Cactus Game Design Message Boards

We have a problem and I would like to get opinions on it.
  With LN Ghosting...it puts Prof and Crustpope into a tie with how the ghost points work.  Should there be a tie for third?  Should Crustpope get hosed again, all for one earlier game?  Should there be a playoff game with June now starting?  Please weigh in with your ideas of "who takes third."

To Those Who Care:
     I have to sit the June season out because it is going to be very busy month for me.  I can still update the rankings and weigh in on rulings (I just can't squeeze in games--not getting in games has hurt me the last couple of months) until the final week of June but Prof said he is available then (and I'm sure Gabe can back him up if absolutely needed).  Just to give you guys an example.  This first week of June I have 3 T-ball games, 4 youth events, and a softball game.  The rest of the month looks just like that week.

I think they cross the ohio river and meet in an undisclosed location, then they play rock-paper-scissors to decide whether to play or not.

But really I think that they should play a game today or tomorrow and that will determine third place - I had no problem with the first hosing, but twice in a row is really unfortunate.

We have a problem and I would like to get opinions on it.
  With LN Ghosting...it puts Prof and Crustpope into a tie with how the ghost points work.  Should there be a tie for third?  Should Crustpope get hosed again, all for one earlier game?  Should there be a playoff game with June now starting?  Please weigh in with your ideas of "who takes third."

Actually, due to the bonus point I get from LN, I'm actually at 25 points and there isn't a tie

I think we have to allow bonus points in ghosting situations.  Otherwise it is too easy for someone to "choose" to ghost just to keep someone down.  If I'm more than 2 points ahead of someone who challenges me, then I could just conveniently not be available to play them all week.  They only get 2 points, and can't catch me.  If the game was played, they would have the potential for at least 4 points (more depending on how much higher I am) and a minimum of 1 point (for losing).  In this case not playing gains them 1 point from minimum and loses them at least double that from maximum.

I think we need a system that encourages people to play their games, and giving bonus points in ghost situations fits with that goal.  In fact, I think it might be better to give the full points in a ghost situation, but that's just my opinion.  I just don't want there to be any possible benefit from NOT playing a game.

guys, I am fine with beign in fourth, it just stinks that it is the same game that did it to me both time

But we do need to think about how tiebreakers are going to be resolved and in what order.  We dont keep LS count and maybe we should. 99.9% of the time it may not make a difference but having a clear policy with regards to how to resove these situations will help everyone resolve any disputes.  I think I only played Prof once this month and he beat me so we can use the head to head tiebreaker to resolve this one this time.

But every other tournament resolves a tie situation with LS differential so we might need to keep track of the LS count for June.

I think the current system is fine.  Points are the first tie breaker.  Head to head is the second.  If it ends in a tie, so be it.  We have ties at real life Redemption tournaments too.

I don't like using the LS differential for ROOT.  Reporting exact scores can lead to hurt feelings and ego trips.  I don't think we need either of those.  Even if the intention is good some people are going to feel bad about losing 5-0 and others will rush to post how cool they are because they won 5-0.  A simple win/loss is enough in my opinion. 

Another big draw back is that it makes a lot more work for the person running the tournament.  We lost Jacob's Ladder because the person doing all the work got burnt out.  There are three guys working to keep this running so that shouldn't happen.  Still, I'm not willing to make it harder than it needs to be just to avoid the occasional tie in the top 3.

Once again since ROOT is designed to get people playing....
and since time is really not an issue when a tournament is online....

I propose that if there is a tie in the future, that the people tied play an extra game for a tie-breaker.  I like this better than keeping track of LS differential (for the reasons already mentioned by others).

Well, that's one half of the equation....if Matt agrees then maybe you guys can play four games this week.  The first (or only) one between you two being the tiebreaker.  OR we can leave it as a tie, it's no biggie either way to me...I just want to keep in mind about set precedents.  FWIW Gabe and I had decided a couple of months ago that a tie in first between us would go to who won the most head to head matches...the only difference here is that Crustpope is on the short end of the stick twice.  That's more of my 

I continue to reffer to my previous post.


I am fine taking 4th this month, I just want us to have a solid policy as to how to handle these situations in coming months.  I think the one game playoff system has promise.

Thank you for graciousness Matt!  It's settled.  We may just institute a one game playoff in the future then.  I agree with Matt and Mark that it has a lot of promise for these rare occasions.

Grand Master Crust - I challenge thee!!!!!

Grand Master Crust - I challenge thee!!!!!

Oh dear!    I suppose I must accept.    PM me with times you are available

neversmdktwice is from my playgroup. he is awesome. don't get cocky against him, he always has a little trick hidden in his deck i will tell him you want to play.

yeah... funny how we have so many bryon/brian/bryans. he joins them in the brion/brian/bryon/bryan groop lol