Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
e·lit·ismn.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.
Quote from: STAMP on September 05, 2012, 06:36:24 PMA 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.
Quote from: Chris on September 05, 2012, 07:22:17 PMQuoteIf 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.
Quote from: STAMP on September 05, 2012, 07:34:27 PMQuote from: Chris on September 05, 2012, 07:22:17 PMQuoteIf 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.
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.
Quote from: Master KChief on September 06, 2012, 12:04:38 PMI 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.
Quote from: Korunks on September 05, 2012, 08:24:53 AMIs 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.
Is that not sufficient? The rest of our tie breaking solutions are inadequate to say the least.
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 change
I guess I'm coming around at this point to the idea of top-cut being a good idea from the standpoint of competition.
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 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.
Quote from: CactusRob on September 09, 2012, 09:00:31 AMI 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.
