Cactus Game Design Message Boards

But two losses shouldn't eliminate the chances of a person making cut. That's how it is in other CCGs an how it should be in this one. It's a fairer system.

1.  Alec, could you please initiate a new thread exclusively for the audio-visual strategy plan at Nats?  I did a crude version of it at Nats2010 and would love to get all the suggestions materialize.  I will be excited to feature the top rounds and especially the final round on streaming video.  Thus, please see if you can excite some volunteers to share their time, talent, and equipment to realize this plan.  I am certain that the idea of a head or ear mount camera for each of the top players would truly highlight their game.  Other ideas abound.  That being said, I want to see you at Nats for sure, son!  BTW, I will make sure that there will be high speed wired and wireless Internet at Nats2013.

Alec, Westy, and myself can handle this as necessary I think. I talked with Alec a bit about it today and it seems promising. I will let you know more details of the specifics of what I'd like to see happen later.

2,  Not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet:  Your thinktank team's top cut finalized formula must ensure the least problems given to Mr. Bany as he manages the scoring system.  Not sure how it will affect timing, but remember that the Excel scoring instrument is used.  How will that spreadsheet be utilized as soon as top cut kicks in?  Do we manualize scores on a whiteboard or be able to continue using the spreadsheet?  The team must include this aspect in your strategy and decision-making process.  Should top cut materialize, Mr. Bany must be thoroughly briefed.  Better yet, those involved in the implementation must be ready to assist in the scoring process as best as possible.

Assuming swiss is over after about 7 rounds (seems normal), I'd think we just use a whiteboard etc bracket to show the rounds. That won't really be a big deal. Once we get into the top cut, keeping track of the tournament with excel will be unnecessary.

I never said it was a rule. X-2s should at the least get a chance at top cut.

The bigger the top cut without being unreasonable the more accurate the results imo.

It's quite possible that we'll actually end up with a 6 round 8 person cut at New York. The last two non-MN nationals have floated right above 64 people for T1-2P.

Been off the boards for awhile, so I have a question: is top cut going to be the T12P event, or a separate event? I've been leaning toward getting out of T12P for some time, and this would probably help me make that decision.

T12P. Really sad that people aren't even willing to give this a chance.

Actually I really like having 10 rounds of T1-2p.  If I'm going to drive for 12 hours to go to a tournament, then I want to play enough games to feel like it was worth the trip.  The more rounds the better for me

Quote from: DDiceRC on March 28, 2013, 03:36:23 PM

Been off the boards for awhile, so I have a question: is top cut going to be the T12P event, or a separate event? I've been leaning toward getting out of T12P for some time, and this would probably help me make that decision.

T12P. Really sad that people aren't even willing to give this a chance.

It's not top cut that turned me off from T12P. Since I already am pretty much done with the format, though, playing a top cut format just changes the vibe of the tournament enough that I probably wouldn't throw together a deck just to play for fun. I feel that I'd be in the way of the competitive players-just an easy win-and I'd rather try something I can at least be competitive in, even if I'm not a top player.

Hey,

The bigger the top cut without being unreasonable the more accurate the results imo.

What do you mean by accurate?  While I value top players playing against other top players to determine who the winner of the tournament is, I still feel it is significant that a player had a playstyle/deck combination that can do well against the entire tournament field.  I think making the top cut in and of itself should be an accomplishment and a 16 player top cut really hurts that (given the size of fields that are viable for Redemption).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Top 16 sounds like overkill to me, but I guess that depends on the total size of the participation in the event. I could see needing to do the top 16 if there were 100+.

Last I knew MTG used top 8. What do other CCGs do for their top cut?

I think that the larger you make the viable field for the top cut without diluting it into players who performed poorly, the better chance you find the best player in the field (to control for some of the swiss luck).

Keeping in mind you're looking for the best player in a tournament field, if a player goes 4-2 in the first six rounds of a tournament with a big field, in my book that's performing poorly.

"Swiss luck."  Are you saying there's more luck involved in making the top 8 after seven rounds than there is in winning three games of single elimination in a row to go through the top cut and finish first?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Keeping in mind you're looking for the best player in a tournament field, if a player goes 4-2 in the first six rounds of a tournament with a big field, in my book that's performing poorly.

"Swiss luck."  Are you saying there's more luck involved in making the top 8 after seven rounds than there is in winning three games of single elimination in a row to go through the top cut and finish first?

I think the emphasis here is on single elimination. The benefit that Pokemon has over Redemption is that games are short enough where they can do a best 2 of 3 in top cut. So while Mike Newman went 5-2 at KY state, he certainly deserved to win it after a Top 16 because of 2 of 3 rule. In Redemption, that won't really follow. Additionally, Redemption doesn't have as popularized of decks. At a Pokemon tournament, 75+ percent of the field will be using top tier decks. At Nats, it's...considerably less...so the good players with good decks should be able to make it in...in theory.

As far the actual Swiss Luck bit, yes, there's a lot of luck in the game period, but generally in swiss it's not about good luck, it's bad luck. You can get paired up with a tough opponent round 1 (like Gabe/Earley in 2011), lose, and then have to go undefeated after 6 more rounds, potentially playing another difficult opponent who did the same thing. If you lose twice, you'll likely have an easy run after that, but it was still very unfortunate that you had to play people that normally would make top cut round 1.
Meanwhile there's somebody that makes it through 3 rounds without playing difficult opponents, gets lucky one or two rounds, loses one, and gets an easy round or two after they lose, slipping into the top cut. Definitely a huge amount of luck involved with the pairings there. Seems fishy? John Earley got second last year, playing 4 people in the top 10 (close enough to top . Martin Miller played 8 people in the top 10. If that's after 10 rounds, I can only imagine what it'd be like after 7 rounds. More rounds means less luck, right? Top 16 forces another round against a good opponent. The people who had the easy run will be weeded out, while the people who fought tooth and nail to make it will be able to keep fighting.

So, pros and cons. Maybe a compromise can be reached. Top 12 with the top 4 getting byes? I truly believe that a more inclusive top cut is better. It allows for some bad luck while also forcing solid play within the top cut by adding an extra round. I'm not sure how I feel about 8 cut with double elim. That actually works pretty well, but I feel top 8 is pretty exclusive.