Two Format Changes

[imrahil327]

Yes, that is why they receive the benefit that Paul mentioned. If they'd played better ENOUGH to be guaranteed, they wouldn't have to be playing in the play-in.

[gogolen]

just doing the eyeball test:


A- Pistone, Matt Carulli, PMJ, Wadden, Casey, Throdo, Emil, Olson
B- Sokol, Jellison, bye, Mack, Gianetti, Cal, Tacobill, Mitch
C- Vince, Chris Kelly, BFred, Jake, PMJ, Reid, Chu, Brentson
D- Bastian, Gogolen, Pistone, Keith, Barry, Chu, Turner, Chris Kelly


you can't really control getting a bye, and each of these people played some top-notch opponents, so to come away with 6 wins is still pretty impressive.

[WiseMarsellus]

obviously d is the strongest player and best looking of the four

[Paul McPherson]

just doing the eyeball test:


A- Pistone, Matt Carulli, PMJ, Wadden, Casey, Throdo, Emil, Olson
B- Sokol, Jellison, bye, Mack, Gianetti, Cal, Tacobill, Mitch
C- Vince, Chris Kelly, BFred, Jake, PMJ, Reid, Chu, Brentson
D- Bastian, Gogolen, Pistone, Keith, Barry, Chu, Turner, Chris Kelly


you can't really control getting a bye, and each of these people played some top-notch opponents, so to come away with 6 wins is still pretty impressive.

I feel pretty confident that most players would choose route B - I'd agree that you can't control the bye in Round 1 (games 1 and 2) but getting it beyond that is your own fault. This is why the play in game is important though - if player C believes that player B has had an easier route then they will have to beat them in the play in game.

[Paul McPherson]

obviously d is the strongest player and best looking of the four

Does he look like Danny Rand?

[allstarz97]

just doing the eyeball test:


A- Pistone, Matt Carulli, PMJ, Wadden, Casey, Throdo, Emil, Olson
B- Sokol, Jellison, bye, Mack, Gianetti, Cal, Tacobill, Mitch
C- Vince, Chris Kelly, BFred, Jake, PMJ, Reid, Chu, Brentson
D- Bastian, Gogolen, Pistone, Keith, Barry, Chu, Turner, Chris Kelly


you can't really control getting a bye, and each of these people played some top-notch opponents, so to come away with 6 wins is still pretty impressive.

One of those is not like the others.

[chriskelly]

just doing the eyeball test:


A- Pistone, Matt Carulli, PMJ, Wadden, Casey, Throdo, Emil, Olson
B- Sokol, Jellison, bye, Mack, Gianetti, Cal, Tacobill, Mitch
C- Vince, Chris Kelly, BFred, Jake, PMJ, Reid, Chu, Brentson
D- Bastian, Gogolen, Pistone, Keith, Barry, Chu, Turner, Chris Kelly


you can't really control getting a bye, and each of these people played some top-notch opponents, so to come away with 6 wins is still pretty impressive.

I feel pretty confident that most players would choose route B - I'd agree that you can't control the bye in Round 1 (games 1 and 2) but getting it beyond that is your own fault. This is why the play in game is important though - if player C believes that player B has had an easier route then they will have to beat them in the play in game.

Respectfully, I agree with your points (path B is the easiest and getting the bye after the first round is your own fault), but I don’t follow your logic in how you arrive to your conclusion. If player C believed player B had an easier route then why would they have to beat them in the play in game to show that when the tournament software already keeps track of it?

All the play in game did was give players who had a considerably easier path to their 6 wins the chance to knock off someone who was playing better players most of the tournament in the smallest sample size possible (using half of the cards they had to bring at the tournament).

[Hunter]

I only ever missed the Day 3 cut twice. If I recall correctly, I took 10th place and 11th place in those years, and both times, there were one or more players in the Top 8 who had the same win-loss record that I did.

But while I'm certain a SoS tiebreaker would have gotten me into the Top 8 in one of those years, it hadn't started being used yet. Now that it IS used...use it.

No events have more than 8 games of Swiss, right? There is no event where the SoS tiebreaker is MORE reliable than it is at the World Championship. 6-2 sounds appealing, as the arbitrary cutoff point at which every player "earns a shot." But that cutoff point IS still arbitrary.

All the "play in games" ended up doing in this instance was lengthening Day 2. But any other result from those games would have been less desirable. Again, there is no event at which the existing tiebreaker system is going to be more reliable. So I think that system should be allowed to do its work.

[imrahil327]

I think the issue is that you're in the vast minority in believing there is any path to 6 wins at a Star Wars major these days that's "considerably easier" enough to make that distinction worthwhile. Also, holistically speaking, 8 games isn't an enormous sample size difference than 1 game. But we don't have weeks to find out who the best Star Wars player is.

[darkjediknight11]

Pretty sure player B would disagree with you

[karrde225]

I was really grateful for the chance to sneak into the top 8 this year, despite my initial reaction being negative to the play-in game. But I really feel like Tom or Cellucci would have every right to be like "damn, I just made top 8, but my grueling day still isn't over?" What this boils down to is that it's great for the 9-10 finishers and sucks for the 7-8 finishers.

My initial reaction to the play-in format was negative, mainly because you either break up playgroups going out to dinner, doing Day 3 prep, etc, or make the rest of them wait on you while you play the 9th game (major props to the Pittsburgh crew who waited it out for me).

Honest question - how much of the post-day 2 prizes/wrap up went on while the play-in games were being played? If it was a half hour or more of overlap there, then I don't feel like it would ultimately add too much time to Day 2.

[spideyguy0]

One thing I'll say, as a participant who wasn't involved in either the play-in-game, or Day 3, was that it was kind of cool to wrap up your day, and then have the option to relax and watch a couple games of high-stakes, high-level SWCCG. I know a lot of people may not want to look at a Star Wars card after playing for 10 hours, but I found it therapeutic to just be able to sit back and watch and be entertained for a bit.

[karrde225]

It put better players at risk of not making it by fluke loses to inferior players in an unscheduled half of a round.

It was like the wild card game in baseball.... except you only play half the game.

Another way to look at this is that it is like playing the wild card game in baseball...except that you play 1/8 of a season.

[chriskelly]

Sure, so long as that 1/8 of a season is one-and-done and you declare which half of your players you will use before you know who you play (even if you’re the 3rd best team when 8 make the play offs)

[imrahil327]

Sure, so long as that 1/8 of a season is one-and-done and you declare which half of your players you will use before you know who you play (even if you’re the 3rd best team when 8 make the play offs)

This seems like a fictional scenario where there are that many play-in games...

[arebelspy]

You don't control your SOS. Just your wins.

The player who won 6 with a better SOS vs another player who won 6 did deserve it more--they played better players.

But that doesn't mean the other player with 6 wins doesn't deserve it, too. They both won 6 games.

I think Justin Carrulli, going 6-2, deserved a shot at day 3, even if his SOS placed him on the bubble.

Now, you could say he doesn't deserve to be in, because he didn't have a better SOS, but that's what the play-in game determines. If he wins, he obviously DOES deserve to be in. If he loses, he doesn't.

The player with the better SOS "deserves" it slightly more because they played better players, so why not give them the huge advantage of picking their favorite deck (through game 7)? Then they, with that advantage, prove they deserve the slot over the lower SOS player via the prove it game.

I think it's a fantastic thing for fairness.

[chriskelly]

It’s so subjective to say it’s more fair.

I didn’t think it was unfair Phil got in over me last year and we were literally tied on sos. We have tie breakers to break ties. I was bummed, but didn’t feel it wasn’t fair.

I think it’d be more unfair to force someone who would normally make it risk losing it to someone who back doored.

But just my opinion.

[arebelspy]

Sure, it's all opinions. I respect that you view it as more unfair the other way.

My view is someone with a high SOS having to do a one game play in versus another player with the same number of wins, and getting the huge advantage of choosing sides, doesn't deserve to be in over that other player (who now has more wins than them after beating them).

[marines28]

12.6

well that would be only 18.2% of the players in the tournament, so that's not very conclusive.

That made me laugh.

[marines28]

I love the play in, and pretty much everyone I talked to think it was a good idea.

Very "College Football Playoff-y" and that is just fine. Love the competition, "get in & win" mentality, and the scrapiness.


Now, if only the Superbowl were 2 out of 3 then Brady wins EVERY year.