Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I certainly hope so, as I will be at a different world championship that very same weekend. I would love to know what is going on.

The event coverage for the top cut 'feature match' doesn't even have to be done with Youtube if you don't want to get that complex...just a simple write up by a colorful commentator here in a thread of the exciting moments during the match, turning points, powerplays, etc would be more than worth reading.

Lp just volunteered. PROJECT STREAM FINAL MATCH A-GO-GO.

Really though, this could be done. I'll get on some research to what level of tech we would need to de certain things like live streaming it both in the church and maybe to the general public as well.

Most important step right now would be to make sure the church has internet. We can stream internally without it but not externally.

Or just go play MTG if that the game you really wish you were playing. 

You got me on that one. I play both Redemption and MtG. There are definitely aspects of that game I think would benefit ours. For instance, mulligans, best 2 out of 3's, an actual removed from the game zone (and ways to target it), sideboards (only to an extent), ect.

We could even set up a watching room for players that are eliminated from Top Cut to see a feature match each round of Top Cut. That way they can see several rounds of high level play; learning some things and having fellowship while doing it. I for one would love to watch it, especially if there were some particularly talented color commentators talking about the plays and strategies as the game is happening.

I would love to do this. Can I get some sponsership (aka 360 dollars so far) to make the event?

Hey,

I suppose someone could modify the Excel spreadsheet to account for strength of schedule, but then a player really is punished for losing early and having to make up ground among weaker opponents; but how is that fair for top players who get matched up early?

A player that loses early will have a weaker strength of schedule but should have a stronger lost soul differential.  A player that gets matched up against someone good early should have a weaker differential but will have a better strength of schedule.  If we can find the right way to combine the two we should theoretically have a tiebreaker that is unaffected by the randomness of pairings.

Let's say I'm undefeated going into Top Cut and I get the top seed. I play someone who lost a couple games (perhaps due to poor luck or poor draw) and ended up with the bottom seed. We play and I end up getting a poor draw, he has LS drought and I end up losing. So at that point I'm out of the tournament because I happened to get a poor draw at the wrong time?

This is why I feel it is very important that the top cut be run double elimination.  Double elimination is kinda the compromise between best of three (which people seem to want but we simply don't have time for) and single elimination (which allows for no recourse in the case of a bad draw).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey,

Double elimination is even more time prohibitive

More time prohibitive than best of three?  Definitely not.  Double elimination adds one or two rounds to the number of rounds needed for the elimination bracket.  Best of three adds one or two rounds to each round of the elimination bracket.

A 7 round swiss with a top 8 cut tournament would take 0-45 minutes longer than the current standard of a 10 round swiss tournament.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey,

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on March 26, 2013, 03:54:45 PM

Double elimination is even more time prohibitive

More time prohibitive than best of three?  Definitely not.  Double elimination adds one or two rounds to the number of rounds needed for the elimination bracket.  Best of three adds one or two rounds to each round of the elimination bracket.

A 7 round swiss with a top 8 cut tournament would take 0-45 minutes longer than the current standard of a 10 round swiss tournament.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

It adds more time because you have to do more matches. Sitting down at a table and playing 3 games in a row you can just start one after the other, game ends next game begins. In double elimination you have to wait for everyone to be done and then redo matchups. The number of games are fewer but the actual time take is greater.

Hey,

Alex, I think the size of top cuts you suggested is a little bloated.  The number of swiss rounds and the size of the top cut should insure any player with 1 or less loss at the end of swiss style gets into the top cut (while keeping the top cut as small as possible to minimize the time it takes), and should keep most of the rounds in the swiss portion of the event.  Also the closer the cut off is to the break between point groupings the better (so that who gets into the top cut is more likely to be determined by wins and losses and not differential).

I'd suggest the following numbers:

24-32 Players - 5 Rounds Required (6 Rounds Preferred)
33-48 Players - 6 Rounds Required
49-64 Players - 6 Rounds Required (7 Rounds Preferred)
65-96 Players - 7 Rounds Required
97-128 Players - 7 Rounds Required (8 Rounds Preferred)
129-192 Players - 8 Rounds Required
193-256 Players - 8 Rounds Required (9 Rounds Preferred)

24-32 Players - 4 Players in the Top Cut
33-128 Players - 8 Players in the Top Cut
129-256 Players - 16 Players in the Top Cut

Top Cut doesn't really work all that well unless the field is fairly large, so the numbers are a little odd for less than 64 players.  The Top 8 dividing line works out very well mathematically, so I might even prefer requiring an extra round of swiss for 129+ players and keeping the top cut at 8, but since it's unlikely we'll be seeing many tournaments that large it's not a very important issue.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey,

It adds more time because you have to do more matches. Sitting down at a table and playing 3 games in a row you can just start one after the other, game ends next game begins. In double elimination you have to wait for everyone to be done and then redo matchups. The number of games are fewer but the actual time take is greater.

Scheduling is largely based on worst case scenario.  Worst case scenario for double elimination with eight players is 225 minutes of game play.  Worst case scenario for best of three with eight players is 405 minutes.  Even if you're not looking at that, the winner of the tournament will play 4 or 5 games in a double elimination bracket.  The winner of the tournament will play 6 to 9 games in a best of three bracket.  In best of three you're playing 50% more games in sequence.  That's not going to be faster.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Losing twice shouldn't eliminate you from placing. It didnt at nationals.

I had a big long post basically talking about how tough Martin's schedule has been the past two years, but then my internet gave out. Basically I said X-96 should be top 8, while after that should be top 16, which will only effect MN nationals.