Author Topic: Tournament Style (Read 23335 times)

lp670sv · « **Reply #75 on:** February 17, 2012, 07:59:07 PM »

SomeKittens · « **Reply #76 on:** February 17, 2012, 08:00:42 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on February 17, 2012, 07:59:07 PM

Maybe in here

This seems to only be used as a tiebreaker.

lp670sv · « **Reply #77 on:** February 17, 2012, 08:01:58 PM »

http://www.wizards.com/wpn/Events/Rules.aspx?category=magic:thegathering

thats the full page of pdfs, I can't actually open anything on my netbook for some reason but one of them has it I'm sure

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #78 on:** February 17, 2012, 08:11:17 PM »

What happens when a person comes from the bottom up? Say I lose my first to games against good competition then win the next 8 Games. Games 3,4,5 and 6 are against weak competition so I don't get many points so I probably place behind a person who loses in the middle rounds and ends up 8-2. We both lost to good competition, and yeah he beat good competition too) but I am penalyzed for being paired with good competion in the early rounds. That is a problem imo.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #79 on:** February 17, 2012, 08:13:07 PM »

Like I said earlier, this seems to only be used as a tiebreaker, much like we use differential.

Red · « **Reply #80 on:** February 17, 2012, 08:24:41 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 17, 2012, 08:13:07 PM

Like I said earlier, this seems to only be used as a tiebreaker, much like we use differential.

Which is a flawed system.

Master KChief · « **Reply #81 on:** February 17, 2012, 08:26:08 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on February 17, 2012, 08:11:17 PM

What happens when a person comes from the bottom up? Say I lose my first to games against good competition then win the next 8 Games. Games 3,4,5 and 6 are against weak competition so I don't get many points so I probably place behind a person who loses in the middle rounds and ends up 8-2. We both lost to good competition, and yeah he beat good competition too) but I am penalyzed for being paired with good competion in the early rounds. That is a problem imo.

Well first of all, if you went X-2 in a 10 round tournament, then you probably already made top cut...so in that case, your strength of schedule does not matter :p Swiss rounds and top cuts are based on the number of people attending, so if it was a 10 round tournament then it would be Top 32 (I have only been in one 10 round tournament and it had 1000+ people playing). I understand your argument though, but I find it a far better solution than a player losing an early game in Redemption and coming back to the top because he will naturally now play weaker opponents throughout swiss. The fact is in your example you played only 6 good opponents and the other player played 10, so naturally he should be ranked above you. The system rewards consistency and encourages players to always do their best, and not try to sack losses in early rounds *cough cough SomeKittens cough cough*

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #82 on:** February 17, 2012, 08:31:52 PM »

Strength of schedule does not matter after top cut? I am okay with that. But unfortunately this is just a pipe dream as top cut does not fit the spirit of the game.

Master KChief · « **Reply #83 on:** February 17, 2012, 08:36:26 PM »

Right, SoS does not matter after top cut...its just single elimination after that.

Red · « **Reply #84 on:** February 17, 2012, 08:44:11 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on February 17, 2012, 08:31:52 PM

Strength of schedule does not matter after top cut? I am okay with that. But unfortunately this is just a pipe dream as top cut does not fit the spirit of the game.

Everyone still gets to play X swiss rounds. Top cut can only further legitimize redemption among other games. If X person gets upset over not making top cut X player needs to realize he's not the best...

SomeKittens · « **Reply #85 on:** February 17, 2012, 08:45:56 PM »

X player could be unlucky in one of the final Swiss rounds.

Master KChief · « **Reply #86 on:** February 17, 2012, 09:24:29 PM »

Need more information than that. Could be player X's only loss. He will still make top cut.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #87 on:** February 17, 2012, 09:31:42 PM »

Two bad coin flips and a frontrunner goes to not making it in the final cut. At our last tournament, the 1st place player went to 4th after one game.

lp670sv · « **Reply #88 on:** February 17, 2012, 09:34:35 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 17, 2012, 08:45:56 PM

X player could be unlucky in one of the final Swiss rounds.

which is why you play best 2-3

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #89 on:** February 17, 2012, 09:36:13 PM »

Quote from: Red on February 17, 2012, 08:44:11 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on February 17, 2012, 08:31:52 PM
Strength of schedule does not matter after top cut? I am okay with that. But unfortunately this is just a pipe dream as top cut does not fit the spirit of the game.
Everyone still gets to play X swiss rounds. Top cut can only further legitimize redemption among other games. If X person gets upset over not making top cut X player needs to realize he's not the best...

I agree.

lp670sv · « **Reply #90 on:** February 17, 2012, 09:38:18 PM »

For that matter theres no reason people outside top cut couldn't continue to play in a consolation swiss style.

Master KChief · « **Reply #91 on:** February 17, 2012, 10:34:34 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 17, 2012, 09:31:42 PM

Two bad coin flips and a frontrunner goes to not making it in the final cut. At our last tournament, the 1st place player went to 4th after one game.

If anything, this strengthens the reason to use top cut. The frontrunner goes to not topping at all in standard swiss because of one bad game at the very end. His consistency throughout the tournament goes completely unrewarded. However, a top cut means he will still advance to top X and will be able to play the other top players in single elim. It gives skilled players that second chance just in case they had a fluke game here or there.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #92 on:** February 17, 2012, 11:12:44 PM »

The problem that I'm seeing here is that if you have a single-elimination top cut of 16 at the end, then you are talking about 4 games, and if you lose ANY of them but the last you can't place AT ALL. And if you lose the last one, then you CAN'T win the tournament. This could be a problem.

Imagine a 10 round Nats event with a top cut of 16 players after 8 rounds. Player A beats Player B early in the tournament, and finishes the round before top cut with a 8-0 record. Player B finishes with a 6-2 record, but strong enough SoS to make the top cut as well. Then the top cut starts, and both players win their way into the championship where Player B wins. At this point Player B is declared the champion despite the fact that they have a worse record for the day, played easier opponents all day, and have a 1-1 record against Player A. This just seems wrong.

lp670sv · « **Reply #93 on:** February 17, 2012, 11:22:02 PM »

New York giants just win the super bowl with a 9-7 record. They won when it counted, like all true champions due. Make the top cut into match games and it eliminates the "I just got a bad draw" excuse. This is more far than a player going from first to not placing with one loss. Every other ccg uses this system for a reason it's the best way to determine a true champion.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #94 on:** February 17, 2012, 11:26:53 PM »

The Giants also beat the Patriots both times when they played this year. In my example Player A and Player B both beat each other. So why should Player B be the champion when he had the worse record and played easier opponents.

I see what you are saying about the current system sometimes being unfair. I'm just pointing out that this proposed system would sometimes be unfair as well. In fact, all systems will be unfair at times. So I think it's good to look at the main purpose behind Redemption tournaments, and see what system lines up best with that purpose.

lp670sv · « **Reply #95 on:** February 17, 2012, 11:33:03 PM »

Every system has flaws but a few your scenario as far less unfair than the current system that encourages players to tank their first game for an easy walk to second place at smaller tournaments and maybe even first at larger ones. You can keep playing games once your are eliminated in consolation brackets so that everyone's happy.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #96 on:** February 18, 2012, 12:05:32 AM »

Let's remember that in every other CCG, Player B would have to beat Player A 2 out of 3.

Master KChief · « **Reply #97 on:** February 18, 2012, 12:06:08 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 17, 2012, 11:12:44 PM

Imagine a 10 round Nats event with a top cut of 16 players after 8 rounds. Player A beats Player B early in the tournament, and finishes the round before top cut with a 8-0 record. Player B finishes with a 6-2 record, but strong enough SoS to make the top cut as well. Then the top cut starts, and both players win their way into the championship where Player B wins. At this point Player B is declared the champion despite the fact that they have a worse record for the day, played easier opponents all day, and have a 1-1 record against Player A. This just seems wrong.

lolwut? So you're telling me...if Player B makes top cut and goes completely undefeated 4 rounds against the very best players from the tournament...that he doesn't deserve to be champion? Right.

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 18, 2012, 12:05:32 AM

Let's remember that in every other CCG, Player B would have to beat Player A 2 out of 3.

Another solid reason Redemption needs top cut more than anything. Best 2 of 3 mitigates the luck factor. Complete swiss tournament with 1 match games? You're just asking to have the most sacky tournament play ever.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #98 on:** February 18, 2012, 02:39:11 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on February 18, 2012, 12:06:08 AM

Complete swiss tournament with 1 match games? You're just asking to have the most sacky tournament play ever.

And yet Nats is a totally AWESOME experience (as evidenced by consistently showing up in the "favorite Redemption memories" thread).

Master KChief · « **Reply #99 on:** February 18, 2012, 03:24:19 AM »

Nationals is an awesome experience because its much more than just the tournament. Thats irrelevant, however, to the sacky tournament play.

News:

Author Topic: Tournament Style (Read 23335 times)

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13