It is my belief that you'll need to provide some type of incentive for those that don't make the Top Cut, in order to get a majority vote to implement it. Personally, I would continue playing Swiss style games because I enjoy the fellowship. But a lot of players would just quit if there's no "prize" to play for.If they weren't top 32, there was nothing to play for anyway...
Suppose person 32 was 4-2 going into top cut. At the end, they are 9-2, while person 1 is 10-1. 32 still wins. That's the one thing I kinda have problems with, but 32 won against more top opponents, so they should win...I guess.
It is my belief that you'll need to provide some type of incentive for those that don't make the Top Cut, in order to get a majority vote to implement it. Personally, I would continue playing Swiss style games because I enjoy the fellowship. But a lot of players would just quit if there's no "prize" to play for.Realistically, STAMP, once you lose three games you have nothing to play for. With the possible exception of a few of the youngest, all of the players at the tournament knew this. Yet, I don;t think anyone quit after three losses.
Suggestion--why not do a seed X-2 cut? So, say you decide on seven rounds to seed; in that case anyone 5-2 or better gets into a seeded final. The advantage of this is that it provides an objective criterion as to what you need to do to make the cut. You can still lose a couple of games--so it minimizes the luck issue--and there are no need for tie-breakers. If you win all but 2 you know you will go on.Top Ten was the only thing I was playing for after round two.
For the 2012 Nats there were 19 people at 4-2 after 6 and 12 people at 5-2 after 7. My preference would be to do the 5-2 cut, have a single play-in round for the bottom 8 of the 12 players making the cut, and then an 8-player three round championship. (If you had said 6 you would have had six players in the play-in round.)It is my belief that you'll need to provide some type of incentive for those that don't make the Top Cut, in order to get a majority vote to implement it. Personally, I would continue playing Swiss style games because I enjoy the fellowship. But a lot of players would just quit if there's no "prize" to play for.Realistically, STAMP, once you lose three games you have nothing to play for. With the possible exception of a few of the youngest, all of the players at the tournament knew this. Yet, I don;t think anyone quit after three losses.
If we are going to do this, I would vote only for Nationals, since I'm not going to one anyway. If this is proposed as mandatory for Regionals, then I will oppose it vehemently. If not, then I really don't care.
Contrary to popular belief on this message board, some players do have plenty to play for after losing their first three games. It's called "fun & fellowship"
We have clear-cut winners here, with the Swiss Style and a plus-one (as needed).Well fantastic for you, unfortunately that's not the case anywhere else.
I just don't want mandatory top-cut for anything outside of Nats.Why? How does it actually impact an average tournament? If it's a forced 4 round + 1 tournament, after someone's lost 2 or 3, there's no way they can place.
Actually that's not true. The Swiss (with plus-one if time allows) has always worked well for us here in KY and OH as well.We have clear-cut winners here, with the Swiss Style and a plus-one (as needed).Well fantastic for you, unfortunately that's not the case anywhere else.
We don't need "top cut" to improve our tournament experience. We're doing just fine as we are. Thanks anyway.
Contrary to popular belief on this message board, some players do have plenty to play for after losing their first three games. It's called "fun & fellowship," and those of here in Florida can still have it no matter who our next opponent is, and no matter what our overall power ranking is.Which was precisely the point of my response to STAMP. At Nationals, everyone knows if they lose three they have no chance of placing. Yet, at the four Nationals I have attended I am not aware of anyone who quit playing following their third loss. It appears that the understanding of "fun & fellowship" in Redemption is not solely confined to Florida.
We don't need "top cut" to improve our tournament experience. We're doing just fine as we are. Thanks anyway.I guess I don't understand why you feel that Floridians can only experience "fun & fellowship" at pure Swiss tournaments.
... after someone's lost 2 or 3, there's no way they can place.
"We" as in Florida players? This isn't a sarcastic question, I want to make sure I'm understanding you properly.
I would argue that top cut offers more fun and fellowship for those who do not make the cut, by allowing those who would rather not play four more rounds of a category they have no chance of winning at to go off and do whatever they like, ...
It appears that the understanding of "fun & fellowship" in Redemption is not solely confined to Florida.
If my calculations are correct (based on the spreadsheet) ---If my calculations are correct, using a 5-2 cut the following players would have made it into the play-off...
It was priceless to see John, Connor, and Jay make it to Top 10 just because they were blessed with a Swiss Style tournament.Sadly, Alex Lewis and Blake Maust were penalized by the Swiss Style compared to where they had been with a 5-2 cut. Wouldn't it have also been priceless to see Alex and Jay near the top of the standings at the end? Tournament format changes invariably lead to the people getting moved around in the standings. For every player who is blessed by a particular format there will be another player who is hurt by the choice. That is why picking a specific case and using that as a reason to keep Swiss is a flawed argument.
Connor won by just 1 LS differential over the other 21-pointers, but that was enough to land him 4th place.Connor played two players (Martin Miller and Alex Olijar) who ended up in the top 10. He was 1-1 with a -3 LS differential in those two matches. For comparison here are the number of games played against the top ten by the other 21-point winners.
So if you are a proponent for Swiss Style only, how do you propose to resolve the tie breaker issue?
YMT, since the primary reason this discussion is here is due to problems with how tie-breakers are handled, it would be nice if you would answer the question I asked--the one you chose to respond to--so everyone could benefit from your method of ensuring that tie-breakers are not an issue. Could you explain exactly how you resolve tie breakers so that you never have issues?So if you are a proponent for Swiss Style only, how do you propose to resolve the tie breaker issue?
We have no tie-breaker issues down here, so I propose you do what you want at your tournaments, and you let those of us who want to, continue using a system that works just fine.
The other option is to have more than 1 Nats a year like Golf or Tennis where you have multiple major tournaments that add to the years total.I thought that was one purpose that the major (State and Regional) tournaments are supposed to serve. That is why they represent more than half of the possible RNRS points prior to Nationals. It would be nice if we could at least get rulings consistency in those tournaments.
YMT, since the primary reason this discussion is here is due to problems with how tie-breakers are handled, it would be nice if you would answer the question I asked--the one you chose to respond to--so everyone could benefit from your method of ensuring that tie-breakers are not an issue. Could you explain exactly how you resolve tie breakers so that you never have issues?
I use Swiss + 1, so any ties are resolved in head-to-head matches.Do you always play the tie-breaker, or do you only do so if the tied players had no head-to-head result from earlier in the tournament? What do you do when more than two players are tied (including the A beat B, B beat C, and C beat A scenario that gets tossed around)? What do you do if one of the tied players has low blood sugar, and you must either let him eat or risk facing a medical emergency? ;)
Connor played two players (Martin Miller and Alex Olijar) who ended up in the top 10. He was 1-1 with a -3 LS differential in those two matches. For comparison here are the number of games played against the top ten by the other 21-point winners.I think this is a MUCH more significant issue than the whole top-cut thing. We have some people having to play up to 6 players in the top 10, and others who only have to play 1. Yet they all end up with the same score at the end. I'm not sure how to resolve this issue without having some sort of pre-tournament ranking system (maybe based on RNRS for the year prior to Nats), but I wish that all the people wanting to switch to top-cut would instead put some thought into how to make this more fair.
Matt Townsend 5
Daniel Huisinga 2
Chris Ericson 6
Alex Olijar 5
Josh Brinkman 6
Jay Chambers 1
I think this is a MUCH more significant issue than the whole top-cut thing. We have some people having to play up to 6 players in the top 10, and others who only have to play 1. Yet they all end up with the same score at the end. I'm not sure how to resolve this issue without having some sort of pre-tournament ranking system (maybe based on RNRS for the year prior to Nats), but I wish that all the people wanting to switch to top-cut would instead put some thought into how to make this more fair.
I'd be interested to see how many games all the top 20 people played against top 20 people and what their records were in those games.
Would making Top Cut a "tournament size" issue instead of making it mandatory or optional fix the conflict we seem to be having here? Top Cut would be silly at tournaments with less than 20 or even 25 people, in my opinion. Then, people who want to keep their tournaments with Swiss can?
I do agree something needs to happen. Sealed at PA states, whatever category with a 5-way tie for 1st at NE Regionals, and the issues at another state tournament proves that. But I don't think top-cut would have solved those issues, because they weren't huge tournaments (except NE Regionals)
It's not fun anymore, unless I'm playing closed events, and sometimes even those get bouts of frustrated or arrogant people.
QuoteI do agree something needs to happen. Sealed at PA states, whatever category with a 5-way tie for 1st at NE Regionals, and the issues at another state tournament proves that. But I don't think top-cut would have solved those issues, because they weren't huge tournaments (except NE Regionals)
I believe the main issue here is simply playing too many rounds in the name of fun. If we played the minimum amount of rounds, it wouldn't be a problem.
My players want to keep playing, and they want experience playing the top players. They are young and not ultra competitive. They actually have fun losing to Josh Kopp (because he's Josh), but they still love talking about their games with him to me later. In a Top Cut system, they will be relegated to playing each other over and over, since they were not winning anyway. Appalachian State loves the exposure of playing the FBS schools, even if they lose. But playing the big boys makes them better, which gives them the hope of someday beating Michigan in the Big House. They don't want to be left out because the Top Cut said they don't deserve the chance.
I agree with Mark that a Top Cut is elitist and promotes cutthroat play, which I will always oppose.
I think this is a MUCH more significant issue than the whole top-cut thing. We have some people having to play up to 6 players in the top 10, and others who only have to play 1. Yet they all end up with the same score at the end. I'm not sure how to resolve this issue without having some sort of pre-tournament ranking system (maybe based on RNRS for the year prior to Nats), but I wish that all the people wanting to switch to top-cut would instead put some thought into how to make this more fair.This is the direct result of the format. Yes, a seeding system may ameliorate it somewhat, but at the cost of instituting a a player ranking system. If you really want to resolve this issue, the simplest thing to do is to go with a top cut, which eliminates it entirely. Moreover the top cut, being based on tournament performance, is going to have much less of an "elitist feel" to it and lead to much less petty squabbling than a player ranking system will. (This conclusion *is* the result of putting some thought on how to make the system more fair. :) )
I believe the main issue here is simply playing too many rounds in the name of fun. If we played the minimum amount of rounds, it wouldn't be a problem.Not really. If you play the minimum number of rounds the only problem you fix is with first place. (Barring ties and such, a minimum round Swiss guarantees that you will have two players tied for second. You need minimum + 1 to have a chance to resolve 2nd/3rd, but minimum + 1 gives the 1st place player a chance to falter making it not so clean at the top.) The problem is much more general than ties for first--as the example at hand shows. The other thing related to this is that a minimum round Swiss is essentially single elimination for first. For the good players I have witnessed, one-bad-draw/match-and-you-are-out tournaments tend to not be so enjoyable.
Would making Top Cut a "tournament size" issue instead of making it mandatory or optional fix the conflict we seem to be having here? Top Cut would be silly at tournaments with less than 20 or even 25 people, in my opinion. Then, people who want to keep their tournaments with Swiss can?Right now the only tournament that has a format dictated by Cactus is Nationals, and I don't think anyone is zealous enough to be talking about making top cut (or any format) mandatory at the District/Local level. Personally, for consistency sake I would like to see something standardized at Regionals (and am ambivalent about States), but I can see why having some threshold even at the Regional level would be good.
Now, I will say, it has gotten ridiculous in terms of sportsmanship and such in the past couple of years, which is why I have basically backed out of playing. It's not fun anymore, unless I'm playing closed events, and sometimes even those get bouts of frustrated or arrogant people.:(
We have some people having to play up to 6 players in the top 10, and others who only have to play 1.Top cut actually pretty much fixes this problem
If you really want to resolve this issue, the simplest thing to do is to go with a top cut, which eliminates it entirely.I disagree with both of you. It doesn't solve the problem, it just hides it. If there were a top cut after 7 rounds (as some are suggesting), then there would still be a lot of unfairness as to how many top players everyone had to face in those first 7 rounds. Someone could get into the top-cut having only played 1 top player while someone else would have to play 4 top players to get there.
I disagree with both of you. It doesn't solve the problem, it just hides it. If there were a top cut after 7 rounds (as some are suggesting), then there would still be a lot of unfairness as to how many top players everyone had to face in those first 7 rounds. Someone could get into the top-cut having only played 1 top player while someone else would have to play 4 top players to get there.
I disagree with both of you. It doesn't solve the problem, it just hides it. If there were a top cut after 7 rounds (as some are suggesting), then there would still be a lot of unfairness as to how many top players everyone had to face in those first 7 rounds. Someone could get into the top-cut having only played 1 top player while someone else would have to play 4 top players to get there.
I, personally, don't care if someone makes top cut having only played one top player because in order to close the deal, they're going to have beat a lot more top players.
I'd still like to see someone figure out the records of the top 20 players at Nats this year vs. the top 20 players.A link to the tournament spreadsheet can be found here (http://www.covenantgames.com/nationals/nationals.htm). If you think this information would be valuable you can find it easily enough.
I will not be posting any more on this topic. My final thoughts, as I've already alluded to:With the exception of changing 2. to "categories with more than 32 people", I fully agree.
1. I have no problem with Top Cut for Nationals only.
2. I have no problem with Top Cut for tournaments over 30 people.
3. In any other circumstance, I have no problem with Top Cut if it is optional for the host.
Since Central Florida has already hosted the last two FL State and SE Regional tournaments in a row, I will not likely be hosting either for at least the next two years (in all fairness). Therefore, my opinion should have little weight on the decision to implement Top Cut anyway.
I'd still like to see someone figure out the records of the top 20 players at Nats this year vs. the top 20 players.
More than anything, seeing those numbers further perpetuates the significant necessity for top cut.
Where are you getting my second loss? I'm fairly certain I was 2-1?I'd still like to see someone figure out the records of the top 20 players at Nats this year vs. the top 20 players.
You want to know what the top 1/3 of the field did against each other? Fine.
Martin Miller: 7-1
John Earley: 2-2
Jonathon Greeson: 6-2
Connor Magras: 1-1 (with a timeout loss as well)
Matt Townsend: 3-3
Daniel Huisinga: 4-2
Chris Ericson: 6-3
Alex Olijar: 4-3
Josh Brinkman: 4-3
Jay Chambers: 2-2
Caleb Stanley: 0-1
Mark Underwood: 1-3 with a timeout win
James Roepke: 1-3
James Courtney: 3-2
Andrew Wester: 1-3
Chris Egley: 1-0
Jacob Arrowood: 1-3
Brian Jones: 1-4
Nic Marshall: 1-3
Christian Fong: 0-4
You want to know what the top 1/3 of the field did against each other? Fine.Thanks. There are definitely some things that stand out there. Just to pick on my own playgroup, how did Caleb Stanley finish higher by only playing 1 top player (and losing to them) than James Courtney who played 5 top players (and beat 3 of them)? And to pick on a couple good friends, how did John Early finish higher than Jon Greeson? (nm John beat Jon head to head)
Martin Miller: 7-1
John Earley: 2-2
Jonathon Greeson: 6-2
Connor Magras: 1-1 (with a timeout loss as well)
Matt Townsend: 3-3
Daniel Huisinga: 4-2
Chris Ericson: 6-3
Alex Olijar: 4-3
Josh Brinkman: 4-3
Jay Chambers: 2-2
Caleb Stanley: 0-1
Mark Underwood: 1-3 with a timeout win
James Roepke: 1-3
James Courtney: 3-2
Andrew Wester: 1-3
Chris Egley: 1-0
Jacob Arrowood: 1-3
Brian Jones: 1-4
Nic Marshall: 1-3
Christian Fong: 0-4
What if we went at this from a different perspective? Instead of doing a top-cut for the last rounds of a tournament, what if we did like soccer in the olympics for the early rounds. All the people could be broken up into groups of 6 people who played round-robin for the first 5 rounds. Then we could do swiss with everyone after that based on the results so far. The people running the tournament could make sure that each group had no more than 1 or 2 of the people from Kirk's List (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-tournaments/top-t1-2p-players-at-nationals-over-past-10-years/msg491396/#msg491396) or the top 20 RNRS players from the year, or whatever method people think is best.Are you seriously proposing a completely new format that drags in the politics of either "best player" lists or RNRS rankings into Nationals?
I'm not quite sure you'd rather propose a complicated and roundabout way to achieve assumed "fairness" (which has a lot of problems I'll let someone else address) rather than simply implement a system that other CCGs have proved time and time again to work wonderfully.It is worth noting in this respect that MtG actually has a National player ranking system that include the results from all sanctioned tournaments, and they do not go down the proposed route.
What if we went at this from a different perspective? Instead of doing a top-cut for the last rounds of a tournament, what if we did like soccer in the olympics for the early rounds. All the people could be broken up into groups of 6 people who played round-robin for the first 5 rounds. Then we could do swiss with everyone after that based on the results so far. The people running the tournament could make sure that each group had no more than 1 or 2 of the people from Kirk's List (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-tournaments/top-t1-2p-players-at-nationals-over-past-10-years/msg491396/#msg491396) or the top 20 RNRS players from the year, or whatever method people think is best.You seem like you've hardened your heart against top cut. What problems do you still have with it?
OK, first things first. I am NOT proposing anything at this point. I'm actually OK with just continuing to do things the way we are. I'm just throwing out a different idea to see if anyone thinks it's worth considering.
Second of all, I haven't "hardened my heart" against top-cut. I just continue to believe that it has an elitist feel to it because it limits people at the finish of a tournament with an obvious cut-off that tells everyone else that they're not good enough. I also believe that top-cut does NOT solve the fairness issue because some people would get in following weak early round competition while others would NOT get in following tough early round competition. (I'm glad that at least Korunks seems to also see this).
Third of all, I understand people's hesitancy with Kirk's list, or RNRS, or I suppose we could go back several months to Alex's list. Perhaps they seem better to me because I seem to end up about the same place on all of them (19 Kirk, 18 RNRS, 18 Alex), and because most of the names there seem to be relatively accurate based on my experience having played most of them. Maybe we could be like the BCS and have some sort of formula that combined all those lists to make a master list, and then use that. The nice thing about using a list like that at the beginning of the tournament rather than the end is that it only set's people opening rounds, and leaves the finish in the hands of the players themselves. It makes everyone's strength of schedule about equal, but still let's everyone feel like they have a shot throughout the whole tournament.
I guess basically, I just think that if we're going to force things, we should do it at the beginning of the tournament, and then open things up for the finish. This seems more fun and free than starting the tournament with total freedom, and then clamping down at the end.
So top cut is elitist but ranking players and establishing pools of players based on ranking is not elitist?Basically, yes. Telling people they're not good enough to even compete for anywhere in the top 8/16/32 is elitist. Telling people that they haven't proved themselves yet to put themselves on a list, but then letting them play their way to the finish of a tournament is NOT elitist. Sure maybe they'll be a bit insulted that they aren't on the list, but as long as they perform well in their grouping, then they'll come out of the grouping near the top of the standings and have a chance to win the whole tournament. I don't think people would be nearly as upset by that as they would if they took some early losses to tough opponents, but felt like they could've come back to finish in the top 10 if given the chance. But they weren't even given the chance because they didn't make that top cut.
If it is top 32 after 6 rounds, then that makes it an 11 round tournament.Only for the top 8(?) players (assuming double elimination). That's:
I was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.I like the idea of double elim to the point of one undefeated person due to needing to decide second and third place.
I don't see much good coming out of getting into an argument over which idea is more elitist.But it is the very idea that top-cut comes across as elitist that turns me (and YMT, and perhaps others) off to it. If you want to convince people that this is the way to go, then it is worthwhile to have the discussion of whether it is or not, and whether there is a less elitist way to accomplish the same goal.
if a person did not make it into the top 32 by six rounds, they had zero chance of placing anywayAgain, it's NOT all about placing. Some people (like me) play for the top 10. Some people play for the top 20. If you do a top-cut, then no one even has a chance to make it into that top number because they aren't there at a certain earlier point in the tournament. Without a top-cut they still have a chance to achieve their personal goal. With a top-cut it is no longer possible. To me, that is a detriment of the top-cut system.
But it is the very idea that top-cut comes across as elitist that turns me (and YMT, and perhaps others) off to it. If you want to convince people that this is the way to go, then it is worthwhile to have the discussion of whether it is or not, and whether there is a less elitist way to accomplish the same goal.
Again, it's NOT all about placing. Some people (like me) play for the top 10. Some people play for the top 20. If you do a top-cut, then no one even has a chance to make it into that top number because they aren't there at a certain earlier point in the tournament. Without a top-cut they still have a chance to achieve their personal goal. With a top-cut it is no longer possible. To me, that is a detriment of the top-cut system.
I was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.I like the idea of double elim to the point of one undefeated person due to needing to decide second and third place.
I was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.I like the idea of double elim to the point of one undefeated person due to needing to decide second and third place.
Winners of top 4 proceed to finals, losers of top 4 play each other to determine 3rd and 4th.
I was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.I like the idea of double elim to the point of one undefeated person due to needing to decide second and third place.
Winners of top 4 proceed to finals, losers of top 4 play each other to determine 3rd and 4th.
I've always liked single elimination with this.
Again, it's NOT all about placing. Some people (like me) play for the top 10. Some people play for the top 20. If you do a top-cut, then no one even has a chance to make it into that top number because they aren't there at a certain earlier point in the tournament. Without a top-cut they still have a chance to achieve their personal goal. With a top-cut it is no longer possible. To me, that is a detriment of the top-cut system.
So top cut is elitist but ranking players and establishing pools of players based on ranking is not elitist?Basically, yes. Telling people they're not good enough to even compete for anywhere in the top 8/16/32 is elitist. Telling people that they haven't proved themselves yet to put themselves on a list, but then letting them play their way to the finish of a tournament is NOT elitist. Sure maybe they'll be a bit insulted that they aren't on the list, but as long as they perform well in their grouping, then they'll come out of the grouping near the top of the standings and have a chance to win the whole tournament. I don't think people would be nearly as upset by that as they would if they took some early losses to tough opponents, but felt like they could've come back to finish in the top 10 if given the chance. But they weren't even given the chance because they didn't make that top cut.
Can you clarify your position, perhaps with an example (top 16 for instance). I'm under the impression that a player keeps playing until they suffer 2 losses.After Round 1:
If my math is right.
At the point we are discussing (6 or 7 rounds) before making the top cut, you are already past the required number of rounds based on teh number of players. If making a cut based on performance at this stage is elitist than every single tournament in the game that doesn't go three rounds beyond the minimum is elitist.So top cut is elitist but ranking players and establishing pools of players based on ranking is not elitist?Basically, yes. Telling people they're not good enough to even compete for anywhere in the top 8/16/32 is elitist. Telling people that they haven't proved themselves yet to put themselves on a list, but then letting them play their way to the finish of a tournament is NOT elitist.
The problem I see is the 4 4-1's at the end. How do you possibly resolve those without adding at least 3 more rounds?I think you meant two rounds. 2x (4-1 vs 4-1) leaves 2x 5-1, who meet.
The problem I see is the 4 4-1's at the end. How do you possibly resolve those without adding at least 3 more rounds?There are several options.
The problem I see is the 4 4-1's at the end. How do you possibly resolve those without adding at least 3 more rounds?There are several options.
First, take into account the swiss rounds. Second, head-to-head. Lost Soul Diff, etc.
Also, Westy, I don't think anyone was talking about double elimination were they? I thought they were talking about best-two-out-of-three single elimination.
So what if a good player loses to a good player during the swiss portion and doesn't qualify for the top cut?The problem there is that this defeats the whole purpose of top-cut. If the goal is to make the best players play each other the most games to get a clear winner, then having a top-cut ends up messing that up when some of the players in top-cut get there due to an easy early schedule.
By top cutting, we would have avoided some of the strange results you see above (for example, John Earley would have been in serious issue of being cut if he didn't perform after going 3-2 his first five rounds).This is exactly what I'm talking about. Does anyone really think that John Earley is NOT one of the top 16 players at Nats this past summer in T1-2p? So if he doesn't even make the top-cut due to a really tough early schedule, then that shortchanges both him and the top-cut system as a whole.
The reality of the situation is that if you were to top cut ...the winner will ...have defeated at least 4 players of high standingNot if a large number of the players in the top cut got their from an easy early schedule. This would still create unfair games within the top-cut itself as some players get much easier opponents than others.
Also, as a side note, if we had top cut at 16 following Greeson's status as lone undefeated after Round 6, six new players would have made the top cut in comparison to the actual top 16 players following round 10.This is another reason why top-cut doesn't work. Based on a free swiss system, it became evident after enough rounds that those 6 players really didn't belong in the top 16. Yet if a hard top-cut had been used, then the 6 players who earned their way into the top 16 would've been locked out of those positions.
Does anyone really think that John Earley is NOT one of the top 16 players at Nats this past summer in T1-2p?
The problem there is that this defeats the whole purpose of top-cut. If the goal is to make the best players play each other the most games to get a clear winner, then having a top-cut ends up messing that up when some of the players in top-cut get there due to an easy early schedule.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Does anyone really think that John Earley is NOT one of the top 16 players at Nats this past summer in T1-2p? So if he doesn't even make the top-cut due to a really tough early schedule, then that shortchanges both him and the top-cut system as a whole....What? Being blatantly honest, it doesn't matter who you or anyone else thinks deserves to be in top cut. That is not what the tournament format gauges. It measures how good a player is in that tournament. If a generally good player fails to make top cut on that day, then that means they did not perform well and did not deserve to be in top cut. Why are you possibly trying to reward a player that did not do good? Do not try to project the blame on the top cut system, because there clearly is none in this situation. There is only one person to blame for a poor record.
Not if a large number of the players in the top cut got their from an easy early schedule. This would still create unfair games within the top-cut itself as some players get much easier opponents than others.
So what if a good player loses to a good player during the swiss portion and doesn't qualify for the top cut?The problem there is that this defeats the whole purpose of top-cut. If the goal is to make the best players play each other the most games to get a clear winner, then having a top-cut ends up messing that up when some of the players in top-cut get there due to an easy early schedule.
By top cutting, we would have avoided some of the strange results you see above (for example, John Earley would have been in serious issue of being cut if he didn't perform after going 3-2 his first five rounds).This is exactly what I'm talking about. Does anyone really think that John Earley is NOT one of the top 16 players at Nats this past summer in T1-2p? So if he doesn't even make the top-cut due to a really tough early schedule, then that shortchanges both him and the top-cut system as a whole.
The reality of the situation is that if you were to top cut ...the winner will ...have defeated at least 4 players of high standingNot if a large number of the players in the top cut got their from an easy early schedule. This would still create unfair games within the top-cut itself as some players get much easier opponents than others.
Also, as a side note, if we had top cut at 16 following Greeson's status as lone undefeated after Round 6, six new players would have made the top cut in comparison to the actual top 16 players following round 10.This is another reason why top-cut doesn't work. Based on a free swiss system, it became evident after enough rounds that those 6 players really didn't belong in the top 16. Yet if a hard top-cut had been used, then the 6 players who earned their way into the top 16 would've been locked out of those positions.
The problem with this argument is that given an infinite number of rounds, virtually every player and deck will regress to the mean of approximately 80% of the available points.This is an interesting comment, can you explain it more?
Given an infinite number of rounds, every player and deck will regress to exactly an indeterminate percentage of the available points.
I think. YMT, I need your help. Or Jordan. Or Ken is a math teacher too, right?
No - I was pointing out that if you played an infinite number of rounds you can't calculate your winrate because you can't just go and divide by infinity.
No - I was pointing out that if you played an infinite number of rounds you can't calculate your winrate because you can't just go and divide by infinity.Rawlr... you may want to explore the concept known as a "limit." In the limit as n approaches infinity (0.8 n / n) is 0.8 even though I would be dividing by infinity.
Given enough rounds, every deck will theoretically regress to its actual ability, the best of which is typically around an 80% win rate.By "deck" I assume you mean "deck + player." Trust me, I have proven time and again that I am fully capable of having my tournament performance come nowhere near the rate you would expect from the deck alone.
Given enough rounds, every deck will theoretically regress to its actual ability, the best of which is typically around an 80% win rate.By "deck" I assume you mean "deck + player." Trust me, I have proven time and again that I am fully capable of having my tournament performance come nowhere near the rate you would expect from the deck alone.
"top cut" ...guarantees two things: One, the winner had to win 3/4/5 straight games against his/her best competitors, and two, there will be no heartbreak or complaining over convoluted tie-breakers.You are right that it gets rid of convoluted tie-breakers. But the Swiss system we currently have already guarantees the winner had to win a bunch of games against the top players. This past summer, Martin Miller's last 4 rounds were wins against Jon Greeson, JSB, Polarius, and Chris Ericson (all of whom are well known top players and who all finished in the top 10 themselves). Top-cut isn't going to make anyone play a tougher schedule than that.
First place, sure, but Earley (sorry bro) got second with 2-2 against top 20, and what's more is Connor Magras, who managed fourth and only played 2 of the top 20."top cut" ...guarantees two things: One, the winner had to win 3/4/5 straight games against his/her best competitors, and two, there will be no heartbreak or complaining over convoluted tie-breakers.You are right that it gets rid of convoluted tie-breakers. But the Swiss system we currently have already guarantees the winner had to win a bunch of games against the top players. This past summer, Martin Miller's last 4 rounds were wins against Jon Greeson, JSB, Polarius, and Chris Ericson (all of whom are well known top players and who all finished in the top 10 themselves). Top-cut isn't going to make anyone play a tougher schedule than that.
So we need to get away from the idea that top-cut will add any more legitimacy to winning the tournament. The only real advantage that it has is regarding tie-breakers.
The Swiss system we currently have guarantees nothing of the sort. Martin's tough schedule was a result of his dominating from the get-go and is a tribute to the quality of his play and not to the Swiss format. For comparison look at 2007. In that tournament Gabe Isbell played precisely 2 top ten players in the final 8 rounds (the 2nd and 8th place finishers). A top-cut such has been proposed would guarantee that anyone placing would play a tougher schedule than that."top cut" ...guarantees two things: One, the winner had to win 3/4/5 straight games against his/her best competitors, and two, there will be no heartbreak or complaining over convoluted tie-breakers.You are right that it gets rid of convoluted tie-breakers. But the Swiss system we currently have already guarantees the winner had to win a bunch of games against the top players. This past summer, Martin Miller's last 4 rounds were wins against Jon Greeson, JSB, Polarius, and Chris Ericson (all of whom are well known top players and who all finished in the top 10 themselves). Top-cut isn't going to make anyone play a tougher schedule than that.
So we need to get away from the idea that top-cut will add any more legitimacy to winning the tournament. The only real advantage that it has is regarding tie-breakers.The first claim is debatable, but the tie breaker statement is undoubtedly true. Now go back and look at the discussions that have been held at the end of this year and they are all tie-breaker related. Tie breakers *are* the issue.
For comparison look at 2007. In that tournament Gabe Isbell played precisely 2 top ten players in the final 8 rounds (the 2nd and 8th place finishers). A top-cut such has been proposed would guarantee that anyone placing would play a tougher schedule than that.Gabe's schedule in 2007 was actually decently hard as well. He played 2 top 10 finishers in his first 2 rounds, and his last 3 rounds were wins against Reggie Flores (respected player who finished top 20), Christian Rohrer (finished top 10), and Kevin Shride (finished #2). A top-cut is unlikely to produce a harder schedule than that either.
The main drawback of the Swiss Style system is that it values all wins equally. A player that is 2-5 and beats another player that is 2-5 is rewarded the same as a player that is 5-2 and beats another player that is 5-2 while in fact the wins are no where near equal.That is a good point, and brings in another idea for making things more fair. Perhaps the number of victory points could vary depending on the # of wins that your opponent already has in the tournament. Just to throw out another completely different idea :)
Gabe's schedule in 2007 was actually decently hard as well. He played 2 top 10 finishers in his first 2 rounds, and his last 3 rounds were wins against Reggie Flores (respected player who finished top 20), Christian Rohrer (finished top 10), and Kevin Shride (finished #2).
A top-cut is unlikely to produce a harder schedule than that either.
The amount of special pleading here is remarkable. You make a specific point about Martin have a tough X final rounds--which no one disputes--and use this to claim that the Swiss guarantees tough schedules. When a counter example is provided that disproves this claim you simply switch the argument. Instead of final X matches, now we need to look at all matches. Let's also throw out the actual performance metric we were using (results against top ten finishers) and replace it with a "respected player" criterion.For comparison look at 2007. In that tournament Gabe Isbell played precisely 2 top ten players in the final 8 rounds (the 2nd and 8th place finishers). A top-cut such has been proposed would guarantee that anyone placing would play a tougher schedule than that.Gabe's schedule in 2007 was actually decently hard as well. He played 2 top 10 finishers in his first 2 rounds, and his last 3 rounds were wins against Reggie Flores (respected player who finished top 20), Christian Rohrer (finished top 10), and Kevin Shride (finished #2).
A top-cut is unlikely to produce a harder schedule than that either.In an X-2 cut, Gabe still would have made the cut in 2007, but he would have had to play at least 3 (4) players ranked in the top 8 (16) in addition to the players from his first two rounds in order to win, as opposed to 2 games against top 16 (Reggie placed 17th). Clearly top cut guarantees a more difficult schedule in this case. The Swiss, on the other hand, guarantees basically nothing in terms of strength of schedule (unless you choose to redefine "strength of schedule" to match each individual case).
In an X-2 cut, Gabe still would have made the cut in 2007, but he would have had to play at least 3 (4) players ranked in the top 8 (16) in addition to the players from his first two rounds in order to win, as opposed to 2 games against top 16 (Reggie placed 17th). Clearly top cut guarantees a more difficult schedule in this case.Actually I think you're mistaken. If Gabe would have made the cut in 2007, then all the people in front of him would have as well. Therefore he would have played the same people the last 4 rounds as he did anyway, so the difficulty of his schedule wouldn't have changed at all with top-cut.
Again, I think the only real advantage of top-cut is that it eliminates tie-breaker issues.
Is that not sufficient? The rest of our tie breaking solutions are inadequate to say the least.I'm not totally sure, but I don't think it is sufficient for me. The tie-breaking issue really hasn't been much of a problem in the past until this last summer when it came up at a couple regionals. Even at Nats this summer the tie that people are talking about is for 7th place, so that really doesn't matter much. I'm just not convinced that we should make major changes to the overall tournament format if it isn't going to change anything other than clearing up ties.
How do you think that top cut is more "eliteist" then sorting the supposed "Top Players" at the begining? I honestly want to know.Is that not sufficient? The rest of our tie breaking solutions are inadequate to say the least.I'm not totally sure, but I don't think it is sufficient for me. The tie-breaking issue really hasn't been much of a problem in the past until this last summer when it came up at a couple regionals. Even at Nats this summer the tie that people are talking about is for 7th place, so that really doesn't matter much. I'm just not convinced that we should make major changes to the overall tournament format if it isn't going to change anything other than clearing up ties.
On the other hand I am more interested in a couple of the other ideas that have come out which seem like they might make the tournament a lot more fair relating to strength of schedule. The idea from professional soccer of having small pools at the beginning rounds with a more even distribution of top players would be one way to do it. The idea of weighting the victory points based on the number of wins that your opponent has at that point of the tournament would be another way to do it. I suspect that the latter solution might ALSO solve the issues of ties.
Actually I think you're mistaken. If Gabe would have made the cut in 2007, then all the people in front of him would have as well. Therefore he would have played the same people the last 4 rounds as he did anyway, so the difficulty of his schedule wouldn't have changed at all with top-cut.
Again, I think the only real advantage of top-cut is that it eliminates tie-breaker issues.
Actually I think you're mistaken. If Gabe would have made the cut in 2007, then all the people in front of him would have as well. Therefore he would have played the same people the last 4 rounds as he did anyway, so the difficulty of his schedule wouldn't have changed at all with top-cut.
Again, I think the only real advantage of top-cut is that it eliminates tie-breaker issues.
Quick question...is Top Cut seeded? So in an 8 person top cut: 1 vs 8, 4 vs 5, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6?If it isn't you ain't doing it right.
How do you think that top cut is more "eliteist" then sorting the supposed "Top Players" at the begining? I honestly want to know.I've explained this before, but I'll try again. Seeding players prior to a tournament is elitist just as much as a top-cut is elitist. The difference is that the elitism is at the beginning and therefore if you play well enough, then you still have complete control throughout the tournament of where you end up. And your schedule to reach the top will be much closer in level of difficulty to everyone else's. Doing a top cut moves the elitism to mid-way through the tournament, and then locks people into the potential winners and everyone else who doesn't even have the opportunity anymore to work their way up into those top 8/16/32 spots. This makes it seem more elitist to me.
So, I recognize that at least one Elder is pretty firmly against this, and a couple other Elders seem to be indifferentI assume that the "firmly against" guy is me, but I'm actually using this (and the other) thread to process through this idea, and am not actually as against the idea as it probably comes across. For instance, I hadn't considered the "seeded" aspect of the top-cut until the last few posts, and I'm convinced that if you did that, then top-cut WOULD produce a more uniform strength of schedule. The people at the top of the top-cut would have had harder schedules prior to entering it, and would have an easier path to victory than normal swiss. The people who sneak into the bottom of the top-cut would have had easier schedules prior to entering it, and would have a harder path to victory than normal swiss. This actually is pretty good.
can this not be an idea that simply stagnates and dies because nobody with influence was willing to take it to Rob?Rob has an account here on the forum, and anyone is able to send him a PM about an issue that they feel is worth his time and energy to look into. However, I'd be more interested to discuss this a bit further ourselves before going forward with any proposals. For instance, Sir Nobody brought up the good point about victory points being the same in spite of the level of difficulty being very different. Does anyone have any input on whether a system which gave victory points based on the current record of the opponent is worth looking at more closely?
All top cut does is take the best players on that day then makes them play for the title to avoid tie breakers. It also prevents situations like Gabe winning without beating any of the other top players in 07.How do you think that top cut is more "eliteist" then sorting the supposed "Top Players" at the begining? I honestly want to know.I've explained this before, but I'll try again. Seeding players prior to a tournament is elitist just as much as a top-cut is elitist. The difference is that the elitism is at the beginning and therefore if you play well enough, then you still have complete control throughout the tournament of where you end up. And your schedule to reach the top will be much closer in level of difficulty to everyone else's. Doing a top cut moves the elitism to mid-way through the tournament, and then locks people into the potential winners and everyone else who doesn't even have the opportunity anymore to work their way up into those top 8/16/32 spots. This makes it seem more elitist to me.
I've explained this before, but I'll try again. Seeding players prior to a tournament is elitist just as much as a top-cut is elitist. The difference is that the elitism is at the beginning and therefore if you play well enough, then you still have complete control throughout the tournament of where you end up. And your schedule to reach the top will be much closer in level of difficulty to everyone else's. Doing a top cut moves the elitism to mid-way through the tournament, and then locks people into the potential winners and everyone else who doesn't even have the opportunity anymore to work their way up into those top 8/16/32 spots. This makes it seem more elitist to me.
Rob has an account here on the forum, and anyone is able to send him a PM about an issue that they feel is worth his time and energy to look into. However, I'd be more interested to discuss this a bit further ourselves before going forward with any proposals. For instance, Sir Nobody brought up the good point about victory points being the same in spite of the level of difficulty being very different. Does anyone have any input on whether a system which gave victory points based on the current record of the opponent is worth looking at more closely?
I believe that ranking people before we have any indication of how they're going to do in a tournament is much, much worse. You're basically going to be telling a specific group of people "we don't think you're good enough to be considered part of the 'eliteFirst of all, it is silly to think that we don't have "any indication of how they're going to do in a tournament". If I show up at next year's national tournament, and Gabe is playing and so is my daughter, there are HUGE indications that Gabe will end up placing higher than her. Gabe is a multiple time national champion who has consistently been at the top of other big time tournaments including the T2-only, while my daughter was playing in Type-A this summer. That's a LOT of indicators of how their respective tournaments will go.
If this system has worked for those franchises, why would it not work for Redemption?OK, so top cut has worked for some other games. But early round pools has worked for pro-soccer. And having a committee seed teams has been a big success for college basketball. And weighting scores based on level of difficulty has worked well for diving/ice skating/gymnastics/etc. in the Olympics. So lots of systems can work, I'm interested in discussing all options rather than just getting stuck on top-cut only.
| Participants Swiss Rounds Rounds Day 1 Rounds Day 2 Playoff Top Cut 129 – 256 Duelists 8 Rounds 8 Rounds None Top 16 257 – 512 Duelists 9 Rounds 9 Rounds None Top 16 513 – 1024 Duelists 10 Rounds 8 Rounds 2 Rounds Top 32 1025 – 2048 Duelists 11 Rounds 9 Rounds 2 Rounds Top 32 2049 or more Duelists 12 Rounds 9 Rounds 3 Rounds Top 64 |
OK, so top cut has worked for some other games.
And weighting scores based on level of difficulty has worked well for diving/ice skating/gymnastics/etc. in the Olympics.
Rob,
We currently have a topic (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-tournaments/top-cut/) discussing the merits of using a Top Cut system over the Swiss system we have now. I don't know if you remember, but I got the chance to talk to you about it at the very end of Nats this last year, and it seemed to be something you were receptive to. I won't ask you read the whole topic (it's long and in-depth, and will probably be twice as long as its current five pages by the time you get a chance to read it), though the first post details what Top Cut is just in case you don't remember the details. All I'm asking right now is is Top Cut something you would seriously consider implementing? There's obviously no reason to even discuss if you don't like the idea, but a lot of us think it would be extremely good for the game and community as a whole. If it is something you would seriously consider, then we can perhaps put together the specific ideas we'd like to see implemented for your review.
Thanks for your consideration,
Chris
e·lit·ism
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority
Prof U, I hate to rag on your idea even more than I already have, but this is probably a good time to point out that Soccer pool play works because the teams have already been top cut into the tournament.
=
A loophole to using Swiss to get to the knockout stages is that I can now intentionally lose my first game 0-5 to give myself an easier road. That would be suicide in the current tie-breaker system. Yes, I take a chance that LS differential ultimately prevents me from qualifying, but I certainly don't have to worry about it during knockout stages. And in theory as I play easier opponents if I'm winning a game 3-0 or 4-0 with SoG/NJ in my hand I can give out some free LS to manipulate my LS differential to continue playing less difficult opponents. "Sandbagging" is very common in all forms of competition.
OK, so top cut has worked for some other games. But early round pools has worked for pro-soccer. And having a committee seed teams has been a big success for college basketball. And weighting scores based on level of difficulty has worked well for diving/ice skating/gymnastics/etc. in the Olympics. So lots of systems can work, I'm interested in discussing all options rather than just getting stuck on top-cut only.
A loophole to using Swiss to get to the knockout stages is that I can now intentionally lose my first game 0-5 to give myself an easier road.
A loophole to using Swiss to get to the knockout stages is that I can now intentionally lose my first game 0-5 to give myself an easier road.
I would guess that players would prefer to win their first game, face harder competition but have more margin for error (losses) to still make the cut than to lose their first game, face easier competition but have no margin for error.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
If there was a "best" or "right" option, I think all professional and amateur competitive endeavors would have been using it for years before all of us were born. ;)
QuoteIf there was a "best" or "right" option, I think all professional and amateur competitive endeavors would have been using it for years before all of us were born. ;)
Strictly speaking, in this particular format of competitive play (Competitive CCGs), we do have a system that's used by all three of the major players.
QuoteIf there was a "best" or "right" option, I think all professional and amateur competitive endeavors would have been using it for years before all of us were born. ;)
Strictly speaking, in this particular format of competitive play (Competitive CCGs), we do have a system that's used by all three of the major players.
For decades, in another particular format of competitive play, all levels except one used a playoff system. Becoming the "college football" of CCGs does not make it wrong, only different. And I for one like to be different than the other CCGs.
QuoteIf there was a "best" or "right" option, I think all professional and amateur competitive endeavors would have been using it for years before all of us were born. ;)
Strictly speaking, in this particular format of competitive play (Competitive CCGs), we do have a system that's used by all three of the major players.
For decades, in another particular format of competitive play, all levels except one used a playoff system. Becoming the "college football" of CCGs does not make it wrong, only different. And I for one like to be different than the other CCGs.
Let's talk about how that was a terrible analogy because everyone hates college football's system.
I played around with weighting games based on number of losses so far. It was really hard (basically impossible) to come up with a weight that gave a significant advantage to players playing at the top without making the advantage too significant for players to overcome an early loss. It also was rather complicated.That's unfortunate as I thought that this method might be a simple way to achieve a more fair tournament without changing the actual format significantly. However as I think about it, I guess it wouldn't work anyway because a 1st round game against Gabe would still count the same as a 1st round game against my daughter, even though those are clearly NOT the same level of difficulty. I suppose it is impossible to really create a system that will equalize everyone's strength of schedule without having a true pre-tournament ranking system.
Oh, we agree, which is why it was a bad choice if you're opposed to Top Cut.
I really did like the idea for best 2 of 3 for top cut, even if it was a bit longer. Was really looking forward to using a sideboard.
I really did like the idea for best 2 of 3 for top cut, even if it was a bit longer. Was really looking forward to using a sideboard.
I really did like the idea for best 2 of 3 for top cut, even if it was a bit longer. Was really looking forward to using a sideboard.
I am interested in this side board idea (especially strategically speaking).
Would you mind creating a topic that would describe what it involves?
I'm curious about number of cards in sideboard, types of cards, when & how to change in and out, and deck check-in.
I think a descriptive topic would help this become more of a reality.
At the very least, I may start testing it with my playgroup to evaluate its merits.
Is that not sufficient? The rest of our tie breaking solutions are inadequate to say the least.I'm not totally sure, but I don't think it is sufficient for me. The tie-breaking issue really hasn't been much of a problem in the past until this last summer when it came up at a couple regionals. Even at Nats this summer the tie that people are talking about is for 7th place, so that really doesn't matter much. I'm just not convinced that we should make major changes to the overall tournament format if it isn't going to change anything other than clearing up ties.
On the other hand I am more interested in a couple of the other ideas that have come out which seem like they might make the tournament a lot more fair relating to strength of schedule. The idea from professional soccer of having small pools at the beginning rounds with a more even distribution of top players would be one way to do it. The idea of weighting the victory points based on the number of wins that your opponent has at that point of the tournament would be another way to do it. I suspect that the latter solution might ALSO solve the issues of ties.
I guess I'm coming around at this point to the idea of top-cut being a good idea from the standpoint of competition. I'm still not a fan of telling the vast majority of players that they didn't do well enough to even be allowed to participate in the "real" national tournament. So I guess the question is whether the benefit to the competition is worth the downside of making the national tournament feel a LOT more exclusive than it has in the past.
We've rehashed this issue enough that I doubt either of our minds are going to changeSomeone must not be reading my posts very thoroughly :)
I guess I'm coming around at this point to the idea of top-cut being a good idea from the standpoint of competition.At the beginning I saw top-cut as an elitist system that didn't really benefit to competition at all. Then I was convinced that it was at least an effective way to eliminate tie-breaker confusion. Now, I think that a ranked top-cut probably does help competition, as well as eliminate complicated ties.
So I guess the question is whether the benefit to the competition is worth the downside of making the national tournament feel a LOT more exclusive than it has in the past.Here's a real simple solution to this problem--"Just don't say anything." Just keep all players playing games for all rounds, and never mention that the last three rounds switched from pute Swiss to top-cut + Swiss.
I am willing to allow the following trial for this tournament season:
Top Cut will be allowed (not required) for categories over 31 people. So if the tournament host, with input from his players, wants to give it a try it will be okay with me.
Given that, we need to nail down the format for hosts that want to try it.
I am willing to allow the following trial for this tournament season:
Top Cut will be allowed (not required) for categories over 31 people. So if the tournament host, with input from his players, wants to give it a try it will be okay with me.
Given that, we need to nail down the format for hosts that want to try it.
I'd propose something along the following:
For tournaments between 32 and 63 players, a single elimination bracket is formed with the top 8 players. Seeding is determined by the order of placing according to the results thus far. 1st against 8th, 2nd against 7th, etc. After each round, the tournament is reseeded - the high ranking player plays the lowest ranking player, and so on.
If there are more than 64 players, the bracket must contain the top 16 players.
I am willing to allow the following trial for this tournament season:Bump. This is huge. Get to work nailing down formats people. Please.
Top Cut will be allowed (not required) for categories over 31 people. So if the tournament host, with input from his players, wants to give it a try it will be okay with me.
Given that, we need to nail down the format for hosts that want to try it.
I like the idea of only the host seeing the rankings pre-tournament.
Assuming that the host does not play in that category....I agree. There would be too much room for accusing a conflict of interest for the someone to put themselves in a bracket. I would trust many of our great hosts to actually do this fairly, however the Bible does say to avoid even the appearance of evil.
What's worse, is group two is stacked pitifully.
Neither do I, But you left out Brinkman, Pol, Maust, and Greeson.What's worse, is group two is stacked pitifully.
The group you're in is a great example of why this system stinks. Chris Ericson is a top player, you are a upper tier player, and Jason Dailey is an upper tier player, but Prof doesn't know that because he probably has no idea who Jason Dailey is.
Neither do I, But you left out Brinkman, Pol, Maust, and Greeson.What's worse, is group two is stacked pitifully.
The group you're in is a great example of why this system stinks. Chris Ericson is a top player, you are a upper tier player, and Jason Dailey is an upper tier player, but Prof doesn't know that because he probably has no idea who Jason Dailey is.
It seems I didn't notice that. Still the groups are majorly stacked.Neither do I, But you left out Brinkman, Pol, Maust, and Greeson.What's worse, is group two is stacked pitifully.
The group you're in is a great example of why this system stinks. Chris Ericson is a top player, you are a upper tier player, and Jason Dailey is an upper tier player, but Prof doesn't know that because he probably has no idea who Jason Dailey is.
They are in group of 5. Those players aren't with you.
The group you're in is a great example of why this system stinks. Chris Ericson is a top player, you are a upper tier player, and Jason Dailey is an upper tier player, but Prof doesn't know that because he probably has no idea who Jason Dailey is.You are right that Chris and Jay (red) are both very good players. But I think that this is actually pretty balanced with the other groups. You are also right that I have no idea who Jason Dailey is. So if he is also a top player without me knowing it, then I would have messed up a bit there. Ideally these groups would be determined by a group of probably 4 people representing the NE, Minn, West, and everywhere else. That way at least one of those people probably would know all of the players who need to be factored in for balancing purposes.
If you haven't proven you are a good player in tournaments, you can't be ranked. Ranking someone based on how we think they will do is not fair to the people who have already earned their ranking.Pol hadn't played in a live tournament for years prior to this year's Nats, but it would be unfair to put him in a group with another top 10 player just because of his hiatus. Everyone knows he is an excellent player, and that has to be taken into consideration.
Underwood, you seem continually fixated on this idea that past achievements should mean anything at Nats, and I've yet to see a good reason why this is. Can you please explain for me?A good friend of mine who is a professor of sociology at the University of Idaho State has told me many times, that "past performance is the greatest single indicator of future performance." This also fits with my own observations. I have already talked about Pol in this thread, and that should be a great example of what I'm talking about. He has great past achievements, and even after taking years off the Nats stage, he was still able to come back and place in the top 10 last summer. Guardian has recently made a comeback to the boards, and if he shows up at Nats '13, I'll go ahead and predict that he'll finish top 10 as well in either T1-2p or T2-2p (assuming he plays those events).
Underwood, you seem continually fixated on this idea that past achievements should mean anything at Nats, and I've yet to see a good reason why this is. Can you please explain for me?A good friend of mine who is a professor of sociology at the University of Idaho State has told me many times, that "past performance is the greatest single indicator of future performance." This also fits with my own observations. I have already talked about Pol in this thread, and that should be a great example of what I'm talking about. He has great past achievements, and even after taking years off the Nats stage, he was still able to come back and place in the top 10 last summer. Guardian has recently made a comeback to the boards, and if he shows up at Nats '13, I'll go ahead and predict that he'll finish top 10 as well in either T1-2p or T2-2p (assuming] he plays those events).
Especially since objectivity isn't a real thing in this type of situation. Need 10 RNRS points? What if I don't have the time or money to get to another tournament?
Especially since objectivity isn't a real thing in this type of situation. Need 10 RNRS points? What if I don't have the time or money to get to another tournament?
Host one yourself and beat your roommate. Max locals is 10 points ;)
But yes, I agree, which is why this is dumb.
If we are going to separate players like thisI think people are forgetting that I'm speaking entirely hypothetically here. We are NOT going to separate players like this. There is virtually no support for this idea from either the general forum or the other elders. This is just something I've been thinking about this particular season and brainstorming about. It has less than a 0% chance of being implemented :)
If we are going to separate players like thisI think people are forgetting that I'm speaking entirely hypothetically here. We are NOT going to separate players like this. There is virtually no support for this idea from either the general forum or the other elders. This is just something I've been thinking about this particular season and brainstorming about. It has less than a 0% chance of being implemented :)
You mean like he did in 2011 and didn't get such high placing?
QuoteYou mean like he did in 2011 and didn't get such high placing?
Ouch...I didn't play at all for like 5 months and then played T1-2P in a tournament higher than District for the first time since 2003 MN state... :'(
;)
It's frustrating that the leadership staff is suggesting nonsensical ideas that no one believes in...
It's frustrating that the leadership staff is suggesting nonsensical ideas that no one believes in...
Please, let's not group all leadership together on this and call it what it is - Prof Underwood. That is often his modus operandi.
Please, let's not group all leadership together on this and call it what it is - Prof Underwood. That is often his modus operandi.I completely agree with Gabe. I'm not speaking in favor of initial groupings as a "leadership staff", but simply as a player. In fact, I specifically mentioned that there is virtually NO support for this idea among the other Elders. So keep your criticism focused where it belongs...aimed right at my back :)
So keep your criticism focused where it belongs...aimed right at my back :)
Actually when it comes to games that constantly change this wouldn't be the case.Underwood, you seem continually fixated on this idea that past achievements should mean anything at Nats, and I've yet to see a good reason why this is. Can you please explain for me?A good friend of mine who is a professor of sociology at the University of Idaho State has told me many times, that "past performance is the greatest single indicator of future performance." This also fits with my own observations. I have already talked about Pol in this thread, and that should be a great example of what I'm talking about. He has great past achievements, and even after taking years off the Nats stage, he was still able to come back and place in the top 10 last summer. Guardian has recently made a comeback to the boards, and if he shows up at Nats '13, I'll go ahead and predict that he'll finish top 10 as well in either T1-2p or T2-2p (assuming he plays those events).
Actually when it comes to games that constantly change this wouldn't be the case.I understand what you're saying. It is possible for the game to change so much that players who used to be good cease to be. However, I think that the abilities that they used to become great before, will probably also help them to become great again very quickly if they try.
I'm a pretty decent T1 player myself. But I'll go on record here with a prognostication that if Guardian plays T1-2p at Nats this summer that he'll end up ranked higher than you or me (even though he's mainly a T2 player, and hasn't played competitively for years).