Author Topic: Tournament Style (Read 23341 times)

lp670sv · « **on:** January 16, 2012, 10:05:17 PM »

So this weekend at SomeKittens tournament an issue was once again brought to light that I think needs to be discussed. With the current style that Redemption tournaments use there are plenty of cases where losing early on in a tournament can actually be beneficial. You get to face easier opponents (since you'll be a low seed) and can still place with almost no issue. I didn't participate in the T12P round so I had no stake in it but it actually happened that one of the 2 players at the final table, i.e. the only two players left without a loss, went from being tied for 1st to not even placing with one loss at the final table. This just doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to say that the eventually 2nd and 3rd place finishers didn't deserve to place, just that the player lost the championship game and immediately went to not placing. It just doesn't make sense. I don't know how other CCGs run their tournaments but it just seems like in any tournament single elimination is the best way to go. Have a few rounds to cut the field down and determine seeding and then split in to 2 brackets, championship and consolation. Having multiple rounds of "round robyn" makes it so a bad draw loss doesn't automatically disqualify you, but at the same times insures that a first to out of placing can't happen.

Discuss.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #1 on:** January 16, 2012, 10:14:20 PM »

Last round, two undefeateds, but the guy who ended up dropping to fourth was actually ahead by differential. That game is also a clear example of why FTM is a problem.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #2 on:** January 17, 2012, 10:11:28 AM »

"If you're gonna lose, lose early." has long been a good slogan for Swiss tournaments. I understand that this can be a problem when looked at from the perspective of the guy who finishes 4th. But at the same time, it can be seen as a great system for helping the people who lose early in a tournament to stay engaged because they still have a chance to place.

There's also the importance of the value of a win at different points in the tournament. In the first round, you may get a win against a very inexperienced player, but if you are winning at the top of the brackets at the end of a tournament, then you are beating higher caliber opponents. Therefore a later win should in theory be worth more than an early win. And that would have the same effect that we are talking about here (of a late loss hurting more than an early loss).

So I think the current system is probably the best, even if it isn't perfect. It keeps more people excited about their chances in the tournament for a longer time, and it rewards people for finishing strong.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2012, 10:14:23 AM »

I've personally never understood why we can't top cut Nats after round 6 or so for the top 16 and play a single elimination. You can easily still generate game for everyone else (so everyone participates) and generate consolation games for those who lose in the top cut to establish placing order.

soul seeker · « **Reply #4 on:** January 17, 2012, 10:17:31 AM »

That tournament exemplified what Prof U is saying as well, in the final round...we had like 8 people (around half) who had the potential of placing and all of it relied on the results of their final game. Most everyone was filled with hope as the final round began. Unfortunately, half of those people had their hopes dashed. However, it is interesting that 6th seat snagged 2nd because of how those final games turned out.

katedid · « **Reply #5 on:** January 17, 2012, 10:24:15 AM »

I'm the person who came in 2nd at the tournament that lp670sv and soul seeker are talking about and I actually agree with him. I lost my first game 5-1 and subsequently ended up playing people who were at the same level of playing experince as I. Overall, the person I lost to ended up placing third because I ended up beating him by a 7-6 LS differential.

I'm not going to complain that I placed, because that was just an awesome experince but I placed under Greeson and I never played him, obviously. To me that seems to be a problem.

For obviously technical reasons, Swiss style is the way to go. I propose for larger tournaments why dont you institute a sort of weight class system like in wrestling. Top players play Swiss against each other, medium levels play agianst each other, ect. This would also be a good way to encourage weaker players by giving them winning experince.

Thoughts?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #6 on:** January 17, 2012, 10:29:32 AM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2012, 10:14:23 AM

I've personally never understood why we can't top cut Nats after round 6 or so for the top 16 and play a single elimination.

I ended up in 4th place at Nats last summer, but I doubt that I was in the top 16 after round 6. The same is probably true of Gabe back in 07 when he started Nats by losing 2 of his first 3 games, but came back to win the whole thing. Why take away the opportunity for people to work their way up from the bottom?

Quote from: katedid on January 17, 2012, 10:24:15 AM

why dont you institute a sort of weight class system like in wrestling.

I have long thought that this would be a good idea, and in fact tried it in ROOT a couple years ago. Unfortunately there was a TON of negative feedback to the idea as people felt like it was exclusive and participation in ROOT dropped significantly during that experiment.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #7 on:** January 17, 2012, 10:32:24 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 17, 2012, 10:29:32 AM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2012, 10:14:23 AM
I've personally never understood why we can't top cut Nats after round 6 or so for the top 16 and play a single elimination.
I ended up in 4th place at Nats last summer, but I doubt that I was in the top 16 after round 6. The same is probably true of Gabe back in 07 when he started Nats by losing 2 of his first 3 games, but came back to win the whole thing. Why take away the opportunity for people to work their way up from the bottom?

Because under a top cut it's more likely the most consistant player will win. I think we should reward players who are consistant, not players who lost early on and then spent 5 rounds against other players not being consistant and then won a game or two against a consistant player at the end of the tournament.

Red · « **Reply #8 on:** January 17, 2012, 10:41:16 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 17, 2012, 10:29:32 AM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2012, 10:14:23 AM
I've personally never understood why we can't top cut Nats after round 6 or so for the top 16 and play a single elimination.
I ended up in 4th place at Nats last summer, but I doubt that I was in the top 16 after round 6. The same is probably true of Gabe back in 07 when he started Nats by losing 2 of his first 3 games, but came back to win the whole thing. Why take away the opportunity for people to work their way up from the bottom?

Because if you truly are the strongest player you shouldn't be losing in the tournament early unless bad pairings screw you over.

katedid · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2012, 10:43:04 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood link=topic=29284.msg458127#msg458127 [quote author=katedid on January 17, 2012, 10:24:15 AM

why dont you institute a sort of weight class system like in wrestling.

I have long thought that this would be a good idea, and in fact tried it in ROOT a couple years ago. Unfortunately there was a TON of negative feedback to the idea as people felt like it was exclusive and participation in ROOT dropped significantly during that experiment.
[/quote]

Why do I get the feeling that the low participation might have been an ego thing on many players parts.

To be perfectly honest, I wouldnt mind being categorized as a mid level player or something and play people I actually have a shot of doing well against and having fun and engaging games with. Like in this tournament, the crucial game I played was a time out win against my best friend where I won 5-3 in my last turn because she went first. We played tons of enhancements I ANB'd her in the middle, it was great. But we had similar quality decks The first game I played I got crushed because I got owned by dominants that I don't own and a superior non-broken defense/offense.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2012, 11:17:15 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 17, 2012, 10:29:32 AM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2012, 10:14:23 AM
I've personally never understood why we can't top cut Nats after round 6 or so for the top 16 and play a single elimination.
I ended up in 4th place at Nats last summer, but I doubt that I was in the top 16 after round 6. The same is probably true of Gabe back in 07 when he started Nats by losing 2 of his first 3 games, but came back to win the whole thing. Why take away the opportunity for people to work their way up from the bottom?

Sounds good. Next year at Nats I'm throwing my first two games as 5-4 losses, and then playing for real in order to maximize my chances of winning.

lp670sv · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2012, 12:09:32 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on January 17, 2012, 11:17:15 AM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 17, 2012, 10:29:32 AM
Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2012, 10:14:23 AM
I've personally never understood why we can't top cut Nats after round 6 or so for the top 16 and play a single elimination.
I ended up in 4th place at Nats last summer, but I doubt that I was in the top 16 after round 6. The same is probably true of Gabe back in 07 when he started Nats by losing 2 of his first 3 games, but came back to win the whole thing. Why take away the opportunity for people to work their way up from the bottom?
Sounds good. Next year at Nats I'm throwing my first two games as 5-4 losses, and then playing for real in order to maximize my chances of winning.

Even though I know he's kidding, this is exactly the problem that swiss style causes. I'll be honest, as soon as Jonathan Greeson shows up at a tournament, I pretty much relegate myself to competing for second. In this way it would be best for me to throw my first game and work up from there. I get easier opponents, don't ever have to get my butt handed to be my Jonathan, and can use that "weaker" competition to still place second rather than get all the way to the last round just to get 5-0'd and drop out of placing.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 17, 2012, 01:40:52 PM »

Top cut would be awesome, though if you do single elimination there is pretty much no point. I think best 2 out of 3 single elimination is the way to go as t1 is so luck based. Unfortunately this would be very long. There are no categories in the evenings (right?) so we could just take time out of our free time. With that being said top cut is better than no top cut at all.

The problem is this doesn't promote fun and fellowship. But that's not really fair, some people have fun winning and enjoy fellowship afterwards (I have seen people have a lot of fun at the end of the pairings). Besides if you are not in the top 16 and got to go to nationals you should consider yourself fortunate that you can attend at all as redemption does not have qualifications. As a solution the rest of the playing field could play the remaining 4 rounds and the top three of those could be awarded prizes (if we really wanted this idea to be legitimite we could say that the top three placers in the real tourney only get trophies while the other 3 get their prizes.) That way both parties have something to play for and more people get to win.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #13 on:** January 17, 2012, 02:51:48 PM »

Quote from: Red on January 17, 2012, 10:41:16 AM

Because if you truly are the strongest player you shouldn't be losing in the tournament early unless bad pairings screw you over.

Did I just hear Red say that Gabe isn't that good of a player? Wow!

Quote from: katedid on January 17, 2012, 10:43:04 AM

Why do I get the feeling that the low participation might have been an ego thing on many players parts. To be perfectly honest, I wouldnt mind being categorized as a mid level player or something and play people I actually have a shot of doing well against and having fun and engaging games with.

You may be right about the egos, I'm not sure. All I know is that participation dropped off sharply, and we had to drop the tier system. I admire your humility in recognizing what level you are at, and your interest in having fun games at that level. I suppose there weren't enough people who felt the same way.

Quote from: lp670sv on January 17, 2012, 12:09:32 PM

as soon as Jonathan Greeson shows up at a tournament, I pretty much relegate myself to competing for second. In this way it would be best for me to throw my first game and work up from there.

The two problems with this are that you are completely throwing away any chance you have of placing 1st (and believe me, Greeson can be beat). The second is that you are risking that if you have a bad draw later in the tournament and lose another game, you don't place at all.

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on January 17, 2012, 01:40:52 PM

we could say that the top three placers in the real tourney only get trophies while the other 3 get their prizes.) That way both parties have something to play for and more people get to win.

This also sounds like ROOT, when we did the tiers, the top 3 in the main tourney got the RNRS points, and the top 3 players in the lower tourney got the prize packs. Again, it didn't go over well.

Red · « **Reply #14 on:** January 17, 2012, 03:00:45 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 17, 2012, 02:51:48 PM

Quote from: Red on January 17, 2012, 10:41:16 AM
Because if you truly are the strongest player you shouldn't be losing in the tournament early unless bad pairings screw you over.
Did I just hear Red say that Gabe isn't that good of a player? Wow!

That I can chalk up to deck choice.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #15 on:** January 17, 2012, 03:53:41 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 17, 2012, 02:51:48 PM

Quote from: lp670sv on January 17, 2012, 12:09:32 PM
as soon as Jonathan Greeson shows up at a tournament, I pretty much relegate myself to competing for second. In this way it would be best for me to throw my first game and work up from there.
The two problems with this are that you are completely throwing away any chance you have of placing 1st (and believe me, Greeson can be beat). The second is that you are risking that if you have a bad draw later in the tournament and lose another game, you don't place at all.

....Which is exactly what happened.

Greeson's undefeated since I joined the ranks of WNY. Irish_Luck's making a championship belt for the first player to beat him.

lp670sv · « **Reply #16 on:** January 17, 2012, 04:21:19 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 17, 2012, 02:51:48 PM

Quote from: lp670sv on January 17, 2012, 12:09:32 PM
as soon as Jonathan Greeson shows up at a tournament, I pretty much relegate myself to competing for second. In this way it would be best for me to throw my first game and work up from there.
The two problems with this are that you are completely throwing away any chance you have of placing 1st (and believe me, Greeson can be beat). The second is that you are risking that if you have a bad draw later in the tournament and lose another game, you don't place at all.

I've played Jonathan 7 times. Twice with bad decks. 4 times with Gardenciples, and Once with a T2 deck that he build (i borrowed it to play T2-2P at my first ever tournament) I lost all 7 times. My closest T1 game was 5-2 with SOG/NJ in hand, that was a few months ago. The T2 game was 7-2 though I am pretty proud that I placed 2nd in that tournament and category since it was the first time I'd ever even heard of type 2. The point is, I know he's not invincible, but also know that I can't beat him and I'd rather lose my first game 5-4 and play worse opponents to a 2nd place finish then risk not placing at all after losing to Jonathan 5-0 in the final round. Jonathan shows up, I'm throwing my first game. I've never done this before but I probably will next time. Assuming of course I ever participate in another round that Greason's in

SomeKittens · « **Reply #17 on:** January 17, 2012, 04:26:37 PM »

I am really curious to see how this works out. Provided I don't play lp first round, I'm thinking about trying this strategy next tournament.

lp670sv · « **Reply #18 on:** January 17, 2012, 04:30:17 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on January 17, 2012, 04:26:37 PM

I am really curious to see how this works out. Provided I don't play lp first round, I'm thinking about trying this strategy next tournament.

"No YOU rescue the last soul!" "No you do it!" Time out tie at 4-4 both have SOG in hand

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #19 on:** January 17, 2012, 04:32:49 PM »

I think exploring a "cut off" idea is actually a really, really good idea, at least for nationals (and probably nothing else). It could be viewed as a basketball season; the first X amount of rounds (X = number of games it takes for Gabe to be at the top) can be the regular season, then we jump straight into the "Sweet 16," with differentials and scores from previous games no longer mattering. This prevents attempted abuse of the Swiss system while keeping it in place, and in general makes whatever day the T1 falls on a bit less stressful for everyone involved. The evenings could even be used to test some kind of "experimental" game type for those who want to.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #20 on:** January 17, 2012, 04:33:48 PM »

Last time I played Soul Seeker I beat him 5-0 in 1 turn.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #21 on:** January 17, 2012, 04:35:59 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on January 17, 2012, 04:30:17 PM

Quote from: SomeKittens on January 17, 2012, 04:26:37 PM
I am really curious to see how this works out. Provided I don't play lp first round, I'm thinking about trying this strategy next tournament.

"No YOU rescue the last soul!" "No you do it!" Time out tie at 4-4 both have SOG in hand

After both of us have "accidentally" dropped NJ, and declared it played. We continually "forget" to exchange for the two-liner, but it sits there untapped as other souls are redeemed. Martyr and AotL are both played on our own characters, Grapes in side battles.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #22 on:** January 17, 2012, 04:37:52 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on January 17, 2012, 04:35:59 PM

Quote from: lp670sv on January 17, 2012, 04:30:17 PM
Quote from: SomeKittens on January 17, 2012, 04:26:37 PM
I am really curious to see how this works out. Provided I don't play lp first round, I'm thinking about trying this strategy next tournament.

"No YOU rescue the last soul!" "No you do it!" Time out tie at 4-4 both have SOG in hand
After both of us have "accidentally" dropped NJ, and declared it played. We continually "forget" to exchange for the two-liner, but it sits there untapped as other souls are redeemed. Martyr and AotL are both played on our own characters, Grapes in side battles.

Don't forget when you tore a Plot to kill your own characters.

lp670sv · « **Reply #23 on:** January 17, 2012, 04:38:18 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on January 17, 2012, 04:35:59 PM

Quote from: lp670sv on January 17, 2012, 04:30:17 PM
Quote from: SomeKittens on January 17, 2012, 04:26:37 PM
I am really curious to see how this works out. Provided I don't play lp first round, I'm thinking about trying this strategy next tournament.

"No YOU rescue the last soul!" "No you do it!" Time out tie at 4-4 both have SOG in hand
After both of us have "accidentally" dropped NJ, and declared it played. We continually "forget" to exchange for the two-liner, but it sits there untapped as other souls are redeemed. Martyr and AotL are both played on our own characters, Grapes in side battles.

Eventually I try to force a side battle between two of your heroes, convert the one I control to a gold evil character and claim that makes it a rescue attempt, then play wonders forgotten on it while I would still be losing.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #24 on:** January 17, 2012, 04:49:57 PM »

I, however, declare that my Jacob's Ladder lets me choose to tap the 3-liner, and I then bury it.

News:

Author Topic: Tournament Style (Read 23341 times)

TheHobbit13

Chronic Apathy

Rawrlolsauce!

Chronic Apathy