Author Topic: Top Cut (Read 37914 times)

Chris · « **on:** August 31, 2012, 04:49:52 PM »

I had the chance to propose this to Rob at Nats, and he seemed receptive to the idea and to my arguments, so hopefully with some community support, we can possibly get this changed before Nats next year. I've always been a proponent of top cut, however, now more than ever after T12P at Nats, where I had a three-way tie for seventh, however, I lost in what would have been the championship game, which would have, in theory, given me second place in the tournament. Anyway, for those of you who don't know, top cut is a tournament style used to dictate rounds. The first part of the tournament is Swiss, and after X number of rounds, the top 16 (or 32, or 8, or however many you want) players then enter single elimination, while the rest of the players are finished. Last man standing, obviously wins.

One of the big arguments I've heard against top cut is that, supposedly, it ruins the feeling of community that should be the focus of the game. Quite simply, I don't believe this is the case. Under the current system, everyone is more-or-less required to play until the tournament has concluded for the day (if nothing else, dropping out is frowned upon). What ushers in a feeling of community more? Forcing players to continue playing in a tournament they have no chance (or in rare cases, a small chance) of placing in, or allowing half of the playerbase to engage in friendly games and conversation while those with a bigger chance of winning hash out the rest of the tournament? It may feel like we're "excluding" those people from the tournament, but realistically, they're more likely to have more fun when not bound to specific opponents and circumstances anyway.

I'm mostly proposing this for bigger tournaments (regionals and nats, and perhaps only the latter), but I'm eager to hear other people's thoughts on this.

Master KChief · « **Reply #1 on:** August 31, 2012, 05:00:04 PM »

Yes to top cut.

I already know the biggest argument of the naysayers will be that everyone else is excluded from the tournament while top cut is going on. That doesn't have to be the case, as Swiss rounds can still continue while top cut goes on.

Also, I never realized dropping out was frowned upon in this game. It's pretty much second nature to me in other CCG's when I know I'm going to place outside the bubble, as no competitive player wants to waste their time playing games that simply do not matter and would rather spend their time doing more constructive things.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #2 on:** August 31, 2012, 05:14:51 PM »

16 (4 rounds) seems a little small, 32 (5 rounds) seems a bit big. I'd like to go until we have one undefeated person (6 rounds?), but if we do 32, we could probably get away with a couple undefeateds. Yeah, I think I'd say 32.

STAMP · « **Reply #3 on:** August 31, 2012, 05:21:42 PM »

It is my belief that you'll need to provide some type of incentive for those that don't make the Top Cut, in order to get a majority vote to implement it. Personally, I would continue playing Swiss style games because I enjoy the fellowship. But a lot of players would just quit if there's no "prize" to play for. Now that I think about it more, that might not necessarily be a bad thing as those that don't make the cut could also engage in some Ironman or pick-up games.

It's definitely going to take some give and take, which is good for the soul.

lp670sv · « **Reply #4 on:** August 31, 2012, 05:24:20 PM »

You all know my stance on this system, if not I believe there are a few paragraphs in the Rochester, NY tournaments thread. Backed,

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #5 on:** August 31, 2012, 05:31:20 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on August 31, 2012, 05:21:42 PM

It is my belief that you'll need to provide some type of incentive for those that don't make the Top Cut, in order to get a majority vote to implement it. Personally, I would continue playing Swiss style games because I enjoy the fellowship. But a lot of players would just quit if there's no "prize" to play for.

If they weren't top 32, there was nothing to play for anyway...

My final thoughts. For now:
Take the top 32 people after 6 rounds. Those 32 people play double elimination for 5 rounds (until one person is undefeated). In this way, second and third will be decided.

Suppose person 32 was 4-2 going into top cut. At the end, they are 9-2, while person 1 is 10-1. 32 still wins. That's the one thing I kinda have problems with, but 32 won against more top opponents, so they should win...I guess.

Master KChief · « **Reply #6 on:** August 31, 2012, 05:48:04 PM »

I think top 8 and at most top 16 is the way to go. Top cut is most times determined by the amount of people that play in a given tournament. Top 32 creates 5 extra rounds, so that either creates a 15 round tournament or a 5 Swiss and 5 top cut, which isn't anywhere near correct on the ratio. I think the best implementation if staying under the current 10 total rounds at Nats would be 7 round Swiss, then break to Top 8 top cut. 6:4 still doesn't feel like the Swiss results after 6 rounds would be indicative of the best players in Swiss.

Quote from: Westy on August 31, 2012, 05:31:20 PM

Suppose person 32 was 4-2 going into top cut. At the end, they are 9-2, while person 1 is 10-1. 32 still wins. That's the one thing I kinda have problems with, but 32 won against more top opponents, so they should win...I guess.

I don't see it as any problem at all, and is partly the main reason top cut is a great proponent to ending a tournament. The 10-1 person more than likely played far easier opponents in early Swiss. Top cut forces the best players to always face the best players for the top spots.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #7 on:** August 31, 2012, 05:50:58 PM »

I'm against top cut unless we get best 2 of 3 at the same time. If so, I'm for it. This shouldn't be a problem since the top-cut players all play speed, and are always up from the table less than half-way into a round anyway.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 31, 2012, 08:03:19 PM »

Suggestion--why not do a seed X-2 cut? So, say you decide on seven rounds to seed; in that case anyone 5-2 or better gets into a seeded final. The advantage of this is that it provides an objective criterion as to what you need to do to make the cut. You can still lose a couple of games--so it minimizes the luck issue--and there are no need for tie-breakers. If you win all but 2 you know you will go on.

For the 2012 Nats there were 19 people at 4-2 after 6 and 12 people at 5-2 after 7. My preference would be to do the 5-2 cut, have a single play-in round for the bottom 8 of the 12 players making the cut, and then an 8-player three round championship. (If you had said 6 you would have had six players in the play-in round.)

Quote from: STAMP on August 31, 2012, 05:21:42 PM

It is my belief that you'll need to provide some type of incentive for those that don't make the Top Cut, in order to get a majority vote to implement it. Personally, I would continue playing Swiss style games because I enjoy the fellowship. But a lot of players would just quit if there's no "prize" to play for.

Realistically, STAMP, once you lose three games you have nothing to play for. With the possible exception of a few of the youngest, all of the players at the tournament knew this. Yet, I don;t think anyone quit after three losses.

Red · « **Reply #9 on:** August 31, 2012, 08:25:21 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 31, 2012, 08:03:19 PM

Suggestion--why not do a seed X-2 cut? So, say you decide on seven rounds to seed; in that case anyone 5-2 or better gets into a seeded final. The advantage of this is that it provides an objective criterion as to what you need to do to make the cut. You can still lose a couple of games--so it minimizes the luck issue--and there are no need for tie-breakers. If you win all but 2 you know you will go on.

For the 2012 Nats there were 19 people at 4-2 after 6 and 12 people at 5-2 after 7. My preference would be to do the 5-2 cut, have a single play-in round for the bottom 8 of the 12 players making the cut, and then an 8-player three round championship. (If you had said 6 you would have had six players in the play-in round.)

Quote from: STAMP on August 31, 2012, 05:21:42 PM
It is my belief that you'll need to provide some type of incentive for those that don't make the Top Cut, in order to get a majority vote to implement it. Personally, I would continue playing Swiss style games because I enjoy the fellowship. But a lot of players would just quit if there's no "prize" to play for.
Realistically, STAMP, once you lose three games you have nothing to play for. With the possible exception of a few of the youngest, all of the players at the tournament knew this. Yet, I don;t think anyone quit after three losses.

Top Ten was the only thing I was playing for after round two.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #10 on:** August 31, 2012, 08:36:34 PM »

If we are going to do this, I would vote only for Nationals, since I'm not going to one anyway. If this is proposed as mandatory for Regionals, then I will oppose it vehemently. If not, then I really don't care.

Chris · « **Reply #11 on:** August 31, 2012, 08:43:22 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 31, 2012, 08:36:34 PM

If we are going to do this, I would vote only for Nationals, since I'm not going to one anyway. If this is proposed as mandatory for Regionals, then I will oppose it vehemently. If not, then I really don't care.

Why do you oppose it?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #12 on:** August 31, 2012, 10:23:43 PM »

Contrary to popular belief on this message board, some players do have plenty to play for after losing their first three games. It's called "fun & fellowship," and those of here in Florida can still have it no matter who our next opponent is, and no matter what our overall power ranking is.

We don't need "top cut" to improve our tournament experience. We're doing just fine as we are. Thanks anyway.

JSB23 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 31, 2012, 10:30:37 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 31, 2012, 10:23:43 PM

Contrary to popular belief on this message board, some players do have plenty to play for after losing their first three games. It's called "fun & fellowship"

And this system won't impact those people at all, it will, however, prevent messy ties and give a clear-cut winner.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #14 on:** August 31, 2012, 10:39:27 PM »

We have clear-cut winners here, with the Swiss Style and a plus-one (as needed).

As I said, if this is just for Nats, and optional for everyone else, then I don't care. I just don't want mandatory top-cut for anything outside of Nats.

JSB23 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 31, 2012, 10:49:17 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 31, 2012, 10:39:27 PM

We have clear-cut winners here, with the Swiss Style and a plus-one (as needed).

Well fantastic for you, unfortunately that's not the case anywhere else.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 31, 2012, 10:39:27 PM

I just don't want mandatory top-cut for anything outside of Nats.

Why? How does it actually impact an average tournament? If it's a forced 4 round + 1 tournament, after someone's lost 2 or 3, there's no way they can place.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #16 on:** August 31, 2012, 11:10:51 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on August 31, 2012, 10:49:17 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 31, 2012, 10:39:27 PM
We have clear-cut winners here, with the Swiss Style and a plus-one (as needed).
Well fantastic for you, unfortunately that's not the case anywhere else.

Actually that's not true. The Swiss (with plus-one if time allows) has always worked well for us here in KY and OH as well.

Although I'm not totally opposed to the Top-Cut system, I would lean against it at this point. I like the idea that everyone is in the same tournament for the whole 10 rounds. People play for different goals. Some aim to win the whole thing, while others aim to place. Many people (including myself) aim for the top 10, while others just hope to be sitting at the top table by the end. Some people aim to avoid the bottom 10, and still others just really don't care at all where they end up. But everyone feels like they're part of the same tournament the whole time. Splitting off all the top players after several rounds just has an "elitist feel" to it, and I think would hinder the whole "fun and fellowship" aspect of the game.

Chris · « **Reply #17 on:** August 31, 2012, 11:19:05 PM »

I would argue that top cut offers more fun and fellowship for those who do not make the cut, by allowing those who would rather not play four more rounds of a category they have no chance of winning at to go off and do whatever they like, be it good conversation with other players, more casual games, or even just going out to eat earlier than they would get the chance to otherwise, due to time limits. While I understand where those against top cut are coming from, I think it does more to enable fun and fellowship than it does to hinder it, especially when someone ends up upset and frustrated because they got slighted under the current system (and I am obviously speaking out of personal bias here).

Quote

We don't need "top cut" to improve our tournament experience. We're doing just fine as we are. Thanks anyway.

"We" as in Florida players? This isn't a sarcastic question, I want to make sure I'm understanding you properly.

Master KChief · « **Reply #18 on:** August 31, 2012, 11:25:20 PM »

Tournaments, by nature, are structured for the competitive. The fact you're there in the first place, whether you have different goals than to win, means you're subjecting yourself to such a system and understand how the system works. I simply don't understand why anyone would possibly care about any of the 'elite' players if you're just there to play and have 'fun' anyways. In that regard, for those types of people, it doesn't matter if the tournament is played Single Elim/Double Elim/Swiss/Round Robin since it matters next to nothing for them. Therefore, I fail to see how implementing a system that aims to find the best player objectively as possible for those that do care about it would be any bit of an imposition for those that do not.

TheJaylor · « **Reply #19 on:** August 31, 2012, 11:45:50 PM »

Well, I don't see a reason that everyone has to use it. At the beginning of the tournament the Host could choose to hold a vote to see if the attendees would like to make it top-cut or not and then let that determine whether or not to do it.

lp670sv · « **Reply #20 on:** August 31, 2012, 11:55:30 PM »

Whatever the system ends up being, It has to be universal. you can't have one states tournament doing top cut and another doing swiss. that skews results. i believe top cut would be better for the game and see no reason why those were left out of cut couldnt continue to play swiss for a consolation prize or something. I do not see how this could hurt the fellowshhip of the game and would provide a "better" system for getting the real top 3. That being said if it does stay swiss that has to be universal.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #21 on:** September 01, 2012, 12:26:11 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 31, 2012, 10:23:43 PM

Contrary to popular belief on this message board, some players do have plenty to play for after losing their first three games. It's called "fun & fellowship," and those of here in Florida can still have it no matter who our next opponent is, and no matter what our overall power ranking is.

Which was precisely the point of my response to STAMP. At Nationals, everyone knows if they lose three they have no chance of placing. Yet, at the four Nationals I have attended I am not aware of anyone who quit playing following their third loss. It appears that the understanding of "fun & fellowship" in Redemption is not solely confined to Florida.

Quote

We don't need "top cut" to improve our tournament experience. We're doing just fine as we are. Thanks anyway.

I guess I don't understand why you feel that Floridians can only experience "fun & fellowship" at pure Swiss tournaments.

MrMiYoda · « **Reply #22 on:** September 01, 2012, 02:17:39 AM »

If my calculations are correct (based on the spreadsheet) ---

If 5 rounds were used to determine Top Cut, the following Nats 2012 Top 10 players would not have made it to Top 10:
John Earley
Connor Magras
Jay Chambers

If 6 rounds were used to determine Top Cut, the following Nats 2012 Top 10 players would not have made it to Top 10:
Connor Magras

If either 5 OR 6 rounds were used to determine Top Cut, ONLY the following players would have consistently made it to Top Cut:
Jonathan Greeson
Josh Brinkman
Martin Miller
Matt Townsend
Daniel Huisinga
Chris Ericson
Alex Olijar

It was priceless to see John, Connor, and Jay make it to Top 10 just because they were blessed with a Swiss Style tournament. Connor won by just 1 LS differential over the other 21-pointers, but that was enough to land him 4th place. As for John, it was a classic comeback. Sweet blessed-ness for Jay who made it to Top 10.

I am and will always be for Swiss Style although I support Top Cut if done ONLY at Nats level and only as soon as a consistent Top Cut population is achieved. If not, Swiss Style should be utilized up to very last round. I am a witness to see all players exhibit their competitiveness to the end, even when they knew they were 'at the end' --- 10 complete rounds ..... just like a marathon .... everyone a winner ... who finishes.

Peace and blessings.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #23 on:** September 01, 2012, 03:14:35 AM »

I play, not to win, but to "dream crush" those who would like to win. Sorry, but for some reason I find victory in your defeat. Anywho-

I am all for a cut to Top 8 and I like the idea of getting in those IronMan games after Top 8 cut.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #24 on:** September 01, 2012, 06:36:02 AM »

Quote from: JSB23 on August 31, 2012, 10:49:17 PM

... after someone's lost 2 or 3, there's no way they can place.

Which really doesn't matter to some of us.

Quote from: Chris on August 31, 2012, 11:19:05 PM

"We" as in Florida players? This isn't a sarcastic question, I want to make sure I'm understanding you properly.

Yes, sorry, I was responding to my playgroups in general, but currently Central Florida players would be the "we" I was referring to.

Quote from: Chris on August 31, 2012, 11:19:05 PM

I would argue that top cut offers more fun and fellowship for those who do not make the cut, by allowing those who would rather not play four more rounds of a category they have no chance of winning at to go off and do whatever they like, ...

My players want to keep playing, and they want experience playing the top players. They are young and not ultra competitive. They actually have fun losing to Josh Kopp (because he's Josh), but they still love talking about their games with him to me later. In a Top Cut system, they will be relegated to playing each other over and over, since they were not winning anyway. Appalachian State loves the exposure of playing the FBS schools, even if they lose. But playing the big boys makes them better, which gives them the hope of someday beating Michigan in the Big House. They don't want to be left out because the Top Cut said they don't deserve the chance.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on September 01, 2012, 12:26:11 AM

It appears that the understanding of "fun & fellowship" in Redemption is not solely confined to Florida.

I was speaking for Florida (Central Florida, as explained above), not about other groups. I cannot speak for the other Nats since I have never been to one.

---------------------------------------------

I agree with Mark that a Top Cut is elitist and promotes cutthroat play, which I will always oppose. I just want to make sure that those hosts who do not want Top Cut still have that option.

News:

Author Topic: Top Cut (Read 37914 times)

Chris

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Chris

Chris