Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: TheJaylor on May 29, 2019, 01:54:08 AM

I don't know if anyone else out there is really putting enough effort into prepping for Teams to make not playing T1 worth it, but at least a few people have noted that they still want to play three categories regardless.

I am.  I voted for option 2 because I will be playing Teams no matter what.

Whos your team mate

If I'm understanding your suggestion correctly, your amended schedule is this:

Friday: T12P and T2MP
Saturday (morning/early afternoon): T12P Top Cut, T1Multi, Sealed
Saturday (late afternoon/evening): Teams

I'm sure that some Teams players would be happy to sit out and watch Top Cut, but I would also assume that most won't, and would rather play one of the other events while waiting for Teams. While I'm all for Sealed getting more participation, this would lead to a late event, on the last day of the tournament, after many players had already participated in an event that day. Do you think everyone's going to play to their best under those circumstances?

If my comment brought offense, I apologize. Perhaps I should have phrased my concern more gently. That said, given Gabe's comment, I don't think everyone agrees with your Hannah Montana quote.

The only category I could ever envision being played at night would be T2 MP...because all of us who actually play it are crazy like that anyway...

I'm sure John would be willing to judge as long as one player was using an ANB deck...

 

I'm sure we can make that happen!   

Quote from: The Guardian on May 29, 2019, 01:27:10 PM

The only category I could ever envision being played at night would be T2 MP...because all of us who actually play it are crazy like that anyway...

I'm sure John would be willing to judge as long as one player was using an ANB deck...

 

Nope, I'd rather play instead of judging.

FTFY 

John will have a mobile toddler and a newborn by Nationals. Sleep may never be at a higher premium for him. 

Is Type A being offered this year?

While the poll had a lot fewer people vote on it than I think we would have liked the typical one day top cut had more votes than all the others combined, so that is what we will go with.  Do people have a preference on how many people should be in the top cut?

My suggestion:

<40 -- Top Cut of 4

40-120 -- Top Cut of 8

>120 -- Top Cut of 16


That way most years will be Top Cut of 8 (which overall seems to have worked well), but would allow for some adjustment in years where we have a much lower or much higher turnout. (Incidentally, the record for T1 2P is 123 in 2005).

While I kind of like Josiah's idea for a bye, I think it's too narrow of a range. One thing that might be interesting to consider for future years is that if there is a player who is undefeated--with no ties or time out wins--going into Top Cut, we do a Top Cut of 7 with that person getting a bye in round 1.

I love that I've been allowed to do it.  Our leadership both all the way from Rob down has been super cool about all of this.  I know other games have leaders that want to make all of the decisions and not give anyone a choice.  While I have run everything by them before I ever put it in the public, there have been zero responses that tell me I HAD to do that, which is awesome!  So for those people who get frustrated because a ruling doesn't make sense, or they simply don't like it, know that we honestly do have leadership who listens and cares about people's thoughts and feelings.

@thread remember people have been very hurt in the past when they actually should have cut and did not. The smaller the cut the more you punish unique decks or reward meta decks.

By "should have cut and did not" are you referring to people who missed out on Top Cut by LS differential?
That does make sense to me--for example, someone could narrowly lose their first two games, but then end up playing less challenging opponents for the final 5 games and produce a very high LS differential. Meanwhile, another player could win their first five games by more moderate scores, but then lose their final two games against top players also competing for Top Cut and end up with a LS differential that is not very high. The first person might then make Top Cut over the second person because of the LS differential even though the second person likely played a much more difficult line-up of players but still got just as many wins as the first player.

To that end, I'm not advocating for strength of schedule to be incorporated into the determination of who makes Top Cut, but perhaps something along the lines of golf tournaments (i.e. anyone with X number of points or higher makes Top Cut).  For example, last year John was in 8th place going into top cut and was .5 points ahead of 3 other players so cutting at 8 made sense. If there had been another player tied with John, then we could have kept the cut point the same, but John and that other player would have done a "play-in" game essentially to get down to a final 8.

In 2017, there were 10 players with 15 or more points after round 7 (plus 3 more people with 14 points) so the cut could have been 10 or 13 (had we done top cut).

In 2016, 2 players with 15 points made top cut and 3 did not. What we could have done was make 15 points the cut number (giving us initially 11 players in top cut) and then do a "bye round" of 6v11, 7v10 and 8v9 (with 1-5 getting a bye) to get down to the final 8.

In 2015, 5 players with 15 points made top cut and 2 did not (with 1 missing by a single LS). We could have done a top 10 cut, with 7v10 and 8v9 playing the "bye round" to get down to 8.

In 2014, 4 players with 15 points made it and 4 did not. Top 12 cut means top 4 get byes (which makes even more sense with 8 players at 15 and 4 with more than 15) and we end up with 8 players after the Top Cut "bye round."

In 2013 (first year of top cut), 8 players had 15 points or more (with 9th place only having 13) so a Top 8 cut worked with no one losing out on LS differential and no "bye round" needed.

EDIT* -- added numbers from 2013 and 2017.

Every example Justin used was awesome. Each example he stated logically what should have happened and the benefits of it. Why not quit doing this over and over and make the decision based on the number of potential participants for top cut. Odd number gives bye round, even everyone plays but that would exclude people who had the same amount of points but differential (sometimes based on opponents) could exclude them. So the actual decision would be done after the initial Swiss rounds based on scores to determine a fair number. Pretty much the same time frame, maybe a game more or less depending on total participation. Obviously there’s no reason to top cut 12 if only 30 people play t1.

A more serious suggestion here...

I think Justin has it right. Just state up front that any player with 2 losses or fewer in Swiss (X-2) will make the cut. That lets every player know exactly what they need and no tie-breaker would needed.

There is a (less than ) 0% chance that you will have more than 16 players will meet this criteria, so one additional play-in round for the lowest-ranked players may be necessary. 

I think it still needs to be based on points due to ties and time-out games where players can get partial points.

You can do points if you want (although X-2 or better just sounds more prestigious ). I just wanted to agree with your contention that having a fixed criterion up front is a great idea.