Tournament went great. Everyone seemed very pleased and most importantly all had a great time.
Some tidbits...
22 players in all- not bad for the first qualifier
We had a few players fly in from Seattle and Arizona- in hindsight, I will give 2-4 special prizes out for players who fly in from far distances.
Format- 5 rounds for everyone. Players try to get as many wins as possible. Half of the players- 11 would make it to Single-Elimination rounds. The problem I had with 11 players is that I wanted 4 games for the semi-finals, getting a winner each and make a 4-player final. With 4 games in the semis I would have a 3-3-3-2 type games and I could not have a 2 player game. So I need to add another player. There were a couple of 1 win players that probably wouldn't have gotten in if we would have had a few more players in the tournament. Coincidently, one of the 1-win players made it to the finals and won the whole thing.
In his defense, I've watched the player play once before and he is a very dedicated player. In fact, he only won 1 game in pre-lims but I believe he had 2 or 3 second place finishes. So his win record really wasn't reflective of his ability. So in a sense, it didn't surprise me that he won- though he really had to fight for it in the semis and finals- which were both very very close games. All the players seemed fine with his play and enjoyed the Single Elimination rounds.
We will definitely press to get more players in. My desire is to get at least 32 players so that we don't have these issues. The more players you have these issues tend to statistically fizzle away.
This definitely makes me think about a way to incorporate 2nd and 3rd places finishes in games, however VPoints cannot be used b/c of the high ceiling for points in a game like for Prosperity. I think I could establish a "tournament point" system that is simple enough to use. However, this would undermine the priority of a "straight-up wins" approach which is the current system in the Nationals and the Worlds. In those tournaments, second place means nothing. Its high-risk, high reward. That system still gives the underdog a chance as all they need focus on is getting a couple wins. In either case though, once you get to single-elimination rounds its win or go home.
As I looked at our tournament, the people that made it to Single Elimination rounds deserved to be there for the most part. The benefit of playing 5 rounds as opposed to 3 or 4 is that the better players WILL rise to the top and gain more wins. I think the current format we have is a great balance of a good taste of the cut-throat competition that one would taste in the Nationals and Worlds yet still gives people a chance to make it to Single Elimination rounds.
Playing devil's advocate, one could say that even though our tournment copys that of the National and Worlds, in the end only ONE person will go there so why should we feel the need to copy their format- let the winner deal with the cut-throat competition of the Nationals and Worlds when they get there. This is a great argument, which makes me seriously consider a simple "tournament point" system format that rewards people who get few wins but several 2nd place finishes. I definitely think there can be tweeks and room for improvement to add this kind of system in place.
There is also the possiblity to have 2 days of 4 rounds each, giving players the ability to give it a shot a second time if the first day goes bad for them. Though that may water down the attendence as some players will qualify the first day and not play the second day possibly. If our attendance gets past 40 I think I will consider this.
BTW- Time frame- 40min seemed about right. We finished early at least 3 out of the first 5 rounds with mostly 3 player games so that means with 4 player games 40 minutes rounds is solid. Most games finished between 20-40 min.
People also seemed to enjoy the sets a lot. The Pre-lim sets were pre-chosen and everyone had access to these sets on the web/flyer. The Single Elimination sets were randomized at the tournament- there were a couple of times where we randomized a couple of times until we knew a good sets would show up and seem to get some good play. We did leave a set that had Seaside and Intrigue with Sabatour and Witch with no blue cards. We purposely did that to throw a wrench in there. I think you always gotta throw in a set that challenges players in different ways it can't always be candy- we only did that in Single-Elimination though where there was a little more time.
Also, I guess there is current debate about players who start first in a 3-4 player game having an advantage. Until we get more clarification on this from the top dawgs of the game and Donald X, I simply tell players if one person has an issue with it, do a random draw for players to go first or roll a die or good ol' "paper, rock, scissors"- that seems to solve it.
For those that went or not, what do you think??? I want to get some good feedback while it fresh in our minds.
For those that came thanks for your great sportmanship and support.
Shiloh
"The Questioneer"
If people lose ties by a coin flip then people won't be happy either. What do you guys think???