Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Single Elimination, 2nd choice = Swiss+Knockout

7 (13%)

Single Elimination, 2nd choice = Double Elimination

21 (38.9%)

Double Elimination, 2nd choice = Single Elimination

16 (29.6%)

Double Elimination, 2nd choice = Swiss+Knockout

5 (9.3%)

Swiss+Knockout, 2nd choice = Single Elimination

0 (0%)

Swiss+Knockout, 2nd choice = Double Elimination

5 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 54

Voting closed: May 09, 2015, 07:20:26 am

[-Stef-]

This topic has been discussed here, please read through that thread for opinions & arguments.

It's a vote with 3 options, and I ask you to choose both a first choice and a second choice.
Upon counting the votes, I will first look for the option that received the fewest number of "first choice" votes. That option will then be discarded. Everyone who selected the discarded option as first choice will have their second choice counted instead.

[SCSN]

Have you decided yet whether to pause the League or not? That decision will determine my vote.

[-Stef-]

Have you decided yet whether to pause the League or not? That decision will determine my vote.

Assume we will pause the league. Unless that idea results in a a lot of protests that is what it's going to be.

[Voltaire]

Have you decided yet whether to pause the League or not? That decision will determine my vote.

Assume we will pause the league. Unless that idea results in a a lot of protests that is what it's going to be.

For the entire tournament, or just the first few "rounds"?

[-Stef-]

Have you decided yet whether to pause the League or not? That decision will determine my vote.

Assume we will pause the league. Unless that idea results in a a lot of protests that is what it's going to be.

For the entire tournament, or just the first few "rounds"?

Probably until 8 players are left? Maybe 16.

[liopoil]

In any case, Double elimination only makes there one more round, which will hardly extend the pause of the league at all.

[mith]

In any case, Double elimination only makes there one more round, which will hardly extend the pause of the league at all.

Actually, double elimination takes double the rounds. The winners bracket side only takes one more round (the championship match against the winner of the losers bracket), but since losers are fed into the losers bracket every round, the losers bracket needs two rounds for every round of the winners bracket.

For example, with an 8 player double elimination tournament, you have:

Round 1: 8/0
Round 2: 4/4
Round 3: -/4
Round 4: 2/2
Round 5: -/2
Round 6/7: Championship

With 256 Players, we wouldn't be down to 16 left (total) until the start of Round 10, and 8 left at the start of Round 12.

(Still voted for double, but I'm not in the league.)

[A Drowned Kernel]

In any case, Double elimination only makes there one more round, which will hardly extend the pause of the league at all.

Actually, double elimination takes double the rounds. The winners bracket side only takes one more round (the championship match against the winner of the losers bracket), but since losers are fed into the losers bracket every round, the losers bracket needs two rounds for every round of the winners bracket.

For example, with an 8 player double elimination tournament, you have:

Round 1: 8/0
Round 2: 4/4
Round 3: -/4
Round 4: 2/2
Round 5: -/2
Round 6/7: Championship

With 256 Players, we wouldn't be down to 16 left (total) until the start of Round 10, and 8 left at the start of Round 12.

Hmm, I didn't consider that. I think I'd like to change my vote if that's possible.

[SCSN]

In any case, Double elimination only makes there one more round, which will hardly extend the pause of the league at all.

Actually, double elimination takes double the rounds. The winners bracket side only takes one more round (the championship match against the winner of the losers bracket), but since losers are fed into the losers bracket every round, the losers bracket needs two rounds for every round of the winners bracket.

For example, with an 8 player double elimination tournament, you have:

Round 1: 8/0
Round 2: 4/4
Round 3: -/4
Round 4: 2/2
Round 5: -/2
Round 6/7: Championship

With 256 Players, we wouldn't be down to 16 left (total) until the start of Round 10, and 8 left at the start of Round 12.

Hmm, I didn't consider that. I think I'd like to change my vote if that's possible.

Yes please, let's eliminate double elimination in round 1!

[-Stef-]

In any case, Double elimination only makes there one more round, which will hardly extend the pause of the league at all.

Actually, double elimination takes double the rounds...

Thanks mith for bringing this up. I'm a bit ashamed I never really thought about it or actually looked it up, but it looks to me now like you're right. Lio and/or other double-elim-advocates - am I missing something?
It doesn't change that much for me - I still intend to simply put this to a vote and go with whatever the majority likes, but it might change something for other people. It certainly also makes scheduling a bit more difficult but so be it.

Hmm, I didn't consider that. I think I'd like to change my vote if that's possible.

I intended to select 'people can change their votes' and I assume I did. Right?

[Awaclus]

I intended to select 'people can change their votes' and I assume I did. Right?

At least I have a "Remove vote" button there that presumably removes my vote and lets me vote again.

[SCSN]

I guess it matters now how many Swiss rounds you have in mind. 9 rounds to select the best 16 is an absolute joke, so I doubt it can do worse, but you never know!

[mith]

You can do double elimination with an alternate format (more like swiss, but just ignoring everyone with more than one loss):

Round 1: 256/0
Round 2: 128/128
Round 3: 64/128
Round 4: 32/96
Round 5: 16/64
Round 6: 8/40
Round 7: 4/24
Round 8: 2/14
Round 9: 1/8
Round 10: 1/4
Round 11: 1/2
Round 12/13: Championship

This format (or Swiss) takes 7 Rounds to get to 16 players left total. The difference with Swiss is that when you cut to the top 16 and single elimination, you ignore than 2 players haven't lost yet. The disadvantage to doing it this way (or Swiss) is that the winners bracket will (probably) have tougher competition, yet there is no reward for staying unbeaten longer vs. losing early and then running through losers, except for the single unbeaten player getting three byes. The traditional double elimination format essentially gives the winners bracket a bye every time they keep going.

Swiss takes 10 rounds to get under 16 players with at most 2 losses; assuming the player who is 8-0 gets a bye the next two rounds (otherwise there's a problem pairing equal records), you end up with 1 @ 8-0, 2 @ 9-1, and 11 @ 8-2. If you go to single elimination at that point, you just grab the two best tiebreakers from the 7-3 guys (and cringe slightly when one of them knocks out the 8-0).

[drsteelhammer]

Defending double elimination here:

Regarding the example of 8 participants:

Week 1: four quarterfinals
Week 2: 2 upper bracket semifinals and 2lower bracket round 1 matches
Week 3: upper bracket final, 2lower bracket round 2 matches
Week 4: loser bracket final, the winner of the winner bracket final has no game
Week 5: Champioship match

I think mith is disregarding the fact that the lower bracket and winner bracket round can always be played in the same week with no one having to play two games. So this format takes 2weeks longer or 1week if only one person (the loser bracket winner) has to play twice once.


The problem is a bit more severe in a 256-Bracket, the amount of players loks like this:

Week:                           1    2     3   4   5   6   7   8  9  10  11 12  13
players winner bracket: 256 128 64  32 16 8    4   2  1  1    1   1    W
players loser bracket:    0    128 128 96 64 40 24 14 8  4    2  1

So we'd need 13 weeks instead of 9 (or 12 with one player playing twice, once). We'd have the top 16 by week 8 and top five by week 10

edit: ok mith beat me to it, his graphic is also better

[mith]

Wasn't ignoring; the longer one is just the traditional way to do it. The faster one is basically Swiss.

[liopoil]

I was assuming Mith's second format, but it is true I did not account for the waiting rounds at the end. Still, it takes just a couple rounds more to get to the size needed to start the league back up again.

[Monsieur X]

where is the choice  "single elimination and no other choice, because dominionstrategy championships is a single elimination tournament"?

[drsteelhammer]

where is the choice  "single elimination and no other choice, because dominionstrategy championships is a single elimination tournament"?

Doesn't really matter since your second vote wont be counted anyway if single elimination is top2 (it certainly is)

In any case, Double elimination only makes there one more round, which will hardly extend the pause of the league at all.

Actually, double elimination takes double the rounds. The winners bracket side only takes one more round (the championship match against the winner of the losers bracket), but since losers are fed into the losers bracket every round, the losers bracket needs two rounds for every round of the winners bracket.

For example, with an 8 player double elimination tournament, you have:

Round 1: 8/0
Round 2: 4/4
Round 3: -/4
Round 4: 2/2
Round 5: -/2
Round 6/7: Championship

With 256 Players, we wouldn't be down to 16 left (total) until the start of Round 10, and 8 left at the start of Round 12.

Hmm, I didn't consider that. I think I'd like to change my vote if that's possible.

Yes please, let's eliminate double elimination in round 1!

I'm all for neutralizig the Swiss (system), if that's a thing that is diplomatically possible

[mith]

One issue with single elimination that has been particularly relevant with DSC: since seeding is based on the leaderboard, but the DSC draws players who aren't playing frequently at the time of signups, it's very easy to end up in a situation where a player is woefully underseeded. Using double elimination (or Swiss) mitigates this, giving a second chance to those with an unlucky draw (whether as the underseeded player, or as the player they upset). I finished top 16 in the 2012 DSC after taking most of 2012 off, and took out a 4 seed along the way; michaeljb was another (in the same division) who peaked above level 40 but wasn't playing much immediately before the tournament, and took out the 3 seed.

Double elimination (or Swiss) also gives another chance to whoever gets stuck playing Stef early. (Or any time, really; I made the losers bracket final after getting knocked out by Stef.)

[Hugovj]

Well, if you don't fully seed the tournament, so draw some randomly and seed some others, you get a more fair chance as lower-ranked player, so dramatic underseeds aren't possible. Well, you can still have some unfairness. But Swiss/Double elim. isn't going to solve all global problems. It's just unnecessary lengthening of the process. We can play for a loser's bracket, for funsies. But I think playing a longer tournament, because otherwise people would be sad, isn't a good thing to do.

[-Stef-]

where is the choice  "single elimination and no other choice, because dominionstrategy championships is a single elimination tournament"?

While I understand the sentiment, I also really liked going with "whatever the majority wants" and that was the idea of this vote.
However, at that point I still thought double elimination was a format near as clean as single elimination.
And now that I realized it's in fact quite messy, I will do another attempt to convince people to change their vote to single elimination.

1. Now that it turns out it takes 4 or 5 weeks longer I don't like double elimination all that much anymore.

2. People already offered to organize a voluntary losers bracket if the actual tournament is Single Elimination anyway, so if you really want to play on you can do that regardless.

3.

Double elimination (or Swiss) also gives another chance to whoever gets stuck playing Stef early. (Or any time, really; I made the losers bracket final after getting knocked out by Stef.)

I don't know if you're hoping to win or if you're just hoping to play more matches.
if your're hoping to play more matches -> that can also be accomplished with the voluntarily losers bracket.
if you're hoping to win -> The chance that the best player wins in double elimination is a lot higher then the chance that person wins in single elimination (still not very high but ok). And therefore the chance that an outsider wins single elimination is a lot higher then the chance an outsider wins double elimination.

4.

...players who aren't playing frequently at the time of signups, it's very easy to end up in a situation where a player is woefully underseeded...

Unlike the old Isotropic leaderboard, your rating on the current Isotropish leaderboard does not degenerate over time.

5. Double elimination doesn't actually have a final match. There is a match that could be the finals, but if the player that is at that point unbeaten loses it you need a rebound final.

6. While the entire tournament takes 12 or 13 weeks, the player that wins everything still only plays 8 matches (assuming 256 players here). There are obviously a number of double elimination formats we'd need to choose between, but all of them seem to have waiting weeks at some point for players doing well.

[mith]

Now that it turns out it takes 4 or 5 weeks longer I don't like double elimination all that much anymore.

I mean, we're talking about 4 or 5 extra weeks for a handful of players, all of whom would probably be excited to still have a shot.

People already offered to organize a voluntary losers bracket if the actual tournament is Single Elimination anyway, so if you really want to play on you can do that regardless.

The "problem" with the voluntary losers' bracket (and I was the one who offered to organized), is that nowhere near all the players will participate. In 2012, we only had around a quarter of the players join; better than nothing, but it misses the mark of having all the best players involved. Another problem (no quotes this time) is that since not all the players participate, it's a bit of a mess to organize. It's much cleaner with even numbers.

Double elimination (or Swiss) also gives another chance to whoever gets stuck playing Stef early. (Or any time, really; I made the losers bracket final after getting knocked out by Stef.)

I don't know if you're hoping to win or if you're just hoping to play more matches.
if your're hoping to play more matches -> that can also be accomplished with the voluntarily losers bracket.
if you're hoping to win -> The chance that the best player wins in double elimination is a lot higher then the chance that person wins in single elimination (still not very high but ok). And therefore the chance that an outsider wins single elimination is a lot higher then the chance an outsider wins double elimination.

I haven't played competitively in a couple years, and I barely know some of the cards. I'm certainly not expecting to win the thing myself, whatever format we use. My point was simply that some players are going to get knocked out early by the strongest players, and might want to play more matches while still having something on the line (even if just it's a .0002% chance of winning the tournament). Likewise, some really strong players are going to be upset early, and might want to have a chance to make a comeback run in the losers' bracket. More matches can be accomplished with the voluntary losers' bracket, but not as effectively (for the reasons above). It also loses something in not being an official extension of the winners' bracket.

...players who aren't playing frequently at the time of signups, it's very easy to end up in a situation where a player is woefully underseeded...

Unlike the old Isotropic leaderboard, your rating on the current Isotropish leaderboard does not degenerate over time.

Which is great, if you have a current Isotropish rating. (Ok, I'm sure there aren't that many players who would join in on the tournament who haven't been playing at all on Goko. Good to know about the rating.)

Double elimination doesn't actually have a final match. There is a match that could be the finals, but if the player that is at that point unbeaten loses it you need a rebound final.

This matters if there's a design challenge I guess? But there are ways around that (the simplest being: play the second match on random, immediately if possible).

While the entire tournament takes 12 or 13 weeks, the player that wins everything still only plays 8 matches (assuming 256 players here). There are obviously a number of double elimination formats we'd need to choose between, but all of them seem to have waiting weeks at some point for players doing well.

Yes, the longer format has off weeks for the winners every round; the shorter format has three off weeks but only for one player (the winners bracket winner).

[drsteelhammer]

There doesn't have to be a second final- other games play just one final with a lead for the participant coming from the winner bracket. For examble a bo5 with a 1-0 lead which could be adopted to a bo8 with a 2-0 lead for dominion

[Hugovj]

There doesn't have to be a second final- other games play just one final with a lead for the participant coming from the winner bracket. For examble a bo5 with a 1-0 lead which could be adopted to a bo8 with a 2-0 lead for dominion

Yeah, either that OR we just do it simple and do single elimination.

[Monsieur X]

Well, i understand you propose this voting Stef.

I just hope many people would understand this tournament was the big one, with lot of new players, "low-level" players, and i think the structure (easy to understand and very exciting) helped to his success. There was 3 years without this tournament! Come on guys do not substitute it with a gokodom.

Think about players like Lorhedgie (Level 15 ) who has his glory moment to be the killer of Marin (sorry Marin to remember that!) and go to smei-finals of division in the last gokodom. Less funny to be the guy who put Marin in "second chance"
In which tournament a guy who is level 15 has a moment of glory? (i except DG when he's in hibernation of dominion playing!!)

[-Stef-]

The voting just closed. 54 people voted; 28 in favor of single elimination versus 26 in favor of double elimination.

I'm really glad single elim won, and this vote still feels weird to me. I think for many voters their answer was not so much about the tournament structure, but more about "more dominion" versus "less dominion". I can't really know for sure, but I think the last episode of this tournament was simply too long ago, and if another voting option would have been "let's do two single elimination tournaments" that one would have won. Also a bit strange to see is that there is a pretty strong correlation between player skill and voting in favor of single elimination. This implies a lot of people tried to reduce their own chance of winning the tournament.

I'm mostly sorry that I didn't manage to get the implications of the two different structures cleared up beforehand. The majority of players will actually get to play more dominion with single elimination. Their path in this tournament will be approximately 1.5 week shorter, but the difference in the break in the league is much more then that.

Anyway, the voting for the starting date closes tomorrow. That one is equally close now but a lot less exciting (at least as far as I'm concerned).