Author Topic: Top Cut (Read 37945 times)

JSB23 · « **Reply #125 on:** September 05, 2012, 06:07:16 PM »

Just for the record:

Quote from: American Heritage Dictionary

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's suggestion is elitist, because the top/competitive players are being chosen because of their perceived skill/virtue.

Top cut is not elitist, because it ranks players based upon their actual performance. No one gets a free pass, no player gets in because people think they're good, a player gets in only after proving they're good.

STAMP · « **Reply #126 on:** September 05, 2012, 06:36:24 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on September 05, 2012, 05:54:24 PM

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.

Granted, a loophole.

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #127 on:** September 05, 2012, 06:40:23 PM »

I don't think there's any guarantee that losing the first game grants an easier road. It grants a easier road when you compare the final standings perhaps, but other good players lose too, and you could easily play them. Throwing a match is the most dangerous thing you can do, as it eliminates any margin for error that you had.

Chris · « **Reply #128 on:** September 05, 2012, 06:53:09 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on September 05, 2012, 06:36:24 PM

=
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.

First, I agree with Olijar that throwing a match is dangerous no matter what format you're playing. Second, I think Swiss "encourages" (for lack of a better term) throwing a game more than top cut. Simply put, a first-round loss in Swiss means you're probably playing easier people for those first couple rounds. A second loss ensures this. Top cut does the same thing, but if you make the cut, you're punished with a poor seed, which means your competition is going to be harder when it actually matters.

SirNobody · « **Reply #129 on:** September 05, 2012, 07:04:05 PM »

Hey,

The purpose of a tournament is to determine who the best (i.e. most elite) players are. Isn't every tournament structure going to be elitist? I would argue that a tournament structure that isn't elitist isn't doing a good job of determining who the best players are.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 05, 2012, 05:02:07 PM

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.

The pools used in soccer are a top cut. Teams play qualifying matches after which some teams are put into pools and others are eliminated. They are placed into pools based on the qualifying rounds. In the world cup the pools are also influenced by where in the world the team is from (each group I believe always has one African nation). The results of a soccer match are much less influenced by randomness than the result of a redemption game. The pools used in soccer, I believe, serve the purpose of insuring all teams that make it get to play several games and not just one game and then go home.

The NCAA basketball tournament is a top cut. Over 300 teams play the regular season. Then a select number of them participate in an elimination style bracket tournament if they "qualify." The selection committee exists to determine who qualifies and where each team is ranked because they've decided that going directly off of record isn't a fair judge (I think we'd rather go off of record that have the drama that is inherently part of a selection committee).

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. The way we do it now, players can reasonably figure out where they stand. With a weighted system that becomes much harder to do.

Quote from: STAMP on September 05, 2012, 06:36:24 PM

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

STAMP · « **Reply #130 on:** September 05, 2012, 07:20:02 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on September 05, 2012, 07:04:05 PM

Quote from: STAMP on September 05, 2012, 06:36:24 PM
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

And I would guess that most hosts would attempt to group players as fairly as possible if using pool play.

I never said "sandbagging" was without risk. And although Gabe wasn't intentionally sandbagging, I've heard numerous complaints about how the system allowed him to win Nats with two early losses.

I also was not noting the loophole with Swiss in order to diminish it as a choice. I was pointing out how there are several options, all with pros, cons and loopholes. 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.

Chris · « **Reply #131 on:** September 05, 2012, 07:22:17 PM »

Quote

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.

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #132 on:** September 05, 2012, 07:34:27 PM »

Quote from: Chris on September 05, 2012, 07:22:17 PM

Quote
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.

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #133 on:** September 05, 2012, 07:37:27 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on September 05, 2012, 07:34:27 PM

Quote from: Chris on September 05, 2012, 07:22:17 PM
Quote
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.

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #134 on:** September 05, 2012, 07:58:12 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on September 05, 2012, 07:37:27 PM

Quote from: STAMP on September 05, 2012, 07:34:27 PM
Quote from: Chris on September 05, 2012, 07:22:17 PM
Quote
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.

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.

That's one of the issues on these boards: many have an emotional investment in debates. You used the word "hate" to define why the analogy is terrible. Logically, my analogy was spot on.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #135 on:** September 05, 2012, 08:28:25 PM »

Oh, we agree, which is why it was a bad choice if you're opposed to Top Cut.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #136 on:** September 06, 2012, 02:33:27 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on September 05, 2012, 07:04:05 PM

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.

When looking at it that way, I suppose one way to look at it is that the first 7 swiss rounds of the tournament ARE the pre-tournament ranking system. Then the seeded top-cut for the last 3 rounds would be the "real" tournament and would make a relatively fair strength of schedule for at least those players who made it into the top-cut.

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #137 on:** September 06, 2012, 11:00:12 AM »

Quote from: Westy on September 05, 2012, 08:28:25 PM

Oh, we agree, which is why it was a bad choice if you're opposed to Top Cut.

I was never opposed to what everyone is calling "Top Cut", aka final cut, aka championship qualifiers, aka whatever. And though I voiced my opinion as to which method of determining qualifiers was my preference, I did not oppose the other methods.

Be that as it may, let's talk about implementing double elimination for the knockout rounds.

Master KChief · « **Reply #138 on:** September 06, 2012, 12:04:38 PM »

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #139 on:** September 06, 2012, 12:52:23 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on September 06, 2012, 12:04:38 PM

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.

If this is just for Nationals, I'm not opposed to the idea of best 2 of 3. Just know it makes T1-2P a 2-day event based on time requirements.

But, as a tournament host that might host a NW Regional tournament in the future, it's just not feasible. I would use double elimination at a regional I hosted.

I have the same thoughts regarding sideboards: Nats - not opposed, Regionals and below - I vote no.

16 Team Double Elimination:

Spoiler (hover to show)

soul seeker · « **Reply #140 on:** September 06, 2012, 01:33:58 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on September 06, 2012, 12:04:38 PM

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.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #141 on:** September 06, 2012, 03:04:52 PM »

Quote from: soul seeker on September 06, 2012, 01:33:58 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on September 06, 2012, 12:04:38 PM
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.

That's actually a good idea. I don't have any other CCG experience outside of Redemption, so I don't really know the details. John N, since you have long been the most prominent advocate for sideboards, is there any chance you'd be willing to start a thread that would detail how it could be implemented for Redemption.

Korunks · « **Reply #142 on:** September 06, 2012, 10:05:42 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 05, 2012, 08:46:34 AM

Quote from: Korunks on September 05, 2012, 08:24:53 AM
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.

Thing is it has been a huge issue at my tournaments, happens at almost every one. Top cut is also simpler than any system where I have to calculate placements based not only on the outcome of the game played, but on the outcome of both players previous games and how they and their former opponents did? I don't think I like that at all. And seeding based on historical performance? Bad idea, every tournament should operate in a vacuum and all pairings should be decided by that tournaments performance and no others.

Chris · « **Reply #143 on:** September 07, 2012, 10:28:47 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 06, 2012, 02:33:27 AM

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.

I believe the vast, vast benefit to the competitive aspect of the game (which other CCGs have proven to be effective) is more than worth the potential, unproven hit that the fellowship side of the game might take. We've rehashed this issue enough that I doubt either of our minds are going to change, but I still hold that if someone is going to feel excluded because of top cut, they were going to feel that way regardless of whether or not we officially cut them out. Remember, not every game can be like this:

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #144 on:** September 07, 2012, 11:22:10 PM »

Quote from: Chris on September 07, 2012, 10:28:47 PM

We've rehashed this issue enough that I doubt either of our minds are going to change

Someone must not be reading my posts very thoroughly

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 06, 2012, 02:33:27 AM

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.

Chris · « **Reply #145 on:** September 08, 2012, 02:34:08 AM »

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled about that. Of all the changes I'd like to see made in this game, top cut is the biggest and the one I want most, so you shifting your stance is extremely exciting. I just meant referring specifically to the competition v. fellowship aspect of the discussion.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #146 on:** September 09, 2012, 08:43:36 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 06, 2012, 02:33:27 AM

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.

At all of the Nationals I have been to there are two classes of player. The first are the competitive players who have a pretty firm grasp of who they will face next and why (I need Martin to beat Greeson by four or more...). The second--and much much larger--group are just happy to be playing and don't really care against whom. The first group of players understand the idea of a top cut and why it was put in place, and they would not view it as elitist. The second group never has to be told about how their next opponent was determined because they do not care.

CactusRob · « **Reply #147 on:** September 09, 2012, 09:00:31 AM »

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #148 on:** September 09, 2012, 10:21:03 AM »

Quote from: CactusRob on September 09, 2012, 09:00:31 AM

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.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #149 on:** September 09, 2012, 10:26:58 AM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on September 09, 2012, 10:21:03 AM

Quote from: CactusRob on September 09, 2012, 09:00:31 AM
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'd say of you get to 32-47 go top 8
48-63 go 12 and give byes to the top 4
So 5vs12; 6vs11; 7vs10; 8vs9 winners advancing to play the top 4 based on seed.

64-79 go 16
80-95 go 24 (same bye system except top 8 get buys and 9-24 play a first round)
96(+) go 32

News:

Author Topic: Top Cut (Read 37945 times)

Chris

Chris

Warrior_Monk

Chris

Chris