Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
My one disappoinment from this Nationals is that I didn't come prepared for type half
Quote from: bmc25 on August 09, 2017, 10:06:06 PMI do agree that the year they broadcast the top games it was SUPER cool to watch. I enjoyed that. But they didn't broadcast any games this year.False.Because we didn't cut we weren't able to broadcast as many games because of deck secrecy, but the final game of each T2 category was shown outside the tournament Hall
I do agree that the year they broadcast the top games it was SUPER cool to watch. I enjoyed that. But they didn't broadcast any games this year.
Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on August 09, 2017, 10:13:55 PMMy one disappoinment from this Nationals is that I didn't come prepared for type half. It needs ironed out a little more. (No pun intended Issac) but it seems like an awesome side game.
Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on August 09, 2017, 10:08:55 PMQuote from: bmc25 on August 09, 2017, 10:06:06 PMI do agree that the year they broadcast the top games it was SUPER cool to watch. I enjoyed that. But they didn't broadcast any games this year.False.Because we didn't cut we weren't able to broadcast as many games because of deck secrecy, but the final game of each T2 category was shown outside the tournament HallOk, Who is watching type 2? ;P joking! I didn't know that, I wasn't there this year. I'm speaking off of my experience in 2016 with top cut.Also, last year People were able to watch it online, was that possible this year? i think that is so cool and wish we could do more of that.Most people seem to disagree with me, so maybe I am wrong about this. I just know that I was super disappointed to not get to play any more games. I don't get to play too often so it's a lot of fun to play as many possible competitive games.
Most people seem to disagree with me, so maybe I am wrong about this. I just know that I was super disappointed to not get to play any more games. I don't get to play too often so it's a lot of fun to play as many possible competitive games.
Quote from: Kevinthedude on August 09, 2017, 08:30:53 PMI can see the reasons why it was experimented with this year but I hope the plan next year isn't to run pure swiss again. It seems from the posts about it the majority if not all the players who were involved would have preferred at least some form of top cut, whether it be 8 or 4 players.The majority of the top 8 probably did. I'm sure every single other person was glad that they got to play a few "extra" rounds considering they paid a boatload of money to get there, compete, and have fun.I think it is unfair to have the decision made by the 8 people who are at the top. Obviously they don't care if the other 70+ get to play anymore. They still get to play. But in a game that is meant for fun and fellowship should we really be limiting the number of rounds the "other" 90% of people get to play for the sake of the 8 best players?I don't think we should.I think top cut is lame because it limits the number of games the vast majority get to play. When I go to nats I go to have fun and play some good redemption games. I much liked it better playing 10 rounds Swiss style. Even if top cut was better than Swiss (which I think it isn't) would it be worth it to limit the number of games the 90% play for a marginally better system?I don't think so.I hope this doesn't come across too strong, but I think top cut is horrible and not conducive of the atmosphere and purpose of Redemption. Fun and fellowship. Why play less redemption when you can play more? Don't we want to save more souls!? Sheesh lolBut what do I know, I'm not a top cut player.
I can see the reasons why it was experimented with this year but I hope the plan next year isn't to run pure swiss again. It seems from the posts about it the majority if not all the players who were involved would have preferred at least some form of top cut, whether it be 8 or 4 players.
Many players are mentally "done" after 7-8 rounds. He's witnesses eyes glossed over in late rounds when 10 are played.
QuoteThis is a completely false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason why you can't have a top cut *and* let all players play all rounds. You would have the top cut players play to determine places 1 through X, and have everyone else continue in Swiss for places X + 1 on.This is also false as per my earlier comment.
This is a completely false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason why you can't have a top cut *and* let all players play all rounds. You would have the top cut players play to determine places 1 through X, and have everyone else continue in Swiss for places X + 1 on.
Quote from: bmc25 on August 09, 2017, 10:06:06 PMUsing the "why play when you can't place argument" would suggest anyone who hits 3-4 losses should just stop playing after that.This is not the only argument. However it is an accurate argument for some. Just ask jay.
Using the "why play when you can't place argument" would suggest anyone who hits 3-4 losses should just stop playing after that.
I started the tournament out 6-0. I was the only undefeated. If we had stopped the tournament after a clear winner was found I'd have won
I remember last year with the 8p top-cut after I had played all my rounds I really enjoyed watching the 3 live streamed games but this year I had to play my last 2 games of swiss and I had no chance to watch the live streamed games....
Regardless of which format is chosen, we absolutely need to stick with what was announced before the tournament, not switch minutes before. Some people prepare their decks differently based on the format and knowing that the tournament type you prepared for could suddenly switch isn't healthy for the competitive integrity of the game.
QuoteI started the tournament out 6-0. I was the only undefeated. If we had stopped the tournament after a clear winner was found I'd have wonStopping the tournament after playing minimum rounds would have begun a riot I'm pretty sure...
It might be worth considering a top 4 double elimination (instead of bof3). Double elimination helps lower variance (like a best of), but also give folks new matchups to watch.
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 09, 2017, 09:56:43 PMIt might be worth considering a top 4 double elimination (instead of bof3). Double elimination helps lower variance (like a best of), but also give folks new matchups to watch.I think this is a very intriguing idea. Doing Top 4 Dbl Elim means that the max number of rounds would be 12--quite a bit longer than 8 rounds of swiss but only for the players who make the top 4.
