Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Let's not turn this into another "everything wrong with Redemption" threads.

Top Cut. Baby steps.

Quote from: The Guardian on May 17, 2014, 01:31:14 PM

I'm more or less ambivalent being a T2 player, but in regards to Alex's point, what about the player who gets knocked out of Top Cut because someone got a full win in a game they should have only gotten a time-out win?

I dislike timeouts as much as anyone, but the whole "scooping" thing seems like a very gray area.

It happened in Boston in T2. Someone scooped to Gabe IIRC. It's happened before and will happen again as long as time points are a thing.

If I remember correctly, it was Gabe who scooped to Tyler.

Let's not turn this into another "everything wrong with Redemption" threads.

Top Cut. Baby steps.

Baby steps is the reason this games tournament process is completely underdeveloped and sophomoric.

Quote from: Westy on May 17, 2014, 01:50:20 PM

Let's not turn this into another "everything wrong with Redemption" threads.

Top Cut. Baby steps.

Baby steps is the reason this games tournament process is completely underdeveloped and sophomoric.

Honestly, Redemption tournaments run smoother than Pokemon tournaments (which are admittedly awful). Staying on topic is important though.

I've talked this over with a couple people, and here's what I propose for kickers.
Less than 32 people: No Top Cut
33-64 people: Top 4, 6 Rounds, Double Elimination
65-96 people: Top 8, 7 Rounds, Double Elimination
97-128 people: 7 Rounds, Up For Debate

I just dont like the idea of sitting around and watching other people play. If that problem is solved, I dont care how it is done.

What is the reason for lack of a top cut at less than 40 people? Top cut works at any size sample pool.

Rob has said 32 is the minimum. I don't mind if that's the limit, though I really don't see a reason to have Cut lower than 40. If anything, that will just cause a lot of people to play each other multiple times while missing other top players.

It depends. There was a fairly high number of very good players who didn't get the chance to play other very good players last year, with seven rounds of Swiss and an 8 person cut. Nobody is going to argue that anyone who made the Cut last year didn't deserve to, but the smaller the pool of people, the less sense Top Cut makes over regular Swiss. I would argue that at less than 40 people, it's better to play Swiss, because every good player will get the chance to play every other good player at some point during the tournament.

I don't like top cut. 

Regarding the stalling issue in Redemption matches, I used to wrestle in grade school and high school. When any wrestler was stalling in the match, they were given a warning by the referee and then if it continued, their opponent was given a point. Perhaps this can be adopted for tournaments.

Stalling isn't legal in tournament play.  Hands down in my understanding.  If someone is stalling and it can be proved, I think that you'd be disqualified from that round, and your opponent considered the winner.  (This may be up to the tournament host)

Quote

It's honestly a little ridiculous that time out points are even still a thing in Redemption.

I disagree with that one. If a player plays well enough to keep his opponent from getting to 5 (or 7) and his opponent does the same to him then they both deserve points.

I agree with The Guardian on this one.  I have been in situations where I have played against better people with better decks, and it was clear that I couldn't beat them.  When I realized that, I fought hard for a timeout (this is different from stalling), I didn't drag the game on, and consider every turn for 5 minutes on end, I however did change my strategy from trying to win to one where I was trying not to lose this is in effect another strategy.  I don't stall games.  This would be the equivalent in chess when you realize that you cannot win so you fight for a stalemate.

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on May 17, 2014, 01:51:54 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on May 17, 2014, 01:31:14 PM

I'm more or less ambivalent being a T2 player, but in regards to Alex's point, what about the player who gets knocked out of Top Cut because someone got a full win in a game they should have only gotten a time-out win?

I dislike timeouts as much as anyone, but the whole "scooping" thing seems like a very gray area.

It happened in Boston in T2. Someone scooped to Gabe IIRC. It's happened before and will happen again as long as time points are a thing.

If I remember correctly, it was Gabe who scooped to Tyler.

I too, am mainly a T2 player, I dabble in T1. 

Quote from: LukeChips on May 17, 2014, 07:48:16 PM

I don't like top cut.

Care to explain why so we can tell you why you're wrong?

Westy,

I don't like top cut.  The reason that I don't is because there are people who could have made the final 8 or final 4 by the numbers that won't make it due to the top cut methodology.

That being said, Redemption is the only collectable card game that I have ever played, so I've never actually seen top cut in process, but I don't like the fact that someone who was actually one of the top 8 players in the category never made it to the top 8.

That being said, I like the concept of single elimination, but I'm not sure if that is top cut due to my lack of experience in that arena.

Stalling isn't legal in tournament play.  Hands down in my understanding.  If someone is stalling and it can be proved, I think that you'd be disqualified from that round, and your opponent considered the winner.  (This may be up to the tournament host)

I don't think I've ever seen a game at a national tournament that resulted in someone winning because their opponent was caught intentionally stalling. It's a hard thing to prove, and due to the nature of Redemption itself, the powers at be are extremely hesitant to make a ruling that drastic. Not that it can't happen, but I think it's unlikely even if a person is blatantly stalling.

I don't like top cut.  The reason that I don't is because there are people who could have made the final 8 or final 4 by the numbers that won't make it due to the top cut methodology.

That being said, Redemption is the only collectable card game that I have ever played, so I've never actually seen top cut in process, but I don't like the fact that someone who was actually one of the top 8 players in the category never made it to the top 8.

Keep in mind that while there are people who would have made the final 4/8 after 10 rounds, that also forces out other people who would have made the final 4/8 after 7 rounds (with top cut). Either way, there are definitely people who lose. The difference is that a very high percentage of the time, a person who is in the top 8 after 7 rounds had a more difficult schedule than a person in the top 8 after 10 rounds, and therefore, performed better to get into the top 8 in the first place.