Cactus Game Design Message Boards

**** I Need a Consensus Judgement ****

Given (final scores after 5 rounds):
Player A  Score=12 LS Diff=8
Player B  Score=12 LS Diff=8
Player C  Score=12 LS Diff=7
Player D  Score=12 LS Diff=5
Player E  Score=12 LS Diff=4

Players D and E are the only players who have not lost to someone else in the top 5.

QUESTION:  Who is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

****Quoted from Tournament Guide:***
Determining the Winner: The winner is the player with the highest game score after the last round. If two or more players are tied for 1st place in game score, rank as lower any who lost a head to head match with a player tied for 1st. If the players did not face each other, then the Lost Soul Score is examined. The player with the highest Lost Soul Score is the Winner.

Example: Tim finished with a Game Score of 12 and a Lost Soul Score of 15. Mike finished with a Game Score of 12 and a Lost Soul Score of 16. Yet, Tim defeated Mike in their head to head match. Therefore Tim is the winner. If Tim and Mike had not played each other then Mike would be declared the winner. Otherwise, if the players tied in both game score and Lost Soul Score and did not face each other they are co-champs and split the Ranking Points and prizes for the current and next place finish.

If player A & B played, then the winner of their game would be first.  If they didn't play then it would be a tie for first, or if you have time they could play each other.  Then I guess it would be in order below that, C then D then E unless C lost to both D & E, then if D & E played it would determine their order.

I agree with Chris and Chris as far as determining First place goes.

However, if they didn't play, you can't add a round for them to play per the tournament guide.

No extra round was played nor will be played for a tie breaker.

Facts:
1.  Player A lost to Player D.
2.  Player B lost to Player C.
3.  Player C lost to Player A.

Need more inputs and your own 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th placer individual judgments, please.

Did any of the top 5 lose to E? Why is E 5th? Otherwise I agree with Chris's rankings

Player E never played A,B, or C, nor D.  And to rehash Player D's situation, Player D won against Player A.

Quote from: Chris on June 23, 2012, 05:42:52 PM

Quote from: ReyZen on June 23, 2012, 05:40:25 PM

No extra round was played nor will be played for a tie breaker.

Facts:
1.  Player A lost to Player D.
2.  Player B lost to Player C.
3.  Player C lost to Player A.

Need more inputs and your own 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th placer individual judgments, please.

In this case, I would do it like this:

1. Player D
2. Player A
3. Player C
4. Player B
5. Player E

If all the games between top-5players are listed in the "facts", then I agree with the above.

Same here.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Can someone explain why they are placing D first?

I thought the tie-breaker rules were...

1) If *all* players tied for a position have played each other, then head-to head is used.

2) If *all* players did not play each other or the head to head were not indisputable than lost soul differential is the sole (ha!) deteminant.

That would mean A & B tie for first and C is third.

The reason I thought those were the rules is because going on partial head-to-heads would up punishing any player who didn't play the others (like E in this case). I am not arguing, I am trying to get someone to explain the rules they are using in this case.  For example, if everything else were the same except that E had a +9 LS differential, would all y'all still be saying D is the clear first?

I saw that detail later and deleted my post. And yes, head to head is right after points. That rule changed last year, I believe.

I agree with Matt. John, isn't that what you explained to me at either WI State or Midwest Regionals last month? If all the players didn't play head-to-head, then you don't look at head-to-head at all because it gets too messy (like this). Therefore, the ranking would be how they were listed in original post, with a tie for 1st. If this is not the case, can you please help me understand what is happening?

Thanks!

I still think it would have been funny to take a picture with the five players fighting over the trophy.  I'm thinking it should go by differential too, since all players didn't play each other but I suppose we are still waiting for definitive answer.

I agree that if there is precedent that head-to-head only matters in the situation described by MJB, then it should be ruled that way for this tournament. However, I'd also argue that a new rule should be put in place for a case-by-case situation, so that better rulings (the way several people, including Elders, agreed it should be) can be made.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 23, 2012, 09:57:59 PM

I also agree with MJB that the technical ruling is that if not ALL of the tied players played each other, then head-to-head is NOT actually looked at and you just go by differential.

At this point, isn't the technical ruling also the only proper ruling? Seriously, how would you feel if you were player A or B and were told--"According to the rules you won the tournament, but we felt the guy who was technically in fourth place played better so we are giving it to him?"

Well, speaking as the aforementioned "Player B", it was a strange situation to be sure - there was a lot of confusion and both rulings - the "head-to-head only if all equally scoring players have played head-to-head" ("Everyone Method") and "head-to-head always" ("Always Method") arguments were both made. At first, the top places were announced by pure score/differential (no head-to-heads factored in), but some people present at Nationals 2010 recalled that the Always Method was used then, and a discussion started.

Roy and John, in charge of the tournament, did their best to make sure a fair ruling was reached, consulting the Tournament Guide (whose wording was vague) and you guys. They spent many hours assuring that the right thing was done. While I was disappointed that I went from announced as tied for first to not even getting in the top 3, "Player E" (Sam Nurge) and I definitely aren't upset at anyone. We all had a fantastic time at the tournament, getting to see people I haven't seen in quite some time and having some truly remarkable games in both T1 2-player and Booster Draft - some of the best of my life - and getting prizes and recognition wasn't that important.

What I would like is for there to be a definitive way in the future. I agree with MJB that if something is "technically correct," then that means it's "actually correct" too. This is definitely a good opportunity for us to make sure before the remainder of the season's big tournaments that everyone agrees on tournament tiebreakers.

(In other news, congratulations to John Elia and Clayton and Matt Stupienski for getting in the top 3 of NE Regionals T1 2-player! Wonderful games had by all, with spectacular decks and heavily strategic playing, and most importantly, great players!)