Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Playgroup and Tournament Central => Redemption® Official Tournaments => Topic started by: Alex_Olijar on March 25, 2013, 10:32:33 PM
-
Here is the proposed rules from which I would like to start to confirm concerning Top Cut procedures at Nationals.
Swiss Rounds:
The number of swiss rounds will be adequate to provide one clear undefeated player. The number of rounds is as follows:
less than 8 players: 3 rounds
9-16 players: 4 rounds
17-32 players: 5 rounds
33-64 players: 6 rounds
65-128 players: 7 rounds
More than 128 players: 8 rounds
Following the completion of the Swiss rounds, a top cut will commence.
Participation kickers:
Size of the top cut will be determined by the number of participants.
Top 4: Less than 32 players
Top 8: 33-64 players
Top 16: 65-128 players
Top 32: Over 128 players
The Top Cut:
The Top cut shall be a seeded bracket ala March Madness (1v16, 2v15, 3v14, etc). Matches shall be conducted using standard Redemption tournament rules (for gametime, etc). The top cut shall not be run under different rules than the swiss rounds (i.e. top cut may not be untimed if swiss was timed, etc).
Please discuss any addendums or corrections that need to made.
-
Does anyone have any interest in top cut for any category besides T1 2P?
Please provide input as to if non-top cut players should continue to play additional swiss rounds (for the fellowship)
-
Only changes I would make is no Top 32...that's 5 extra rounds in comparison to an 8 round Swiss. I'd say Top 16 max is adequate.
In regards to non-top cut players still playing Swiss, I find it pretty pointless.
-
Only changes I would make is no Top 32...that's 5 extra rounds in comparison to an 8 round Swiss. I'd say Top 16 max is adequate.
In regards to non-top cut players still playing Swiss, I find it pretty pointless.
I don't think that top 32 would be necessary but I thought it'd be safe to have it in there. The non toppers is more a question to people like Underwood who don't want to lose out on the fellowship for those players. I know that was a concern on the other thread.
-
I suggest making top cut b03 with extremely tight time restraints.
-
Has the host of Nationals expressed interest in using top cut?
-
Yes - Roy posted that elders and those involved in the initial thread should determine the procedure.
1. Type 1 2-Player Swiss Style "Top Cut" System: I request the elders and members involved in the recent comprehensive discussions on the new proposed system to once more meet, rehash and finalize a specific procedure on how to run "Top Cut" at Nats2013. This is your chance to implement a workable "Top Cut" that you have been wishing to have. Please also decide on whether or not to implement "Top Cut" for T2 2-Player, etc.
-
Has the host of Nationals expressed interest in using top cut?
Yeah, Roy said that elders and other member involved in the last discussion should clean it up. So here you go.
I suggest making top cut b03 with extremely tight time restraints.
Not going to happen. Would be cool, but completely unable to happen logistically. It's already tight as is. If you notice, the top cut at 68 players would total 11 rounds, one more than normal (not sure if this is ok?).
-
inorder to make the swiss aspect mean anything i believe the seeding for top cut should not go into a straight bracket but rather a bracket like the nfl playoffs where the lowest seed that wins in the 1st rd of top cut plays the highest ranked player remaining and continue the breakdown like that . . . this allows the winner of the swiss tourney a real advantage and so on for 2nd 3rd and 4th and possibly 5th rd
-
The swiss rounds do mean something, they determine seeding. the best player after the swiss rounds will play the "worst" player that made the cut. You are rewarded for being the best through the swiss rounds by having the theoretical easiest path to the finals.
-
inorder to make the swiss aspect mean anything i believe the seeding for top cut should not go into a straight bracket but rather a bracket like the nfl playoffs where the lowest seed that wins in the 1st rd of top cut plays the highest ranked player remaining and continue the breakdown like that . . . this allows the winner of the swiss tourney a real advantage and so on for 2nd 3rd and 4th and possibly 5th rd
That's not really the point of a top cut. I don't see any reason to make it more complicated than a standard bracket. Every match in the top cut is going to be tough. Given a 128 person field, the top 16 records will be (not counting potential ties):
1 7-0
7 6-1
8 5-2
Does it really matter who you are playing at that point?
-
I'm not planning to play T1 2P at Nats, but I have a question about top cut and I'm not sure if it has been brought up previously.
Let's say I'm undefeated going into Top Cut and I get the top seed. I play someone who lost a couple games (perhaps due to poor luck or poor draw) and ended up with the bottom seed. We play and I end up getting a poor draw, he has LS drought and I end up losing. So at that point I'm out of the tournament because I happened to get a poor draw at the wrong time? And furthermore, I'm out and other players with more than one loss are still in?
I understand the reasons Top Cut can be beneficial, but this scenario would be pretty crappy for a player.
-
It's also crappy for a player to go in to the final round in the top 2 and end of not placing at all. Best of 3 would pretty much eliminate your scenario, but at this point there just isn't time for each top cut round to be Best of 3 and that may be too drastic a change off the get go. No system is perfect, but top cut solves a lot of the issues with pure swiss.
-
Guardian, LP basically answered you. Top Cut strives to reward you for beating players with strong performances rather than enable you to get easier swiss pairings and push towards the top and then only play a few tough games. Also, luck of the draw is part of a card game. That situation would stink regardless of when it happened. It's part of the game though.
-
Let's say I'm undefeated going into Top Cut and I get the top seed. I play someone who lost a couple games (perhaps due to poor luck or poor draw) and ended up with the bottom seed. We play and I end up getting a poor draw, he has LS drought and I end up losing. So at that point I'm out of the tournament because I happened to get a poor draw at the wrong time? And furthermore, I'm out and other players with more than one loss are still in?
And this is why top cut is a bad idea for this game. We have a few vocal people that want to turn Redemption into "every secular card game". I for one would be sad to see the game go that direction after all these years.
-
Let's say I'm undefeated going into Top Cut and I get the top seed. I play someone who lost a couple games (perhaps due to poor luck or poor draw) and ended up with the bottom seed. We play and I end up getting a poor draw, he has LS drought and I end up losing. So at that point I'm out of the tournament because I happened to get a poor draw at the wrong time? And furthermore, I'm out and other players with more than one loss are still in?
And this is why top cut is a bad idea for this game. We have a few vocal people that want to turn Redemption into "every secular card game". I for one would be sad to see the game go that direction after all these years.
If I may inquire, why didn't you mention this feeling previously? We had a very active thread about it, and I don't recall hearing this from you. At the conclusion of that thread, Rob ok'd the idea for the next Nationals (at the host's discretion) and the host gave his discretion (which no one solicited from the host to my knowledge). It seems like at some point you could have mentioned your opposition (either publicly or privately to Rob). Perhaps I'm just not aware of such an event that did happen, but I certainly don't remember such a thing.
-
Bad draws can happen in any round of any style of tournament and can equally derail your chances of winning no matter what. This is not a problem with top cut, this is a problem with play a single game for any round. If it were not for the time constraint I would suggest going to best of 3 for every round of every style of tournament.
-
Bad draws... can equally derail your chances of winning no matter what
Also, luck of the draw is part of a card game. That situation would stink regardless of when it happened.
Umm, bad draws are a lot worse in a single elimination format than a Swiss format.
-
Tell that to the person who goes from final table to not placing because that's when they got hit with a bad draw. At least if you get hit with a bad draw at final table of top cut, you still get second.
-
Also, luck of the draw is part of a card game. That situation would stink regardless of when it happened.
Stinks a lot worse in a single elimination format than a Swiss format.
I agree with this. But at the same time, it's arguably advantageous to scoop your first round game and accept a 0-5 loss and then play an "easier" schedule the rest of the way through the tournament. Sure, no one would ever do it, but you can't deny that it could potentially be a good idea since most Nats winners have 1 or 2 losses in recent years.
In my perspective, Swiss is inherently more luck based than Swiss+TC because Swiss has luck both in pairings and in games. Swiss+TC shows has the beginning of the tournament be potentially lucky, but then solidifies the structure of the tournament based on imperfect swiss results and isolates luck into only games.
-
And this is why top cut is a bad idea for this game. We have a few vocal people that want to turn Redemption into "every secular card game".
That's not bad, that's how you mitigate luck and people taking advantage of weak schedules. For all we know, an X-0 can be an X-0 simply because he had an easier strength of schedule in Swiss in comparison to the other people in top cut. If you deserve your X-0, then prove it against all the other top players in top cut.
-
Or just go play MTG if that the game you really wish you were playing. ;)
-
I personally have been a staunch anti-top-cut advocate.
Not that I am a convert of sorts. But all these years I have been to FNMs and posting myself at a corner table, alone most of the time, and praying that one single soul from the MTG group would approach me each Friday night to learn the game I so love. Ironically, if that is the right word to choose, most if not all of those who have learned the game called Redemption came from those who 'failed' top cut at MTG tourneys. But did they feel miserable? Did they have tantrums and walk hurriedly home? No. They stayed and hung around the tourney hall until the very end of the night. Honestly, I've never seen such "fellowship" than in those tournaments --- the time to compare notes, trade, talk sweet nothings, tenderly bring a troubled friend aside .... or approach Roy's corner, and discover yet another exciting game which may never end up being their main game, but something worthwhile to keep a starter deck in their bag amongst tons of MTG cards.
Last Friday, in Farmingdale, I began anew my FNM hang around sessions at a new gaming store. Coincidentally, the first owner of the now-closed gaming store in Seaford where we used to play lots of Redemption and where I believe even Tim H's school kids took their first major shot at Redemption gaming, was there playing MTG. He is a middle school teacher and an avid CCG player, and is Jewish. When he saw me at my table, he stood up after one of his rounds to announce to the players that I teach Redemption. It took this man's testimony to get me to teach one player that night. Yes, it took almost three hours of waiting. But I always ask The Lord for a sign to keep on going. Daniel, who had lost his chance at top cut, sat down at the prodding of this Jewish man, to learn Redemption. I went home that night feeling I had taught 1000 people at FNM.
I am not advocating top cut...at least not yet. But I am willing to risk it at Nats2013. By August, my MTG players will have had told a few more friends that Nats2013 invites them to try out the game. Perhaps, just perhaps, God may have a plan for those who will not make top cut --- perhaps an MTG player will want to learn the game from them after observing how competitive our game's top cut system indeed is....and perhaps, learn it from someone who will miss top cut...because that player will have had the time to teach...and to win a new soul to learn a game called Redemption. That for me, my friends, is honestly even more of a huge win than any trophy to be had at Nats.
All I am asking for is to give yourselves a chance. And I am offering, I am risking Nats2013's concept of fellowship. I am strongly confident that the Spirit is guiding our minds and hearts into a final decision whether to give top cut a chance or not.
I pray that God guide the proponents of this untried style in Redemption. Be sure to prove it will indeed work and create the best possible formula to make this new style a proven avenue for renewed fellowship for those who will not make it to top cut --- perhaps to just happily hang around, talk about sweet nothings, listen to a lonely heart, or perhaps win a new soul.
God Bless us all, brethren.
Peace...and more Peace!
-
The thing I love about Top Cut is that it's dependent on how well YOU do, not on other people. With Top Cut, all you need to worry about is your games. I can go 5-2 after 7 rounds and still win without rooting against the guy who's 7-0. That sounds like the kind of spirit Redemption is all about.
-
That's one of the things I like best about the system...if you don't make top cut you've got some extra time to hang out. There's rarely any downtime with the strict Nats scheduling, so any extra time to do whatever you want is much appreciated. It's a win-win.
-
33-64 players: 6 rounds
65-128 players: 7 rounds
Following the completion of the Swiss rounds, a top cut will commence.
In regards to non-top cut players still playing Swiss, I find it pretty pointless.
That's one of the things I like best about the system...if you don't make top cut you've got some extra time to hang out.
We just have a different perspective here. You guys seem to see playing 6 or 7 rounds as good enough for the vast majority of players, and then letting the "real" tournament start single-elimination style for the elite 16 players.
I enjoy hanging out with everyone at Nats. I even have a history of playing side strategy games like Shadows Over Camelot or StarWars:Epic Duels. I also have a history of participating in whole side events like TEAMS (before it was official) or the CRAZY DRAFT that was tried once. But when I go to Nats, I am still mainly there to play in the main events. And THE main event has always been T1-2p. My hope is to play the full 10 rounds of T1-2p. If I only get to play 7 and then have to wait for others to get to finish without me, it is not something to "like best about the system" for me.
I value Roy's heart for ministry, and I'm willing to support this experiment happening for 1 year (just like I was supportive of Nats being in California for 1 year). But I'm still not convinced that this will be good for the game long-term.
-
Why would you possibly have to 'wait' for others to finish top cut if you can go off and do whatever you want? ::)
-
Since it has been mentioned already, I will just interject my previous anti-Top Cut stance as part of the input process.
That is all. Carry on.
-
Roy actually makes a really cool point. There's a lot of potential for fellowship in the extra time given. For example, I play Pokemon, and lots of times players stick around during the top cut to discuss decks, or more commonly, to watch the top cut matches because they are exciting! You get to watch really good players with good decks having good days. What could be better than that to learn the intricacies of the game?
-
I'm not sure I'll be at Nats, but I'll throw my hat in. I don't think we're going to be sacrificing fellowship if we do top cut - I actually think it'll enhance it, in ways we didn't expect (So basically, yes, I agree with Alex :p).
-
Like Justin, I will not likely be playing T1 at Nats (unless my experimental deck ends up taking off by then). And I can say with certainty that top cut would not be needed (and likely wouldn't be wanted) in T2. However, the biggest issue I see will be when, inevitably, the 16th and 17th players are tied, have the same LS differential, and haven't played each other. Or worse, there is a 3+ way tie at the bottom of the top cut. I am not at all familiar with other CCGs that implement this system, but what happens in this case? A play-in round? Strength of schedule? It just seems rather complicated. I suppose someone could modify the Excel spreadsheet to account for strength of schedule, but then a player really is punished for losing early and having to make up ground among weaker opponents; but how is that fair for top players who get matched up early?
I think it's a good discussion to have, and there may be a good solution, but from the discussions I've seen here (which is my only perspective on the CCG world) Redemption is unique in a few ways:
1) The time limits are longer, which restricts us from being able to effectively have best two out of three implemented. From what I've seen/heard the average game of MTG is 15-20 minutes; is that correct?
2) Every player has access to the best cards. I may be wrong about this, but I know that in some CCGs there are certain cards that are worth hundreds/thousands of dollars, which leads me to believe that only a relatively few players have access to them. In Redemption, anyone who has the money to make it to Nats, is easily able to afford any of the best cards in the game. This (in my mind) leads to more luck-based win potential, as a historically weaker opponent has a better chance to beat a historically stronger opponent due to luck of the draw.
3) The LS differential tie-breakers. I have no idea how ties are broken in other CCGs, but the idea that top-cut inclusion/rankings will inevitably have to involve LS differential (As Alex mentioned, a 16-player top cut with a 128 player field with no ties will have 7 6-1 players and 21 5-2 players). Even if we are "fortunate" enough to have 8 5-2 players with clearly better differentials than the other 13, we still have to rank those 8. Also, LS differential is really a bad indicator of skill in a game where 2 of the LSs are essentially free if you can draw the Big Two, and I was very happy when we made the primary ranking method be head to head, reducing the importance of differential. But the player who misses top cut because of 1 LS (and maybe has a much better strength of schedule than the guy above him to boot) is probably not going to enjoy the "time off".
4) Fun and fellowship of the game. From everything I've heard from former/current MTG/YGO/Pokemon players, what Redemption may lack in mechanics it more than makes up for in fellowship. Other than the predominantly Christian values of the majority of the player base, I'm not sure exactly what it is that makes this true. But I don't think it's too farfetched to think that it is partially because of the swiss style that allows everyone to participate until the end. The idea of being able to watch the final matches sounds good, but unless we get cameras at each of the top tables that can be ported to screens outside of the playing area, no top player that I know will want people watching them live. And even so, they probably don't want to reveal their decks to other players in the top cut who finish early.
I definitely want the discussion to continue, and maybe some of my concerns will be addressed, but I just don't see that Redemption is suited for top-cut at any level.
-
1) The time limits are longer, which restricts us from being able to effectively have best two out of three implemented. From what I've seen/heard the average game of MTG is 15-20 minutes; is that correct?
Yeah, Redemption is definitely longer than most, which makes it challenging.
2) Every player has access to the best cards. I may be wrong about this, but I know that in some CCGs there are certain cards that are worth hundreds/thousands of dollars, which leads me to believe that only a relatively few players have access to them. In Redemption, anyone who has the money to make it to Nats, is easily able to afford any of the best cards in the game. This (in my mind) leads to more luck-based win potential, as a historically weaker opponent has a better chance to beat a historically stronger opponent due to luck of the draw.
I see your point here, but in my limited experience in other games, most players in the upper half of the Swiss have all the good cards.
3) The LS differential tie-breakers. I have no idea how ties are broken in other CCGs, but the idea that top-cut inclusion/rankings will inevitably have to involve LS differential (As Alex mentioned, a 16-player top cut with a 128 player field with no ties will have 7 6-1 players and 21 5-2 players). Even if we are "fortunate" enough to have 8 5-2 players with clearly better differentials than the other 13, we still have to rank those 8. Also, LS differential is really a bad indicator of skill in a game where 2 of the LSs are essentially free if you can draw the Big Two, and I was very happy when we made the primary ranking method be head to head, reducing the importance of differential. But the player who misses top cut because of 1 LS (and maybe has a much better strength of schedule than the guy above him to boot) is probably not going to enjoy the "time off".
I'm totally in favor of using Opponent's win percentage as the first tiebreaker for both top cut and standard tournaments (even if top cut isn't used). So yeah. That'd solve this issue.
4) Fun and fellowship of the game. From everything I've heard from former/current MTG/YGO/Pokemon players, what Redemption may lack in mechanics it more than makes up for in fellowship. Other than the predominantly Christian values of the majority of the player base, I'm not sure exactly what it is that makes this true. But I don't think it's too farfetched to think that it is partially because of the swiss style that allows everyone to participate until the end. The idea of being able to watch the final matches sounds good, but unless we get cameras at each of the top tables that can be ported to screens outside of the playing area, no top player that I know will want people watching them live. And even so, they probably don't want to reveal their decks to other players in the top cut who finish early.
As a top player based on Nationals results in recent years, let me be the first to go out and say it: Keeping your deck secret once the tournament starts is really silly and we need to get out of this habit. It's arguably worse for the fellowship than the top cut would ever be in my opinion. Who cares if people watch your game and know your deck? If your deck is winning due to secrecy, it might not be that good (hate to say it but it's true). I get it for combo decks, but let's be honest, every round past round 4 or 5 if you are doing well, you know what your opponent is going to play. I knew decks of every opponent I had to play against before I played them after round 4 last Nats except Connor Magras (the sort of "surprise" player doing well) so its not like the secrecy is even working.
-
I've never understood keeping your deck secret in a tournament where there's no sideboard or anything like that. So people now know what you're running, they can't swap out cards to get an edge on them. You're deck is locked in. Who cares at this point?
-
IMO fellowship happens no matter what is going on with the tournament itself. By the end of the 10+ rounds of type-1 I am usually pretty spent and feel like the games I am playing don't matter that much anyway. I break out the silly decks I love building and play. I would be doing that whether I was at the bottom of the tournament bracket still or eliminated due to Top Cut. Top Cut has it's positives and negatives but I think it is wise of Roy to give it a shot as the 2013 Nationals Host. That way all of our theories of what it will and will not do for Redemption will fade away into actuality. Those that are staunchly opposed to anything "the secular games do" may be missing a vital point in that we play a game that was modeled after the grandpa of them all. If we did not tread where "they" tread, we would not be able to have experiences like Roy so eloquently described at his local gaming store. Experiences I share with him, being a game store owner. Redemption has been a beacon of light for so many in the gaming world. I trust that it will continue to be!
-
I've never understood keeping your deck secret in a tournament where there's no sideboard or anything like that. So people now know what you're running, they can't swap out cards to get an edge on them. You're deck is locked in. Who cares at this point?
For example, at the T2 only I was able to gather info about Kirk's T2 only deck (partially because I had had many discussions with MJB regarding a similar deck, partially because I sat near him for many matches, and partially because Kirk always has some kind of combo deck for which there are several counters). Thus, when I knew that the only logical person I would be playing is Kirk, I knew that I wanted to use the deck with both CwD and Nazareth. True, it didn't end up helping me win, but it certainly helped me stall, and if my offense had included just 2 cards that I didn't, I would have probably (by Kirk's admission) beaten him easily.
I realize that it is difficult to keep your deck completely secret from all opponents, partially because of the fun and fellowship leading to discussions that may leak certain combos, but I know it is often best to avoid letting your deck contents leak, so that your opponent can't predict what you have.
-
As a top player based on Nationals results in recent years, let me be the first to go out and say it: Keeping your deck secret once the tournament starts is really silly and we need to get out of this habit. It's arguably worse for the fellowship than the top cut would ever be in my opinion. Who cares if people watch your game and know your deck? If your deck is winning due to secrecy, it might not be that good (hate to say it but it's true). I get it for combo decks, but let's be honest, every round past round 4 or 5 if you are doing well, you know what your opponent is going to play.
I've never understood keeping your deck secret in a tournament where there's no sideboard or anything like that. So people now know what you're running, they can't swap out cards to get an edge on them. You're deck is locked in. Who cares at this point?
You can switch decks from round to round. This plays more of a factor in T2 than T1 in my experience. T2 combo decks are a big threat and if you know your next opponent is playing a combo deck you may switch for your alternative deck with more anti-combo cards.
I probably play combo decks more than any other player in the game at big tournaments (and have placed at 3 nationals using combo decks) and I think that it is important to keep whatever small level of secrecy concerning your deck that you can hold onto throughout the tournament. Every time I use a combo people talk about it in between rounds so it isn't completely secret but it is nice when not all of my future opponents know exactly what I may or may not be playing.
If you are playing more of a "normal" deck than the secrecy does not matter as much.
Kirk
-
I've never understood keeping your deck secret in a tournament where there's no sideboard or anything like that. So people now know what you're running, they can't swap out cards to get an edge on them. You're deck is locked in. Who cares at this point?
I also found this strangely odd in comparison to every other major CCG. I never understood why players in this game would want to keep their decks a secret, when the pro's in other CCGs are more than happy to have their decks highlighted in event coverage, usually for the benefit of those still learning. Keeping the deck a secret is also pointless in CCGs that utilize sideboards, as you're not allowed to side in cards before Game 1, only after.
-
I've never understood keeping your deck secret in a tournament where there's no sideboard or anything like that. So people now know what you're running, they can't swap out cards to get an edge on them. You're deck is locked in. Who cares at this point?
For example, at the T2 only I was able to gather info about Kirk's T2 only deck (partially because I had had many discussions with MJB regarding a similar deck, partially because I sat near him for many matches, and partially because Kirk always has some kind of combo deck for which there are several counters). Thus, when I knew that the only logical person I would be playing is Kirk, I knew that I wanted to use the deck with both CwD and Nazareth. True, it didn't end up helping me win, but it certainly helped me stall, and if my offense had included just 2 cards that I didn't, I would have probably (by Kirk's admission) beaten him easily.
I realize that it is difficult to keep your deck completely secret from all opponents, partially because of the fun and fellowship leading to discussions that may leak certain combos, but I know it is often best to avoid letting your deck contents leak, so that your opponent can't predict what you have.
Maybe we should just have one deck per player then. It fixes a ton of other problems as well.
I've never understood keeping your deck secret in a tournament where there's no sideboard or anything like that. So people now know what you're running, they can't swap out cards to get an edge on them. You're deck is locked in. Who cares at this point?
You can switch decks from round to round. This plays more of a factor in T2 than T1 in my experience. T2 combo decks are a big threat and if you know your next opponent is playing a combo deck you may switch for your alternative deck with more anti-combo cards.
I probably play combo decks more than any other player in the game at big tournaments and I think that it is important to keep whatever small level of secrecy concerning your deck that you can hold onto throughout the tournament. Every time I use a combo people talk about it in between rounds so it isn't completely secret but it is nice when not all of my future opponents know exactly what I may or may not be playing.
If you are playing more of a "normal" deck than the secrecy does not matter as much.
Kirk
This is a good post. If you can come up with a good T1 combo, more power to you. Until then, I think we will be ok without secrecy since that's more useful in T2 anyway, which won't be using a cut in any foreseeable future.
I've never understood keeping your deck secret in a tournament where there's no sideboard or anything like that. So people now know what you're running, they can't swap out cards to get an edge on them. You're deck is locked in. Who cares at this point?
I also found this strangely odd in comparison to every other major CCG. I never understood why players in this game would want to keep their decks a secret, when the pro's in other CCGs are more than happy to have their decks highlighted in event coverage, usually for the benefit of those still learning. Keeping the deck a secret is also pointless in CCGs that utilize sideboards, as you're not allowed to side in cards before Game 1, only after.
It's really funny that THIS is the game with secrecy, not the one where I can win all kinds of money.
Just sayin.
-
tbh I forgot you can check multiple decks. I think the only person I've ever seen do it was Greeson and I don't know if I've ever seen him actually change to the second deck.
-
I've never understood keeping your deck secret in a tournament where there's no sideboard or anything like that. So people now know what you're running, they can't swap out cards to get an edge on them. You're deck is locked in. Who cares at this point?
For example, at the T2 only I was able to gather info about Kirk's T2 only deck (partially because I had had many discussions with MJB regarding a similar deck, partially because I sat near him for many matches, and partially because Kirk always has some kind of combo deck for which there are several counters). Thus, when I knew that the only logical person I would be playing is Kirk, I knew that I wanted to use the deck with both CwD and Nazareth. True, it didn't end up helping me win, but it certainly helped me stall, and if my offense had included just 2 cards that I didn't, I would have probably (by Kirk's admission) beaten him easily.
I realize that it is difficult to keep your deck completely secret from all opponents, partially because of the fun and fellowship leading to discussions that may leak certain combos, but I know it is often best to avoid letting your deck contents leak, so that your opponent can't predict what you have.
This. T2 is much more about match-ups than T1. I could have switched decks to gain the edge that way but I wanted to ride out my main deck through the rest of the tournament at that point.
Maybe we should just have one deck per player then. It fixes a ton of other problems as well.
I could get on board with that. It would limit Haman's Plot abuse. It would change some of the deck building dynamic.
This is a good post. If you can come up with a good T1 combo, more power to you. Until then, I think we will be ok without secrecy.
Agreed - my attempts at T1 combos have not worked out over the years. T1 is good without secrecy.
tbh I forgot you can check multiple decks. I think the only person I've ever seen do it was Greeson and I don't know if I've ever seen him actually change to the second deck.
Fair. At nationals I believe that most top players check multiple decks from my experience (attended 5 national tournaments). This is especially true in T2.
Kirk
-
tbh I forgot you can check multiple decks. I think the only person I've ever seen do it was Greeson and I don't know if I've ever seen him actually change to the second deck.
It's most commonly done to use 3x HP. Some people (especially in T2) will use it to play two different decks to counter certain potentially big meta decks. Westy used two decks in 2010 in T1 - a Speed Disciples in early rounds to try to boost diff, and then his anti-meta deck to use when he got near the top and could predict his opponent's deck better. Most of my time outside of games was spent trying to predict his opponent, gather which deck his opponent was playing, and then suggest a deck.
-
Maybe we should just have one deck per player then. It fixes a ton of other problems as well.
Possibly, but that was kind of my point: in order for top cut to be an effective method in Redemption, then a lot of other changes will need to be made as well. And each of those changes will need to be vetted, to see what other effects may happen.
This is a good post. If you can come up with a good T1 combo, more power to you. Until then, I think we will be ok without secrecy since that's more useful in T2 anyway, which won't be using a cut in any foreseeable future.
T1 does have a lot fewer potential combo decks to be sure, but each T1 deck can possibly have smaller combos (like Besieging the City/Mayhem) that an opponent who has seen/heard about the deck would have an advantage over.
I've never understood keeping your deck secret in a tournament where there's no sideboard or anything like that. So people now know what you're running, they can't swap out cards to get an edge on them. You're deck is locked in. Who cares at this point?
I also found this strangely odd in comparison to every other major CCG. I never understood why players in this game would want to keep their decks a secret, when the pro's in other CCGs are more than happy to have their decks highlighted in event coverage, usually for the benefit of those still learning. Keeping the deck a secret is also pointless in CCGs that utilize sideboards, as you're not allowed to side in cards before Game 1, only after.
It's really funny that THIS is the game with secrecy, not the one where I can win all kinds of money.
Just sayin.
I can't comment on why that is as I have zero CCG experience outside of Redemption, but I know in my experience secrecy can help, at least minimally. Maybe its the different gameplay mechanics, the existence of easy-to-acquire counters, or the fact that there is a much smaller cardbase (which naturally means that solutions to certain strategies are easier for top players to come up with).
-
I think Top cut could be effective without other changes, but I agree a one deck rule would make it even better. FWIW, I just made a one deck thread because I really actually do think it's a great idea (even without Top Cut).
I again suggest that surprise shouldn't be what you are leaning on to win.
Pokemon has a substantially smaller card base currently (due to set rotation) at around 1000 cards or so and it has substantially less secrecy, so I don't know if your thoughts are accurate.
-
Continuing on the non-secrecy tangent and going back to the over-the-tabletop cam, I would love to at least see the final match of top cut utilize this and put on a projector. It's a monumental moment, and everyone would be excited to watch it live.
-
We could even set up a watching room for players that are eliminated from Top Cut to see a feature match each round of Top Cut. That way they can see several rounds of high level play; learning some things and having fellowship while doing it. I for one would love to watch it, especially if there were some particularly talented color commentators talking about the plays and strategies as the game is happening.
-
Continuing on the non-secrecy tangent and going back to the over-the-tabletop cam, I would love to at least see the final match of top cut utilize this and put on a projector. It's a monumental moment, and everyone would be excited to watch it live.
If someone records Top Cut matches, Westy and I will commentate them for posting on Youtube (I don't even care that I'm volunteering him, he'll do it).
We could even set up a watching room for players that are eliminated from Top Cut to see a feature match each round of Top Cut. That way they can see several rounds of high level play; learning some things and having fellowship while doing it. I for one would love to watch it, especially if there were some particularly talented color commentators talking about the plays and strategies as the game is happening.
I would commentate assuming I am not playing.
-
so I don't know if your thoughts are accurate.
I think I've made it very clear that I don't know that either...;)
Personally, I wouldn't personally care all that much if people saw my deck beforehand, and usually unless there is something that I am really trying to hide, I won't be too careful with the way I talk about it. However, I know that not everyone has the same feeling, and I think it is generally good form to not talk about others' decks between rounds.
Continuing on the non-secrecy tangent and going back to the over-the-tabletop cam, I would love to at least see the final match of top cut utilize this and put on a projector. It's a monumental moment, and everyone would be excited to watch it live.
That would be awesome, and if we could get it setup, I'd love it. I think if we can get it setup, we could get a list of people who don't mind having their decks revealed and the highest-ranked match between two such people could be shown live in each round. But I also think people should have the right to keep their decks secret if they so choose.
-
Things I'm For:
Top Cut (though I really wish it was 2/3...maybe if Redemption gets big enough that we need to do a 2 day T1-2P)
Time Limit Counts as Full Win (if it's 3-2, you get a full 3 points)
Strength of Schedule for Tiebreaker (divide up your opponent's win percentage)
One Deck (though it makes me sad, as I'm not sure how viable turtles are without a centralized meta in the early rounds)
These have all been mentioned off and on and I really wasn't sure where to post it, so I'm dropping it here, as it'll greatly effect the Top Cut and make the system work better.
As for secrecy, Anybody can see your deck as you're playing it at a tournament--all you need to do is look to your left/right. Soon word gets around and everybody knows what everybody is playing. Generally it's just about 1 or 2 weird cards that people have teched in, and not the deck as a whole. And during the final round, it's really pointless. If anything, top cut allows you to separate the top players more so they don't know each others decks by peeking during their game, as there are less players playing and more room to play. It could also be solved if the Camera went to a different room, where Top Cut participants weren't allowed in. Then of course there are cell phones and stuff for people to communicate with them, but whatever. If people want to know what you're playing they can know.
I agree that "hovering" shouldn't be allowed. Cameras are fine, but I'm not sure who has that kind of equipment that plays Redemption.
Continuing on the non-secrecy tangent and going back to the over-the-tabletop cam, I would love to at least see the final match of top cut utilize this and put on a projector. It's a monumental moment, and everyone would be excited to watch it live.
If someone records Top Cut matches, Westy and I will commentate them for posting on Youtube (I don't even care that I'm volunteering him, he'll do it).
But Travis said he wanted talented commentators, so I guess it'll have to be me and Chris. ::)
Yes, I'll do it. I am the Redemption Pooka.
-
Regarding top cut at Nationals reducing some of the fun and fellowship, I can say that there are a group of people that would be very content with the T1 2P event being done sooner. While they enjoy playing, they know they will not be winning and are exhausted after a few hours of playing. Top cut could help with this.
For myself, I know I will not place at Nationals (unless there's a fluke!) but I enjoy playing competitively for the full 10 rounds and trying to place above the middle. However, I have only been to two Nationals, and at both I realized after a few rounds that just a couple changes to my deck would have made it better. Top cut would allow me to be done after less rounds, make the changes, and play come fun games with the revised deck to see if it's improved at all. I wouldn't mind this, either. :)
The biggest downside I see has already been mentioned: Someone with only one loss could have that loss during the top cut and be eliminated, losing to people with more losses. Part of the reason so many rounds are played is to help alleviate 'bad draws' by giving people a chance to win even if they lose one or two games. This would change that dynamic, whether for good or bad...
-
If there's internet at the nats location, we could stream for non-attenders.
-
I certainly hope so, as I will be at a different world championship that very same weekend. ;) I would love to know what is going on.
The event coverage for the top cut 'feature match' doesn't even have to be done with Youtube if you don't want to get that complex...just a simple write up by a colorful commentator here in a thread of the exciting moments during the match, turning points, powerplays, etc would be more than worth reading.
-
Guys you're gonna have to stop talking about incorporating all of this technology in to Nats, you're really making me want to attend and help out with all this.
-
Lp just volunteered. PROJECT STREAM FINAL MATCH A-GO-GO.
-
Guys you're gonna have to stop talking about incorporating all of this technology in to Nats, you're really making me want to attend and help out with all this.
You do the technical, I'll provide the entertainment and name drop you many times. "Underwood is going for the Alec Joy Soul of the game here".
-
Really though, this could be done. I'll get on some research to what level of tech we would need to de certain things like live streaming it both in the church and maybe to the general public as well.
-
Really though, this could be done. I'll get on some research to what level of tech we would need to de certain things like live streaming it both in the church and maybe to the general public as well.
We could use twitch.tv to stream. I'm not familiar with the camera tech needed, etc though.
-
Most important step right now would be to make sure the church has internet. We can stream internally without it but not externally.
-
Most important step right now would be to make sure the church has internet. We can stream internally without it but not externally.
Even if you record it, we could at least youtube it.
-
Or just go play MTG if that the game you really wish you were playing. ;)
You got me on that one. I play both Redemption and MtG. There are definitely aspects of that game I think would benefit ours. For instance, mulligans, best 2 out of 3's, an actual removed from the game zone (and ways to target it), sideboards (only to an extent), ect.
-
i can't believe im doing this but if discussion is wanted i have the camera skills.
-
We could even set up a watching room for players that are eliminated from Top Cut to see a feature match each round of Top Cut. That way they can see several rounds of high level play; learning some things and having fellowship while doing it. I for one would love to watch it, especially if there were some particularly talented color commentators talking about the plays and strategies as the game is happening.
I would love to do this. Can I get some sponsership (aka 360 dollars so far) to make the event?
-
Continuing on the non-secrecy tangent and going back to the over-the-tabletop cam, I would love to at least see the final match of top cut utilize this and put on a projector. It's a monumental moment, and everyone would be excited to watch it live.
If someone records Top Cut matches, Westy and I will commentate them for posting on Youtube (I don't even care that I'm volunteering him, he'll do it).
We could even set up a watching room for players that are eliminated from Top Cut to see a feature match each round of Top Cut. That way they can see several rounds of high level play; learning some things and having fellowship while doing it. I for one would love to watch it, especially if there were some particularly talented color commentators talking about the plays and strategies as the game is happening.
I would commentate assuming I am not playing.
I would also help commentate videos for posting on youtube if it could be done from a distance, you know to sort of add variety?
-
Hey,
I suppose someone could modify the Excel spreadsheet to account for strength of schedule, but then a player really is punished for losing early and having to make up ground among weaker opponents; but how is that fair for top players who get matched up early?
A player that loses early will have a weaker strength of schedule but should have a stronger lost soul differential. A player that gets matched up against someone good early should have a weaker differential but will have a better strength of schedule. If we can find the right way to combine the two we should theoretically have a tiebreaker that is unaffected by the randomness of pairings.
Let's say I'm undefeated going into Top Cut and I get the top seed. I play someone who lost a couple games (perhaps due to poor luck or poor draw) and ended up with the bottom seed. We play and I end up getting a poor draw, he has LS drought and I end up losing. So at that point I'm out of the tournament because I happened to get a poor draw at the wrong time?
This is why I feel it is very important that the top cut be run double elimination. Double elimination is kinda the compromise between best of three (which people seem to want but we simply don't have time for) and single elimination (which allows for no recourse in the case of a bad draw).
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Double elimination is even more time prohibitive
-
Hey,
Double elimination is even more time prohibitive
More time prohibitive than best of three? Definitely not. Double elimination adds one or two rounds to the number of rounds needed for the elimination bracket. Best of three adds one or two rounds to each round of the elimination bracket.
A 7 round swiss with a top 8 cut tournament would take 0-45 minutes longer than the current standard of a 10 round swiss tournament.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Haven't read 95% of this thread. Ignore me if this has been answered. How do you deal with ties in an elimination tournament?
EDIT: By ties, I mean like my opponent and I have the same amount of rescued souls after 45 minutes. Who drops down to the lower bracket?
-
Hey,
Double elimination is even more time prohibitive
More time prohibitive than best of three? Definitely not. Double elimination adds one or two rounds to the number of rounds needed for the elimination bracket. Best of three adds one or two rounds to each round of the elimination bracket.
A 7 round swiss with a top 8 cut tournament would take 0-45 minutes longer than the current standard of a 10 round swiss tournament.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
It adds more time because you have to do more matches. Sitting down at a table and playing 3 games in a row you can just start one after the other, game ends next game begins. In double elimination you have to wait for everyone to be done and then redo matchups. The number of games are fewer but the actual time take is greater.
-
Haven't read 95% of this thread. Ignore me if this has been answered. How do you deal with ties in an elimination tournament?
EDIT: By ties, I mean like my opponent and I have the same amount of rescued souls after 45 minutes. Who drops down to the lower bracket?
Two options spring to mind - continue the game until the next rescue (sudden death OT, if you will), or you could do what we did at the Creation Open this past year and restart the game, play to the first soul. The sudden death one is probably the most natural and best flow - unless both players are locked out, of course. The second is extremely luck driven (as anyone witnessing the game from Creation where we had to do this can attest).
-
Hey,
Alex, I think the size of top cuts you suggested is a little bloated. The number of swiss rounds and the size of the top cut should insure any player with 1 or less loss at the end of swiss style gets into the top cut (while keeping the top cut as small as possible to minimize the time it takes), and should keep most of the rounds in the swiss portion of the event. Also the closer the cut off is to the break between point groupings the better (so that who gets into the top cut is more likely to be determined by wins and losses and not differential).
I'd suggest the following numbers:
24-32 Players - 5 Rounds Required (6 Rounds Preferred)
33-48 Players - 6 Rounds Required
49-64 Players - 6 Rounds Required (7 Rounds Preferred)
65-96 Players - 7 Rounds Required
97-128 Players - 7 Rounds Required (8 Rounds Preferred)
129-192 Players - 8 Rounds Required
193-256 Players - 8 Rounds Required (9 Rounds Preferred)
24-32 Players - 4 Players in the Top Cut
33-128 Players - 8 Players in the Top Cut
129-256 Players - 16 Players in the Top Cut
Top Cut doesn't really work all that well unless the field is fairly large, so the numbers are a little odd for less than 64 players. The Top 8 dividing line works out very well mathematically, so I might even prefer requiring an extra round of swiss for 129+ players and keeping the top cut at 8, but since it's unlikely we'll be seeing many tournaments that large it's not a very important issue.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I'm all for Double Elim if we can work out timing issues. The nice thing about Top Cut is you're less likely to go to time each round, as there are fewer people playing. Another alternative is to do Top 16, and 4 rounds with Double Elim, which would give 1 (4-0) and 5 (3-1). You can play another round, which either gives us 1 5-0 and 2 4-1 (ideal) or 3 4-1 (messy because of tiebreakers), but that means we'll be playing 12 rounds, which is probably not worth it if we have such muddiness. We could decide tiebreakers by head to head, but with 6 people, that's unlikely to come to much of a resolution. We could decide tiebreakers by swiss, but again, with 7 6-1s and 8 5-2s, there'll still likely be ties. We could go by strength of schedule, but would that be entire schedule or just top cut schedule? There's also always lost soul differential. Ultimately, we have enough options where it shouldn't be a big deal, but deciding on which option to take would be tricky.
I prefer Alex's numbers to Tim's. Some 5-2s deserve to make cut, and they'll miss it with only top 8 at 128.
-
Hey,
It adds more time because you have to do more matches. Sitting down at a table and playing 3 games in a row you can just start one after the other, game ends next game begins. In double elimination you have to wait for everyone to be done and then redo matchups. The number of games are fewer but the actual time take is greater.
Scheduling is largely based on worst case scenario. Worst case scenario for double elimination with eight players is 225 minutes of game play. Worst case scenario for best of three with eight players is 405 minutes. Even if you're not looking at that, the winner of the tournament will play 4 or 5 games in a double elimination bracket. The winner of the tournament will play 6 to 9 games in a best of three bracket. In best of three you're playing 50% more games in sequence. That's not going to be faster.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
Some 5-2s deserve to make cut
Why do you think that? With the system we use now most players are eliminated from contention when they reach two losses and that's two losses for the entire tournament not just "pre cut."
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Losing twice shouldn't eliminate you from placing. It didnt at nationals.
-
Hey,
For dealing with ties in who makes the top cut and seeding order I would suggest:
1) Points (i.e. wins)
2) Lost Soul differential
3) Strength of Schedule (Sum of point totals for all opponents in the swiss rounds)
4) Highest place of an opponent they defeated.
For dealing with ties in elimination round games I would suggest:
Winning at timeout and Losing at timeout count as full win and full loss. A game that is tied at timeout would go into a short (3 rounds) "overtime" where the next soul rescues wins.
A game that ends in a true tie or is still a tie after the overtime I could see being broken in one of three ways. (1) Sudden death game to one. (2) The player that rescued the first soul in the game wins. (3) The player that rescued the most recent soul in the game wins. Having played several sudden death games to one I can say they are ridiculous and not a good way to determine a winner. Of the other two options the first soul seems more random (who drew souls first, who went first, etc) so I think my preference would be for the player that most recently rescued a soul (which would also be easier to remember than who rescued the first soul). And if a game ends 0-0 with neither player rescuing a soul then neither player deserves to advance, so flip a coin :P
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I had a big long post basically talking about how tough Martin's schedule has been the past two years, but then my internet gave out. Basically I said X-96 should be top 8, while after that should be top 16, which will only effect MN nationals.
-
Hey,
Losing twice shouldn't eliminate you from placing. It didnt at nationals.
At nationals between 2002 and 2012 (the 11 nationals I have spreadsheets for), 34 players finished with 2 losses. 20 of them placed 14 of them didn't. So historically about 40% of the time two losses does eliminate you from placing. And it's happened in more years than not (6 of the 11 nationals).
That being said, in a double elimination version of Top cut, if one of your losses happens before the cut and one of your losses happens after the cut you're definitely not eliminated with two losses.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
But two losses shouldn't eliminate the chances of a person making cut. That's how it is in other CCGs an how it should be in this one. It's a fairer system.
-
1. Alec, could you please initiate a new thread exclusively for the audio-visual strategy plan at Nats? I did a crude version of it at Nats2010 and would love to get all the suggestions materialize. I will be excited to feature the top rounds and especially the final round on streaming video. Thus, please see if you can excite some volunteers to share their time, talent, and equipment to realize this plan. I am certain that the idea of a head or ear mount camera for each of the top players would truly highlight their game. Other ideas abound. That being said, I want to see you at Nats for sure, son! BTW, I will make sure that there will be high speed wired and wireless Internet at Nats2013.
2, Not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet: Your thinktank team's top cut finalized formula must ensure the least problems given to Mr. Bany as he manages the scoring system. Not sure how it will affect timing, but remember that the Excel scoring instrument is used. How will that spreadsheet be utilized as soon as top cut kicks in? Do we manualize scores on a whiteboard or be able to continue using the spreadsheet? The team must include this aspect in your strategy and decision-making process. Should top cut materialize, Mr. Bany must be thoroughly briefed. Better yet, those involved in the implementation must be ready to assist in the scoring process as best as possible.
Peace.
-
1. Alec, could you please initiate a new thread exclusively for the audio-visual strategy plan at Nats? I did a crude version of it at Nats2010 and would love to get all the suggestions materialize. I will be excited to feature the top rounds and especially the final round on streaming video. Thus, please see if you can excite some volunteers to share their time, talent, and equipment to realize this plan. I am certain that the idea of a head or ear mount camera for each of the top players would truly highlight their game. Other ideas abound. That being said, I want to see you at Nats for sure, son! BTW, I will make sure that there will be high speed wired and wireless Internet at Nats2013.
Alec, Westy, and myself can handle this as necessary I think. I talked with Alec a bit about it today and it seems promising. I will let you know more details of the specifics of what I'd like to see happen later.
2, Not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet: Your thinktank team's top cut finalized formula must ensure the least problems given to Mr. Bany as he manages the scoring system. Not sure how it will affect timing, but remember that the Excel scoring instrument is used. How will that spreadsheet be utilized as soon as top cut kicks in? Do we manualize scores on a whiteboard or be able to continue using the spreadsheet? The team must include this aspect in your strategy and decision-making process. Should top cut materialize, Mr. Bany must be thoroughly briefed. Better yet, those involved in the implementation must be ready to assist in the scoring process as best as possible.
Assuming swiss is over after about 7 rounds (seems normal), I'd think we just use a whiteboard etc bracket to show the rounds. That won't really be a big deal. Once we get into the top cut, keeping track of the tournament with excel will be unnecessary.
-
But two losses shouldn't eliminate the chances of a person making cut. That's how it is in other CCGs an how it should be in this one. It's a fairer system.
What CCGs? As far as I know, there is no written rule that X-2's must always get in top cut. It might seem that way as there are 1000+ people tournaments that would allow for all/a large portion of the X-2's, but that is certainly not the case always. The whole concept of 'placing on the bubble' stems from that very fact.
-
I never said it was a rule. X-2s should at the least get a chance at top cut.
-
I see no reason that has to be the case. There will always be a portion of the X-something's that will place on the bubble, regardless of where you put the top cut.
-
The bigger the top cut without being unreasonable the more accurate the results imo.
-
so 7 rounds, then top 16? Is forsaking the traditional T2 and sacrificing my fighting for my second place victory from last year worth placing a part in building of a monumental foothold in Redemption History?
Tough decisions to be made...
-
It's quite possible that we'll actually end up with a 6 round 8 person cut at New York. The last two non-MN nationals have floated right above 64 people for T1-2P.
-
Been off the boards for awhile, so I have a question: is top cut going to be the T12P event, or a separate event? I've been leaning toward getting out of T12P for some time, and this would probably help me make that decision.
-
Been off the boards for awhile, so I have a question: is top cut going to be the T12P event, or a separate event? I've been leaning toward getting out of T12P for some time, and this would probably help me make that decision.
T12P. Really sad that people aren't even willing to give this a chance.
-
The number of rounds we play at nats is already completely unnecessary. 8 really makes the most sense, as it gives you one, possibly two, shot(s) to knock out the undefeated guy. 10 is complete overkill. 9 is okay, but honestly, I'm generally exhausted after 6 rounds. If you want to play more Redemption, then do so, but there's no need to force everybody to play 8 hours of Redemption unless they're going for placing.
-
Actually I really like having 10 rounds of T1-2p. If I'm going to drive for 12 hours to go to a tournament, then I want to play enough games to feel like it was worth the trip. The more rounds the better for me :)
-
But two losses shouldn't eliminate the chances of a person making cut. That's how it is in other CCGs an how it should be in this one. It's a fairer system.
What CCGs? As far as I know, there is no written rule that X-2's must always get in top cut. It might seem that way as there are 1000+ people tournaments that would allow for all/a large portion of the X-2's, but that is certainly not the case always. The whole concept of 'placing on the bubble' stems from that very fact.
L5R uses X-2 for the vast majority of Kotei tournaments.
-
Been off the boards for awhile, so I have a question: is top cut going to be the T12P event, or a separate event? I've been leaning toward getting out of T12P for some time, and this would probably help me make that decision.
T12P. Really sad that people aren't even willing to give this a chance.
It's not top cut that turned me off from T12P. Since I already am pretty much done with the format, though, playing a top cut format just changes the vibe of the tournament enough that I probably wouldn't throw together a deck just to play for fun. I feel that I'd be in the way of the competitive players-just an easy win-and I'd rather try something I can at least be competitive in, even if I'm not a top player.
-
Hi All. First, Rebeccah and I will be at Nationals!!! We will be playing Sealed Deck and Booster as we feel these two allow us the greatest opportunity's to be competitive with the "Elite" players that play those. We have both left playing T1-2P, R because she felt she did not have enough playing time to really develop a competitive strategy/deck. Me because I am fairly slow at playing and felt I held back the really good players by sometimes having timeouts that should have been wins,(for me or them), if I could play faster,(I really saw this at my first Nats 5 years ago and resolved to not upset the Elites by hurting their chances). I have also gravitated to T!-Multi as it allows me time to plan and my slower play does not manifest itself in that format. The schedule for Nats this time means Friday off for us so we will see some of NY that day...not our first choice as we would really rather play Redemption. Going to your Topcut idea is ok for T1_2P for us as it has already been eliminated for us at the Nat tourneys and maybe it will keep the Elite happy enough to not filter it down to the other formats. I fear future tourneys may become elitist and that will end the game for new players joining and for those of us who simply enjoy playing the game. I eagerly await the new starter decks and will try to begin a playgroup using them.
-
Hey,
The bigger the top cut without being unreasonable the more accurate the results imo.
What do you mean by accurate? While I value top players playing against other top players to determine who the winner of the tournament is, I still feel it is significant that a player had a playstyle/deck combination that can do well against the entire tournament field. I think making the top cut in and of itself should be an accomplishment and a 16 player top cut really hurts that (given the size of fields that are viable for Redemption).
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
The bigger the top cut without being unreasonable the more accurate the results imo.
What do you mean by accurate? While I value top players playing against other top players to determine who the winner of the tournament is, I still feel it is significant that a player had a playstyle/deck combination that can do well against the entire tournament field. I think making the top cut in and of itself should be an accomplishment and a 16 player top cut really hurts that (given the size of fields that are viable for Redemption).
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
I think that the larger you make the viable field for the top cut without diluting it into players who performed poorly, the better chance you find the best player in the field (to control for some of the swiss luck). If you cut at 16 (using last Nats for example), you'd get the majority of the 4-2s and above. That sounds pretty good to me.
-
Top 16 sounds like overkill to me, but I guess that depends on the total size of the participation in the event. I could see needing to do the top 16 if there were 100+.
Last I knew MTG used top 8. What do other CCGs do for their top cut?
-
Top 16 sounds like overkill to me, but I guess that depends on the total size of the participation in the event. I could see needing to do the top 16 if there were 100+.
Last I knew MTG used top 8. What do other CCGs do for their top cut?
The top procedures you see in the first post is essentially a cut and paste of the Pokemon procedures adjusted as necessary. They cut 16 at 64.
-
I think that the larger you make the viable field for the top cut without diluting it into players who performed poorly, the better chance you find the best player in the field (to control for some of the swiss luck).
Keeping in mind you're looking for the best player in a tournament field, if a player goes 4-2 in the first six rounds of a tournament with a big field, in my book that's performing poorly.
"Swiss luck." Are you saying there's more luck involved in making the top 8 after seven rounds than there is in winning three games of single elimination in a row to go through the top cut and finish first?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Yugioh:
129 - 256 Players: 8 Round Swiss: Top 16
257 - 512 Players: 9 Round Swiss: Top 16
513 - 1024 Players: 10 Round Swiss: Top 32
1025 - 2048 Players: 11 Round Swiss: Top 32
2049+ Players: 12 Round Swiss: Top 64
-
Keeping in mind you're looking for the best player in a tournament field, if a player goes 4-2 in the first six rounds of a tournament with a big field, in my book that's performing poorly.
"Swiss luck." Are you saying there's more luck involved in making the top 8 after seven rounds than there is in winning three games of single elimination in a row to go through the top cut and finish first?
I think the emphasis here is on single elimination. The benefit that Pokemon has over Redemption is that games are short enough where they can do a best 2 of 3 in top cut. So while Mike Newman went 5-2 at KY state, he certainly deserved to win it after a Top 16 because of 2 of 3 rule. In Redemption, that won't really follow. Additionally, Redemption doesn't have as popularized of decks. At a Pokemon tournament, 75+ percent of the field will be using top tier decks. At Nats, it's...considerably less...so the good players with good decks should be able to make it in...in theory.
As far the actual Swiss Luck bit, yes, there's a lot of luck in the game period, but generally in swiss it's not about good luck, it's bad luck. You can get paired up with a tough opponent round 1 (like Gabe/Earley in 2011), lose, and then have to go undefeated after 6 more rounds, potentially playing another difficult opponent who did the same thing. If you lose twice, you'll likely have an easy run after that, but it was still very unfortunate that you had to play people that normally would make top cut round 1.
Meanwhile there's somebody that makes it through 3 rounds without playing difficult opponents, gets lucky one or two rounds, loses one, and gets an easy round or two after they lose, slipping into the top cut. Definitely a huge amount of luck involved with the pairings there. Seems fishy? John Earley got second last year, playing 4 people in the top 10 (close enough to top 8). Martin Miller played 8 people in the top 10. If that's after 10 rounds, I can only imagine what it'd be like after 7 rounds. More rounds means less luck, right? Top 16 forces another round against a good opponent. The people who had the easy run will be weeded out, while the people who fought tooth and nail to make it will be able to keep fighting.
So, pros and cons. Maybe a compromise can be reached. Top 12 with the top 4 getting byes? I truly believe that a more inclusive top cut is better. It allows for some bad luck while also forcing solid play within the top cut by adding an extra round. I'm not sure how I feel about 8 cut with double elim. That actually works pretty well, but I feel top 8 is pretty exclusive.
-
I definitely don't think that byes should ever be used.
-
Hey,
I ran some numbers. If you did a top 8 cut three rounds before the end of each national tournament since 2002 the winner would make the cut every time. Ten of those eleven years the winner would have made a top 4 cut (the one exception being Gabe's 2007 win.) 30 of the 35 people who placed over those 11 years would have made a top 8 cut. Only one player in the last five years that placed would have missed a top 8 cut and that was one of the three players that tied for 3rd in 09.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
I ran some numbers. If you did a top 8 cut three rounds before the end of each national tournament since 2002 the winner would make the cut every time. Ten of those eleven years the winner would have made a top 4 cut (the one exception being Gabe's 2007 win.) 30 of the 35 people who placed over those 11 years would have made a top 8 cut. Only one player in the last five years that placed would have missed a top 8 cut and that was one of the three players that tied for 3rd in 09.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
I've been been thinking about this, and I have finally come to the conclusion that this is the most feasible option right now.
Here's my proposal now:
7 rounds of Swiss play followed by a Top 8 cut double elimination (5 rounds long)
Is there any opposition?
I'd also like to voice that at a recent Pokemon tournament, the best time I had was watching games with people during the Top Cut. We had a stream of another Regional tournament that we discussed the plays being made, etc while also watching our friends gut it out for the title right before our eyes. It was some great community. Just a thought.
-
Technically, it would only be 5 rounds if the winner went undefeated right? Else it would be 6 rounds?
Without loss of generality, assume the higher seed always wins for the first three rounds:
Round 1:
1 v 8
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5
Round 2:
1 v 4
2 v 3
5 v 8
6 v 7
Round 3:
1 v 2
3 v 5
4 v 6
At this point, we have the following rankings:
1: 3-0
2: 2-1
3: 2-1
4: 2-1
5-8: OUT
Round 4:
1 v 3
2 v 4
At this point we have the following rankings (assuming 2 def. 4):
1: 4-0 or 3-1
2: 3-1
3: 3-1 or OUT
4-8: OUT
Thus,
Round 5:
1 v 2
3 v B
In this case, the sixth and final round would be 1 v 3
OR
1 v 2
In this case, the sixth and final round would occur if 2 def. 1 in Round 5.
Not that an extra round would likely make or break the system, but I just wanted to point it out. Also, it is worth noting that the first seed/winner could potentially play the same person three times out of six rounds...which is pretty intense.
-
I forget, is there a reason we would do double elim instead of single elim for top cut?
-
I forget, is there a reason we would do double elim instead of single elim for top cut?
I think the reasoning was that it is a compromise between the the current system (where there is no top cut, which is the least ideal solution for determining a true winner according to those that have proposed this system) and best of three single elimiation, which is the most ideal solution for determining a true winner (but would last up to three more rounds than double elimination).
-
I forget, is there a reason we would do double elim instead of single elim for top cut?
It allows for people to feel better about a luck based draw engine in the game without sacrificing the whole system.
Here's the timing I'm thinking:
10 am - 1230 pm rounds 1-3
130 - 500 - rounds 4-7
No break:
Top 8 cut, double elimination beginning at 515, lasting til 10ish.
That's later than typically swiss for only the top 4 players or so (considering we usually finish at 9). Obviously, you could buy some time by starting at 9 or by using single elimination (which cuts 3 rounds out of the mix, and which I am personally in favor of), or by cutting one swiss round (6 should be enough to settle a single undefeated based on recent attendance).
For reference,
Double elim is 6 (or 7) rounds with a top 8
Single would be 3
Double elimination would give the "winner" if it were single elimination a 2 round bye.
-
or by cutting one swiss round (6 should be enough to settle a single undefeated based on recent attendance).
For reference,
Double elim is 6 (or 7) rounds with a top 8
Single would be 3
Double elimination would give the "winner" if it were single elimination a 2 round bye.
I don't recall the exact number, but I thought there were ~67 people for T1-2P last year. And I would expect a larger number this year, since the NE should attract more players. I would be surprised if we didn't have more than 64 people for T1-2P this year (especially if NE playgroups grow after the release of the new starters).
Also, I'm pretty sure double elim is 5 or 6 rounds...I'm not sure how it could possibly be 7...
I can't see any scenario where anyone wants to play 13 rounds of tournament Redemption in a single day. If double elimination top cut is the way to go, I would suggest letting the final round (or 2, if necessary) occur the following day. Since there will only be 2-3 people involved, it shouldn't be too difficult to get them going a bit earlier. With 7 Swiss rounds, and 4 top cut rounds on day one, that would only equate to one extra round for the top eight than usual on Friday. Not to mention the fact that top cut rounds will be much easier to organize with fewer people, and they probably will be less likely to go full time.
I think the pinnacle of the Top Cut experience would be the final 1 or 2 rounds on the following day. Starting an hour earlier than usual on Saturday and allowing people to watch the live feed from a different room would be pretty awesome.
-
Please kindly bear in mind that we are not planning to extend the traditional planned timing for the T1 2P event. If you guys can assure me that all the rounds will be done by 8pm, then you are in good shape with your plans for at least 12 rounds. Else, you have no choice but to design the method where the day ends at 8pm max. The reasons are obvious.
Carry on. May the Spirit guide one and all who are heroically involved in this plan.
-
Yeah, I figured as much Roy. That's why I support single elimination :)
-
Yeah, I figured as much Roy. That's why I support single elimination :)
with a best of three final?
-
Yeah, I figured as much Roy. That's why I support single elimination :)
with a best of three final?
Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in -
I love this idea, especially if it is streamed, it would be really fun for the rest of the players. It doesn't matter if you are part of the cut now, you feel like your playing just watching.
also, double elimination seems to be trying to compensate for the luck that is naturally part of the game. If you've made it to the cut you have done well, but there shouldn't be any cushion if you lose. If you get a bad draw its a bad draw, so goes Redemption.
-
I agree with Roy, that we should NOT extend any Nats event over onto a 2nd day. There are some people who are unable to be at Nats for all 3 days, and you would hate to have someone who was unable to participate on Sat for some reason have to forfeit after getting all the way to the final 4 or 2.
-
Please kindly bear in mind that we are not planning to extend the traditional planned timing for the T1 2P event. If you guys can assure me that all the rounds will be done by 8pm, then you are in good shape with your plans for at least 12 rounds. Else, you have no choice but to design the method where the day ends at 8pm max. The reasons are obvious.
Carry on. May the Spirit guide one and all who are heroically involved in this plan.
In that case, I think double elimination is eliminated as an option. It might be possible to squeeze in an extra round or two within the scheduled time (due to less in between time for the last few rounds), but three would be quite a stretch. Single elim with a best of three final would probably be possible. I would envision a schedule something like this:
Rd 1: 9-945 AM
Rd 2: 10-1045 AM
Rd 3: 11-1145 AM
Break: 1145 AM-1245 PM
Rd 4: 1245-130 PM
Rd 5: 145-230 PM
Rd 6: 245-330 PM
Rd 7: 345-430 PM
QF: 440-525 PM
SF: 530-615 PM
FR1: 620-705 PM
FR2: 710-755 PM
FR3: 800-845 PM
That way, if the final round only goes to 2 rounds, it is done for sure by 8. It is likely that if it goes to three rounds, the first two rounds won't have taken the full 45 minutes, so it's probable that the tournament would really end by 815-830, or sooner. I just don't see anyway there could be time for a sixth round, but it's bound to happen that it would be needed if we go the double elim route.
-
No supper break?
-
No supper break?
For everyone but the top eight, they can eat after Rd 7. The top eight should be able to get snacks or something between rounds. It would be great if there was time for another break, but I just don't see where there could be, unless the tournament started earlier (and you and I have been to enough Nats to know that won't happen).
-
Please kindly bear in mind that we are not planning to extend the traditional planned timing for the T1 2P event. If you guys can assure me that all the rounds will be done by 8pm, then you are in good shape with your plans for at least 12 rounds. Else, you have no choice but to design the method where the day ends at 8pm max. The reasons are obvious.
Carry on. May the Spirit guide one and all who are heroically involved in this plan.
In that case, I think double elimination is eliminated as an option. It might be possible to squeeze in an extra round or two within the scheduled time (due to less in between time for the last few rounds), but three would be quite a stretch. Single elim with a best of three final would probably be possible. I would envision a schedule something like this:
Rd 1: 9-945 AM
Rd 2: 10-1045 AM
Rd 3: 11-1145 AM
Break: 1145 AM-1245 PM
Rd 4: 1245-130 PM
Rd 5: 145-230 PM
Rd 6: 245-330 PM
Rd 7: 345-430 PM
QF: 440-525 PM
SF: 530-615 PM
FR1: 620-705 PM
FR2: 710-755 PM
FR3: 800-845 PM
That way, if the final round only goes to 2 rounds, it is done for sure by 8. It is likely that if it goes to three rounds, the first two rounds won't have taken the full 45 minutes, so it's probable that the tournament would really end by 815-830, or sooner. I just don't see anyway there could be time for a sixth round, but it's bound to happen that it would be needed if we go the double elim route.
This is the best way to do it.
-
To Alex and the "O-Plan Top Cut" team:
Please let me know if and when you wish to push through with a final proposal with at least an 80% confidence that it will work for both finalists and players who will be disqualified.
No big hurry, but the sooner the better so that T1 2P players can start determining their battle strategies.
Thanks and Godbless.
Peace.
-
I can PM how it should work in my opinion based on this thread. This thread was mostly to try to appease everyone with the procedure of top cut but that's not going to happen anyway.
-
I think one more chance to debate it and come to a consensus should be applied first. Maybe we can just come up with options and have people vote?
-
I just reread this thread, and I believe that a top 16 is the best option. I agree with Westy; the more inclusive top cut can be, the better. I was originally completely and totally against byes, but I'm starting to think that byes might be the best way to solve the inherent problem with single game top cuts: one bad draw can kill off the players who otherwise performed the best, and that's not fair. Thus, I propose the following: 16 Top Cut, and 1st and 2nd get a bye. Seeding proceeds as normal otherwise. What are the serious objections to byes here? It provides a tangible benefit beyond something that can be exploited by an unlucky draw.
-
One thought I had is that the rest of the field could play for third place and those who made top cut would just play for first and second. That way the others would have something to play for. The only issue with that is that there would be players who performed better than third place but did not place,not sure if that's a big deal though because top cut is a pretty high honor in and of itself.
-
One thought I had is that the rest of the field could play for third place and those who made top cut would just play for first and second. That way the others would have something to play for. The only issue with that is that there would be players who performed better than third place but did not place,not sure if that's a big deal though because top cut is a pretty high honor in and of itself.
Then what is the point of doing top cut rather than regular play?
-
So you can get a more accurate winner.
-
I'm not necessarily opposed to some kind of minor "best of non-Top Cut" prize or acknowledgement, but it is not fair that someone who performed worse than at least 6 people in the field should get 3rd Place.
-
Honestly, I like double elimination with top 8 after 7 rounds. I still don't mind top 14 with top 2 getting byes (So TC2 would be 8 person) after 6. Both have the same amount of rounds. Double elim helps the best of the top 8 win, while top 14 allows more people (who may have been hit early with a unfortunate draw or pairing) have a chance to win. I think there's pros and cons to each. Top 14 allows for a best of 3 final (1:45 time limit, scooping [forfeiting a game] allowed). I'm still partial to a larger cut and it'll allow us to finish quicker than double elim (read: by 8) while still allowing a competitive nature. More possible for somebody to lose early, but the worst the winner can do is 4-1 against the top 14, but then they would have to get in the top 2 of Swiss, which is impressive enough on it's own after 6 rounds.
The more I think about it, the more I like Top 14 after 6. It rewards Swiss players and allows for a best of 3 game, not to mention being a more inclusive cut.
-
If you want byes, post a better reason. Byes are opposed to the reason for having a top cut - forcing players to play other players doing well that day. To give byes for swiss performance is to negate that.
-
If you want byes, post a better reason. Byes are opposed to the reason for having a top cut - forcing players to play other players doing well that day. To give byes for swiss performance is to negate that.
Byes help negate the major downside to doing top cut without best 2 out of 3. Those who point out that a person who went undefeated in Swiss could end up knocked out in the first round with a bad draw have a good point. Giving a more tangible benefit than "played the worst of the best" helps mitigate that.
-
After an extensive conversation with Olijar, I agree with him that byes are bad. Like, completely contrary to what we're trying to accomplish with Top Cut. Free wins are worse than wins off your opponent getting a bad draw. More reasons later if needbe.
Also, there is a good chance we get less than 64 people. This will change the structure of the tournament. Less than 64 people should probably be 7 rounds, top 8. More than 64 should be 7 rounds top 16. I don't see any solution other than Single Elimination just because of time constraints.
-
If you want byes, post a better reason. Byes are opposed to the reason for having a top cut - forcing players to play other players doing well that day. To give byes for swiss performance is to negate that.
Byes help negate the major downside to doing top cut without best 2 out of 3. Those who point out that a person who went undefeated in Swiss could end up knocked out in the first round with a bad draw have a good point. Giving a more tangible benefit than "played the worst of the best" helps mitigate that.
Suck it up if you lose because you got a bad draw. Bad draws are equally important in any game but you perceive more value for those in the top cut because they tangible eliminate you from the tournament. I had a bad draw against you round 1 last year and it ultimately eliminated me from placing contention but because I wasn't able to assign arbitrary value to the game at the time, it doesn't feel the same.
The bad draw issue is a Redemption issue, not a top cut issue. It's the reason we all would prefer 2/3. However, that's not a time tenable solution.
-
The bad draw issue is a Redemption issue, not a top cut issue. It's the reason we all would prefer 2/3. However, that's not a time tenable solution.
I agree with this statement.
-
I'm going to arbitrary say lets spend the next week supporting what we think is the best way to top cut, and I will send the proposal to Roy next weekend.
-
Why don't we work out, say, three or four versions of Top Cut that we think would work best, then just put it to a vote?
Top 8.
Top 16.
Top 14 (with two byes).
Something else?
-
what about double Elim after the swiss rounds?
-
Why don't we work out, say, three or four versions of Top Cut that we think would work best, then just put it to a vote?
Top 8.
Top 16.
Top 14 (with two byes).
Something else?
Because voting creates the illusion that the winning of the vote should be the format used (which will not be the case because players don't take any logistical considerations into their vote). Also, because there's only a few tenable options. Also, because Top 14 is the worst proposal given and I don't want to gain any traction (there might be a bye number that works, but it's definitely NOT 14, and since I don't really like byes, you can find your own bye number ;) ).
Also, because currently there's only two (MAYBE three, emphasis on MAYBE) viable top cut solutions, and no one has presented any logistal reasons any other top cut solutions would work.
-
Because voting creates the illusion that the winning of the vote should be the format used (which will not be the case because players don't take any logistical considerations into their vote).
So how else do you propose it's decided? People argue about it for a week and then you choose whatever you like best? Seems legit.
-
Because voting creates the illusion that the winning of the vote should be the format used (which will not be the case because players don't take any logistical considerations into their vote).
So how else do you propose it's decided? People argue about it for a week and then you choose whatever you like best? Seems legit.
Because voting creates the illusion that the winning of the vote should be the format used (which will not be the case because players don't take any logistical considerations into their vote).
So how else do you propose it's decided? People argue about it for a week and then you choose whatever you like best? Seems legit.
I have two proposals ready to send to Roy fwiw. I'm not picking what I think is better, and in fact, I've already eliminated my two favorite options because they are not reasonable solutions.
-
I still think that a double elim. top cut would be better.fixes a bad draw thing. and it would be easy to match up the top cut.
-
I still think that a double elim. top cut would be better.fixes a bad draw thing. and it would be easy to match up the top cut.
It's not logistically possible.
-
Because voting creates the illusion that the winning of the vote should be the format used (which will not be the case because players don't take any logistical considerations into their vote).
So how else do you propose it's decided? People argue about it for a week and then you choose whatever you like best? Seems legit.
Come on, Chris, Olijar has experience with top cut from outside Redemption and is one to do way more research than almost any other of the people on the forums. I understand that you made the first attempt to get Top Cut implemented, but Olijar was the first to take charge of exactly what that would look like. The important thing is we DO have a governor and not a vote, because Olijar knows what will work better than the masses. I do think it's important to get their opinion, but ultimately I think we should have one person make the choice. Roy or Rob would be obvious, but I think Olijar is far more informed than them on this matter.
-
I'm not making a choice, I'm just not tossing out scenarios that I don't have planned schedules for that I know will work.
-
Just do regular single-elim top 8/16 cut. Stop trying to muck it up with too much for the first year, people.
-
Just do regular single-elim top 8/16 cut. Stop trying to muck it up with too much for the first year, people.
I think the real question is the 64 person kicker. Does that make it top 16 cut or just an extra round?
I totally agree that we should keep it simple though. Regular single-elim isn't ideal, but it's solid.
-
I believe that most if not all of you who played/play MTG have been involved in a similar swiss/top-cut scenario. If anyone has participated in a "Pro-tour" event perhaps that would be a great source of definitive info. Have you seen the official procedures that MTG uses?
Disregarding the qualifying requirements for Pro Tour to apply to Redemption scenario, I can share below a link that the MTG pro players in my area have given me as reference:
http://community.wizards.com/wiki/Tournament_Organizer%27s_Handbook:_Section_C (http://community.wizards.com/wiki/Tournament_Organizer%27s_Handbook:_Section_C)
Your plans are similar. I know you just want OUR "modified swiss system" to cater to the nature of Redemption. That itself is a heroic feat since we need to finish T1 2P in just one day.
Note, however, that if you did strictly adhere to MTG's similar methods, then you would need more than a day to actually implement top cut (check out Pro Tour's tournament structure on Wikipedia).
Your mission is simple:
1. Propose the best, simple, plan that you think would work best for T1 2P that ends at or as close as possible to 8pm.
2. Ensure that the majority of participating T1 2P players will be happy about the system. Always expect a minority to have negative opinions. Should top cut ensue, I'm planning paid unofficial booster drafts or even sealed deck rounds for those who will be eliminated but still want to play some games -- with an inviting prize support for the top three winners (depending in how much is saved in the 'pot').
3. Be not too uptight with your decision-making --- just pray for best guidance, and employ what you sincerely feel and know will be the best possible experimental scenario for T1 2P play-round system at Nats 2013.
I have not myself personally experienced modified swiss, but am witnessing how it happens every Friday when I demo the game at the regular gaming store to MTG, YGH, and Pkmn players.
Be at peace.
Thanks for all your thoughts and efforts --- and Alex, for your leadership.
God bless all of you for your love of the game, and your undying sincerity.
-
Roy,
I do have a proposal that meets those requirements. This thread is continuing to exist because people prefer something that isn't single elimination (which I do agree with). However, there has been nothing offered to show how anything other than single elimination will logistically work with your notices about the schedule (which I don't know if that's been said explicitly before - I feel like it has been because I've been under that assumption).
Regardless, you will receive the proposal next weekend. If more than one option seems to be possible, I will include more than one option so you can select the one you feel is the best for your needs. However, I don't forsee that being the case.
-
you could just do it like a normal tournament at top cut. just a smaller version.
-
you could just do it like a normal tournament at top cut. just a smaller version.
That doesn't establish a clear top three. Single elimination does and that is why single elim is the best option time and clear cut results wise.
-
Alex, you mean single elimination for the top cut portion after swiss, right?
-
Alex, you mean single elimination for the top cut portion after swiss, right?
Yes.
-
How does everyone feel about only being able to use one deck during the top cut portion of the tournament?
-
I've been in favor of one deck for the entire tournament, so I'm all for that. As an aside, what options are you formally proposing to Roy?
-
Hey,
How does everyone feel about only being able to use one deck during the top cut portion of the tournament?
I think the options regarding multiple decks should be as similar to the options in non-top cut tournaments as possible. I think a player should not be able to use separate decks for the swiss portion of the tournament and the top cut portion of the tournament.
So I'd like to see the rule that a player can use any deck in the top cut that they used for at least three rounds during the swiss portion. Although I'm not sure how "choose your deck before you know your opponent" works with a bracketed tournament.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
How does everyone feel about only being able to use one deck during the top cut portion of the tournament?
I think the options regarding multiple decks should be as similar to the options in non-top cut tournaments as possible. I think a player should not be able to use separate decks for the swiss portion of the tournament and the top cut portion of the tournament.
So I'd like to see the rule that a player can use any deck in the top cut that they used for at least three rounds during the swiss portion. Although I'm not sure how "choose your deck before you know your opponent" works with a bracketed tournament.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
That what I'm trying to combat. If you win, you know who (or who of 2) you will play, so it seemed better to allow only one deck. I could maybe see an injunction allowing deck changes if a deck became illegal due to a plot rip.
-
Thoughts:
Adding in a bye round does nothing to actually combat bad draws, it just gives one fewer game in which you can have a bad draw. Reducing the odds this way is not a solution. the only thing that can actually, fairly, reduce the bad draw luck factor is best 2/3. Unfortunately we don't have time for that, so if you get a bad draw in top cut then I'm sorry for your loss but it happens.
Top 16 is reasonable if you have time and 16 represents a MAXIMUM of 25% of the field, meaning a minimum of 64 players must show up to nats. any less than that and it should be reduced back to top 8. 16 is too many if only 40 people show up.
Allowing players to carry multiple decks in to the next round only works if you keep all of the top cut players segregated from each other and keep game results 100% confidential until players have picked a new deck. This would require game tables to be separated by a fair margin, players forced to remain seated until all games have been played and then choosing their next deck before they stand up again. It's easier just to make them choose 1 deck to carry for top cut.
Actually know that still doesn't work, when you get to the later rounds it would be pretty easy to tell who you're about to play. Especially when it gets to final four, you have a 50-50 chance of guessing who you're gonna play next. just make them lock in a deck.
-
I posted the confirmed rules in a sticky.