Jump to content


Tournament Rules & the modified win

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#41 LegionThree



  • Members
  • 114 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 01:01 PM

I think it's fine to keep modified win/loss but as KO said give the loss a point or two. This way you keep people fighting for a win or a modified. I understand people conceding matches to help their SoS but in the long run you are breaking the system that is in place. Either that or have the TO make a ruling at the beginning of the tournament if you will/can concede which would really make it a W/L tourney. I just want everyone to play under the same system so one guy doesn't miss out on the cut because his opponent didn't give him a full win and another's did.

#42 Kelvan



  • Members
  • 807 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 03:28 PM

It would also have people fight for a modified loss over a full.

#43 KineticOperator



  • Members
  • 862 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 03:28 PM



We have a tournament system that would rank a person with 3 wins and 1 close loss LOWER than a person with 3 wins and 1 total loss.


This is untrue.


While yes the Modified Loss would yield 2 less SoS points to that one opponent, that in no way dictates that the player with the Modified Loss will have a lower total SoS, as it is very unlikely that both players share the same opponents over the event.  Though yes it could happen that way.


That Modified Loss guarantees nothing.


Additionally the concept that a full Loss is preferable to a Modified Loss is flawed on it's own.  Yes you are sacrificing 2 SOS points, but you are also denying your opponents 2 Tournament Points.  Just because you've lost to that opponent doesn't mean you are out of the running for a Top Cut, in fact you could very easily end up placing higher then an opponent that beat you earlier in the event, especially if you deny them the full points.


For instance in a 4 round event, if you were to lose your first round 0-3, then win your next 3 5-0, you'd finish ahead of the person that beat you, provided they also lose a round.  If you gave up the full 5 points you'd end up behind them based on head to head performance.  You could even earn a Mod Win of your own provided they earn a second and still finish ahead of them.


Why would you give an opponent more points then you have to when you are still competing in the standings with that same player?



I don't understand your point.  Alternately, perhaps you misunderstood mine.  Of course there are other determinants, but SoS is one determinant (a major one) and losing close is worse for your SoS than losing completely.  A close loss adds 3 points to your SoS score, a full loss adds 5 points to your SoS score.  If all other things are equal, you will be ranked below another player if the only difference between the two of you is that your loss was a close one and he was crushed utterly in his loss.


Your what-if scenario only matters if you and the one specific person you played were the only ones tied and on the cusp.  If you are tied with anyone else (and if you are on the cusp, you are tied with half a dozen people or more), then you lose out to every single one of them that lost completely rather than marginally.  At that point, out-performing your one opponent STILL won't make up for the disadvantage you put yourself at vs. the rest of the field.


Adding a single point for a close loss ensures that the people who played a very competitive game are ranked higher than people who get clobbered.  Because doing so would bring what we expect (the most competitive players have the highest ranking) more closely in line with what the system accomplishes (giving the most competitive players the highest number of points), we would not have to worry about folks "gaming the system".  At this point, everyone would be playing for every last scrap of effectiveness they could, every single game, and not giving up if there is anything to be accomplished.  That seems to me to be worth the small effort of such a minor change in tournament formatting.

Edited by KineticOperator, 10 March 2014 - 03:29 PM.

#44 EnSkywalker



  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 07:03 PM

The other problem with SOS as a tiebreaker is that in a Swiss style tournament it matters more when you lose rather than who you lose to.


Let's say you drew Doug Kinney, Paul Heaver, or one of the other top 16 players in a local store tournament.  You put up a great battle but fall short in round 1.  You're now down 0-1 and facing another 0-1.  We'll assume the best possible outcome going forward and you're first round opponent goes on to be undefeated.  You destroy your round 2 opponent and move on to face a 1-1.  He goes on to win his final 2 games.  And you win the third round game and he wins his final game to go to 2-2.  Your final round is against a 2-1 and you win so you are 3-1 with a final SOS of (4 + 2 + 2 +2) *5 = 50.


Now let's take a loss in the final round with the worst possible case for you.  Your first round opponent loses every one of the four games.  Your second round opponent only won the first game.  Your third round opponent won 2 of the first three rounds and you lose in the final round which results in the following SOS. (0 + 1 + 2 + 4) *5 = 35


So if things go perfectly, you can recover from a first round loss with your SOS.  The likelihood of the above is very small.  


I don't have a better solution at the moment but I think something along the line of net point differential of you opponent might be a viable solution.

Rebel Convoy 2013 - 2014  RIP

#45 Kelvan



  • Members
  • 807 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 07:45 PM

That was exactly my path at farmageddon.

© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS