Two Format Changes

Morristown, NJ
karrde225
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 347
Joined: August 31st, 2003, 2:41 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by karrde225 »

chriskelly wrote: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)
Well, they sort of do that with respect to which pitchers throw the week leading up to the wild card game. If the division is on the line, you can pitch your ace on the last game of the season not knowing if you actually have a chance to win based on another team's result that day. Or you could rest them for the 1 game. I am a Pirates fan, I know all about this. :)

The 1/8th comment was actually more of an indictment on mlb's system. 162 game season coming down to 1 game is far more ridiculous than an 8 game day 2 coming down to 1 game.



mryellow
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 2252
Joined: February 17th, 2005, 11:20 am

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by mryellow »

imrahil327 wrote: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.
I guess I disagree with this. One player had a bye, which is much much more than a free win. It's also an hour to rest and get food while everyone else is grinding it out. I'm not familiar with SoS as much as everyone else reading this and I think it is factored in differently but the intangible benefit of having a free hour in the middle of a grueling marathon makes it a considerably easier route.
Image

User avatar
imrahil327
Tournament Advocate
Posts: 30730
Joined: July 3rd, 2006, 3:51 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by imrahil327 »

Fair enough, I suppose. I wasn’t specifically speaking to the examples given.
Image
Hunter wrote:Sebulba's W-L record is like...Always and 1. Tebow's is nowhere near that percentage.
allstarz97, about M:TG wrote:I feel like Michael Jordan playing baseball.

Greedo
Reflections Pack
Reflections Pack
Posts: 171
Joined: August 15th, 2003, 8:06 pm

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by Greedo »

karrde225 wrote: 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.
Wrong way to look at this IMO. As of now, there *is* no top 8 until every 6-2 player has had a shot at making it in on games played.

Look, SoS makes more decks viable than differential did for tournaments, but it's still just a tiebreaker method and there are many, many ways it is flawed. Playing a game of SWCCG is a much better tiebreaker method than SoS to decide the bottom rungs of the top 8 among everyone who earned their 6 wins (and that's what we're saying here: 6 wins is our cutoff. That gives you two games to lose to luck or bad matchups. Anything else, you clearly made mistakes; your fault. We love this game partly because luck is such a low factor, right?)

And really, people are complaining about playing SW after 10pm on a weekend? I know everyone's getting older but come on my American friends. Europeans aren't some hardened bunch who can just carry on til midnight/2am+ because we have super genes (Rasmus aside, but he's not making any top 8s with those * Gungans ;)). Remember: you don't have to play your playoff game if you don't want to, or fell outside the top 8 on SoS. Just concede to the guy above you! Simple. It's allowed, provided s/he's not bribing you.

Look, speaking as a guy who got 9th, 9th, and 10th at major tournaments (for another card game, the one we took SoS from) and missed out on a shot at $5000, $5000, and $40,0000 purely because of SoS - a tiebreaker subject to numerous variables many of which over I had no control - I would've played that extra game every time. And btw, that other game? It had more luck than ours does and more players. Corporate did what was best for corporate. This game is run by players and for a smaller community. We can do what's best for what we want: finding our champion. Not just *a* champion they can stick on marketing materials.

And on that note, congrats to Bastian! Now we shall see if one of our North American friends can replicate your success over here next year :saber:

arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16188
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: RE: Re: Two Format Changes

Post by arebelspy »

Greedo wrote:
karrde225 wrote: 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.
Wrong way to look at this IMO. As of now, there *is* no top 8 until every 6-2 player has had a shot at making it in on games played.
Agreed.

As far as the bye player, that's an unfortunate artifact of having an odd number.

What about Carrulli, who won 6 with no bye? He deserves a play-in, IMO.

And if you exclude anyone with a bye, someone who gets a round 1 bye then only gets to have one loss all day, rather than everyone else's two.

And if you say the person with the bye deserves to be in less, well, make them earn it... with a play-in game, where they are disadvantaged (via their opponent picking sides). If they win, they deserved to be in the top 8, IMO.

karrde225
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 347
Joined: August 31st, 2003, 2:41 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: RE: Re: Two Format Changes

Post by karrde225 »

arebelspy wrote:
Greedo wrote:
karrde225 wrote: 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.
Wrong way to look at this IMO. As of now, there *is* no top 8 until every 6-2 player has had a shot at making it in on games played.
Agreed.

As far as the bye player, that's an unfortunate artifact of having an odd number.

What about Carrulli, who won 6 with no bye? He deserves a play-in, IMO.

And if you exclude anyone with a bye, someone who gets a round 1 bye then only gets to have one loss all day, rather than everyone else's two.

And if you say the person with the bye deserves to be in less, well, make them earn it... with a play-in game, where they are disadvantaged (via their opponent picking sides). If they win, they deserved to be in the top 8, IMO.
So, just for clarity - I am the Carulli that won 6 with no bye. :)

I do feel like I had earned the chance to play in based on my schedule, but I was saying that Tom and Cellucci both had earned the chance to avoid that game and finish with the rest of the day 3 players. It's not looking at it the wrong way. The play ins cut both ways. It gives opportunities to some, and takes some from others.

In my opinion, the thing that really hurt my chances was being paired down to face Reid in game 6, which adversely affected my SoS, probably to the point where, unless I beat Chu in game 7, a play in game without being able to use my best deck was probably unavoidable.

arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16188
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: RE: Re: Two Format Changes

Post by arebelspy »

karrde225 wrote: In my opinion, the thing that really hurt my chances was being paired down to face Reid in game 6
Which is something out of your control. Random pair downs can totally hurt SOS, and that sucks.

karrde225
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 347
Joined: August 31st, 2003, 2:41 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: RE: Re: Two Format Changes

Post by karrde225 »

arebelspy wrote:
karrde225 wrote: In my opinion, the thing that really hurt my chances was being paired down to face Reid in game 6
Which is something out of your control. Random pair downs can totally hurt SOS, and that sucks.
And I don't think the play in game opportunity made up for that. I thought I had played well enough to make day 3 without the play in. But I think what it comes down to, is someone is always going to feel like that no matter what system we have.

arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16188
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Two Format Changes

Post by arebelspy »

karrde225 wrote:
arebelspy wrote:
karrde225 wrote: In my opinion, the thing that really hurt my chances was being paired down to face Reid in game 6
Which is something out of your control. Random pair downs can totally hurt SOS, and that sucks.
And I don't think the play in game opportunity made up for that. I thought I had played well enough to make day 3 without the play in. But I think what it comes down to, is someone is always going to feel like that no matter what system we have.
At least the play-in gives you the opportunity.

Under the old system (and what they'd likely do if it's removed), you'd just be out.

User avatar
chriskelly
Design Advocate
Posts: 21947
Joined: January 28th, 2003, 2:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by chriskelly »

karrde225 wrote:What this boils down to is that it's great for the 9-10 finishers and sucks for the 7-8 finishers.
This is probably the best statement here. Most of the other thoughts are probably based on whether or not you like excitement/hope of the 9-10 or prefer to defer to the math of SOS for the 7-8.

karrde225
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 347
Joined: August 31st, 2003, 2:41 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Two Format Changes

Post by karrde225 »

arebelspy wrote:
karrde225 wrote:
arebelspy wrote:
karrde225 wrote: In my opinion, the thing that really hurt my chances was being paired down to face Reid in game 6
Which is something out of your control. Random pair downs can totally hurt SOS, and that sucks.
And I don't think the play in game opportunity made up for that. I thought I had played well enough to make day 3 without the play in. But I think what it comes down to, is someone is always going to feel like that no matter what system we have.
At least the play-in gives you the opportunity.

Under the old system (and what they'd likely do if it's removed), you'd just be out.
Right. And that would have sucked for me in this case. But the amount of opportunity I gained is directly proportional to the amount of opportunity that Cellucci lost. So, as long as that is in mind, I'm not really opposed to either format.

User avatar
spideyguy0
Member
Posts: 7421
Joined: January 1st, 2003, 1:57 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by spideyguy0 »

Pair downs are a good argument in favor of a play-in game. They’re totally fluky. There are a lot of other fluky SoS factors in a game like ours. Someone could go 0-4 with light but have a dominant 4-0 dark deck. The player who plays against that 4-0 deck is gonna get credited with matching up against a 4-4 player, but really, they played a much tougher game than that. The play-in game evens all of that out.
Casey A. - New York, NY
Image Image

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14858
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by Hunter »

chriskelly wrote:
karrde225 wrote:What this boils down to is that it's great for the 9-10 finishers and sucks for the 7-8 finishers.
This is probably the best statement here.
That's why I made a point of explaining that I've BEEN the 9-10 finisher at Worlds, before going on to say that there is no event where the SoS tiebreaker will be more reliable, and that it should be allowed to do its work.

arebelspy
Member
Posts: 16188
Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by arebelspy »

Hunter wrote:
chriskelly wrote:
karrde225 wrote:What this boils down to is that it's great for the 9-10 finishers and sucks for the 7-8 finishers.
This is probably the best statement here.
That's why I made a point of explaining that I've BEEN the 9-10 finisher at Worlds, before going on to say that there is no event where the SoS tiebreaker will be more reliable, and that it should be allowed to do its work.
That's true. There is no event where SoS will be more reliable than worlds.

That doesn't mean a game play-in wouldn't even be even MORE reliable.

Let SOS be allowed to do its work and decide which player gets the advantage of picking their side in that play-in game (and help decide who shouldn't even have to do play in games, because their path was so hard).

(FWIW, if I'm outnumbered by the majority of players who normally go 6-2, I'll disagree, but understand.)

Greedo
Reflections Pack
Reflections Pack
Posts: 171
Joined: August 15th, 2003, 8:06 pm

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by Greedo »

spideyguy0 wrote:Pair downs are a good argument in favor of a play-in game. They’re totally fluky.
One of many reasons SoS is fine for some things but totally inappropriate for others.

Brian makes the point he got 9th, 9th, and 10th and is ok with it - if you see my earlier post, I achieved literally the exact same positions (at a card game where far more money was at stake) and was decidedly not happy about SoS deciding my fate. Look, in general my attitude is: win games. Don't lose more than two. If you do, don't complain; two is enough to account for one loss per side and/or bad luck/matchups. Win six games. That's the target at major tournaments now and everyone knows it. I think this is way easier to understand. Remember: SoS is not a perfect system. It works fine and better than differential did but you have no real control over it. You do, however, have control over winning 6 games and maybe a playoff. I'd rather see that than have the top 8 decided by whatever result is spat out by the variegated results of your previous opponents in SoS.

Hayes
LS Region: Kashyyyk
LS Region: Kashyyyk
Posts: 4660
Joined: February 22nd, 2009, 1:58 am

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by Hayes »

Greedo wrote:Look, in general my attitude is: win games. Don't lose more than two. If you do, don't complain; two is enough to account for one loss per side and/or bad luck/matchups. Win six games. That's the target at major tournaments now and everyone knows it.
This.

User avatar
chriskelly
Design Advocate
Posts: 21947
Joined: January 28th, 2003, 2:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by chriskelly »

Hunter wrote:
chriskelly wrote:
karrde225 wrote:What this boils down to is that it's great for the 9-10 finishers and sucks for the 7-8 finishers.
This is probably the best statement here.
That's why I made a point of explaining that I've BEEN the 9-10 finisher at Worlds, before going on to say that there is no event where the SoS tiebreaker will be more reliable, and that it should be allowed to do its work.
Same. The post-SOS tie breaker got me last year. If EVER there was a person who should be screaming for this play in game, it’s me.

And I’m not. We have tie breakers and I lost them. If I am upset with it, I should have won more games. The process was fair and I support it.

User avatar
JediJer
Administrator
Posts: 26017
Joined: December 3rd, 2002, 1:42 am
Location: Utah

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by JediJer »

The idea of the play in game was started with a desire to let all 6-2 or better players into day 3. Because of the match play format, it was necessary to either change the day 3 format or have a way to get it back down to 8 players, thus the play in game option. There was a lot of discussion on this by the tournament committee, and I think they came up with the best option at the time. Now that we have real data, it may be worth reevaluating.

User avatar
imrahil327
Tournament Advocate
Posts: 30730
Joined: July 3rd, 2006, 3:51 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by imrahil327 »

In what sense would you re-evaluate? IMO the goals you laid out were met, and the system worked as intended.
Image
Hunter wrote:Sebulba's W-L record is like...Always and 1. Tebow's is nowhere near that percentage.
allstarz97, about M:TG wrote:I feel like Michael Jordan playing baseball.

User avatar
WiseMarsellus
Member
Posts: 17423
Joined: February 26th, 2007, 9:33 am

Re: Two Format Changes

Post by WiseMarsellus »

format change 1: random top 4 vs random bottom 4. LOVED it. the two times i won the mpc i correctly predicted my first opponents light side deck and crushed them in a non-game. i consequently do not view those as legitimate victories. this time we had to play real games with and against real decks. it felt so much better.

format change 2: play-in game. i'm generally opposed. on the one hand, i liked the confidence that if i go 6-2 i have a shot. on the other hand, yeah, obviously games played are the best tiebreaker. but this needs to fit within the time constraints of the tournament. obviously the best way to find the most qualified players would be to have everyone play more games. but that's not feasible. i was definitely hoping to avoid having to play a 9th game on top of the 8 already. by the time that happens its late into the night, i've already played 8 games, i've missed group dinner, and i just want to sleep
tom kelly
Image Image Image Image
check out my youtube page for swccg video content, and my twitch for swccg live streams!

Post Reply

Return to “World Championships - Oct 4-7 2018”