Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Playgroup and Tournament Central => Redemption® Official Tournaments => Topic started by: everytribe on July 22, 2012, 08:06:19 PM
-
Who takes 2nd?
At the North Central Regional Tournament we had a three way tie for First Place. Please give your inpute on who should take 2nd so I can make sure I get it right. Three elders were present and we could not come to a conclution.
We played 6 rounds.
Player A 15 points 15 ls Beat player B, did not play player C
Player B 15 points 11 ls Lost to player A, Beat player C
Player C 15 Points 13 ls Lost to player B, did not play player A
Player C lost to player B but has a higher LS differenal
Who should take 2nd place.
-
I think B should, mainly because that means I get second.
-
So this happened in June at Northeast regionals, then in July at PA states and North Central regionals?
I think we need to reevaluate our current system. Just saying.
-
So this happened in June at Northeast regionals, then in July at PA states and North Central regionals?
I think we need to reevaluate our current system. Just saying.
Could not agree more. We had a 4-way tie in PA States (that thread was to be created soon) that we had to break, and one of the players didn't even play the other tops, and the rest had a smattering of wins and losses that just got confusing.
We really need to have all high-level tournaments have an odd number of rounds, for starters. Even numbers of rounds lead to more ties, and this is scary when you consider most of the categories scheduled at Nats have even rounds.
EDIT: Oh, as to your question, I believe that the ruling that Rob agreed with would have the players ranked A, B, C. Head-to-Head beats LS differential currently, and since A is the only one to beat another tied player without losing, they are first. B beat C, so B is second.
-
I would say that player B should bc LS differential should decide if head to head is a loop.
Like for instance
A beat B
B beat C
C beat A
But that is not the case here
Other then a loop, I think head to head is more important.
Especially since LS differential could be skewed based on who got lucky and played a worse opponent early.
-
I didn't see anything CHANGING the CURRENT rules that have been in effect for a few years, even with the recent discussion. Based on that, since all three DID NOT play each other, you would completely ignore head-to-head and just use Lost Soul differential. While Rob agreed that change needed to be made and suggestions were made for that change, I don't believe that any change has officially happened. Therefore, I would rank them A, C, B.
-
I understand that A C B is the correct ruling based on the system, but change is coming to remedy this (from what I had heard). I don't see any reasonable person opposing A B C even now. We all know the current ranking system has holes and as humans we think and can see what should happen here.
If I was hosting I would give it Nameless based on human intelligence overcoming a deficientcy in the ranking system.
If I was C I would hand it to B H2H should trump LSD any day
Just my opinion though and I can see an argument to state that the system is currently in place and should be followed to the exact until the system
Is edited.
-
I didn't see anything CHANGING the CURRENT rules that have been in effect for a few years, even with the recent discussion. Based on that, since all three DID NOT play each other, you would completely ignore head-to-head and just use Lost Soul differential. While Rob agreed that change needed to be made and suggestions were made for that change, I don't believe that any change has officially happened. Therefore, I would rank them A, C, B.
Then you're going to have to explain this post. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/official-tournaments/super-urgent-question-re-1st-place-ties-at-a-tournament-for-5-people/msg485596/#msg485596) He agreed that someone without a LS win was first, even though not all of the players played each other. Obviously it's different from what you thought.
-
I think we all agree that regardless of how 2nd and 3rd flesh out, player A takes first.
He beat player B head to head and differential, and player C on LS differential.
At that point since first is locked in, you look only at players B and C for 2nd and 3rd. So the fact that player C never played player A doesn't matter, and player B wins via head to head.
That's the way I feel about it.
That being said, I'm not 100% sure that's how its currently being ruled, or if that will be the way that it is ruled in the future.
-
I think that we should turn to Christian theology to resolve this--just as we did with the ruling on whether or not demons can be redeemed.
The command of Christ is that we make disciples of all nations. Who was more successful in carrying out this great commission? Obviously the person who redeemed more lost souls, which is player C. Or we can see what Jesus had to say about head to head competition--"The first shall be last and the last first." Clearly, Player B was first in their game, and hence should be placed last in the rankings. Both arguments seem fairly indisputable to me.
That being said, I'm not 100% sure that's how its currently being ruled, or if that will be the way it is ruled in the future.
Putting all kidding aside, a top cut would resolve all disputes like this.
-
Putting all kidding aside, a top cut would resolve all disputes like this.
Not just that, but to minimize these issues, all high-level tournaments should only use an odd number of rounds. In PA States (and I'm almost certain NE Regional, but I wasn't as involved with the points), we had a clear and distinct winner (or two players with clear tie-breakers) after 3 rounds. If we went to 5 rounds, we would have also had a clear and distinct winner. Having even numbers of rounds increases the number of players with the same points.
Again, Nats is hosting 6 and 10 round events in almost every category. I strongly urge everyone to consider going to an odd number or this will happen again. And I say again not only because it has happened at 4 major tournaments in a little over a month, but because from what I hear, there have been tie-breaker controversies at Nats in the past.
-
I think that we should turn to Christian theology to resolve this--just as we did with the ruling on whether or not demons can be redeemed.
I'm laughing all the way to the bank! :laugh:
Wait. Oh, right. I didn't make any money off of that.
;)
-
Not just that, but to minimize these issues, all high-level tournaments should only use an odd number of rounds. In PA States (and I'm almost certain NE Regional, but I wasn't as involved with the points), we had a clear and distinct winner (or two players with clear tie-breakers) after 3 rounds. If we went to 5 rounds, we would have also had a clear and distinct winner. Having even numbers of rounds increases the number of players with the same points.
NE Regional had 5 rounds. Odd or even rounds has nothing to do with it.
-
Not just that, but to minimize these issues, all high-level tournaments should only use an odd number of rounds. In PA States (and I'm almost certain NE Regional, but I wasn't as involved with the points), we had a clear and distinct winner (or two players with clear tie-breakers) after 3 rounds. If we went to 5 rounds, we would have also had a clear and distinct winner. Having even numbers of rounds increases the number of players with the same points.
NE Regional had 5 rounds. Odd or even rounds has nothing to do with it.
Actually, we had 6 rounds - Otherwise player C couldn't have 15 points and a loss to player B
-
Not just that, but to minimize these issues, all high-level tournaments should only use an odd number of rounds. In PA States (and I'm almost certain NE Regional, but I wasn't as involved with the points), we had a clear and distinct winner (or two players with clear tie-breakers) after 3 rounds. If we went to 5 rounds, we would have also had a clear and distinct winner. Having even numbers of rounds increases the number of players with the same points.
NE Regional had 5 rounds. Odd or even rounds has nothing to do with it.
Actually, we had 6 rounds - Otherwise player C couldn't have 15 points and a loss to player B
I think you are referring to different tournaments. He was referring to NE Regionals, while you seem to be referring to NC Regionals
-
Ah, I see.
I'm not sure if Bill meant to refer to NE or NC there.
NC for sure had 6 rounds though, just as an FYI.
-
Ah, I see.
I'm not sure if Bill meant to refer to NE or NC there.
NC for sure had 6 rounds though, just as an FYI.
If I remember correctly NE regionals did have 5 rounds (because I think I went 3-2 for type I 2player), and it had a bigger tie at the top than the one discussed here.
-
Ah, I see.
I'm not sure if Bill meant to refer to NE or NC there.
NC for sure had 6 rounds though, just as an FYI.
Yes we had 6 rounds at NC. I was refering to NE which had 5 round to show that it didn't matter if there were an odd or even # of rounds.
-
Using my proposed new method of ranking makes this easy :)
1 - How many victory points do they have?
(the more the better)
2 - How many games did they play against ranked players (top 3 including ties)?
(the more the better)
3 - What was their winning % in those games?
(the more the better)
4 - What was their LS differential?
(the more the better)
1 - Victory Points - They are all tied at 15, move on to the next question.
2 - Strength of Schedule - B played 2 top players, A and C only played 1. B is in 1st place.
3 - Success at the Top - A is 100% against top players. C is 0% against top players.
4 - LS Differential - not necessary.
Rankings = B, A, C
The big problem with this is that A beat B head-to-head. However what isn't shown in the info given in the original post is that A must have lost to a lower ranked player to be tied in VPs with the others. I would argue that losing to a lower player is worse than losing to a top player, and therefore B actually had a better tournament overall. Therefore I think the ranking system above still works.
Of course this is still in the proposal stage. So comments are welcome :)
-
I prefer:
1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between players).
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games (games played against the same opponents).
3. Strength of victory (the combined won-lost-tied percentage of all the opponents that a player has defeated).
4. Strength of schedule (the combined won-lost-tied percentage of all the opponents that a player has played against).
5. Best net redeemed souls (those gained while being blocked) in common games.
6. Best net redeemed souls (those gained while being blocked) in all games.
7. Best gross redeemed souls in all games.
8. Coin Toss.
-
Using my proposed new method of ranking makes this easy :)
1 - How many victory points do they have?
(the more the better)
2 - How many games did they play against ranked players (top 3 including ties)?
(the more the better)
3 - What was their winning % in those games?
(the more the better)
4 - What was their LS differential?
(the more the better)
1 - Victory Points - They are all tied at 15, move on to the next question.
2 - Strength of Schedule - B played 2 top players, A and C only played 1. B is in 1st place.
3 - Success at the Top - A is 100% against top players. C is 0% against top players.
4 - LS Differential - not necessary.
Rankings = B, A, C
The big problem with this is that A beat B head-to-head. However what isn't shown in the info given in the original post is that A must have lost to a lower ranked player to be tied in VPs with the others. I would argue that losing to a lower player is worse than losing to a top player, and therefore B actually had a better tournament overall. Therefore I think the ranking system above still works.
Of course this is still in the proposal stage. So comments are welcome :)
Player A has to be declared the winner. A has the most lost souls and beat B head to head.
I think we all agree that regardless of how 2nd and 3rd flesh out, player A takes first.
He beat player B head to head and differential, and player C on LS differential.
At that point since first is locked in, you look only at players B and C for 2nd and 3rd. So the fact that player C never played player A doesn't matter, and player B wins via head to head.
That's the way I feel about it.
That being said, I'm not 100% sure that's how its currently being ruled, or if that will be the way that it is ruled in the future.
I agree with Jon about B getting second place and about not being 100% sure that's how it is currently being ruled or if that will be the way it is ruled in the future.
-
Using my proposed new method of ranking makes this easy :)
1 - How many victory points do they have?
(the more the better)
2 - How many games did they play against ranked players (top 3 including ties)?
(the more the better)
3 - What was their winning % in those games?
(the more the better)
4 - What was their LS differential?
(the more the better)
1 - Victory Points - They are all tied at 15, move on to the next question.
2 - Strength of Schedule - B played 2 top players, A and C only played 1. B is in 1st place.
3 - Success at the Top - A is 100% against top players. C is 0% against top players.
4 - LS Differential - not necessary.
Rankings = B, A, C
The big problem with this is that A beat B head-to-head. However what isn't shown in the info given in the original post is that A must have lost to a lower ranked player to be tied in VPs with the others. I would argue that losing to a lower player is worse than losing to a top player, and therefore B actually had a better tournament overall. Therefore I think the ranking system above still works.
Of course this is still in the proposal stage. So comments are welcome :)
I like this the best. Now I get 1st.
-
This would give B 1st based on his loss being to a more quality opponent then A's loss was to. Interesting, I can say I'm not against incorporating some sort of strength of schedule into placing.
-
Player A has to be declared the winner. A has the most lost souls and beat B head to head.
I understand that argument. But it isn't surprising that A has the most LSs considering that he only played 1 game against the top players. Player B played more games against top opponents and has a higher quality loss than A. I think there can be a good case that Player B had the better tournament. Can you see my side of things as well?
I like this the best. Now I get 1st.
I don't have any idea who A, B, or C are. I am only arguing in theory here :)
-
Player A has to be declared the winner. A has the most lost souls and beat B head to head.
I understand that argument. But it isn't surprising that A has the most LSs considering that he only played 1 game against the top players. Player B played more games against top opponents and has a higher quality loss than A. I think there can be a good case that Player B had the better tournament. Can you see my side of things as well?
No I really can't see your side of things here - You can't argue that Player B had the better tournament if you're only looking at 2 out of 6 of his games.
If you were to incorporate all of his games into a 'Strength of Schedule' (SoS) number, and that number was higher than Player A's SoS# then maybe. As is, for all you know Player A lost to the 4th place player, beating the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th in addition to his victory over player B (2nd) While Player B could have lost to 1st, and beaten 8th 9th 10th 11th and 3rd for his 5 wins.
Wouldn't you argue then that Player A had the 'Better' tournament? He beat better overall competition in his run, even if he only played one of the people who placed.
-
Player A has to be declared the winner. A has the most lost souls and beat B head to head.
I understand that argument. But it isn't surprising that A has the most LSs considering that he only played 1 game against the top players. Player B played more games against top opponents and has a higher quality loss than A. I think there can be a good case that Player B had the better tournament. Can you see my side of things as well?
I might be able to see your side of things as well if players A,B,C were the only top players in the tournament. Their were at least 8 players that could have won the tournament. If your only loss comes from a Maly, Alstad, Earley, Brinkman or Wester you did loss to a top player. Player A played more than one game against the top players because of the way Swiss style works, especially when you play one more than the required rounds.
-
I might be able to see your side of things as well if players A,B,C were the only top players in the tournament. Their were at least 8 players that could have won the tournament. If your only loss comes from a Maly, Alstad, Earley, Brinkman or Wester you did loss to a top player. Player A played more than one game against the top players because of the way Swiss style works, especially when you play one more than the required rounds.
I also see your point about there being top players who don't end up making the rankings at the end. But unless we had some sort of ranking system OUTSIDE of individual tournaments, there's no way to quantify that. Sure I agree that all the guys you mentioned are top players whether they tank a specific tournament or not, but when devising a system for ranking an individual tournament we have to ignore that kind of prejudice (even if it's accurate).
Imagine a tournament where you have 5 players tied for the lead at the end:
A - went 1-0 against the other 4
B - went 3-1 against the other 4
C - went 2-2 against the other 4
D - went 1-3 against the other 4
E - went 0-1 against the other 4
Who deserves to win? Sure A has a higher win % against top opponents, but they only played 1 game against those others. Player B won 3 games against the other people placing. I think everyone would agree that Player B had the best tournament. The only way I see of making this work is the proposal that I've posted on this and a couple other threads.
-
Imagine a tournament where you have 5 players tied for the lead at the end:
A - went 1-0 against the other 4
B - went 3-1 against the other 4
C - went 2-2 against the other 4
D - went 1-3 against the other 4
E - went 0-1 against the other 4
Who deserves to win? Sure A has a higher win % against top opponents, but they only played 1 game against those others. Player B won 3 games against the other people placing. I think everyone would agree that Player B had the best tournament. The only way I see of making this work is the proposal that I've posted on this and a couple other threads.
But what if B was 1-1? Or what if A was 1-0 and B was 2-0, but A never got a chance to play the second person B beat because it was randomly chosen in the final round that A would play F (someone who didn't get in the top 5) and B would play E? If A beat F by 5 and B beat E by 1, then who had the better tournament? That idea is completely subjective, and doesn't really improve upon the maybe only slightly more subjective nature of comparison by LS differential.
-
If they all had equal points then tht means the other players lost to people outside of top 5 players
Yes, but in my scenario, both A and B lost to people outside of the top 5 (perhaps even the same person). So that doesn't help anything.
-
That would require all your top players to have lost 2 games an that doesn't even happen at Nats the tournament would have to be huge.
-
That would require all your top players to have lost 2 games an that doesn't even happen at Nats the tournament would have to be huge.
Gabe won Nats 2007 after going 0-2 in the first two rounds...and how would that require all players to have lost 2 games? Perhaps A and B both lost to person X, A in round one, B in round two, then they went on to win all of the rest of their games. It's certainly possible.
There is no system that will be perfect, so I think the best solution is the simplest solution:
For two players tied at the top, the first tiebreaker is head-to-head. If they never played (or tied when they did) then the next tiebreaker is LS differential. If LS differential is equal, then the tourney ends in a tie (or an extra round is played to determine the winner).
For three or more players tied at the top, if any player defeated all of the others, then that player is first (by head-to-head vs. all of them). If there is no such player, then it goes to strictly LS differential for placement.
-
If A and B both lost outside the placers, B also had a loss inside the top 5 so if they have equal points they need equal win loss records correct? Otherwise timeouts come into play and we get even stickier.
-
The scenario I was referring to is when A was 1-0 and B was 2-0.
-
My mistake
-
Imagine a tournament where you have 5 players tied for the lead at the end:
A - went 1-0 against the other 4
B - went 3-1 against the other 4
Who deserves to win? Sure A has a higher win % against top opponents, but they only played 1 game against those others. Player B won 3 games against the other people placing. I think everyone would agree that Player B had the best tournament.
But what if B was 1-1?
I think it is still clear that B had the better tournament. He beat 1 top opponent and lost to another. That is better than beating 1 top opponent and losing to someone who didn't even play well enough to rank at the top (like Player A did).
Or what if A was 1-0 and B was 2-0, but A never got a chance to play the second person B beat because it was randomly chosen in the final round that A would play F (someone who didn't get in the top 5) and B would play E?
Randomness is simply part of a tournament. Whether it is the randomness of how many LSs your opponent draws, or whether who your random opponents are. I still think that a player who beats 2 top players had a better tournament than a player who only beats one. Sure the other guy will complain that it wasn't fair that he wasn't randomly picked to play another top player. But people complain that it isn't fair that their opponent didn't draw LSs. My proposal only evaluates who had the best tournament, not whether everyone had a totally fair outcome of all random events.
And I think it's actually doing a pretty good job of that (from a completely biased perspective of course) :)
-
There is no system that will be perfect, so I think the best solution is the simplest solution:
I agree. So when are we going to implement a top cut in Redemption? It is the simplest solution and it provides a definitive winner in almost all cases.
-
So when are we going to implement a top cut in Redemption?
What is "top cut?" You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-
If the BCS can relent, so can we. Implement a 4-player playoff.
-
So when are we going to implement a top cut in Redemption?
What is "top cut?" You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Top cut is a style of tournament where after X rounds (depending on the number of participants) only the top portion of players continue playing. So in a 10 round nationals, everyone might play for 6 rounds and then only the top so many players continue on for the last few rounds.
Someone can add to this or say what is misspoke as I have no played other card games that implement this. Above is my understanding of it loosely.
Kirk
-
So when are we going to implement a top cut in Redemption?
What is "top cut?" You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
After X rounds of Swiss tournament play, you take the N highest rated players and pair them in a single-elimination-style bracket for the remainder of the tournament. So, for example, at Nationals after playing seven rounds you would take the 8 highest-rated players and create a three-round seeded single elimination tournament. If you are really concerned about ties at the cut stage, you could add a play in round if need be. The name "top cut" comes form the fact that the "top" players make the "cut" to play for the title.
Note that it is not mandatory that everyone who fails to make the cut or loses in the top cut must stop playing. You could well have a top cut where the non-top players continue to play Swiss match-ups for the final rounds.
If the BCS can relent, so can we. Implement a 4-player playoff.
No, I am sure players would prefer to have some bogus strength of schedule criteria determine who places in a tournament rather than actual decide it in play.
-
Top cut tournaments are the absolute closest (and most practical) you will come to a perfect system. There is no reason this should have not been implemented in at least Nationals by now.
-
I can tell you why: Redemption is not about winning or losing like other card games. Yes, that is one factor that comes up in any competitive situation. However, the purpose behind Redemption is to foster fun and fellowship. This is the reason that top-cut hasn't been implemented, I'm sure, as well as why we don't just use elimination-style tournaments.
-
I don't buy that for a second. Top cut does not impose on the foster and fellowship of Redemption anymore than standard Swiss does. I fail to see how the tournament format has any bearing whatsoever on the fellowship of the game. It's mixing apples with oranges.
-
I can tell you why: Redemption is not about winning or losing like other card games. Yes, that is one factor that comes up in any competitive situation. However, the purpose behind Redemption is to foster fun and fellowship.
If it's not about winning and losing why not just declare a three-way tie for first at the NC Regional and a five way tie for first at the NE Regional and be done with it? I am being serious here. This is the second multi-page thread we have had in the past month about resolving tie-breakers. If it is not about winning and losing, why bother? How would Prof Underwood's proposed scheme (not to pick on Prof U, but as an example) do more to foster fun and fellowship than simply saying the best 8 players will play three rounds to clearly determine 1st through 4th place?
This is the reason that top-cut hasn't been implemented, I'm sure, as well as why we don't just use elimination-style tournaments.
You can still allow all players to play all of the rounds. The only difference is that if you don't make the cut you can't win the tournament (which you would not have done anyway), and the tournament would have an unambiguous first through fourth place at the end.
-
From my understanding (from this thread), the majority of the players would only play for 3/4 of the tournament, rather than everyone being able to play every game. That's how the tournament format has a bearing on it. Using the idea of the others still playing and just not included in the possibility for placing could continue to foster fun and fellowship, but I'm guessing that one bad game would be more likely to exclude a person from the top-cut than it would be to exclude them from placing in the current way of playing. If I'm wrong, feel free to explain. :) For example, the tournament that was already brought up where Gabe won after losing his first two games - would he have been in the top-cut?
I think what needs to be done is some system for determining the winner in the case of a tie should be implemented (whatever it is), and it should be the agreed standard moving forward.
(I wrote the above before Matt's post)
Matt, that's a really good idea! Since having a tie is allowed and happens sometimes anyway, perhaps we should just leave it at that since it would stop all the arguments for the different systems.
-
It's a game. It's meant to have a winner and a loser. Ties are like kissing your sister...
-
From my understanding (from this thread), the majority of the players would only play for 3/4 of the tournament, rather than everyone being able to play every game.
I do not think this is necessarily correct. Let's use a Nationals three-round top cut as an example. You would do a standard Swiss for the first seven rounds and use the result of those rounds to determine and rank the top eight players. In round #8 you would have 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, and 4v5 play and players 9-the rest would be paired up using standard Swiss. In round #9 the winner of 1v8 would play the winner of 4v5 and the winner of 2v7 would play the winner of 3v6 while the losers of the four named matches would join everyone else in playing a Swiss paired games. The final round would have the two semi-final winners paired for first and second and the other two players meeting in a consolation match for third. Everyone else would play Swiss paired games.
In the end, everyone in the tournament would get to play ten games and we would have an clear 1st through 4th place rankings that were determined by head-to-head competition rather than by a formula or a tie breaker or...
Using the idea of the others still playing and just not included in the possibility for placing could continue to foster fun and fellowship, but I'm guessing that one bad game would be more likely to exclude a person from the top-cut than it would be to exclude them from placing in the current way of playing. If I'm wrong, feel free to explain. :)
We could probably figure it out if we wanted, but there is a different way to look at this. So far at Nationals we have never had 128 or more players play T2 (and with the exception of the last two Nationals in MN, we have always been closer to 64 players than to 128)--which means 7 rounds would suffice. So a player missing the cut would be one who would have been six or more spots out of placing in any normal tournament. This does not strike me as something that would happen due to one bad game.
For example, the tournament that was already brought up where Gabe won after losing his first two games - would he have been in the top-cut?
According to the spreadsheet Gabe would have been tied for sixth after round #7. So even two bad games out of seven would not necessarily eliminate you.
Matt, that's a really good idea! Since having a tie is allowed and happens sometimes anyway, perhaps we should just leave it at that since it would stop all the arguments for the different systems.
My order of preference would be top cut > ties > some tie-breaking formula.
-
I guess "top cut" is what I did unwittingly at both Florida States and Southeast Regionals, then. We had issues, so I added an extra round to end ties and resolve disputes. Everyone walked away happy because they were able to settle things with their cards rather than a scoring system.
-
It's a game. It's meant to have a winner and a loser. Ties are like kissing your sister...
In the word of the great Herman Edwards, "You play to win the game!"
I agree redemption is less competitive then most games and is intended for fun, but why bother keeping score if you do not care about winning. Or really do the Christ like thing and let the person who does care beat you.
I mean is wanting to win really that bad? Is being competitive sinful?
-
Or really do the Christ like thing and let the person who does care beat you.
Ironically, this should still bother the person who is competitive, since they will never know if they could have truly beaten you.
-
Speaking of top cuts, all I know is that if a filet mignon was the prize, I'd be the nastiest, tricksiest, low-down, no-good, most competitive player at the tournament. And you thought you hated me for my unredemonable qualities.
;)