing a counterexample. Are you suggesting that your scenario is more likely at the State, Regional, or National Level? I think we should be more guarded about the lowlifes that we let host those events, then. 

Of course, if it is a problem at the lower levels, it is still a problem. Mini-hosts like me still have to deal with this dilemma.

I understand that you are speaking from your experience as someone who has purposefully not gone to many large tournaments, but I am speaking from my experience as someone who has gone to a bunch.

I appreciate your experience at the higher levels, since I indeed have no such experience.

Are you suggesting that your scenario is more likely at the State, Regional, or National Level? I think we should be more guarded about the lowlifes that we let host those events, then. 

This is a good point.  I think the current system could be abused by lower level players in order to place 2nd or 3rd in a tournament.  Changing the system to further penalize latecomers could be abused by hosts of larger tournaments.  However, I really don't find either one of these scenarios to be very likely at all.  (despite Gabe's one example)

The one thing that I do think would be likely is that players would just skip tournaments that they couldn't get to on time if we change the system.  So for that reason more than anything else, I think that keeping the current scoring is best for encouraging fun and fellowship.

Ha, Better than him beating you with his sisters deck..... Oh wait.. I did lose to that deck at MN State.