Author Topic: Nats Updates  (Read 7617 times)

Offline Red Wing

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2378
  • Set rotation shill
    • -
    • North Central Region
Nats Updates
« on: August 04, 2017, 07:10:32 PM »
+2
T1 2 Player
JD Cunningham
Josh Potratz
Josiah Beers
Kansas City Discord: discord.gg/2ypYg6m

Adevine

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2017, 09:56:53 PM »
0
NICE!!! Congrats guys!!!

Offline h20tor

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
  • чирок...
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2017, 10:19:13 PM »
+3
All 'J' names. Maybe I should change my name to Jatrick...
Meanwhile in Iowa...

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12343
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2017, 01:23:12 PM »
+4
All 'J' names. Maybe I should change my name to Jatrick...

1. JD Cunningham
2. Joshua Potratz
3. Josiah Beers
4. Josh Knitt
5. Jacob Arrowood
6. Brian "Jonesy" Jones
7. Jay Chambers
8. Mitch Stewart
9. Jonathan Wagenknecht
10. Jayden Alstad

The real question is how the heck Mitch finished in the top 10... :o
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Jonesy

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2017, 02:26:13 PM »
0
That is awesome

Offline Jonesy

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2017, 02:29:09 PM »
0
Maybe Mitch's middle name is J.....?

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12343
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2017, 02:30:05 PM »
+3
Maybe Mitch's middle name is J.....?

That would explain everything.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline JonathanW

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Loading...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2017, 05:16:58 PM »
0
All 'J' names. Maybe I should change my name to Jatrick...

1. JD Cunningham
2. Joshua Potratz
3. Josiah Beers
4. Josh Knitt
5. Jacob Arrowood
6. Brian "Jonesy" Jones
7. Jay Chambers
8. Mitch Stewart
9. Jonathan Wagenknecht
10. Jayden Alstad

The real question is how the heck Mitch finished in the top 10... :o

How the heck I finish there? I thought I was like 15-20ish....
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 06:56:35 PM by JonathanW »
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12343
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2017, 12:57:00 PM »
+3
1. JD Cunningham --> Coney/Chump Splash
2. Joshua Potratz --> Coney/Chump Splash
3. Josiah Beers --> Throne/Kings of Judah
4. Josh Knitt --> White-Clay/Brown Splash
5. Jacob Arrowood --> White-Clay/Brown Splash
6. Brian "Jonesy" Jones --> White-Clay/Emperors-Pharisees
7. Jay Chambers --> Clay Splash/Emperors-Pharisees
8. Mitch Stewart --> Colossae-Martyrs/Evil Banding
9. Jonathan Wagenknecht --> Prophets/Demons (CwD)
10. Jayden Alstad --> Judges/Crimson Splash

While it's true Coney went 1-2, it was one play away from being 2nd/4th. White/Brown was a clear top tier deck. Clay/Gray proved it was capable of defeating Coney (even if there was some soul drought involved, it could just as easily have been deck protection).
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 01:38:20 PM by The Guardian »
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Jonesy

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2017, 01:00:37 PM »
0
White/Clay
Pharisees/Emperors

Offline JonathanW

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Loading...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2017, 01:36:12 PM »
0
Prophets/Demons + CWD
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Offline NathanW

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2017, 06:56:35 PM »
0
would have been a cool 8 person topcut  ::)
(\__/) This is a bunny.
(='.'=) I know it's cute.
(")_(")

#CascadeDelendaEst

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12343
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2017, 07:11:52 PM »
0
What would have been...rankings after round 7

Top 4 Cut (Best of 3 games)

1. Josh K. vs 4. Josh P.
2. JD C. vs 3. Jay C.

Top 8 Cut (single elimination)

1. Josh K. vs 8. Jacob A.
2. JD C. vs 7. Jeremy C.
3. Jay C. vs 6. Josiah B.
4. Josh P. vs. 5. Jayden A.

*Jeremy C. and Jacob A. were tied with 15 points and +9 so I gave the higher ranking to Jeremy based on 30 LS rescued to Jacob's 29.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Kevinthedude

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Yo
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2017, 07:15:49 PM »
0
What would have been...rankings after round 7

Top 4 Cut (Best of 3 games)

1. Josh K. vs 4. Josh P.
2. JD C. vs 3. Jay C.

Top 8 Cut (single elimination)

1. Josh K. vs 8. Jacob A.
2. JD C. vs 7. Jeremy C.
3. Jay C. vs 6. Josiah B.
4. Josh P. vs. 5. Jayden A.

*Jeremy C. and Jacob A. were tied with 15 points and +9 so I gave the higher ranking to Jeremy based on 30 LS rescued to Jacob's 29.

I recall someone told me after the tournament Jayden was running Stalks of Flax so that would have been an interesting game.

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12343
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #14 on: August 09, 2017, 07:17:12 PM »
0
He was indeed.  8)
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4788
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #15 on: August 09, 2017, 08:25:13 PM »
+1
What would have been...rankings after round 7

Top 4 Cut (Best of 3 games)

1. Josh K. vs 4. Josh P.
2. JD C. vs 3. Jay C.

Top 8 Cut (single elimination)

1. Josh K. vs 8. Jacob A.
2. JD C. vs 7. Jeremy C.
3. Jay C. vs 6. Josiah B.
4. Josh P. vs. 5. Jayden A.

*Jeremy C. and Jacob A. were tied with 15 points and +9 so I gave the higher ranking to Jeremy based on 30 LS rescued to Jacob's 29.
I like that top 8. I would have had a very enjoyable game.
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

Offline Kevinthedude

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Yo
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #16 on: August 09, 2017, 08:30:53 PM »
+1
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.

Offline jbeers285

  • Trade Count: (+34)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
  • bravo
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #17 on: August 09, 2017, 08:35:35 PM »
+4
The vote at nats didn't include a top 8 single elimination cut. We had a lot of players directly influenced by the host in attendance, so that swayed the vote.  No one wanted bof3 4 player cut anyways so that wasn't a great option to vote against Swiss.  Even the way the vote was presented didn't give players enough time to make a decision and the negative comments made during the announcement of the vote towards top cut bof3 made it difficult for players to express their own opinions. It's hard to say what a true player wide vote would actually reflect.

I am not mad or upset by any of what happened I just don't want to come to a place where we are using that vote to determine the future of top cut in redemption. 

 I would love to see a post where anonymously one person states the qualities of top cut and negatives of Swiss and another player states the positives of Swiss and the negatives of top cut.

Then on that thread have a vote
Top Cut (8 person single elimination)
VS
8+ rounds of Swiss
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 09:34:34 PM by jbeers285 »
JMM is a modern day prophet

Offline bmc25

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 406
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #18 on: August 09, 2017, 09:50:03 PM »
+2
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.

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 lol

But what do I know, I'm not a top cut player. :P
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 09:57:39 PM by bmc25 »
Benjamin Campbell

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5483
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #19 on: August 09, 2017, 09:56:43 PM »
+3
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.

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?
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.

Offline JonathanW

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Loading...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2017, 09:59:33 PM »
+2
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.

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 lol

But what do I know, I'm not a top cut player. :P
The idea with top 8 topcut is that the people who don't have a chance at placing aren't forced to play extra rounds. Those same people are free to play games with the other "90%" of people who don't make it into the top 8.

This allows more fellowship between people earlier in the day and allows people to work towards playing Ironman/type half games, etc.

I honestly think it's against the atmosphere of Redemption to force people to play competitive games to satisfy the requirement of the tournament play style of choice.

Just my 2cents
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Offline jbeers285

  • Trade Count: (+34)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
  • bravo
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #21 on: August 09, 2017, 10:00:38 PM »
+1
To tag onto EmJayBee we played 8 rounds not 10 so it's a one game difference.

To be honest I am not sure all players share your opinion about getting the extra games in (assuming 10 rounds of Swiss) many of them are relieved it's over when they realize they have no shot at placing.

Also when we broadcast the finals games in Ohio a group of players watched together and honestly that was a blast, it was fun having announcers and yelling when a card was played back and forth.

Having been apart of both styles and having made the finals and not made the finals I am of the opinion hat stating my opinion is just that . . . 1 persons opinion. I am not going to attempt to speak on behalf the entire player base because they did not elect or appoint me to do so.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 10:03:47 PM by jbeers285 »
JMM is a modern day prophet

Offline bmc25

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 406
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2017, 10:06:06 PM »
0
I wouldn't be opposed to a system where top cut didn't stop everyone else from getting to play 2 extra rounds.

I just know more Redemption games  > less redemption games.

I just want to keep playing Redemption lol

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 just want to play as many rounds of  Redemption as I can.

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.
Benjamin Campbell

Offline Red Dragon Thorn

  • Covenant Games
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5373
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Covenant Games
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2017, 10:08:55 PM »
+1
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.


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 2 player category was shown outside the tournament Hall
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 10:11:13 PM by Red Dragon Thorn »
www.covenantgames.com

Offline jbeers285

  • Trade Count: (+34)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
  • bravo
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats Updates
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2017, 10:11:00 PM »
0

Using 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.
JMM is a modern day prophet

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal