Print

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

[Kirian]

So, the official qualifier for nationals runs from this Sunday until next Saturday, and beyond for semis and finals.  Understanding that some people may be only able to play in the tournament or make their IsoDom match, and considering which of these is more important, I've made the following decision:

In order to allow competitors to better play in the important tournament, IsoDom deadlines are suspended until after the DS qualifier is finished.  Alas, because that qualifier runs weekend to weekend, I feel it necessary to postpone by two weeks.  That means that second round results will not be due until 09 July shudder.  If people do finish their matches, the following week's pairings will be posted anyway by Challonge.  Feel free to continue to play if you have the free time and the pairing is available.

In the case that, somehow, everyone finishes by this Sunday anyway, we'll go ahead and make 09 July the Round 3 deadline--but frankly I don't see that as likely.

[WanderingWinder]

So, I'm confused. It looks to me like Challonge now thinks this is three separate tournaments, and basically:
the highest ranked peeps are in A, followed by B, followed by C. But most importantly, people in A can only play people in A, people in B can only play people in B, and people in C can only lay people in C. But I'm guessing this isn't what you're intending? Am I reading it wrong?

[Kirian]

So, I'm confused. It looks to me like Challonge now thinks this is three separate tournaments, and basically:
the highest ranked peeps are in A, followed by B, followed by C. But most importantly, people in A can only play people in A, people in B can only play people in B, and people in C can only lay people in C. But I'm guessing this isn't what you're intending? Am I reading it wrong?

That is exactly correct, and it what was intended from the start if there were >48 players.  In other words, like a large chess tournament, we're running three separate mini-tournaments.  This allows lower-ranked players to play entirely against lower-ranked players, which decreases the chance of dropouts, and creates an interesting tournament for everyone.  It also means that five rounds, rather than seven, of Swiss are sufficient.

The alternative would be that all the high-ranked players (likely) win their early matches, with a very high chance that after three rounds, the tournament would have segregated itself in nearly the same manner anyway.  But that means the lower-ranked players may have little interest in continuing... leading to lots of likely dropouts.  Not a good thing!

Instead, we have one bracket full of level 38+ players (at time of inception), one of 26-37s, and one of 25 and under.  This makes each bracket, especially the top two, much more interesting, by pitting players of quite near skill levels together.

[ednever]

I didn't realize that either.

Thanks for organizing Kirian, but I have to admit I'm disappointed. What I've really enjoyed about tournaments is playing in games with higher ranking players (and really paying attention in a way that I don't in casual games)

As a "level 37" it now looks like my most challenging games of the week will generally be my non-tournament games. And that the best I can hope for is "champion of the B-league"

It is what it is, but if there is any way to merge the "leagues" it would get my very strong up vote.


When I started in the first isodom I was level 26. It was only through getting my ass handed to me by people like O and dghunter in that tournament that I got to where I am now.

If people only want to play people at their own levels, can't try do that normally on iso, without tournaments?

Ed

[Qvist]

I didn't realize that either.

Thanks for organizing Kirian, but I have to admit I'm disappointed. What I've really enjoyed about tournaments is playing in games with higher ranking players (and really paying attention in a way that I don't in casual games)

As a "level 37" it now looks like my most challenging games of the week will generally be my non-tournament games. And that the best I can hope for is "champion of the B-league"

It is what it is, but if there is any way to merge the "leagues" it would get my very strong up vote.


When I started in the first isodom I was level 26. It was only through getting my ass handed to me by people like O and dghunter in that tournament that I got to where I am now.

If people only want to play people at their own levels, can't try do that normally on iso, without tournaments?

Ed

I didn't realize that either and totally agree with ednever. Like I described in the other thread, normally I just play and try experimental strategies and really don't care about winning (or: I care less). I like playing tournaments because it's the kind of environment I need to play competitively. Random games on isotropic don't motivate me enough.

[greatexpectations]

either you are disappointed or someone else is.  it just isn't possible to please everyone in organizing a tournament like this, as Kirian described in his own post.

we all have the option of dropping out, organizing our own tournament, or scheduling competitive sets with other high ranked players on our own time.'

ednever you can still take your tournament seriously. it is frustrating to see you so casually dismiss the rest of us in your bracket. players in the 30's can still be solid players. just look at the level 28 RisingJaguar at the start of the DS.com tournament. and for that matter my level has been high enough to qualify for that top bracket at times, but i've dropped some due to inactivity.  id like to think i would be a formidable opponent for you.

[jsh357]

Agree w/greatexpectations

I actually prefer the tournament to be organized this way (Blowouts are boring and this reduces the chance of one; or maybe I'm just saying that because it's happened to me in all but one Iso tournament I've entered...) though I may be in the minority. 

And also for the record, I lost my first match to someone 7 levels below me (I was l36) so don't claim to be the big fish until you've eaten all the minnows.

[zxcvbn2]

I don't mean to take this argument further, as well, but I would like to say that if you didn't want the tournament set up this way you probably should've read the original post more carefully and asked about it in the sign-up thread. At this point, it doesn't matter how disappointed you are in the format, it can always be set up differently in future tournaments. A round in really isn't the time to argue about format.

[WanderingWinder]

I don't mean to take this argument further, as well, but I would like to say that if you didn't want the tournament set up this way you probably should've read the original post more carefully and asked about it in the sign-up thread. At this point, it doesn't matter how disappointed you are in the format, it can always be set up differently in future tournaments. A round in really isn't the time to argue about format.

To be fair, this three bracket structure wasn't hinted at until 8th June, explained in much detail at all until 9th June, and the tournament started on... 9th June. Whereas the signups started on... 25th May. There also wasn't any discussion of the new format. I don't know that these people really saw the change, which happened after they signed up, and really basically no evidence that people liked or agreed with the decision.
Now, to be fair to the other side, there had been a good deal of kicking around the idea of having two tournaments rather than just one if enough people signed up.
Finally, a comment about cutoffs seeming arbitrary, so dropping them, read to ME as if Kirian was implying there would just be one tournament. Which, together with the quickness of the posting of the format to posting the tourney start, (and perhaps me not being in the tournament) led to me not realizing this stuff until this morning. I probably would have asked when I saw the brackets prior to the first round, were I playing.

[ednever]

Let me jump back in before I inadvertently offend anyone.

A few things:

(1) I think Kirian did a great job on the last iso tournament
(2) I think Kirian has done a great job so far in this tournament (in the face of a lot of crowd 'feedback')
(3) I think Kirian will do a great job for the rest of this tournament

Organizing these things is a lot of (unpaid) work and I absolutely support any decision Kirian makes. He can be absolute dictator taking zero feedback from everyone and I will support him 100%.


Second:

(1) I have absolutely no intention of putting down in any way shape or form someone based on their level on isotropic
(2) Furthermore, I won't even question someone's "Dominion playing ability" based on their level on isotrpoic (I've been beaten handily by people ranked 25+ below me, and from time to time when i was lower level I've beated those ranked 25+ above me - sometimes luck, but sometimes because I played better)
(3) As I've said before I got a LOT better playing these tournaments. A lot of high-ranked people under estimated me (I jumped 3 levels in the one-day tournament if I remember right). How could I ever think 'poorly' of a level 26 (or 31 or whatever) when I was level 26 two months ago.


Finally,

(1) If nothing changes I have no doubt I will enjoy this tournament - just as when I play on isotropic (way way too much) I enjoy almost all of my games where the other player is not offensive.
(2) I would be willing to bet right now that the highest ranked player (on isotropic) will NOT be the winner of the tournament in each bracket (don't ask me to predict who will win, but odds are that the top player going in will not), and I totally expect to lose (many times) to players lower ranked than I am


Which brings me to (I guess the last part was not 'finally'),

(1) I just wanted to make sure Kirian had my opinion - to do with as he pleases - as I don't believe it was clear this was the model (It wasn't to me. It wasn't to WW. It wasn't to Qvist.)

(2) I understand not everyone will be happy (or rather 'perfectly content. I think we can all be happy. At least until they take away our logs )

(3) I seem to remember in the tournament planning there was a discussion about whether players would get preferential treatment in the tournament depending on their rank (i.e., top players would get extra 'pre-wins' to account for some of the randomness of earlier rounds - I think there was a precedent in chess tournaments if I remember correctly). I think the community came out strongly against it (including Kirian).

It looks like, while that was not done 'within groups', it was done 'between groups'. As WW said, it appears that a player in A who loses all of their games comes out 'ahead' of a player in B or C who wins all of their games.

A suggestion (for Kirian to run with or ignore or whatever) would be to do something like this:
- Treat every player in A as having won two games before the start of the tournament
- Treat every player in B as having won one game and lost one game before the start of the tournament
- Treat every player in C as having lost two games before the start of the tournament

Then the players that start winning can move up the tiers and the players that start losing can move down the tiers.

Maybe a terrible idea, but its the best I have right now.

Again, I will still be happy playing a level 2 in this tournament.  And I appreciate and support everything Kirian does.

Ed

[blueblimp]

I'm alright with the tournament format because I mostly see these tournaments as an opportunity for series play. That said, I agree with ednever that it's not great to be among the highest ranks of group B, because you pretty much can only underperform your ranking, and even if you win group B, it doesn't really mean anything.

[Lekkit]

To be honest, I'm just happy there's some organized play. I think it's fun not just sitting around in the lobby waiting for automatch games.

Also, If we don't try any new tournament formats, how are we supposed to know if they work or not?

@ednever: The thing with seeded byes for the first rounds of a tournament like this is that if your'e ranked number 1, you'd get to sit out the first three (or however many byes you get) rounds and not play games. I guess a lot of people wouldn't want that since these tournaments are mainly organized casual tournaments. I guess it would be different for, say, DS Championship 2012.

[ednever]

@ednever: The thing with seeded byes for the first rounds of a tournament like this is that if your'e ranked number 1, you'd get to sit out the first three (or however many byes you get) rounds and not play games. I guess a lot of people wouldn't want that since these tournaments are mainly organized casual tournaments. I guess it would be different for, say, DS Championship 2012.

Just to clarify my suggestion (Again - it might be a terrible suggestion, but so it's understood):
I'm suggestion effectively EVERYONE sits out the first two rounds of the tournament (i.e., 'virtual rounds')

In those first two rounds everyone in group A gets 2 wins, group B 1 win and Group C 0 wins.

The result would be (I think) the seedings we see see at the start of the current tournament, but would allow for people to move up and down across the entire field.

Ed

[Lekkit]

That would mean that a lower seeded player cannot beat a higher seeded player even if they both win all their games. That seems pretty terrible to me.

[ednever]

They already can't.

[zxcvbn2]

To clarify about not understanding his original intentions, this is what it said in the original instructions:

"If there is enough interest (48 players or more), two separate tournaments will be run, split by rating, with two separate elimination rounds; the players in separate brackets will not play each other." (emphasis mine)

Now, splitting into three different brackets, as opposed to only two, WAS something that wasn't brought up until just before the tournament started, but it was pretty clear it was going to be a segregated tournament by rank for quite a while.

[-Stef-]

I like the format of this tournament very much as is.

I don't like playing games against someone 20 levels below me, where I sort of "have to win". I can't imagine the other player enjoying it very much either (unless, of course, he wins )

I've played in many many other tournaments (non-Dominion, but some other game or sport) and they were almost without exception set up like this. Based on some ranking or based on previous tournaments, everyone was seeded in a 'division'. The highest attainable goal was winning your division. Especially with sports I was always grateful for that, because there's just no fun in a beating for either player.

Maybe that's less true for dominion, because a player 20 levels lower still has a reasonable chance of winning a game. Winning a match seems unlikely though.

... it's not great to be among the highest ranks of group B, because you pretty much can only underperform your ranking, and even if you win group B, it doesn't really mean anything.

I don't agree here. I was always happy if I won my division, and it almost never was the top one (especially with sports). If nothing else - it implied that I was allowed to join a level higher next tournament. Maybe we can do something similar here?

If you end up in the top 3 of B, you're allowed to join A next time, independent of your ranking by then
(same for C -> B)

(that is, assuming tournaments like this can continue...)

[Lekkit]

They already can't.

Then I guess I've missunderstood something. The tournament structure topic says there will be cut-offs. Will there be 3 differnt cut-offs; one for each bracket, or will there be just one; the top 8 players from all of the brackets? If the latter is true then it would be like group play with people who are about the same skill as you (I know this isn't entirely true, but it's at least more true than if all were mixed toghether in one group) and then the best players from each group would advance to the elimination bracket. That sounds really good to me.

[EDIT:] As it seems I cannot read properly the above is just a suggestion for a future tournament.

[Watno]

Im pretty sure the registration thread was syaing that people will be split according to ranking in the beginning. The only thing that was changed was that it'd be 3 groups instead of 2. If all players were in the same group, 5 rounds wouldnt be enough to get a decent 8-player cutoff i think (you wouldnt stand a chance if you lost one gameif my quick maths are right.)

[WanderingWinder]

Im pretty sure the registration thread was syaing that people will be split according to ranking in the beginning. The only thing that was changed was that it'd be 3 groups instead of 2. If all players were in the same group, 5 rounds wouldnt be enough to get a decent 8-player cutoff i think (you wouldnt stand a chance if you lost one gameif my quick maths are right.)

Even assuming you mean match rather than game, your maths are way wrong.
Assuming no ties, 64 person tourney:
After Round
1, 32 are 1-0, 32 are 0-1
2, 16 are 2-0, 32 are 1-1, 16 are 0-2
3, 8 are 3-0, 24 are 2-1, 24 are 1-2, 8 are 0-3
4, 4 are 4-0, 16 are 3-1, 24 are 2-2, 16 are 1-3, 4 are 0-4
5, 2 are 5-0, 10 are 4-1, 20 are 3-2, 20 are 2-3, 10 are 1-4, 4 are 0-2

So, you lose one, you no longer totally control your fate. But you have a very good chance of making it anyway. It's certainly a long way from 'not standing a chance'. Though this is right if you lose 2.
Alternatively, the problem you have here is, only a third of the people even have a chance of really winning the thing.

I'm not trying to say method A>method B, just trying to spread understanding of how things work.

[Watno]

oops, i think i assumed 128 players and failed powers cause i was always one round too far^^

[Fabian]

Just a quick note on the tournament format. Because of the way tie-breakers work in this tournament, losing in round 1 often does mean exactly what Watno is saying, that you're effectively out in a 64 player 5 round tournament. Losing in round 1 is a lot worse for your tie-breakers than losing round 5, as every subsequent round you'll be playing players whose records are worse on average than those who started out winning their first couple rounds and then lost round 4/5. This is a common problem/feature/annoyance in Magic tournaments too, where a similar tiebreaker system is used. You're definitely not theoretically out though after losing round 1, as the opponents you play in later rounds could theoretically end up with better records than the opponents of the guy who starts out 4-0 and losing round 5.

Personally, I'm happy with this tournament format, but I'm guessing I wouldn't be if I was in the B or C division, so I don't know if that means much.

[Kirian]

To be fair, this three bracket structure wasn't hinted at until 8th June, explained in much detail at all until 9th June, and the tournament started on... 9th June. Whereas the signups started on... 25th May.

• There will be a maximum of 32 players in the main bracket
• If there is enough interest (48 players or more), two separate tournaments will be run, split by rating, with two separate elimination rounds; the players in separate brackets will not play each other.

This was in my initial post in the signup thread, on 25 May.

More answers to come, wanted to get that one out of the way.

Edit:  And I see zxcvbn took care of that already for me.

--------

A few notes:

First, a tournament with 64 people couldn't reasonably last only five rounds; it would need to be a six-round Swiss tournament with probably a 16-player elimination round, adding another two weeks to the tournament.  Having multiple brackets like this is a reasonable compromise between only letting 32 people in, and still compressing the tournament to a reasonable span of time.

Second, while I understand that winning the B bracket isn't as, shall we say, prestigious as winning the A bracket, I think it's important to note that a player in the B bracket has a chance to win... well, something.  S/he will be able to claim a strong set of games versus people in the same bracket.  A level 25 would otherwise have almost no chance of winning a tournament where 40 people are higher-ranked, barring a crazy RisingJaguar situation--and consider that it's clear that was simply a case of seeding with poor information, given that RJ has now been #1 on the leaderboard at least once.

Third, I do think the "reverse" holds true, as it were, especially with multiple brackets.  The level 25 player has a much greater chance of a "comeback" when the bracket is from 25-35 than if it's 25 and up.  I don't think the top 4 or 8 are shoe-ins in any of the brackets as done here, but I think it's safe to suggest that 7 of the top 8 in a one-bracket tournament would have come from the top 20 players or so.

Finally, I want to thank people for keeping this thread nicely constructive criticism.   You can't please all of the people all of the time; hell, you can't even please most of the people most of the time.  But the complaints really have felt more like suggestions and ideas than "I'm going to quit in a huff!" style comments.

[Watno]

Hahm i can be right even when miscalculating^^.
The largest problem i see with this format is scheduling, since you cant postpone games without delaying the whole tournament. Also i think previous Isodoms had groups separated by region to make scheduling easier, which i think is a good idea.

[WanderingWinder]

To be fair, this three bracket structure wasn't hinted at until 8th June, explained in much detail at all until 9th June, and the tournament started on... 9th June. Whereas the signups started on... 25th May.

• There will be a maximum of 32 players in the main bracket
• If there is enough interest (48 players or more), two separate tournaments will be run, split by rating, with two separate elimination rounds; the players in separate brackets will not play each other.

This was in my initial post in the signup thread, on 25 May.

More answers to come, wanted to get that one out of the way.

TWO brackets. Three wasn't discussed until the 8th. And I at least get a pretty big tone difference. Your OP there seems more like 'oh, if we have too many, we've got to break it up, so that we can have a reasonable tournament for the number of rounds we're doing'. Which is fine. An then later it's 'oh, I think I want 3 groups for no given reason'. Which is not to say there is no reason. But you don't give one.
And in that post (reply 89), it seems very much to me that you're leaning toward two groups rather than three.
I stand by everything I said - I re-read that whole thread this morning before posting (well, not before the first reply here, but before anything else). Unfortunately,  you locked the thing (to be fair, the locking is unrelated to this issue - I'm not trying to say you had any nefarious reasons for locking it or anything like that), so now us normal-folk can't quote relevant passages without jumping a bunch of hoops.

[DG]

Maybe a new thread could be started for round 2 results.

[Kirian]

TWO brackets. Three wasn't discussed until the 8th.

True, though it didn't look like we were actually going to hit 64+ people until 07 June.

And I at least get a pretty big tone difference. Your OP there seems more like 'oh, if we have too many, we've got to break it up, so that we can have a reasonable tournament for the number of rounds we're doing'. Which is fine. An then later it's 'oh, I think I want 3 groups for no given reason'. Which is not to say there is no reason. But you don't give one.

While I don't give a direct reason, I do reference the discussion [between Fabian and O] about the pros and cons of larger vs. smaller brackets.  Essentially, I felt Fabian's argument was stronger.

Unfortunately,  you locked the thing (to be fair, the locking is unrelated to this issue - I'm not trying to say you had any nefarious reasons for locking it or anything like that), so now us normal-folk can't quote relevant passages without jumping a bunch of hoops.

I'll go ahead and unlock it, but I'm also going to fork this thread in a few minutes here.

[Mergus]

I think it's great that Kirian organises this. I'm sure he put a lot of thought into setting this up the way it is now and I think people should wait until it's over before judging it.

For my part, I think trying this format is great and it was clear for me that people would be divided into groups if there were many signups. I don't think it's appropriate to complain about the wording that was used in the original rules posting and making such a big thing out of it. This is something that someone organises in his free time and we don't pay for it.

[popsofctown]

Segregated tournaments is just fine.  Dominion is such a broad game to master I don't expect huge skill changes overnight, so players in lower divisions don't have a chance of winning the most prestigious division anyway.

And... either the ranks matter or they don't.  If they do matter, they are a good predictor suggesting you can't actually win in the division above you.  If they don't matter, then the people you play in your division are just the same as the ones in the other divisions.  Going into my second game councilroom said that I was 0-2 against my rank 34 opponent, although I apparently have a winning record against ehunt.  Whaddayaknow.

EDIT: Ok, on double check I'm tied.  Point stands though.

[bozzball]

I have never been in a Swiss-style tournament before, but I thought it meant that even if you lose, you get to play more games. I seem not to have an opponent. Is it knock out in the early rounds?

[Fabian]

There's probably an uneven number of players in your division, meaning one of the players at 0 points got a free win ("bye") this round.

[Kirian]

I have never been in a Swiss-style tournament before, but I thought it meant that even if you lose, you get to play more games. I seem not to have an opponent. Is it knock out in the early rounds?

Your opponent in round 1 was unable to contact you for your first round match, and posted about it in the missing opponents thread (stickied).  You never posted or PMd me to claim otherwise.  By the rules this constituted a forfeit and dropout.  You did not lose your first round; you never showed up.

(Your opponent's post has since been deleted, but was up for about four days before the end of the first round.)

[Young Nick]

On another note, how do you, Kirian, decide the pairings? For the first round is it completely random? For the second, is it random among those who won and those who lost? How do you decide which competitor who won their first round match up plays against which competitor who lost theirs? I ask because I noticed that my pool (B) has 22 people, so there had to be one second round match up between someone who was 1-0 and someone who was 0-1. That happened to be me. Am I at a disadvantage because of it?

Or does challone automatically do match-ups? I'd be pretty guh if I were at a disadvantage despite being 2-0.

[Kirian]

On another note, how do you, Kirian, decide the pairings? For the first round is it completely random? For the second, is it random among those who won and those who lost? How do you decide which competitor who won their first round match up plays against which competitor who lost theirs? I ask because I noticed that my pool (B) has 22 people, so there had to be one second round match up between someone who was 1-0 and someone who was 0-1. That happened to be me. Am I at a disadvantage because of it?

Or does challone automatically do match-ups? I'd be pretty guh if I were at a disadvantage despite being 2-0.

First round was random (within each bracket).  Challonge does the calculations for the remaining rounds based on what I believe is standard, which means using seeds (even though the initial seed was randomized).  Since you're the lowest seed in the bracket (after randomization), you're "lowest" within the winning group; thus you were paired with the "highest" of the losing group (pops, in this case, who was first in the randomized seeding).

This shouldn't put you at a disadvantage; we can't predict the final score for any of your opponents right now.  In any case, pairing calculations like this tend to try to do this as few times to a single person, so you should definitely be paired with another 2-0 player next time (assuming the other five 1-0 vs. 1-0 matches don't all end in ties).

Edit:  This should be easy since there are now 2 more 2-0 players in the B bracket.

[Young Nick]

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

[jsh357]

So I have been digging through these topics and given up finding my answer.  What happens after the initial 5 Swiss rounds?  The original post says the 'top 8' move on, but how will the top 8 be determined?

[Rabid]

The top eight players after the Swiss rounds will move into a single-elimination, seeded, three-round bracket.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2695.0

Is this 3 separate top 8's, one for each of A B C?
Or how about top X from A, top Y from B, top Z from C to make a combined champion?

[O]

The top eight players after the Swiss rounds will move into a single-elimination, seeded, three-round bracket.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2695.0

Is this 3 separate top 8's, one for each of A B C?
Or how about top X from A, top Y from B, top Z from C to make a combined champion?

I think separate is more fun games and consistent with other games Swiss systems.

[Jorbles]

The top eight players after the Swiss rounds will move into a single-elimination, seeded, three-round bracket.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2695.0

Is this 3 separate top 8's, one for each of A B C?
Or how about top X from A, top Y from B, top Z from C to make a combined champion?

I think separate is more fun games and consistent with other games Swiss systems.

I agree. Now that we're in this mode I think it's fine to keep the brackets separate. I'm getting more into it now that the tournament rules have had time to sink in.

[Kirian]

Indeed, the top-8 eliminations will also be from each bracket.  It's consistent with finding a "champion" in each bracket.

That means that even if you've lost two matches, you still have a shot at getting into the top 8 for your bracket.  Which may or may not have been an impetus for going to smaller brackets rather than larger...

[Obi Wan Bonogi]

Now that the Tournament lobby exists is there any thought of adjusting the rules to determine who plays first in the initial game?

I think that in the top 8 giving the higher seed the home-field advantage of first player in the first game is reasonable.

[DG]

I don't see any convincing reason to use seedings or rankings for first game advantage. Is there no option to have an entirely random start player for tournament play?

[andwilk]

Since the tournament lobby didn't appear until midway through this tournament, I wouldn't recommend changing the rules now.  However, first player advantage is statistically significant and therefore should be mitigated as much as possible in future tournaments.  For future IsoDoms, I'd recommend evening out who starts as first player throughout the tournament.

[WanderingWinder]

Now that the Tournament lobby exists is there any thought of adjusting the rules to determine who plays first in the initial game?

I think that in the top 8 giving the higher seed the home-field advantage of first player in the first game is reasonable.

I don't have a dog in this fight (this particular tournament), but I don't see any reason to give higher-seeded players advantage over lower-seeded ones, except maybe that they get to play the lower seeds. Otherwise, it doesn't seem fair, really.

Unless by higher seeded, you mean they've done better so far in the tournament? Which means I'm totally mis-reading you.

[blueblimp]

Since the tournament lobby didn't appear until midway through this tournament, I wouldn't recommend changing the rules now.  However, first player advantage is statistically significant and therefore should be mitigated as much as possible in future tournaments.  For future IsoDoms, I'd recommend evening out who starts as first player throughout the tournament.

I disagree, because right now I don't think there's ANY rule stating who plays first in any game of the Bo5. I've just been assuming it's the standard (random in the first game, loser goes first in subsequent games), but it would be good at least to codify that in the rules if that's really what's supposed to happen.

Edit: And FWIW, I'd like to see first player in Game 1 stated in the bracket and then enforced by the Tournament lobby (or even starting a game and resigning), because then the logs show the rule was followed. With isotropic-decided random, there's no way to verify that the other player has actually logged in fresh. I prefer random first player rather than doing it by seeding.

[RisingJaguar]

Now that the Tournament lobby exists is there any thought of adjusting the rules to determine who plays first in the initial game?

I think that in the top 8 giving the higher seed the home-field advantage of first player in the first game is reasonable.

I would love to see some sort of home-field advantage in the future!  It'll make dominion feel like a real sport!

[Obi Wan Bonogi]

Unless by higher seeded, you mean they've done better so far in the tournament? Which means I'm totally mis-reading you.

Yes.  That is how you get seeds.  The top 8 is usually a bracket with the best record out of the swiss rounds (#1 seed) playing the #8 seed etc.  Im not sure if the semi-finals are reseeded or not? 

I just don't see the reason to use unverifiable random select for first player now that a smoother option has presented itself. 

Though I understand that it came along mid-tournament and changing the structure now could be problematic.  That is why I only suggested changes to the top 8 protocol.  Down the road I think balancing first player advantage throughout the swiss rounds would desirable as well. 

[Kirian]

Interesting questions, and I'll certainly consider them.  Certainly in a Swiss system there's something to be said for codifying first player in each round anyway (cf. black vs. white in Chess tournaments).  And while we now have the ability on Iso, whether or not we will have it on FS is another question entirely.

I don't want to change rules in the middle of the tournament, though, and while certainly the rules don't specify starting player (they probably should have done), the assumption has been that starting player is random.

Whether or not a player should be given "home" advantage is a different question that should also be considered.

[DG]

I have no objection to qualification results from the group stage defining a seeding for the remainder of the tournament with a defined first player. You do get some minor issues to resolve such as - if the number 8 seed beats the number 1 seed do they inherit 'home' advantage or will they always be 'away'?

[WanderingWinder]

Unless by higher seeded, you mean they've done better so far in the tournament? Which means I'm totally mis-reading you.

Yes.  That is how you get seeds.  The top 8 is usually a bracket with the best record out of the swiss rounds (#1 seed) playing the #8 seed etc.  Im not sure if the semi-finals are reseeded or not? 

I just don't see the reason to use unverifiable random select for first player now that a smoother option has presented itself. 

Though I understand that it came along mid-tournament and changing the structure now could be problematic.  That is why I only suggested changes to the top 8 protocol.  Down the road I think balancing first player advantage throughout the swiss rounds would desirable as well. 

You say that like it's stupidly obvious. But you can just as easily get seeds from overall ranking, which they do in all the sports I can think of that have a similar ranking system - which are only chess and tennis, of course, but there you go.

[greatexpectations]

do we need another fork already?  i keep expecting matchup results in here and all i see is more arguments on what the formatting should be.

[WanderingWinder]

do we need another fork already?  i keep expecting matchup results in here and all i see is more arguments on what the formatting should be.

I don't know why people post the stuff in these rather than the discussion threads (now that those exist). I feel important to make my responses in the thread the posts were originally made in. But I assume they can get moved, rather than actually making another new thread.

[Obi Wan Bonogi]

You say that like it's stupidly obvious. But you can just as easily get seeds from overall ranking, which they do in all the sports I can think of that have a similar ranking system - which are only chess and tennis, of course, but there you go.

Sorry, felt obvious to me.  I have never made a top 8 in chess and didn't know that's how it was done, nor did I know swiss format tennis even existed.  Only swiss I am familiar with is Magic which was always seeded by performance that tournament, and similarly I was thinking of team sports like basketball and football which are seeded by that years record and the higher seed is awarded a slight edge in the elimination round(home field). 

I also apologize for clogging up the thread.

[theory]

I'll move all the stuff.

[WanderingWinder]

You say that like it's stupidly obvious. But you can just as easily get seeds from overall ranking, which they do in all the sports I can think of that have a similar ranking system - which are only chess and tennis, of course, but there you go.

Sorry, felt obvious to me.  I have never made a top 8 in chess and didn't know that's how it was done, nor did I know swiss format tennis even existed.  Only swiss I am familiar with is Magic which was always seeded by performance that tournament, and similarly I was thinking of team sports like basketball and football which are seeded by that years record and the higher seed is awarded a slight edge in the elimination round(home field). 

I also apologize for clogging up the thread.

Well, tennis doesn't have swisses, but it does have seeds. Okay, most often there aren't such things as 'top 8s' in chess tournaments, but there are again, most definitely seeds. In any rate, it was not at all clear to me that you were talking about the 'top 8' only here.
As for swisses in Chess... why do you think the swiss system was developed?

[Obi Wan Bonogi]

I knew swiss existed from Chess, I didn't know that the top 8 was seeded by rating.

[Kirian]

I'll move all the stuff.

Thanks.  Obviously I wasn't around to do so, but I'll do some clean-up if more is needed.

The final rounds aren't strictly necessary but they do give more of a "tournamenty" feel to this; after all, playing 5 Swiss rounds and calling it a night seems like not all that interesting.  Those final groups will be seeded based on Swiss rank.

[lespeutere]

Unless by higher seeded, you mean they've done better so far in the tournament? Which means I'm totally mis-reading you.

Yes.  That is how you get seeds.  The top 8 is usually a bracket with the best record out of the swiss rounds (#1 seed) playing the #8 seed etc.  Im not sure if the semi-finals are reseeded or not? 

I just don't see the reason to use unverifiable random select for first player now that a smoother option has presented itself. 

Though I understand that it came along mid-tournament and changing the structure now could be problematic.  That is why I only suggested changes to the top 8 protocol.  Down the road I think balancing first player advantage throughout the swiss rounds would desirable as well. 

You say that like it's stupidly obvious. But you can just as easily get seeds from overall ranking, which they do in all the sports I can think of that have a similar ranking system - which are only chess and tennis, of course, but there you go.

Well, for Tennis at least it's totally unrelated to any home field advantage. I've never seen Roger and Rafael flying to Mallorca or Basel, respectively, to play the Wimbledon final. ;-)
I read OWB's original posting like having first player advantage as a result of having performed better in the Swiss stage (, I'd say it was at most ambiguous). And this you can indeed find in major US sports such as basketball (well, regular season is not Swiss, but OKC played Mavericks in Oklahoma first, before moving to Texas) and ice hockey (not too familiar with football, not at all with baseball, but I guess it's run accordingly). Anyway, along with Kirian it's something considerable for future events but I wouldn't change it during the tournament.

[WanderingWinder]

Unless by higher seeded, you mean they've done better so far in the tournament? Which means I'm totally mis-reading you.

Yes.  That is how you get seeds.  The top 8 is usually a bracket with the best record out of the swiss rounds (#1 seed) playing the #8 seed etc.  Im not sure if the semi-finals are reseeded or not? 

I just don't see the reason to use unverifiable random select for first player now that a smoother option has presented itself. 

Though I understand that it came along mid-tournament and changing the structure now could be problematic.  That is why I only suggested changes to the top 8 protocol.  Down the road I think balancing first player advantage throughout the swiss rounds would desirable as well. 

You say that like it's stupidly obvious. But you can just as easily get seeds from overall ranking, which they do in all the sports I can think of that have a similar ranking system - which are only chess and tennis, of course, but there you go.

Well, for Tennis at least it's totally unrelated to any home field advantage. I've never seen Roger and Rafael flying to Mallorca or Basel, respectively, to play the Wimbledon final. ;-)
I read OWB's original posting like having first player advantage as a result of having performed better in the Swiss stage (, I'd say it was at most ambiguous). And this you can indeed find in major US sports such as basketball (well, regular season is not Swiss, but OKC played Mavericks in Oklahoma first, before moving to Texas) and ice hockey (not too familiar with football, not at all with baseball, but I guess it's run accordingly). Anyway, along with Kirian it's something considerable for future events but I wouldn't change it during the tournament.

To be clear and fair to OWB here, it's definitely plausible to read his post in the way he intended. I just don't think it was entirely clear - my mind went the other way, with the chess background I have.

[blueblimp]

There have been some instances of players dropping because of being out of top-8 contention. I feel this is missing the point of a Swiss-style tournament.

From Wikipedia's article (which seems pretty good):

Compared to a knockout tournament the Swiss system has the inherent advantage of not eliminating anyone.

In other words, the point of running Swiss in the first place is so that players can keep playing. Especially in this tournament, with no prizes, the main reason to play in the tournament is to have an opportunity to play series (which imo I find more fun than auto-match).

Another advantage that Wikipedia lists:

Another advantage compared to knockout tournaments is that the final ranking gives some indication of relative strength for all contestants, not just for the winner of the tournament.

So in my opinion, a player isn't really "eliminated" until they can't improve their position at all by winning, which hopefully doesn't happen too often.

[andwilk]

There have been some instances of players dropping because of being out of top-8 contention. I feel this is missing the point of a Swiss-style tournament.

From Wikipedia's article (which seems pretty good):

Compared to a knockout tournament the Swiss system has the inherent advantage of not eliminating anyone.

In other words, the point of running Swiss in the first place is so that players can keep playing. Especially in this tournament, with no prizes, the main reason to play in the tournament is to have an opportunity to play series (which imo I find more fun than auto-match).

Another advantage that Wikipedia lists:

Another advantage compared to knockout tournaments is that the final ranking gives some indication of relative strength for all contestants, not just for the winner of the tournament.

So in my opinion, a player isn't really "eliminated" until they can't improve their position at all by winning, which hopefully doesn't happen too often.

I agree.  I also think that is poor sportsmanship to drop only because you can't make the top-8.  Everyone knew what they were signing up for and Swiss tournaments are designed so that everyone plays out their games.

[Kirian]

Yeah, I suspected this was coming.   It does go a bit against the spirit of a Swiss tournament to drop out, but then again part of the reason I went with Swiss over Round Robin is that Swiss handles dropouts much better.  I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it bad sportsmanship, though; I can understand that some people find auto-match more interesting, or prefer not to schedule times for matches, even if the only prize is minor glory and not-so-fame.

However, I'll take this into account for the next tournament.  Nonetheless, there will be dropouts and I don't want people to feel obligated to stay after they are fully eliminated.  For this tournament (and future ones), I'm going to make some modifications to the tie-breaker system used by Challonge, though.

[Fabian]

"It does go a bit against the spirit of a Swiss tournament to drop out"

I couldn't disagree more strongly, but maybe that's because I come from a Magic background, where it's almost expected that you drop once you can't reach the top 8 (or whatever the goal is; in larger tournaments top 64 or top 50 or something might be the goal).

Actually, I could disagree more strongly, and that would be to calling it bad sportsmanship.

[blueblimp]

I want to clarify that I don't want to pick on anyone for dropping, because it's only a game, after all. I don't think there's anything wrong as the rules as-is, either. I just want to point out that the games aren't meaningless even once "eliminated" w.r.t. playoffs, and maybe that can encourage people to keep playing.

Maybe my perspective here comes from being in Bracket B, so in some sense I knew from the start that I can't make "the" top 8, since the "real" top 8 is in Bracket A.

[Kirian]

I've posted a full schedule of tiebreakers, as well as how we'll handle forfeits and byes, in a separate thread.

[Qvist]

So, as isotropic stays online a few days longer, we could try to end this tournament in time, right? I really like to play my final game. What is the deadline for the Quarterfinals? Only 6 of 12 games were played so far...

[Kirian]

So, as isotropic stays online a few days longer, we could try to end this tournament in time, right? I really like to play my final game. What is the deadline for the Quarterfinals? Only 6 of 12 games were played so far...

Yeah, my apologies for leaving things hanging a bit.  Between the impending end of Iso and being on vacation I didn't give much thought to things... until after Thursday of course.

Try to get your Qtrfinal matches by Saturday evening.

[Qvist]

So, as isotropic stays online a few days longer, we could try to end this tournament in time, right? I really like to play my final game. What is the deadline for the Quarterfinals? Only 6 of 12 games were played so far...

Yeah, my apologies for leaving things hanging a bit.  Between the impending end of Iso and being on vacation I didn't give much thought to things... until after Thursday of course.

Try to get your Qtrfinal matches by Saturday evening.

It's Monday now and the games DG vs. Jfrisch and Teproc vs. jmieden are still missing.
I don't want to annoy you all, but it would be great if we could finish this tournament before iso goes down, wouldn't it?

Edit: -Stef- vs- ycz6 is also missing

[Kirian]

So, as isotropic stays online a few days longer, we could try to end this tournament in time, right? I really like to play my final game. What is the deadline for the Quarterfinals? Only 6 of 12 games were played so far...

Yeah, my apologies for leaving things hanging a bit.  Between the impending end of Iso and being on vacation I didn't give much thought to things... until after Thursday of course.

Try to get your Qtrfinal matches by Saturday evening.

It's Monday now and the games DG vs. Jfrisch and Teproc vs. jmieden are still missing.
I don't want to annoy you all, but it would be great if we could finish this tournament before iso goes down, wouldn't it?

Edit: -Stef- vs- ycz6 is also missing

I've had PMs from several of these.  One is getting played tonight, one will be a forfeit and another will be a double forfeit if I don't hear tonight.