Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Keep in mind you've played me a LOT more than Greeson.  I'm sure you'd have beat him a few times if you had played dozens (possibly even hundreds) of games.

I said occasionally I think I beat you twice over the summer and we played like 20 game a day some days.

P.S. Jonathan, you seem to have driven the fact that your name is spelled with an A not an O so deep in to my head I am now spelling your last name with an A instead of an E 

By no means should you change anything. Right now you are my goal in Redemption. You are the only player i've ever faced more than once that I have never beaten. And if i ever get the inclination when I finally do beat you that you went easy on me I am NOT going to be happy about it.

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.

i beat him in the first two player game i played against him in 2008. Don't think i beat him since.

FWIW, I'm 1-0 vs. Greeson in my lifetime. Yet somehow he still ranks higher than me...

Of course, I'm probably something like 35-40% vs. The Hobbit, yet I still outrank him...

I wouldn't put too much weight on ranking.  Everyone I've ever beat outranks me.

false. I'm not even ranked and you have beaten me A LOT

no i still haven't beaten Greeson 

I personally like the way the Wizards Play Network program runs tournaments. It actually takes into account the strength of your opponents. If you win against bad players you don't get as much credit as if you win against an undefeated player. I would not mind using that except that it uses a best 2 out of 3 system. I suppose it could be adapted to work for Redemption.

No because it takes into account your opponents' overall record throughout the tournament. If you beat someone in the first round and they go undefeated the rest of the tournament, it is worth way more than if you beat someone in the first round and they never win the rest of the tournament. The win would either become more or less valuable as the tournament goes on.

Basically if someone who is struggling in the tournament and beats a really good player it would give them a boost and they would be shot up into the higher ranks, with that win, but they would need to keep winning. Top players still play top players, but it eliminates the power of a fluke loss for a high ranked player and maximizes the power of a surprise win for a lower ranked player.

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on February 17, 2012, 03:35:33 PM

No because it takes into account your opponents' overall record throughout the tournament. If you beat someone in the first round and they go undefeated the rest of the tournament, it is worth way more than if you beat someone in the first round and they never win the rest of the tournament. The win would either become more or less valuable as the tournament goes on.

How would this work for seeding DURING the tournament though.  How would you know who to match people up with if their points for each win weren't really determined until the entire tournament was over?

by using their record to that point.

Quote from: lp670sv on February 17, 2012, 05:28:28 PM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 17, 2012, 05:26:50 PM

How would this work for seeding DURING the tournament though.  How would you know who to match people up with if their points for each win weren't really determined until the entire tournament was over?

by using their record to that point.

The problem there is that I could be matched up with someone who is 4-0 and ends up going 4-6 while you are matched up with someone 4-0 who ends up going 9-1 (only losing to you).  We both would get the win, and move on equally in the tournament, but then at the end you would get more points simply because you got paired up with someone who ended up doing better.

thats the point. the other guy beat better opponents than you, therefore he should have more points.

I don't know that could get really crazy at nationals your fate basically depends on how good your opponent's do after you beat them. I am not convinced, maybe someone could explain it one more time?

I don't know that could get really crazy at nationals your fate basically depends on how good your opponent's do after you beat them.

As it should be. If you beat a player that does well in the tournament (and likely more skilled), should that not put you above players that have a similiar record as you but beat players with a lower record (and likely less skilled)?

To put this in more perspective, I played in a 8-round swiss tournament last weekend with top cut. There were 130+ people, so it was a Top 16 cut. Therefore, after 8 rounds, there would be 1 player with an X-0 record and 5 players with an X-1 record. That leaves 10 X-2 players able to make top cut, out of I believe 13 or 14 X-2 players overall. So giving up a couple of wins does not put you out of the running for Top 16 or even Top 8 for that matter, and comes down to strength of schedule as it should be.