Print

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

[Kirian]

With the IsoDom 4 semifinals about to start, no sign of MMM, and some earlier discussion, I think it's time to discuss Tournament number 5.  Here's what I'm thinking:

1.  No 'twists' this time around, mainly because with the uncertainty about when the new official app will appear and how it will run, I don't want to add additional constraints.

2.  Swiss-system tournament, with N rounds of Swiss in best-of X format, followed by 3 rounds of single-elimination for the top 8 in best-of-X+2 format.  (I'm thinking of X=5 here)

This is a compromise tournament; it ensures everyone will have the chance to play every round, gives people a chance to play outside a small group, and gives a reasonable chance for comebacks.  This comes at the expense of not being able to play "forward" in the tournament like we could this last tournament.  However, it also gives us a way to easily deal with dropouts; someone who doesn't play their round gets dropped from the tournament immediately.

Any thoughts/suggestions/etc. appreciated.

[O]

Swiss pairings will go by rounds won (IE 4-1 is equivalent to 3-2 for a round) or games won?

[Titandrake]

I'd think, rounds won, games won as tiebreaker.

[yuma]

I would be interested in the Swiss format. I don't think we should be concerned about the pending end of Isotropic. These tournaments are for fun and bragging rights. If one gets cut off in the middle it isn't like we lose anything by it.

[Fabian]

tiebreaker in a swiss tournament?!?!? In before WW trolling.

I'd think this would suffer from the same problem the last tournament suffered from, namely that people who lose ~2 matches early will lose interest and disappear. I suppose it's not a very big deal since they'll be at the bottom of the standings and won't really affect the end results too much though?

[Titandrake]

Isn't the answer to that is to add a drop option if you don't want to keep playing? I think people are more likely to not disappear if they have the option of leaving, rather than having to play through all the rounds regardless.

Edit: Wait, yeah idk what I meant by tiebreaker. I think I meant tiebreaker for the top 8.

[Geronimoo]

For tiebreaker just use "opponent win match%" (the player who played the toughest opponents advances)

[WanderingWinder]

tiebreaker in a swiss tournament?!?!? In before WW trolling.

Trolling?
I don't see any problem with talking tie-breakers in a swiss event though. Every swiss I've played in has them.

[Kirian]

tiebreaker in a swiss tournament?!?!? In before WW trolling.

I'd think this would suffer from the same problem the last tournament suffered from, namely that people who lose ~2 matches early will lose interest and disappear. I suppose it's not a very big deal since they'll be at the bottom of the standings and won't really affect the end results too much though?

Indeed.  Because you have to have results before the following week's matches are made, someone who disappears doesn't get a second chance.  I just assume the number of entrants will drop off over the course of a few weeks.

The people who beat the drops in earlier rounds get an effective bye.

As far as tie-breaking, Challonge uses the Buchholz system.  This is very close to what USCF uses for its first tiebreaker.  If we have to break a tie a second time (unlikely), I'll hand-calculate further using USCF rules.

I'm thinking we should consider multiple divisions as well, by rating, if enough people sign up and there are obvious cutoffs.

[Geronimoo]

Award byes to the top seeds instead of multiple divisions if a lot of people enter?

[WanderingWinder]

Award byes to the top seeds instead of multiple divisions if a lot of people enter?

In a swiss, there's no need for more than 1 bye in any given round, and this is traditionally given to the lowest ranked person who is yet to get a bye...

[Geronimoo]

Award byes to the top seeds instead of multiple divisions if a lot of people enter?

In a swiss, there's no need for more than 1 bye in any given round, and this is traditionally given to the lowest ranked person who is yet to get a bye...

I was thinking along the lines of Magic Grand Prix tournaments which have 1000-3000 players. Up to 3 byes are awarded to the pro players in the first rounds to make sure they have a decent chance to reach the finals.

[Fabian]

The Magic Grand Prix bye system is like, barely without exaggerating, the worst thing thought up in the history of all things, though.

[Geronimoo]

The Grand Prix Magic bye system is like, barely without exaggerating, the worst thing thought up in the history of all things, though.

Please elaborate?

[Fabian]

Well it's just an awful way of ensuring super unfair competition. It's up there with how the top16 in the world rankings in snooker get auto-byes up until the round of 32 in all ranking tournaments (this is actually worse still, to be fair).

I mean, if you think it's a good thing to give the best players a huge huge boost to their winning chances before the tournament begins, I have no specific counter arguments I guess. I just can't imagine why anyone who isn't a tournament promoter (who wants "name players" to do well to increase the popularity of the sport) or one of the players who benefits and makes huge money off the system (Magic pros, top16 snooker players) would think that.

[Kirian]

I was thinking along the lines of Magic Grand Prix tournaments which have 1000-3000 players. Up to 3 byes are awarded to the pro players in the first rounds to make sure they have a decent chance to reach the finals.

No, just, no.  Everyone gets to work for their position on the ladder.  In fact, I plan on not seeding the tournament for this very reason.  While seeding is very important in an elimination tournament, it's unneeded in a Swiss tournament, and can often skew the results by giving the top players a bonus win chance.

[blueblimp]

About twists, what would you think about using something like ednever's method for generating kingdoms? (Assume for the moment that a tool is available to generate these automatically.) I don't know in particular whether ednever's method works well, but it could be adjusted between rounds to improve it.

Since any tool to do this would tell you exactly which cards go in the kingdom, it should work fine with the official app.

[WanderingWinder]

About twists, what would you think about using something like ednever's method for generating kingdoms? (Assume for the moment that a tool is available to generate these automatically.) I don't know in particular whether ednever's method works well, but it could be adjusted between rounds to improve it.

Since any tool to do this would tell you exactly which cards go in the kingdom, it should work fine with the official app.

Two things. One, I just really like random random. Two... why do you assume that it should work fine with the official app? We have NO IDEA what that thing can do. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that you can specify kingdoms, but... do we really know that you can?

[greatexpectations]

i had actually been thinking of trying to organize a smaller (16/32) tournament for players lvl 25 (or 20?) or less.  a swiss tournament seems like it would handle the one and done aspect many lower levels might face, but at the same time it might take a bit longer to complete. 

anyone have any opinions on this?  would there be enough interest?  would it take away from other tournaments or cause too much clutter? 

[O]

Award byes to the top seeds instead of multiple divisions if a lot of people enter?

In a swiss, there's no need for more than 1 bye in any given round, and this is traditionally given to the lowest ranked person who is yet to get a bye...

I was thinking along the lines of Magic Grand Prix tournaments which have 1000-3000 players. Up to 3 byes are awarded to the pro players in the first rounds to make sure they have a decent chance to reach the finals.

That sounds like an obnoxious rule made from an organization that probably caters to seeing High-profile matchups.

It's not how good of a player you are historically. It's how good of a player you are in that tournament. Yes luck plays a factor, we just have to deal with it.

I'd go with the Swiss/Chess system that WW said: Byes go to lowest scoring (tiebreaker is lowest ranked) player who hasn't had a bye yet.

[jsh357]

i had actually been thinking of trying to organize a smaller (16/32) tournament for players lvl 25 (or 20?) or less.  a swiss tournament seems like it would handle the one and done aspect many lower levels might face, but at the same time it might take a bit longer to complete. 

anyone have any opinions on this?  would there be enough interest?  would it take away from other tournaments or cause too much clutter?

I'd be down for 30 or less

Edit: Scratch that, hit level 31.  One day I will be king of the mountain somewhere!!!