Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Sorry I didn't post on this again, I was in transit.

Those that are placing D above everyone are incorrect (IMO)

You can only use Head-to-Head rankings if all the points tied players did in fact play each other. Since not all of them did you have to use differential. A and B should have tied for first with player C taking third.

There is no way that player D should place above player B - He didn't beat them head to head, and he didn't beat them on differential. You can't use the transitive method in Redemption.

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on June 24, 2012, 12:02:47 AM

You can only use Head-to-Head rankings if all the points tied players did in fact play each other. Since not all of them did you have to use differential. A and B should have tied for first with player C taking third.

Apparently you and I are both wrong on this, RDT.

Matt, You and RDT are right. The rules do fairly decide it. There should have been a tie for first. Tough call. The placings and RNS points should be corrected. I have done that after a tournament when we finaly figured out what was right.

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

I too agree with the above final rankings.  Player D tied the other four in points and defeated player A without losing to the other three players.  It's not perfect but, that how I rule it.  I am open to rewording the tournament guide if someone has a better form of words.  Mark U's idea is interesting but, can we word it such that hosts can follow it.  It will almost always be very difficult for every top ranked player to play each other.  Consider college football.  Moreover, I am not going to ask tournament host to start adding playoff rounds.  And I still believe strongly that this system works better than our old elmination system even though issues like this come up.

Further to my previous post, when I say Swiss works better than Elimination I mean that it works better toward fun and fellowship because everyone keeps playing.  If the goal were purely to find winners and losers, we go with a straight double elimination format and see who is left standing.  No thank you.

I support Rob 100% in this assertation. I would rather deal with the unusual circumstances when they occur, and require some patience and flexibilty from the players. I see no problem with changing the outcome after the fact, and frankly neither should the participants.

I too agree with the above final rankings.  Player D tied the other four in points and defeated player A without losing to the other three players.  It's not perfect but, that how I rule it.  I am open to rewording the tournament guide if someone has a better form of words.  Mark U's idea is interesting but, can we word it such that hosts can follow it.  It will almost always be very difficult for every top ranked player to play each other.  Consider college football.  Moreover, I am not going to ask tournament host to start adding playoff rounds.  And I still believe strongly that this system works better than our old elmination system even though issues like this come up.

Rob already said a guide edit is an option. Honestly I thought Profs math idea was rather simple. I think it would be a good option to have in case of a tie. I think with an example (even use this one) in the guide it could work.

How I understand the ranking system:

1.  Points
2.  Head-to-Head unless there is a loop (A beat B, B beat C, C beat A)
3.  Differencial

The only time Head-to-head is dismissed is if there is an actual loop.  If no loop exists, a clear hierarchy can be followed.  Placement of player E in the hierarchy must be based solely on differencial, which places him last.

How I understand the ranking system:

1.  Points
2.  Head-to-Head unless there is a loop (A beat B, B beat C, C beat A)
3.  Differencial

The only time Head-to-head is dismissed is if there is an actual loop.  If no loop exists, a clear hierarchy can be followed.  Placement of player E in the hierarchy must be based solely on differencial, which places him last.

What if in this case all of the other facts remained as stated except that Player E had the highest Lost Soul differential? Would Player E have placed first (by reason of Lost Soul Differential) or would he still have placed last (by reason of "didn't play anyone good")?

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 24, 2012, 04:54:21 PM

What if in this case all of the other facts remained as stated except that Player E had the highest Lost Soul differential? Would Player E have placed first (by reason of Lost Soul Differential) or would he still have placed last (by reason of "didn't play anyone good")?

Firstly, I can't imagine how player E could even possibly have the highest LS differential and not have been higher enough ranked in any previous round to play any of the other top 5 players.

It is really not difficult to come up with a scenario where this might occur, if you try to think of one.

However, assuming that this is even possible (which I don't think it is), then I would still put Player E in last on the grounds that his "strength of schedule" was significantly easier than all of the other tied players.

So, your position is that Player E should be penalized because he could only play the games that the host put before him? Apparently Rob's analogy to college football went deeper than I thought.


As this is a very important question (and because Bryon seemed to suggest that LS differential was key) can we ask for the elders to provide a consensus ruling to the community?

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 24, 2012, 08:50:04 PM

So, your position is that Player E should be penalized because he could only play the games that the host put before him?

Firstly, I disagree with the way you are presenting this.  It's not like the host specifically kept Player E out of games against the top players.

I was trying to echo the phrasing that people critical of the BCS use every year, "[Insert team here] can only play the teams on their schedule." The winky was meant to go with both sentences of that comment--not just the second.

So if a player doesn't play any of the other top 5 people in a tournament, then that player must have done more poorly all tournament long until the last game, and therefore was never close enough to the top to play any of those players.  Recognizing that fact is not "penalizing" anyone, it is simply observing that they did NOT play to the level necessary to compete against the top players, and therefore don't deserve to be ranked ahead of those players.

Because of the way the Swiss pairings work your "not being close to the top" criteria is equivalent to weighting early round losses more highly than later round losses. This does not strike me, a priori, as a desirable feature in determining tournament places.

On a side note, I once lost a tournament (took second) without losing a single game, solely because I received a first round bye with the resulting LS differential of zero. Would you classify my loss in this tournament as a deficiency in my level of competitive play? I am not trying to trick you, and I will not be offended if you say "yes;" I am wondering if maybe I misinterpreted your claim and am trying to get a better feel for what you mean when you talk about not playing "to the level necessary to compete against the top players."

Secondly, since you have thought of a scenario already where this is even possible, please share it.

OK.  Player E loses his first round game by a score of 5-3 (because his SoG was the last card in his deck ), wins the next three by scores of 5-4, and the last by 5-0. Players A, B, C, and D each lose a single game by the score of 5-4, and win all of their remaining games by 5-4 margins.  Up through the final round, Player E never gets ranked in the top four because he is always down either by game points or ls differential compared to other players. To add some intrigue, Player A who ended up first in head to head (A beat B who beat C who beat D)--actually lost to player F which is the same player that player E beat 5-0 in the final round. At the end the scores are 12 for players A-E. A, B, C, and D have a LS differential of 3, while E has a differential of 6.

You are claiming that SoG being at the bottom of Player E's deck in round one means that Player E "did NOT play to the level necessary to compete against the top players, and therefore don't deserve to be ranked ahead of those players." This may well be true. On the other hand in this scenario Player E not only doubled up the other players LS differential, but he resoundingly beat the only player to defeat Player A--the undisputed champion in your formula.

Again, I don't see how this is possible unless you are leaving out the information that you also did NOT win all your games.

He said that he did not lose. I think you are underestimating the number of participants, especially for multiplayer where there are significantly fewer rounds.

As a matter of fact there was a timeout tie in this tournament between two upper players but they weren't in these 5.

Hey,

After nationals 2009 we decided to change the tie-breaker system to head-to-head before differential.  When we made the change we didn't iron out the details of 3+ way ties which lead to a lots of confused hosts and inconsistent resolutions to 3+ way ties.  After nationals 2010 we decided to abandon the head-to-head tie-breaker for 3+ way ties.

The 2009 change made it into the tournament guide, the 2010 change didn't.

For the elders reading this, the thread regarding the 2010 change can be found here.

That discussion fizzled without a final resolution.  So, the tournament guide was not changed.  However, I think Mark U.  may have shown us the solution to 3 way ties above.