Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Playgroup and Tournament Central => Redemption® Official Tournaments => Topic started by: lp670sv on January 16, 2012, 10:05:17 PM
-
So this weekend at SomeKittens tournament an issue was once again brought to light that I think needs to be discussed. With the current style that Redemption tournaments use there are plenty of cases where losing early on in a tournament can actually be beneficial. You get to face easier opponents (since you'll be a low seed) and can still place with almost no issue. I didn't participate in the T12P round so I had no stake in it but it actually happened that one of the 2 players at the final table, i.e. the only two players left without a loss, went from being tied for 1st to not even placing with one loss at the final table. This just doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to say that the eventually 2nd and 3rd place finishers didn't deserve to place, just that the player lost the championship game and immediately went to not placing. It just doesn't make sense. I don't know how other CCGs run their tournaments but it just seems like in any tournament single elimination is the best way to go. Have a few rounds to cut the field down and determine seeding and then split in to 2 brackets, championship and consolation. Having multiple rounds of "round robyn" makes it so a bad draw loss doesn't automatically disqualify you, but at the same times insures that a first to out of placing can't happen.
Discuss.
-
Last round, two undefeateds, but the guy who ended up dropping to fourth was actually ahead by differential. That game is also a clear example of why FTM is a problem.
-
"If you're gonna lose, lose early." has long been a good slogan for Swiss tournaments. I understand that this can be a problem when looked at from the perspective of the guy who finishes 4th. But at the same time, it can be seen as a great system for helping the people who lose early in a tournament to stay engaged because they still have a chance to place.
There's also the importance of the value of a win at different points in the tournament. In the first round, you may get a win against a very inexperienced player, but if you are winning at the top of the brackets at the end of a tournament, then you are beating higher caliber opponents. Therefore a later win should in theory be worth more than an early win. And that would have the same effect that we are talking about here (of a late loss hurting more than an early loss).
So I think the current system is probably the best, even if it isn't perfect. It keeps more people excited about their chances in the tournament for a longer time, and it rewards people for finishing strong.
-
I've personally never understood why we can't top cut Nats after round 6 or so for the top 16 and play a single elimination. You can easily still generate game for everyone else (so everyone participates) and generate consolation games for those who lose in the top cut to establish placing order.
-
That tournament exemplified what Prof U is saying as well, in the final round...we had like 8 people (around half) who had the potential of placing and all of it relied on the results of their final game. Most everyone was filled with hope as the final round began. Unfortunately, half of those people had their hopes dashed. However, it is interesting that 6th seat snagged 2nd because of how those final games turned out.
-
I'm the person who came in 2nd at the tournament that lp670sv and soul seeker are talking about and I actually agree with him. I lost my first game 5-1 and subsequently ended up playing people who were at the same level of playing experince as I. Overall, the person I lost to ended up placing third because I ended up beating him by a 7-6 LS differential.
I'm not going to complain that I placed, because that was just an awesome experince but I placed under Greeson and I never played him, obviously. To me that seems to be a problem.
For obviously technical reasons, Swiss style is the way to go. I propose for larger tournaments why dont you institute a sort of weight class system like in wrestling. Top players play Swiss against each other, medium levels play agianst each other, ect. This would also be a good way to encourage weaker players by giving them winning experince.
Thoughts?
-
I've personally never understood why we can't top cut Nats after round 6 or so for the top 16 and play a single elimination.
I ended up in 4th place at Nats last summer, but I doubt that I was in the top 16 after round 6. The same is probably true of Gabe back in 07 when he started Nats by losing 2 of his first 3 games, but came back to win the whole thing. Why take away the opportunity for people to work their way up from the bottom?
why dont you institute a sort of weight class system like in wrestling.
I have long thought that this would be a good idea, and in fact tried it in ROOT a couple years ago. Unfortunately there was a TON of negative feedback to the idea as people felt like it was exclusive and participation in ROOT dropped significantly during that experiment.
-
I've personally never understood why we can't top cut Nats after round 6 or so for the top 16 and play a single elimination.
I ended up in 4th place at Nats last summer, but I doubt that I was in the top 16 after round 6. The same is probably true of Gabe back in 07 when he started Nats by losing 2 of his first 3 games, but came back to win the whole thing. Why take away the opportunity for people to work their way up from the bottom?
Because under a top cut it's more likely the most consistant player will win. I think we should reward players who are consistant, not players who lost early on and then spent 5 rounds against other players not being consistant and then won a game or two against a consistant player at the end of the tournament.
-
I've personally never understood why we can't top cut Nats after round 6 or so for the top 16 and play a single elimination.
I ended up in 4th place at Nats last summer, but I doubt that I was in the top 16 after round 6. The same is probably true of Gabe back in 07 when he started Nats by losing 2 of his first 3 games, but came back to win the whole thing. Why take away the opportunity for people to work their way up from the bottom?
Because if you truly are the strongest player you shouldn't be losing in the tournament early unless bad pairings screw you over.
-
why dont you institute a sort of weight class system like in wrestling.
I have long thought that this would be a good idea, and in fact tried it in ROOT a couple years ago. Unfortunately there was a TON of negative feedback to the idea as people felt like it was exclusive and participation in ROOT dropped significantly during that experiment.
[/quote]
Why do I get the feeling that the low participation might have been an ego thing on many players parts.
To be perfectly honest, I wouldnt mind being categorized as a mid level player or something and play people I actually have a shot of doing well against and having fun and engaging games with. Like in this tournament, the crucial game I played was a time out win against my best friend where I won 5-3 in my last turn because she went first. We played tons of enhancements I ANB'd her in the middle, it was great. But we had similar quality decks The first game I played I got crushed because I got owned by dominants that I don't own and a superior non-broken defense/offense.
-
I've personally never understood why we can't top cut Nats after round 6 or so for the top 16 and play a single elimination.
I ended up in 4th place at Nats last summer, but I doubt that I was in the top 16 after round 6. The same is probably true of Gabe back in 07 when he started Nats by losing 2 of his first 3 games, but came back to win the whole thing. Why take away the opportunity for people to work their way up from the bottom?
Sounds good. Next year at Nats I'm throwing my first two games as 5-4 losses, and then playing for real in order to maximize my chances of winning.
-
I've personally never understood why we can't top cut Nats after round 6 or so for the top 16 and play a single elimination.
I ended up in 4th place at Nats last summer, but I doubt that I was in the top 16 after round 6. The same is probably true of Gabe back in 07 when he started Nats by losing 2 of his first 3 games, but came back to win the whole thing. Why take away the opportunity for people to work their way up from the bottom?
Sounds good. Next year at Nats I'm throwing my first two games as 5-4 losses, and then playing for real in order to maximize my chances of winning.
Even though I know he's kidding, this is exactly the problem that swiss style causes. I'll be honest, as soon as Jonathan Greeson shows up at a tournament, I pretty much relegate myself to competing for second. In this way it would be best for me to throw my first game and work up from there. I get easier opponents, don't ever have to get my butt handed to be my Jonathan, and can use that "weaker" competition to still place second rather than get all the way to the last round just to get 5-0'd and drop out of placing.
-
Top cut would be awesome, though if you do single elimination there is pretty much no point. I think best 2 out of 3 single elimination is the way to go as t1 is so luck based. Unfortunately this would be very long. There are no categories in the evenings (right?) so we could just take time out of our free time. With that being said top cut is better than no top cut at all.
The problem is this doesn't promote fun and fellowship. But that's not really fair, some people have fun winning and enjoy fellowship afterwards (I have seen people have a lot of fun at the end of the pairings). Besides if you are not in the top 16 and got to go to nationals you should consider yourself fortunate that you can attend at all as redemption does not have qualifications. As a solution the rest of the playing field could play the remaining 4 rounds and the top three of those could be awarded prizes (if we really wanted this idea to be legitimite we could say that the top three placers in the real tourney only get trophies while the other 3 get their prizes.) That way both parties have something to play for and more people get to win.
-
Because if you truly are the strongest player you shouldn't be losing in the tournament early unless bad pairings screw you over.
Did I just hear Red say that Gabe isn't that good of a player? Wow!
Why do I get the feeling that the low participation might have been an ego thing on many players parts. To be perfectly honest, I wouldnt mind being categorized as a mid level player or something and play people I actually have a shot of doing well against and having fun and engaging games with.
You may be right about the egos, I'm not sure. All I know is that participation dropped off sharply, and we had to drop the tier system. I admire your humility in recognizing what level you are at, and your interest in having fun games at that level. I suppose there weren't enough people who felt the same way.
as soon as Jonathan Greeson shows up at a tournament, I pretty much relegate myself to competing for second. In this way it would be best for me to throw my first game and work up from there.
The two problems with this are that you are completely throwing away any chance you have of placing 1st (and believe me, Greeson can be beat). The second is that you are risking that if you have a bad draw later in the tournament and lose another game, you don't place at all.
we could say that the top three placers in the real tourney only get trophies while the other 3 get their prizes.) That way both parties have something to play for and more people get to win.
This also sounds like ROOT, when we did the tiers, the top 3 in the main tourney got the RNRS points, and the top 3 players in the lower tourney got the prize packs. Again, it didn't go over well.
-
Because if you truly are the strongest player you shouldn't be losing in the tournament early unless bad pairings screw you over.
Did I just hear Red say that Gabe isn't that good of a player? Wow!
That I can chalk up to deck choice.
-
as soon as Jonathan Greeson shows up at a tournament, I pretty much relegate myself to competing for second. In this way it would be best for me to throw my first game and work up from there.
The two problems with this are that you are completely throwing away any chance you have of placing 1st (and believe me, Greeson can be beat). The second is that you are risking that if you have a bad draw later in the tournament and lose another game, you don't place at all.
....Which is exactly what happened.
Greeson's undefeated since I joined the ranks of WNY. Irish_Luck's making a championship belt for the first player to beat him.
-
as soon as Jonathan Greeson shows up at a tournament, I pretty much relegate myself to competing for second. In this way it would be best for me to throw my first game and work up from there.
The two problems with this are that you are completely throwing away any chance you have of placing 1st (and believe me, Greeson can be beat). The second is that you are risking that if you have a bad draw later in the tournament and lose another game, you don't place at all.
I've played Jonathan 7 times. Twice with bad decks. 4 times with Gardenciples, and Once with a T2 deck that he build (i borrowed it to play T2-2P at my first ever tournament) I lost all 7 times. My closest T1 game was 5-2 with SOG/NJ in hand, that was a few months ago. The T2 game was 7-2 though I am pretty proud that I placed 2nd in that tournament and category since it was the first time I'd ever even heard of type 2. The point is, I know he's not invincible, but also know that I can't beat him and I'd rather lose my first game 5-4 and play worse opponents to a 2nd place finish then risk not placing at all after losing to Jonathan 5-0 in the final round. Jonathan shows up, I'm throwing my first game. I've never done this before but I probably will next time. Assuming of course I ever participate in another round that Greason's in :P
-
I am really curious to see how this works out. Provided I don't play lp first round, I'm thinking about trying this strategy next tournament.
-
I am really curious to see how this works out. Provided I don't play lp first round, I'm thinking about trying this strategy next tournament.
"No YOU rescue the last soul!" "No you do it!" Time out tie at 4-4 both have SOG in hand
-
I think exploring a "cut off" idea is actually a really, really good idea, at least for nationals (and probably nothing else). It could be viewed as a basketball season; the first X amount of rounds (X = number of games it takes for Gabe to be at the top) can be the regular season, then we jump straight into the "Sweet 16," with differentials and scores from previous games no longer mattering. This prevents attempted abuse of the Swiss system while keeping it in place, and in general makes whatever day the T1 falls on a bit less stressful for everyone involved. The evenings could even be used to test some kind of "experimental" game type for those who want to.
-
Last time I played Soul Seeker I beat him 5-0 in 1 turn.
-
I am really curious to see how this works out. Provided I don't play lp first round, I'm thinking about trying this strategy next tournament.
"No YOU rescue the last soul!" "No you do it!" Time out tie at 4-4 both have SOG in hand
After both of us have "accidentally" dropped NJ, and declared it played. We continually "forget" to exchange for the two-liner, but it sits there untapped as other souls are redeemed. Martyr and AotL are both played on our own characters, Grapes in side battles.
-
I am really curious to see how this works out. Provided I don't play lp first round, I'm thinking about trying this strategy next tournament.
"No YOU rescue the last soul!" "No you do it!" Time out tie at 4-4 both have SOG in hand
After both of us have "accidentally" dropped NJ, and declared it played. We continually "forget" to exchange for the two-liner, but it sits there untapped as other souls are redeemed. Martyr and AotL are both played on our own characters, Grapes in side battles.
Don't forget when you tore a Plot to kill your own characters.
-
I am really curious to see how this works out. Provided I don't play lp first round, I'm thinking about trying this strategy next tournament.
"No YOU rescue the last soul!" "No you do it!" Time out tie at 4-4 both have SOG in hand
After both of us have "accidentally" dropped NJ, and declared it played. We continually "forget" to exchange for the two-liner, but it sits there untapped as other souls are redeemed. Martyr and AotL are both played on our own characters, Grapes in side battles.
Eventually I try to force a side battle between two of your heroes, convert the one I control to a gold evil character and claim that makes it a rescue attempt, then play wonders forgotten on it while I would still be losing.
-
I, however, declare that my Jacob's Ladder lets me choose to tap the 3-liner, and I then bury it.
-
I, however, declare that my Jacob's Ladder lets me choose to tap the 3-liner, and I then bury it.
DoN for the Win! Err for the loss!
-
as soon as Jonathan Greeson shows up at a tournament, I pretty much relegate myself to competing for second. In this way it would be best for me to throw my first game and work up from there.
The two problems with this are that you are completely throwing away any chance you have of placing 1st (and believe me, Greeson can be beat). The second is that you are risking that if you have a bad draw later in the tournament and lose another game, you don't place at all.
....Which is exactly what happened.
Greeson's undefeated since I joined the ranks of WNY. Irish_Luck's making a championship belt for the first player to beat him.
So in other words, if I want to pull an Aaron Rodgers discount double check belt move, I should fly to a NY tourney and beat up on Greeson?
-
If you think you can beat him then you are more than welcome to try, though I would not spend that much money on anything less than a regional tourney
-
So in other words, if I want to pull an Aaron Rodgers discount double choke belt move, I should fly to a NY tourney and beat up on Greeson?
FTFY. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yes, I know the Vikings were 3-13. But still. Ahaha.
-
So in other words, if I want to pull an Aaron Rodgers discount double choke belt move, I should fly to a NY tourney and beat up on Greeson?
FTFY. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yes, I know the Vikings were 3-13. But still. Ahaha.
I bow to thy wit. :laugh:
-
Greeson's undefeated since I joined the ranks of WNY. Irish_Luck's making a championship belt for the first player to beat him.
So in other words, if I want to pull an Aaron Rodgers discount double check belt move, I should fly to a NY tourney and beat up on Greeson?
[/quote]
Coming from the person who has played every other category but mine to avoid defeat at last MW Regionals. ::) :P ;)
Last time I played Soul Seeker I beat him 5-0 in 1 turn.
You may be Gabe's nemesis but you're not mine. For those who don't know...Sauce is kidding...we have never met nor played Redemption versus each other.
Also, I appreciate the kind words from lp and kittens though (I perceive)* others (because of my personal grumpiness)* don't think as highly of me. :)
*EDITed to highlight that I am human and was wrong for stating the above statement.
-
I think the whole 5 souls in one turn thing gave sauce's joke away....
-
You're arguably the best in the NE region, Greeson. I commented to RDT yesterday that I might have a shot at the NE regionals this year since you usually play T2. By the way, I need to play you in T2 soon.
-
The tournament format isn't likely to change as long as Rob has final say (which means ever). The Redemption tournament system has always been designated a "fellowship tournament," and the competitive aspect has been reduced in favor of giving everyone a chance to have a good time.
If someone wants a really hard-nosed competition, there's nothing preventing them from running a tournament outside the Cactus system with whatever rules, formats, and cutoffs they want to make. However, I suspect that this will fall prey to what I find too often in church settings, where someone says that "the church ought to be doing something," but what they really mean is "somebody else in the church ought to be doing something." :)
However, it would be pretty cool if someone (by which I mean "someone else" ;D) had the resources, time, and tournament expertise to run a "professional" circuit. I wouldn't compete in it (because I'm pretty lame outside of Booster), but if the prize were big enough you could get a lot of players who would like to try to prove they're the best.
-
If Rob Anderson would allow it, it'd be willing to give it a shot (that is if SomeKittens would assist me with the hosting)
-
You may be Gabe's nemesis but you're not mine. For those who don't know...Sauce is kidding...we have never met nor played Redemption versus each other.
Actually, I'm not kidding. We've played one game over RTS. You were using an illegal deck that you claimed was unbeatable. I won 5-0 in 1 turn.
Now, perhaps my deck was illegal too... but that shouldn't matter. Even playing field.
EDIT: Found the thread ;D http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/rtsonline-play/the-ultimate-redemption-deck-gtthere-is-none-better/
-
You may be Gabe's nemesis but you're not mine. For those who don't know...Sauce is kidding...we have never met nor played Redemption versus each other.
Actually, I'm not kidding. We've played one game over RTS. You were using an illegal deck that you claimed was unbeatable. I won 5-0 in 1 turn.
Now, perhaps my deck was illegal too...
I completely forgot about that! :doh: Okay...maybe I was wrong. :-[ We did play 1 game and Sauce is right and he beat me in one turn 5-0. :'( 8)
(in which your illegal deck was better than my illegal deck.)
-
though others don't think as highly of me. :)
It just occurred to me that this might have been directed toward me, and might indicate a misperception. Just in case, let me go on record as saying that I actually think VERY highly of you as a player, and in case you're wondering, that does include thinking that you are better at Redemption than I am. However, I have beaten you before on occasion, and don't consider you (or anyone else) unbeatable.
More importantly, I think VERY highly of you as a Christian brother, and I am glad to call you my friend :)
-
though others don't think as highly of me. :)
It just occurred to me that this might have been directed toward me, and might indicate a misperception. Just in case, let me go on record as saying that I actually think VERY highly of you as a player, and in case you're wondering, that does include thinking that you are better at Redemption than I am. However, I have beaten you before on occasion, and don't consider you (or anyone else) unbeatable.
More importantly, I think VERY highly of you as a Christian brother, and I am glad to call you my friend :)
D'AAAAAAWWWWWW.
-
If Rob Anderson would allow it, it'd be willing to give it a shot (that is if SomeKittens would assist me with the hosting)
A professional circuit would be interesting, but the prize money would have to be far more than I've got.
-
If Rob Anderson would allow it, it'd be willing to give it a shot (that is if SomeKittens would assist me with the hosting)
A professional circuit would be interesting, but the prize money would have to be far more than I've got.
Obviously people would have to pay to get in to the tournaments until it got big enough for sponsorship.
-
though others don't think as highly of me. :)
It just occurred to me that this might have been directed toward me, and might indicate a misperception. Just in case, let me go on record as saying that I actually think VERY highly of you as a player, and in case you're wondering, that does include thinking that you are better at Redemption than I am. However, I have beaten you before on occasion, and don't consider you (or anyone else) unbeatable.
More importantly, I think VERY highly of you as a Christian brother, and I am glad to call you my friend :)
Yes, I took exception to the "believe me" maybe it's the weather around here, lack of sleep, or pride, but those 2 words stung a little. I apologize for my grumpiness and will strive to do better. Thanks for the kind words despite my poor attitude earlier today. :-[
-
If Rob Anderson would allow it, it'd be willing to give it a shot (that is if SomeKittens would assist me with the hosting)
A professional circuit would be interesting, but the prize money would have to be far more than I've got.
Obviously people would have to pay to get in to the tournaments until it got big enough for sponsorship.
I don't think we've got a big enough playerbase. There's a Chicken/Egg thing going on with the size of the playerbase increasing with large, awesome tournaments, and large, awesome tournaments required to increase the size of the playerbase.
-
Well if one has to come before the other, maybe the big tourneys have to come first.
-
The egg came first.
-
Well if one has to come before the other, maybe the big tourneys have to come first.
And that requires an investment. Cactus isn't in a place where it can take large financial bets.
-
Well if one has to come before the other, maybe the big tourneys have to come first.
And that requires an investment. Cactus isn't in a place where it can take large financial bets.
I think we'd have to prove this could work before cactus would think about sanctioning it anyway. We invest our own time, and only move forward if we can cover costs or come really really close.
-
I don't think we've got a big enough playerbase.
I think this is key. If you want people to come to a tournament BECAUSE of the prizes, then the money's got to be at least enough to cover the expense of getting there (which means hundreds of dollars), and there's got to be at least enough people who think they have a chance to win to pay for it.
Realistically, multiple people on this very thread have already admitted that they feel like it is impossible to beat one player in their own region. Would they really pay big bucks to play in a tournament that they believe from the start that they don't have a chance to recoup their investment. And if only players of Greeson's caliber or higher are willing to play, then you've got a very small number of players.
-
An interesting way to promote it would be that very lack of players. Go to MTG/other TCG players and say "Hey! There's this big tournament with a gigantic prize, and it's totally easy to win!"
-
At larger tournaments I may never play Jonathan. Jonathan is the only player that I really don't want to play right now, not only is he a much better player than me but I just have no luck against him (i.e. him getting a card that negates all drawing and is nearly impossible for me to target off the draw in our root game a few months ago. Gardenciples are pretty amateur when they can't draw) I'd at least want a shot at some other top players. You're also discounting the power of the ego, and the will to prove that you CAN beat those people. Someday, I do want to play Jonathan again. But I've been mostly out of Redemption for almost 6 months now, I'm not ready to take him on again. I played 7 games not including booster draft and got owned in all 7 using the same deck that I used before and could beat anybody but Randall and Jonathan on a regular basis, and I OCCASIONALLY (key word) beat Randall with it. I don't know what I'm doing anymore. Someday I do want another shot at Jonathan but if I can't even compete with Bret (no offense intended) Jonathan would 5-0 me every game.
-
Keep in mind you've played me a LOT more than Greeson. I'm sure you'd have beat him a few times if you had played dozens (possibly even hundreds) of games.
-
Keep in mind you've played me a LOT more than Greeson. I'm sure you'd have beat him a few times if you had played dozens (possibly even hundreds) of games.
I said occasionally :P I think I beat you twice over the summer and we played like 20 game a day some days.
P.S. Jonathan, you seem to have driven the fact that your name is spelled with an A not an O so deep in to my head I am now spelling your last name with an A instead of an E ;D
-
Keep in mind you've played me a LOT more than Greeson. I'm sure you'd have beat him a few times if you had played dozens (possibly even hundreds) of games.
I said occasionally :P I think I beat you twice over the summer and we played like 20 game a day some days.
P.S. Jonathan, you seem to have driven the fact that your name is spelled with an A not an O so deep in to my head I am now spelling your last name with an A instead of an E ;D
Oddly, I'm not as picky over my last name as my first...weird. I hate to hear that playing me is a drag...I try to leave people with a positive experience after playing me, but I have a hard time balancing that with my competitiveness.
-
By no means should you change anything. Right now you are my goal in Redemption. You are the only player i've ever faced more than once that I have never beaten. And if i ever get the inclination when I finally do beat you that you went easy on me I am NOT going to be happy about it.
-
And if i ever get the inclination when I finally do beat you that you went easy on me I am NOT going to be happy about it.
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't even know how to take it easy on someone if he wanted to. ;)
-
as soon as Jonathan Greeson shows up at a tournament, I pretty much relegate myself to competing for second. In this way it would be best for me to throw my first game and work up from there.
The two problems with this are that you are completely throwing away any chance you have of placing 1st (and believe me, Greeson can be beat). The second is that you are risking that if you have a bad draw later in the tournament and lose another game, you don't place at all.
....Which is exactly what happened.
Greeson's undefeated since I joined the ranks of WNY. Irish_Luck's making a championship belt for the first player to beat him.
i beat him in the first two player game i played against him in 2008. Don't think i beat him since.
-
Pics or it didn't happen. Sure, he's beatable, but it's tough. Last season, I lost a game against him and then went undefeated until Nats.
-
FWIW, I'm 1-0 vs. Greeson in my lifetime. Yet somehow he still ranks higher than me... >:(
Of course, I'm probably something like 35-40% vs. The Hobbit, yet I still outrank him...
-
I wouldn't put too much weight on ranking. Everyone I've ever beat outranks me.
-
I wouldn't put too much weight on ranking. Everyone I've ever beat outranks me.
false. I'm not even ranked and you have beaten me A LOT
-
I wouldn't put too much weight on ranking. Everyone I've ever beat who has a ranking outranks me.
Happy now?
-
no i still haven't beaten Greeson :P
-
Pics or it didn't happen. Sure, he's beatable, but it's tough. Last season, I lost a game against him and then went undefeated until Nats.
I will say it was a lucky win. He made a mistate with lampstand and falling away basically wasting it.
-
I personally like the way the Wizards Play Network program runs tournaments. It actually takes into account the strength of your opponents. If you win against bad players you don't get as much credit as if you win against an undefeated player. I would not mind using that except that it uses a best 2 out of 3 system. I suppose it could be adapted to work for Redemption.
-
It actually takes into account the strength of your opponents. If you win against bad players you don't get as much credit as if you win against an undefeated player.
Wouldn't the effect of this for players who are winning be that the later in a tournament, the more points their wins would be worth (making it harder to catch the leaders), and the less points their losses would hurt (again insulating the top)?
-
No because it takes into account your opponents' overall record throughout the tournament. If you beat someone in the first round and they go undefeated the rest of the tournament, it is worth way more than if you beat someone in the first round and they never win the rest of the tournament. The win would either become more or less valuable as the tournament goes on.
Basically if someone who is struggling in the tournament and beats a really good player it would give them a boost and they would be shot up into the higher ranks, with that win, but they would need to keep winning. Top players still play top players, but it eliminates the power of a fluke loss for a high ranked player and maximizes the power of a surprise win for a lower ranked player.
-
No because it takes into account your opponents' overall record throughout the tournament. If you beat someone in the first round and they go undefeated the rest of the tournament, it is worth way more than if you beat someone in the first round and they never win the rest of the tournament. The win would either become more or less valuable as the tournament goes on.
How would this work for seeding DURING the tournament though. How would you know who to match people up with if their points for each win weren't really determined until the entire tournament was over?
-
No because it takes into account your opponents' overall record throughout the tournament. If you beat someone in the first round and they go undefeated the rest of the tournament, it is worth way more than if you beat someone in the first round and they never win the rest of the tournament. The win would either become more or less valuable as the tournament goes on.
How would this work for seeding DURING the tournament though. How would you know who to match people up with if their points for each win weren't really determined until the entire tournament was over?
by using their record to that point.
-
How would this work for seeding DURING the tournament though. How would you know who to match people up with if their points for each win weren't really determined until the entire tournament was over?
by using their record to that point.
The problem there is that I could be matched up with someone who is 4-0 and ends up going 4-6 while you are matched up with someone 4-0 who ends up going 9-1 (only losing to you). We both would get the win, and move on equally in the tournament, but then at the end you would get more points simply because you got paired up with someone who ended up doing better.
-
How would this work for seeding DURING the tournament though. How would you know who to match people up with if their points for each win weren't really determined until the entire tournament was over?
by using their record to that point.
The problem there is that I could be matched up with someone who is 4-0 and ends up going 4-6 while you are matched up with someone 4-0 who ends up going 9-1 (only losing to you). We both would get the win, and move on equally in the tournament, but then at the end you would get more points simply because you got paired up with someone who ended up doing better.
thats the point. the other guy beat better opponents than you, therefore he should have more points.
-
Exactly. Its strength of schedule. A person who played stronger opponents (ergo, those with better records) should seed higher than a player that has a similiar record but played weaker opponents.
I have preached top cut on the boards for a decade now. I have never played another mainstream CCG that does not utilize top cut, as it is a near-perfect system. Honestly, I do not know how Redemption has still not picked up on it yet.
-
I don't know that could get really crazy at nationals your fate basically depends on how good your opponent's do after you beat them. I am not convinced, maybe someone could explain it one more time?
-
If you win all your games you have nothing to worry about, it doesn't get cut to top 8 until there's only a few people without a loss. If you lose a game it you can still make top cut as long as you're one loss was to a very high ranked player. Once it gets cut to top 8, it goes back to single elimination. You win, you advance, you lose you're out of the running
-
I don't know that could get really crazy at nationals your fate basically depends on how good your opponent's do after you beat them.
As it should be. If you beat a player that does well in the tournament (and likely more skilled), should that not put you above players that have a similiar record as you but beat players with a lower record (and likely less skilled)?
To put this in more perspective, I played in a 8-round swiss tournament last weekend with top cut. There were 130+ people, so it was a Top 16 cut. Therefore, after 8 rounds, there would be 1 player with an X-0 record and 5 players with an X-1 record. That leaves 10 X-2 players able to make top cut, out of I believe 13 or 14 X-2 players overall. So giving up a couple of wins does not put you out of the running for Top 16 or even Top 8 for that matter, and comes down to strength of schedule as it should be.
-
I have not heard of this idea, but I like it. Can anyone point me to formulas?
-
Maybe in here (http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/WPN/Main/Documents/Magic_The_Gathering_Tournament_Rules_PDF2.pdf)
-
Maybe in here (http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/WPN/Main/Documents/Magic_The_Gathering_Tournament_Rules_PDF2.pdf)
This seems to only be used as a tiebreaker.
-
http://www.wizards.com/wpn/Events/Rules.aspx?category=magic:thegathering
thats the full page of pdfs, I can't actually open anything on my netbook for some reason but one of them has it I'm sure
-
What happens when a person comes from the bottom up? Say I lose my first to games against good competition then win the next 8 Games. Games 3,4,5 and 6 are against weak competition so I don't get many points so I probably place behind a person who loses in the middle rounds and ends up 8-2. We both lost to good competition, and yeah he beat good competition too) but I am penalyzed for being paired with good competion in the early rounds. That is a problem imo.
-
Like I said earlier, this seems to only be used as a tiebreaker, much like we use differential.
-
Like I said earlier, this seems to only be used as a tiebreaker, much like we use differential.
Which is a flawed system.
-
What happens when a person comes from the bottom up? Say I lose my first to games against good competition then win the next 8 Games. Games 3,4,5 and 6 are against weak competition so I don't get many points so I probably place behind a person who loses in the middle rounds and ends up 8-2. We both lost to good competition, and yeah he beat good competition too) but I am penalyzed for being paired with good competion in the early rounds. That is a problem imo.
Well first of all, if you went X-2 in a 10 round tournament, then you probably already made top cut...so in that case, your strength of schedule does not matter :p Swiss rounds and top cuts are based on the number of people attending, so if it was a 10 round tournament then it would be Top 32 (I have only been in one 10 round tournament and it had 1000+ people playing). I understand your argument though, but I find it a far better solution than a player losing an early game in Redemption and coming back to the top because he will naturally now play weaker opponents throughout swiss. The fact is in your example you played only 6 good opponents and the other player played 10, so naturally he should be ranked above you. The system rewards consistency and encourages players to always do their best, and not try to sack losses in early rounds *cough cough SomeKittens cough cough* ;)
-
Strength of schedule does not matter after top cut? I am okay with that. But unfortunately this is just a pipe dream as top cut does not fit the spirit of the game.
-
Right, SoS does not matter after top cut...its just single elimination after that.
-
Strength of schedule does not matter after top cut? I am okay with that. But unfortunately this is just a pipe dream as top cut does not fit the spirit of the game.
Everyone still gets to play X swiss rounds. Top cut can only further legitimize redemption among other games. If X person gets upset over not making top cut X player needs to realize he's not the best...
-
X player could be unlucky in one of the final Swiss rounds.
-
Need more information than that. Could be player X's only loss. He will still make top cut.
-
Two bad coin flips and a frontrunner goes to not making it in the final cut. At our last tournament, the 1st place player went to 4th after one game.
-
X player could be unlucky in one of the final Swiss rounds.
which is why you play best 2-3
-
Strength of schedule does not matter after top cut? I am okay with that. But unfortunately this is just a pipe dream as top cut does not fit the spirit of the game.
Everyone still gets to play X swiss rounds. Top cut can only further legitimize redemption among other games. If X person gets upset over not making top cut X player needs to realize he's not the best...
I agree.
-
For that matter theres no reason people outside top cut couldn't continue to play in a consolation swiss style.
-
Two bad coin flips and a frontrunner goes to not making it in the final cut. At our last tournament, the 1st place player went to 4th after one game.
If anything, this strengthens the reason to use top cut. The frontrunner goes to not topping at all in standard swiss because of one bad game at the very end. His consistency throughout the tournament goes completely unrewarded. However, a top cut means he will still advance to top X and will be able to play the other top players in single elim. It gives skilled players that second chance just in case they had a fluke game here or there.
-
The problem that I'm seeing here is that if you have a single-elimination top cut of 16 at the end, then you are talking about 4 games, and if you lose ANY of them but the last you can't place AT ALL. And if you lose the last one, then you CAN'T win the tournament. This could be a problem.
Imagine a 10 round Nats event with a top cut of 16 players after 8 rounds. Player A beats Player B early in the tournament, and finishes the round before top cut with a 8-0 record. Player B finishes with a 6-2 record, but strong enough SoS to make the top cut as well. Then the top cut starts, and both players win their way into the championship where Player B wins. At this point Player B is declared the champion despite the fact that they have a worse record for the day, played easier opponents all day, and have a 1-1 record against Player A. This just seems wrong.
-
New York giants just win the super bowl with a 9-7 record. They won when it counted, like all true champions due. Make the top cut into match games and it eliminates the "I just got a bad draw" excuse. This is more far than a player going from first to not placing with one loss. Every other ccg uses this system for a reason it's the best way to determine a true champion.
-
The Giants also beat the Patriots both times when they played this year. In my example Player A and Player B both beat each other. So why should Player B be the champion when he had the worse record and played easier opponents.
I see what you are saying about the current system sometimes being unfair. I'm just pointing out that this proposed system would sometimes be unfair as well. In fact, all systems will be unfair at times. So I think it's good to look at the main purpose behind Redemption tournaments, and see what system lines up best with that purpose.
-
Every system has flaws but a few your scenario as far less unfair than the current system that encourages players to tank their first game for an easy walk to second place at smaller tournaments and maybe even first at larger ones. You can keep playing games once your are eliminated in consolation brackets so that everyone's happy.
-
Let's remember that in every other CCG, Player B would have to beat Player A 2 out of 3.
-
Imagine a 10 round Nats event with a top cut of 16 players after 8 rounds. Player A beats Player B early in the tournament, and finishes the round before top cut with a 8-0 record. Player B finishes with a 6-2 record, but strong enough SoS to make the top cut as well. Then the top cut starts, and both players win their way into the championship where Player B wins. At this point Player B is declared the champion despite the fact that they have a worse record for the day, played easier opponents all day, and have a 1-1 record against Player A. This just seems wrong.
lolwut? So you're telling me...if Player B makes top cut and goes completely undefeated 4 rounds against the very best players from the tournament...that he doesn't deserve to be champion? Right. ::)
Let's remember that in every other CCG, Player B would have to beat Player A 2 out of 3.
Another solid reason Redemption needs top cut more than anything. Best 2 of 3 mitigates the luck factor. Complete swiss tournament with 1 match games? You're just asking to have the most sacky tournament play ever.
-
Complete swiss tournament with 1 match games? You're just asking to have the most sacky tournament play ever.
And yet Nats is a totally AWESOME experience (as evidenced by consistently showing up in the "favorite Redemption memories" thread). :)
-
Nationals is an awesome experience because its much more than just the tournament. Thats irrelevant, however, to the sacky tournament play.
-
I have the Wizards program in question at my new store; Gem City Games: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gem-City-Games-Release-your-inner-gamer/172769039489746 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gem-City-Games-Release-your-inner-gamer/172769039489746) . I would be up to hosting an impromptu local tournament with at least 8 players to try this out.
-
"If you're gonna lose, lose early." has long been a good slogan for Swiss tournaments.
least your not the one who battles with losing all the time ;)
-
Sorry but this thread really disturbs me. I think of Redemption as a "Win-Win" game where the first win is for the Lord and the second win for myself. I do not believe either is pleasing to the Lord if you win by anything other then trying your best. My daughter and I have been to many tournaments and we can honestly say we have enjoyed them all...not because we have had some success at winning but because we had a sincere feeling of shared fellowship at all of them, (Yes, placing made it more "fun" but not more meaningful). I feel saddened for those that feel the only successful tournament experience is one where they place. Frankly, I am probably a 3d tier player but playing those rated as the best is enjoyable and I will not allow my daughter or myself to feel we have let down the "elite" by not being a more difficult win for the elite. Not too long ago the rules were changed concerning the elite holding back a win to get that extra lost soul as it clearly was not in the spirit of the game to "bury" a weak player.
What S
-
Sorry but this thread really disturbs me. I think of Redemption as a "Win-Win" game where the first win is for the Lord and the second win for myself. I do not believe either is pleasing to the Lord if you win by anything other then trying your best. My daughter and I have been to many tournaments and we can honestly say we have enjoyed them all...not because we have had some success at winning but because we had a sincere feeling of shared fellowship at all of them, (Yes, placing made it more "fun" but not more meaningful). I feel saddened for those that feel the only successful tournament experience is one where they place. Frankly, I am probably a 3d tier player but playing those rated as the best is enjoyable and I will not allow my daughter or myself to feel we have let down the "elite" by not being a more difficult win for the elite. Not too long ago the rules were changed concerning the elite holding back a win to get that extra lost soul as it clearly was not in the spirit of the game to "bury" a weak player.
What S
i would like to note that wat i said above about losing was meant only to kid around but i have seriously struggled with defeats in my past but currently im fighting to not care about my losses anymore, cause what's the point in winning or losing? the point is that 2 players go in, play a game to pass the time and have fun cause isn't that really what it's about is having fun? i love the movie "facing the giants" and it's such an inspirational and light hearted movie about a struggling high school football coach who wants nothing but to have an "above average" season and struggles with it and his players don't do so well but then he does some needed meditation, scripture reading and prayer and his efforts pay off when he comes with a in game and in life principle that no matter what happens we need to praise God. praise him when good things happen to us like winning, and praise him when the bad things go wrong like losing. and his philosphy of praising God turned his life and his team around when the team gets to state championship to take on the undefeated giants who were twice their size and speed which applies the story of "david and goliath" in this and in an upset, the struggling team "the eagles" took down the giants to win the state title and more goes on behind the scenes of the games in the movie but i'll let everyone else watch it to see what happens but my point being that no matter what happens in games, whoever we face, we need to praise God cause he is the one that matters the most and also what matters is having fun in the game and having fellowship with fellow brothers and sisters in christ. cause when you think about it, losing is such a senseless thing to get upset over
-
The Lord will bless the game and the participants if in fact the spirit of the game blesses His kingdom. I look forward to seeing how this thread impacts the game. Take care.
-
regardless of who wins and loses, it should be a fun tournament :)
-
cincyoldguy, why exactly does this thread "disturb" you? I agree that this game should, first and foremost, be about bringing glory to God, but it also a competitive game, and I believe that there's nothing disturbing about seeking to come up with the fairest way that tournaments should be run. Is there really anything in this thread that suggests anyone's heart is not in the right place while discussing the most efficient and fair way to run a tournament?
-
I have the Wizards program in question at my new store; Gem City Games: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gem-City-Games-Release-your-inner-gamer/172769039489746 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gem-City-Games-Release-your-inner-gamer/172769039489746) . I would be up to hosting an impromptu local tournament with at least 8 players to try this out.
Did you by chance have a vendor booth at the Yugioh World Championship Qualifier a couple weekends ago in Columbus? I could have sworn I saw a Gem City booth...
-
Nope. We weren't there but keep an eye out for us in the future at those kinds of events because we absolutely want to be involved in those kinds of events.
-
Sorry if my ramblings left the wrong impression about this discussion. I am not disturbed by the discussion but perhaps about what finnally evolves into changes to the game. I have no idea about how other tournament games are played to make them more elite friendly. Howeve, if you can say the changes ould not have eliminated Rebeccah from having the equal chance everyone else had at nationals then I am relatively ok with it. But if you make rules that favor elite players at the expense of newer or less "dedicated" players then I strongly object. Frankly a major reason we both like sealed and booster is that it levels the playing field quite abit with respect to not owning all the rare/new releases and thus building a deck while still favoring experienced players knowlege of the game to an extent but not because they have cards in their collection newer players do not.
This and my previous comments considerd, I will wait to consider the changes the experts make to the game and hopefully can relie on their spirit lead choices. take care all, Allen
-
Sorry if my ramblings left the wrong impression about this discussion. I am not disturbed by the discussion but perhaps about what finnally evolves into changes to the game. I have no idea about how other tournament games are played to make them more elite friendly. Howeve, if you can say the changes ould not have eliminated Rebeccah from having the equal chance everyone else had at nationals then I am relatively ok with it. But if you make rules that favor elite players at the expense of newer or less "dedicated" players then I strongly object. Frankly a major reason we both like sealed and booster is that it levels the playing field quite abit with respect to not owning all the rare/new releases and thus building a deck while still favoring experienced players knowlege of the game to an extent but not because they have cards in their collection newer players do not.
This and my previous comments considerd, I will wait to consider the changes the experts make to the game and hopefully can relie on their spirit lead choices. take care all, Allen
about ruling changes, their only made to balance out the game more and make it more fun and more of a game that is to be seperated from the world's gaming such as magic the gathering yugioh and pokemon. as far as "elimination" goes you'll be happy to hear nationals is always swiss style and as far as the "elite" players go, it all comes down to skill, that's it with nationals is just pure experience. the rules doesn't favor anybody, it's all about how you built your deck, what you have available to play to win the needed souls to advance. i wouldn't call the much better players "elite" cause that would only make them (or us) look like nothing but an army using redemption as a weapon for war. i would more of the lines to call them "pros" cause they have the skill, knowledge and they could make winning a game as fast as a person blinks *blinks* someone just lost a game ;) but all humor aside, everyone is at a certain level of skill within the game, and even when currently someone is a rookie, they could become one of the "elite" tomorrow. i mean for example, there was one by the name of Caleb, by the time i met him he wasn't that good of a player to begin with but as a very short amount of time went on, he got better and became one of the elite. for me it's not so easy to turn pro as everyone else, but im ok with that cause God has given me a challenge to overcome and by the time i overcome it, i will be at a place where i truly need to be as a redemption player. my point is this, a lil encouragement for rebecca, she may not be one of the pros but alot of the 3 p's: persistence, patience, practice are the three ingredients needed to turn someone pro and one day im very sure, she'll be among one of the elite female players within the redemption community much like Britta Alstad.
-
one day im very sure, she'll be among one of the elite female players within the redemption community
Rebeccah is already in the top 10 female players in Redemption IMO (maybe even top 5), and I've played against her for years.
-
I agree, she is a great player and a great Christlike model of how the game should be played.
-
one day im very sure, she'll be among one of the elite female players within the redemption community
Rebeccah is already in the top 10 female players in Redemption IMO (maybe even top 5), and I've played against her for years.
then how is it i have never heard of her til recently? hmm?
-
Were you at Nationals last year when she placed there? Do you attend tournaments in Ohio or Kentucky? Otherwise you probably haven't heard of her because she is not on the boards.
-
I agree with the others Raven. Rebeccah is the real deal. Her lack of participation on the boards may be why you have not heard of her, but she is good at Redemption.
-
This and my previous comments considerd, I will wait to consider the changes the experts make to the game and hopefully can relie on their spirit lead choices. take care all, Allen
Come visit us in Florida. We still play the way you want it to be. ;D
-
then how is it i have never heard of her til recently? hmm?
Like others have mentioned, she's not on the boards. And since you haven't been to a tournament at all in years, you wouldn't have seen her in person. You probably also haven't heard of Isabelle Reuter either, but she's definitely in the top 5 female Redemption players in the country.
Personally, I would put Britta Alstad, Isabelle Reuter, Gretel Coverdale, Rebeccah Collins, all in the top 5, and none of them are active on the boards enough to be household names (other than Britta who used to be more active with old-timers like New Raven and I). I'm not sure who the 5th person on that list should be, but I'm hoping that someday it will be one of my 3 daughters :)
-
Marti still putters around T2 with a fair amount of skill. If she's not top 5, she's certainly top 10. There's also Alex Olijar. ::)
-
Were you at Nationals last year when she placed there? Do you attend tournaments in Ohio or Kentucky? Otherwise you probably haven't heard of her because she is not on the boards.
no i have not been to a tournament since 2007, so you would understand why i haven't heard of her, even if others say she's the real deal, i say "Just Bring It" i ain't scared of facing her. if ya'll claim she's the real deal i'd love to see it for myself
-
I can't catch what's your deal hear?
Did a girl beat you in kick ball in 2nd grade? ;)
It's a cad game, I'm as competitive as anyone but there is absolutely no reason to be calling someone out who you have never met.
-
I can't catch what's your deal hear?
Did a girl beat you in kick ball in 2nd grade? ;)
It's a cad game, I'm as competitive as anyone but there is absolutely no reason to be calling someone out who you have never met.
im not calling anyone out, im just out having fun and letting my possible opponents know that im waiting and i'll be ready to face them. and whoever is thumbing down my reply obviously doesn't like what i have to say, they can deal with it cause i was only showing my determination and my excitement to be able to go to nationals which isn't a crime.
-
im not calling anyone out, im just out having fun and letting my possible opponents know that im waiting and i'll be ready to face them. and whoever is thumbing down my reply obviously doesn't like what i have to say, they can deal with it cause i was only showing my determination and my excitement to be able to go to nationals which isn't a crime.
You're being rude about a specific person, Andy. You can be enthusiastic without singling out this one girl.
-
I think I can speak for all of us who will be blessed to be at Nats this year by saying I am looking forward to all the competition I will face. Not because I am ready to smash them but because I get to spend some time with brothers and sisters in Christ whom I have come to love and respect. :)
-
Travis, I'll miss being in your van like I've been the last two years.
-
Why aren't talking about doing more rounds at a tournament? Or giving a host the option to do so? That I think is an obvious fix to this. MN state had a this issue and I think that would have salved that..
-
im not calling anyone out, im just out having fun and letting my possible opponents know that im waiting and i'll be ready to face them. and whoever is thumbing down my reply obviously doesn't like what i have to say, they can deal with it cause i was only showing my determination and my excitement to be able to go to nationals which isn't a crime.
You're being rude about a specific person, Andy. You can be enthusiastic without singling out this one girl.
i honestly don't mean to be rude im just trying to be optimistic about my games and just show that im not scared to take on anybody at any level of skill. im really sorry for being rude, i really am i never intended to be rude, and if it was about my comment on people thumbing down my comments all the time, i just think people do that to get on my nerves and what the thumbing down does to me is it just hurts me emotionally when every single comment i make no matter what it is i always get thumbed down, i don't post my comments to impress anybody, i just speak my mind cause whatever some of the things i say is on my mind like when someone says their gonna beat me at a game or me being afraid of facing them or avoid a certain game that i wanna play even if it's sarcastic or to joke around i don't take it as a joke, i take it seriously cause im showing im not afraid of them, and im not gonna avoid playing a certain game just because they say im gonna be beat by someone. when people don't say "jk" after they say something to joke with i ASSUME that their serious about it cause i can't tell if someone's joking around with me or not, that's just a problem i have with Asperger Syndrome.
-
....i just speak my mind ....
This is where you have to learn more control. Some things are better left unsaid.
-
I think New Raven is just so excited to finally be going to Nats, that he's speaking a bit too fast before thinking. I understand his excitement, and I'm glad he's going.
But Andy, you do need to tone down your posts telling people how "you aren't scared of anyone". No one is accusing you of being scared of the competition, and so it just comes across weirdly for you to point out your lack of fear on multiple threads.
Keep the excitement, lose the exaggerated swagger :)
-
Why aren't talking about doing more rounds at a tournament? Or giving a host the option to do so? That I think is an obvious fix to this. MN state had a this issue and I think that would have salved that..
Ultimately the host makes those decisions anyway. At both Florida States and Southeast Regionals, I added an extra round to settle placing disputes. I know not every host has time in the schedule to do this, but I did. I talked to both Rob and Roy on the phone, and they both agreed that if time permitted, this would be the best solution.
All players left content because a heirarchy of tie-breakers did not decide their fate. They settled that at the table with their cards, fun, and fellowship. ;D
-
I think New Raven is just so excited to finally be going to Nats, that he's speaking a bit too fast before thinking. I understand his excitement, and I'm glad he's going.
But Andy, you do need to tone down your posts telling people how "you aren't scared of anyone". No one is accusing you of being scared of the competition, and so it just comes across weirdly for you to point out your lack of fear on multiple threads.
Keep the excitement, lose the exaggerated swagger :)
i'll do my best prof :)
-
Why aren't talking about doing more rounds at a tournament? Or giving a host the option to do so? That I think is an obvious fix to this. MN state had a this issue and I think that would have salved that..
Ultimately the host makes those decisions anyway. At both Florida States and Southeast Regionals, I added an extra round to settle placing disputes. I know not every host has time in the schedule to do this, but I did. I talked to both Rob and Roy on the phone, and they both agreed that if time permitted, this would be the best solution.
All players left content because a heirarchy of tie-breakers did not decide their fate. They settled that at the table with their cards, fun, and fellowship. ;D
So we need away to add extra rounds with having to make some calls then?
-
So we need away to add extra rounds with having to make some calls then?
The point was that the PTBs are OK with extra rounds and playoffs when necessary. You do not need to call them.