Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Playgroup and Tournament Central => Redemption® Official Tournaments => Topic started by: robm on July 16, 2009, 11:08:47 PM
-
Hey all,
I don't think the way the game points distribution is explained well enough in the tournament host guide.
When I first began hosting I learned about the 4th point that is distributed when there are four people in the multiplayer game and so on. This is found nowhere in the host guide.
Player A wins outright and gets 3 points. Players B,C, and D all tie with 3 and so they split the 1 point and get .333.
Or Player A wins outright for 3. B and C tie with 3 LS, and D gets 2 LS, do players B and C get .5 points or do all players still get .333.
Is this correct? If so why is it not in the guide.
3 player games-
At Regionals this year I was in a timed out multiplayer game with 2 other players. Player A got 4 Lost Souls, I got 3 LS and player C got 2 Lost Soul. The scoring system awarded Player A 2 points and player C and I both got .5 even though I got three LS with put me at the top table.
Is this correct because I thought that I would have gotten the 1 point?
-
1. B and C get .5 each. The extra point is awarded to second place.
2. Timed out games award all losing players equally.
No idea why it's not in the host guide.
-
1. B and C get .5 each. The extra point is awarded to second place.
2. Timed out games award all losing players equally.
No idea why it's not in the host guide.
Thanks. Anyone know why its not in there?
And how about the 2 extra points when 5 people are in the game?
-
Both points go to second place (or are divided equally if timed out).
-
2. Timed out games award all losing players equally.
This doesn't seem to be fair to the players who are losing less than others.
If this isn't in the host guide, and is up for discussion, then I think in a game that times out at 4-3-0-0, that the person with 3 LSs deserves more points than the two people at 0 LSs.
-
It's based on the scoring in the host guide (pg 4).
-
2. Timed out games award all losing players equally.
This doesn't seem to be fair to the players who are losing less than others.
If this isn't in the host guide, and is up for discussion, then I think in a game that times out at 4-3-0-0, that the person with 3 LSs deserves more points than the two people at 0 LSs.
Yeah which is how we played it all year as I remember. Thats why when I was looking at my points scored at NE regionals I wondered how I had less points then I though I should have.
Had I known that we would both got .5 points I may not have used my Angel of the Lord to give me one more LS then my other losing opponent. Which would have given me the possiblity of being at the losing table and a possible third place. Instead I went to the head table by LS's and had to either win it all or not place at all. I got an early lead and was fell away twice and was never able to recover puting me in 4th. This was in T2 Multi.
That another flaw of swiss play. The third place player going into the last round is almost never going to keep their third place. Someone at the second table is likely to be bumped up to 2nd or 3rd place in the tournament. Which I like when I get to be that person. But it stinks when your that person that loses big by being at the head table. Granted you get a chance at first...
-
In my experience the person in third place is usually not at the main table because he's already played the person in first place, which means he would be at the second or third table. I guess it depends on how many rounds you have and how many players are playing.
At MN state, I won my first round match in T2 MP. The other three people at the table I never faced again because I had already played them. They ended up getting 2nd, 3rd and 4th I believe.
-
Nah, I came in 5th or 6th Justin. Chris and James did end up coming in 2nd and 3rd receptively. What makes it even more ironic is that they came in second and third in that first game.