Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Irokenics

Unusual Store Champs Results from a BYE

Recommended Posts

I was at the tournament - I think most people were fine wth the bye. It just seemed somehow off that the guy could win all three games including the head to head against the eventual store champion and still come off second best on count backs. Head-to-head as first tie breaker or even number of wins maybe. Tough call though and I guess it depends on what you think is more representative of skill (7-3,7-3,6-4 for low scoring but consistent wins or 0-10, 10-0, 10-0 for a huge loss followed by some equally big wins as an example)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that you're using a binary (win/loss) style system to pair players in a scalar point environment. Further, swiss pairings are ideal when you play n rounds (where 2^n >= # players) to be accurate. 16 players only playing 3 rounds doesn't quite cut it. The arbitrariness of the tournament length is probably more to blame, though, to keep tournaments from going too long, necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the BYE system works for exactly the scenario that happened here.  A first round bye means someone is just unlucky enough to sit out the first game and it has nothing to do with skill.  The fact that the point system works the way it does and allows an unlucky (or some might say lucky) break in the first round can be turned around into a victory is awesome.  There are many games that a bye will guarantee you cant get first but that isnt true in Armada.  Two Thumbs up!

 

And keep in mind that the guy who won worlds had a loss in the first round and came back and still won so it doesnt guarantee anything. In fact you are likely to play one of the better players from round 1 for the round 2 match ups with a BYE.

Edited by Overdawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, just so I understand this better because I am dense.

MoV is an issue because the winner can be someone who did not win all of their games?

From my perspective, MoV limits people from forming up in a corner and scraping by with 5-5, and 6-4 victories.

If people TIE on tournament points then MoV is fine to me. That means that in one of the players games, they should of taken a bigger risk or that they should of made different decisions.

It all comes down to skill again

Once again back toy Store Championship, I picked Mikael Hasselstein's Precision Strike and was able to gain an extra 180 points from it. It was risky because I did not have bombers and he had 6 of them but I made it work in my favor while he only got 6 Victory Tokens to my 12.

I took a risk, knew the objective and how it worked for me and went in gunning.

 

Well, you are just immensly skilled, Lyraeus.

 

In my case, I just beat the winner and third placed of the tournament, as well as a lower ranked, while the winner won against two players on the bottom of the field and lost to me. I tied him on victory points and lost the tourney to him on MoV. My skill simply wasnt big enough.

 

Head to head is the better tie breaker for me, thats all I say. You cant use anything else than MoV anyway if two players didnt play each other directly. Well, you could, but it would get very complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, just so I understand this better because I am dense.

MoV is an issue because the winner can be someone who did not win all of their games?

From my perspective, MoV limits people from forming up in a corner and scraping by with 5-5, and 6-4 victories.

If people TIE on tournament points then MoV is fine to me. That means that in one of the players games, they should of taken a bigger risk or that they should of made different decisions.

It all comes down to skill again

Once again back toy Store Championship, I picked Mikael Hasselstein's Precision Strike and was able to gain an extra 180 points from it. It was risky because I did not have bombers and he had 6 of them but I made it work in my favor while he only got 6 Victory Tokens to my 12.

I took a risk, knew the objective and how it worked for me and went in gunning.

So I'll make it really simple for your density. MOV is okay. It's not perfect but it works fairly well especially given the likely lack of head to head matches in the tournament format. Which leads to the actual issue. Based on this thread most players believe that if two players end up with equal points that head to head should be the first tie breaker over MOV. Scoring is done to establish which player performed better on that day. There isn't a better tie breaker than the result when they played each other. The tie breakers are just out of order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, just so I understand this better because I am dense.

MoV is an issue because the winner can be someone who did not win all of their games?

From my perspective, MoV limits people from forming up in a corner and scraping by with 5-5, and 6-4 victories.

If people TIE on tournament points then MoV is fine to me. That means that in one of the players games, they should of taken a bigger risk or that they should of made different decisions.

It all comes down to skill again

Once again back toy Store Championship, I picked Mikael Hasselstein's Precision Strike and was able to gain an extra 180 points from it. It was risky because I did not have bombers and he had 6 of them but I made it work in my favor while he only got 6 Victory Tokens to my 12.

I took a risk, knew the objective and how it worked for me and went in gunning.

So I'll make it really simple for your density. MOV is okay. It's not perfect but it works fairly well especially given the likely lack of head to head matches in the tournament format. Which leads to the actual issue. Based on this thread most players believe that if two players end up with equal points that head to head should be the first tie breaker over MOV. Scoring is done to establish which player performed better on that day. There isn't a better tie breaker than the result when they played each other. The tie breakers are just out of order.

What don't you get? The guy with the BYE had to face a winner from the first round. He then CRUSHED that winner and went to the final round at top table. He had an MoV lead, they both knew that the guy who got to play all 3 rounds knew he was under in MoV.

The MoV system makes it so people can't play it safe and win all their games. They have to take a risk.

When you go into a game knowing that you have to do X to win, do X and don't whine about it.

Why should head to head matter?

Let me make this thematic for people.

~Your fleet has come through a grueling gauntlet of combat and due to not whipping out your opponents on the way, your enemies are hurrying you.

One of those enemies has beaten you to your objective due to the capacity to keep his fleet together and not take such heavy losses as you have.~

MoV is perfectly fine for situations like this. Not every tournament can continue to play and there is a reason why FFG advocates that no more than 3 rounds be played in a day. Ask the people from the 50 man tournament that was held this past weekend.

I mean honestly. What is the purpose of gaining more points then if MoV does not matter? Why should a player pick objectives that give him points then. Go for the tactical advantage then.

With great risk can come great reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not saying MoV shouldn't matter. In fact, MoV determines tournament points. What we're saying is that if you are tied on tournament points AND you played each other, the head-to-head result should be the first tie breaker, followed by MoV. Let me call back to the example I gave:

 

- You play two grueling games against the two best players at the tournament and manage some 6-4 victories, with an MoV of 60 in both games.

- I play two guys who have never played more than an intro game and mop the floor with them, and get two 9-1 victories with 300 MoV.

- We play in the final round, and you trounce me for an 8-2 victory with a 200 MoV.

 

I win the tournament, because I had two easier matches rounds one and two. It doesn't matter that you crushed me in the final game. And you played aggressively your two games, you just faced two very difficult opponents.

 

That just doesn't make sense or sit right with me. Head-to-head is the better way to resolve this. Honestly, there should also be a Strength of Schedule factor as well. IIRC, Privateer Press includes something like this. But until FFG brings in something like this (if they ever do), it should be Tournament Points -- Head-to-Head -- MoV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should a head to head matter? In a 50 person tournament you might not even play against that person, or you could have played them and tied 5-5 with you having 1 MoV more.

There are circumstances where a head to head does not make sense and should not.

Does it soothe egos? Yes. Is it needed? No.

If you played someone who was able to get a 9-1 in his first game or similar and make it to the next round near top table, then you trounce him. How is that not great for you?

It is a Swiss tournament. Your first game has the most variety, after that it balances out to a degree and the third round balances that even further.

I am not sure what the issue is anymore. You guys want a head to head game to matter more than the risks someone took in their prior games? Meh. Seems overtly complicated and not needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should a head to head matter? In a 50 person tournament you might not even play against that person, or you could have played them and tied 5-5 with you having 1 MoV more.

There are circumstances where a head to head does not make sense and should not.

Does it soothe egos? Yes. Is it needed? No.

If you played someone who was able to get a 9-1 in his first game or similar and make it to the next round near top table, then you trounce him. How is that not great for you?

It is a Swiss tournament. Your first game has the most variety, after that it balances out to a degree and the third round balances that even further.

I am not sure what the issue is anymore. You guys want a head to head game to matter more than the risks someone took in their prior games? Meh. Seems overtly complicated and not needed.

Who is saying that this someone inescapably had to take risks in those prior games, as you seem to suggest. Ending with the same number of VPs doesnt suggest to me that there was a hero player (other than you in your description) who took so much more risk than the other guy, and simultaneously lost against him directly (the risk taking apparently goes only so far).

And just in case you dont read other posts, again, nobody here seems to say that MoV should not decide when you didnt play against the tieing player directly.

But its ok, this is your standpoint, fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding a face to face check strikes me as adding unnecessary complications to the running of the tournament for a relatively unlikely occurrence.

Hell, you'd be adding an extra check that even if it does come up it can fail. A beats B beats C beats A, and all end on a draw - it's easy enough to say use MoV, but that still needs to be codified into the rules. What if A beats B beats C, but C didn't play A? Does A's win over B cascade down to becoming a win over C even though they didn't play?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that KISS applies here. Adding more complexity to the scoring system just to deal with edge cases is just going to create as many questions as it answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding a face to face check strikes me as adding unnecessary complications to the running of the tournament for a relatively unlikely occurrence.

Hell, you'd be adding an extra check that even if it does come up it can fail. A beats B beats C beats A, and all end on a draw - it's easy enough to say use MoV, but that still needs to be codified into the rules. What if A beats B beats C, but C didn't play A? Does A's win over B cascade down to becoming a win over C even though they didn't play?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that KISS applies here. Adding more complexity to the scoring system just to deal with edge cases is just going to create as many questions as it answers.

Finally, someone making sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me call back to the example I gave:

 

- You play two grueling games against the two best players at the tournament and manage some 6-4 victories, with an MoV of 60 in both games.

- I play two guys who have never played more than an intro game and mop the floor with them, and get two 9-1 victories with 300 MoV.

- We play in the final round, and you trounce me for an 8-2 victory with a 200 MoV.

Allow me to correct the errors in this example, if you will.

I play the two best players at the tournament, and get 6-4 in each of the first two rounds.

So my first round I win with 6 points. That means that in my second round in facing someone who did very similarly to me. So my second round will more likely be against a decently average player, rather than the best in the tournament (but flukes happen, either way.)

Now you played a total newbie, and crushed him 9-1. Your next match will, again, be against someone with a similar number of points. It seems pretty unlikely that you will be facing an equally newb-ish player. You will be playing someone who scored (probably) 8-10 points.

Ok, so you crush this player, too. Now you have 18 tournament points, and I have 12. It's extremely unlikely that we will be playing at all in the first place. I did only mediocre against a mediocre player in round two. You did excellently against an excellent player in round two. If I beat you only by a little in round three, do you deserve second, even though you've played thoroughly better games than me? Consistently, you've outplayed me in all but one circumstance.

And one game doesn't mean much. What if my list was a mediocre-at-best niche list that happened to counter your generally superior list?

I'm not the best player in the tournament just because I managed to beat you, if you are the best player. That just means I beat you. Maybe I'm better than you, but worse than most other people?

Straight up points, then MoV helps to crown the statistically best player, rather than a player who can beat the statistically best player once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding a face to face check strikes me as adding unnecessary complications to the running of the tournament for a relatively unlikely occurrence.

Hell, you'd be adding an extra check that even if it does come up it can fail. A beats B beats C beats A, and all end on a draw - it's easy enough to say use MoV, but that still needs to be codified into the rules. What if A beats B beats C, but C didn't play A? Does A's win over B cascade down to becoming a win over C even though they didn't play?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that KISS applies here. Adding more complexity to the scoring system just to deal with edge cases is just going to create as many questions as it answers.

Where is the added complexity? First are VPs, then is H2H if applicable, ie two people tied, then is MoV.

You can say there is added complexity, sure, but can you defend that statement? Whats complex, the TO checking if the tied players faced each other? Guess not. Would the paragraph "breaking ties" be more complex? It would look like: more vps, h2h, MoV, strenght of schedule.

Your description sounds very complex, a beats d beats c etc, but the point is, no one has to think about were the points came from. Eithere there is a h2h of two tied players, or there isnt, and thats really about it. I think it will not intellectually burden any TO, there is no calculation involved, nothing. I am sure that FFG thought about this, they decided the way they have and surely had their reason, and it is accpeted by every player entering a tourney. But I happen to disagree in this, as do others, and as much as complexity is used as an argument to defend the status quo, complexity isnt one if 2 players played each other, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at the store champ I was at I won with 21 points second had 20 points. the guy who came second had the bye and only killed 2 nebs and 2 X wings while I killed many a ships and squadrons

 

just makes me chuckle every time I think about it

Edited by X Wing Nut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Adding a face to face check strikes me as adding unnecessary complications to the running of the tournament for a relatively unlikely occurrence.

Hell, you'd be adding an extra check that even if it does come up it can fail. A beats B beats C beats A, and all end on a draw - it's easy enough to say use MoV, but that still needs to be codified into the rules. What if A beats B beats C, but C didn't play A? Does A's win over B cascade down to becoming a win over C even though they didn't play?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that KISS applies here. Adding more complexity to the scoring system just to deal with edge cases is just going to create as many questions as it answers.

Where is the added complexity? First are VPs, then is H2H if applicable, ie two people tied, then is MoV.

You can say there is added complexity, sure, but can you defend that statement? Whats complex, the TO checking if the tied players faced each other? Guess not. Would the paragraph "breaking ties" be more complex? It would look like: more vps, h2h, MoV, strenght of schedule.

Your description sounds very complex, a beats d beats c etc, but the point is, no one has to think about were the points came from. Eithere there is a h2h of two tied players, or there isnt, and thats really about it. I think it will not intellectually burden any TO, there is no calculation involved, nothing. I am sure that FFG thought about this, they decided the way they have and surely had their reason, and it is accpeted by every player entering a tourney. But I happen to disagree in this, as do others, and as much as complexity is used as an argument to defend the status quo, complexity isnt one if 2 players played each other, sorry.

 

 

The 2 main issues you need to consider are:

- How common is the problem? The more common the issue at hand (2 drawn players have played against each other, and the loser has beaten the winner through MoV) is the more justification for adding complexity to the rules to cover it.

- How complex is the fix? If you have an issue that occurs once in a blue moon, and/or is arguably not very significant, it simply does not justify much effort in the fix.

 

Personally, I can't see this "issue" happening that often, nor do I class it as particularly significant. It's striking me more as someone after the fact saying "If only the tournament rules were written differently, I could have had a better result." Furthermore, as the 1st round bye is random (unless you've already earned it by winning a SC), it's not as if it can be gamed. This means that that a step that involves the TO having to scan through the results list, find ties, search for match up games between all possible ties, etc most likely isn't worth it when compared with the just jumping straight to MOV.

 

Also, in your last paragraph, how do you justify just ignoring any issues with the "fix" that strike you as too complicated? Sure, you can just introduce a half-baked fix that fails to deal with such issues, and such a fix will look simple on the face of it. Such an incomplete fix will also create more questions and loopholes than it solves, as already demonstrated. Want to plug those flaws? Congratulations, you now have an increasingly complicated fix, all to deal with what was an edge case not-really-an-issue-anyway problem in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding a face to face check strikes me as adding unnecessary complications to the running of the tournament for a relatively unlikely occurrence.

Hell, you'd be adding an extra check that even if it does come up it can fail. A beats B beats C beats A, and all end on a draw - it's easy enough to say use MoV, but that still needs to be codified into the rules. What if A beats B beats C, but C didn't play A? Does A's win over B cascade down to becoming a win over C even though they didn't play?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that KISS applies here. Adding more complexity to the scoring system just to deal with edge cases is just going to create as many questions as it answers.

Where is the added complexity? First are VPs, then is H2H if applicable, ie two people tied, then is MoV.

You can say there is added complexity, sure, but can you defend that statement? Whats complex, the TO checking if the tied players faced each other? Guess not. Would the paragraph "breaking ties" be more complex? It would look like: more vps, h2h, MoV, strenght of schedule.

Your description sounds very complex, a beats d beats c etc, but the point is, no one has to think about were the points came from. Eithere there is a h2h of two tied players, or there isnt, and thats really about it. I think it will not intellectually burden any TO, there is no calculation involved, nothing. I am sure that FFG thought about this, they decided the way they have and surely had their reason, and it is accpeted by every player entering a tourney. But I happen to disagree in this, as do others, and as much as complexity is used as an argument to defend the status quo, complexity isnt one if 2 players played each other, sorry.

 

The 2 main issues you need to consider are:

- How common is the problem? The more common the issue at hand (2 drawn players have played against each other, and the loser has beaten the winner through MoV) is the more justification for adding complexity to the rules to cover it.

- How complex is the fix? If you have an issue that occurs once in a blue moon, and/or is arguably not very significant, it simply does not justify much effort in the fix.

 

Personally, I can't see this "issue" happening that often, nor do I class it as particularly significant. It's striking me more as someone after the fact saying "If only the tournament rules were written differently, I could have had a better result." Furthermore, as the 1st round bye is random (unless you've already earned it by winning a SC), it's not as if it can be gamed. This means that that a step that involves the TO having to scan through the results list, find ties, search for match up games between all possible ties, etc most likely isn't worth it when compared with the just jumping straight to MOV.

 

Also, in your last paragraph, how do you justify just ignoring any issues with the "fix" that strike you as too complicated? Sure, you can just introduce a half-baked fix that fails to deal with such issues, and such a fix will look simple on the face of it. Such an incomplete fix will also create more questions and loopholes than it solves, as already demonstrated. Want to plug those flaws? Congratulations, you now have an increasingly complicated fix, all to deal with what was an edge case not-really-an-issue-anyway problem in the first place.

Just to clarify, as we seem to speak of different things, I dont talk about byes at all. My first post in this thread concerned solely the issue of breaking ties, as it was talked about this also here.

I play three games, beat the winner and the third place man and a low ranked player, the winner plays three games, loses to me and beats two low ranked players. We tie on VPs, he wins on MoV.

All I say is that I dont see a reason for not using h2h, and that the rules you defend seem a bit countintuitive. But lets leave it that (if we do talk about the same thing) that you think this is neither significant nor happens often. I can live with that.

As for Lyraeus, I think he feels someone is taking away from his feat or risk takimg by winning the easy way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding a face to face check strikes me as adding unnecessary complications to the running of the tournament for a relatively unlikely occurrence.

Hell, you'd be adding an extra check that even if it does come up it can fail. A beats B beats C beats A, and all end on a draw - it's easy enough to say use MoV, but that still needs to be codified into the rules. What if A beats B beats C, but C didn't play A? Does A's win over B cascade down to becoming a win over C even though they didn't play?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that KISS applies here. Adding more complexity to the scoring system just to deal with edge cases is just going to create as many questions as it answers.

Where is the added complexity? First are VPs, then is H2H if applicable, ie two people tied, then is MoV.

You can say there is added complexity, sure, but can you defend that statement? Whats complex, the TO checking if the tied players faced each other? Guess not. Would the paragraph "breaking ties" be more complex? It would look like: more vps, h2h, MoV, strenght of schedule.

Your description sounds very complex, a beats d beats c etc, but the point is, no one has to think about were the points came from. Eithere there is a h2h of two tied players, or there isnt, and thats really about it. I think it will not intellectually burden any TO, there is no calculation involved, nothing. I am sure that FFG thought about this, they decided the way they have and surely had their reason, and it is accpeted by every player entering a tourney. But I happen to disagree in this, as do others, and as much as complexity is used as an argument to defend the status quo, complexity isnt one if 2 players played each other, sorry.

 

The 2 main issues you need to consider are:

- How common is the problem? The more common the issue at hand (2 drawn players have played against each other, and the loser has beaten the winner through MoV) is the more justification for adding complexity to the rules to cover it.

- How complex is the fix? If you have an issue that occurs once in a blue moon, and/or is arguably not very significant, it simply does not justify much effort in the fix.

 

Personally, I can't see this "issue" happening that often, nor do I class it as particularly significant. It's striking me more as someone after the fact saying "If only the tournament rules were written differently, I could have had a better result." Furthermore, as the 1st round bye is random (unless you've already earned it by winning a SC), it's not as if it can be gamed. This means that that a step that involves the TO having to scan through the results list, find ties, search for match up games between all possible ties, etc most likely isn't worth it when compared with the just jumping straight to MOV.

 

Also, in your last paragraph, how do you justify just ignoring any issues with the "fix" that strike you as too complicated? Sure, you can just introduce a half-baked fix that fails to deal with such issues, and such a fix will look simple on the face of it. Such an incomplete fix will also create more questions and loopholes than it solves, as already demonstrated. Want to plug those flaws? Congratulations, you now have an increasingly complicated fix, all to deal with what was an edge case not-really-an-issue-anyway problem in the first place.

Just to clarify, as we seem to speak of different things, I dont talk about byes at all. My first post in this thread concerned solely the issue of breaking ties, as it was talked about this also here.

I play three games, beat the winner and the third place man and a low ranked player, the winner plays three games, loses to me and beats two low ranked players. We tie on VPs, he wins on MoV.

All I say is that I dont see a reason for not using h2h, and that the rules you defend seem a bit countintuitive. But lets leave it that (if we do talk about the same thing) that you think this is neither significant nor happens often. I can live with that.

As for Lyraeus, I think he feels someone is taking away from his feat or risk takimg by winning the easy way.

Winning the easy way? Nice way to belittle my competition. Care to weigh in Mikael Hasselstein and Iskander4000?

NebulonB, the only reason that 1st place would have played against 2 low ranked players is because the second one lost to him.

Let's make this simple. The scenario is you are on round 3 of the tournament.

This tournament has had its first round finish and here are the results:

Player 1 place has 9 points (MoV of 278)

You have 8 points (you had the bye so MoV of 129)

Player 2 place has 7 points (MoV of 120)

Player 3 place has 3 points (MoV 0)

Player 4 place has 1 (MoV 0)

Now the second round has finished and the standings are:

You have 14 points with (new MoV of 184)

Player 1 has 13 points (new MoV of 278)

Player 2 has 13 points (new MoV of 173)

Player 3 has 11 points (new MoV of 129)

Player 4 has 5 point (still 0 MoV)

In that round to avoid duplicate matches, player 2 had to play Player 4 and Player 3 got the bye.

Now going in this last round, you know that you need a 10-0 to garentee Victory over the tournament. It has been a hard set of match but you think you can do it.

Last round and the points are:

You with 22 points (final MoV of 386)

Player 1 with 22 points (final MoV of 498)

Player 2 has 15 points from his loss against you (leaving him at 173 MoV)

Player 4 has 13 points with her bye (final MoV of 129)

Player 3 is at the tail of the tournament with 12 points (MoV of 129)

You scrape by with 2nd place because you were unable to secure a big enough margin of victory.

Back to your idea now. You want to say that you won the tournament even though you scraped a 6-4 win against player 1 in the second round?

Do tell, how is that fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In thinking about this, I believe the problem is that the MOV as tiebreaker can break down in smaller tournament settings. In larger ones, with more rounds of play, MOV is both a simpler way to calculate tiebreakers for the scale, as well as having the advantage for randomness in skill evening out. However, in smaller events of 4-8 people, there can be real spikes of luck that can affect the outcome due to the smaller base.

 

Example: a skilled player gets a lucky pairing against a rookie, they can pulverize that person and go 10 up with a giant MOV. Meanwhile another skilled player consistently gets skilled competitors and as such only gets smaller MOVs but wins every round, while that first huge win gets the first person better competition and more modest wins for the 2nd and 3rd round. The end of it sees them tied, and due to that 400+ point MOV the one who had a lucky pairing wins, even if they possibly lost a bout to the 2nd place player.

 

I think that switching to something like Strength of Schedule, who beat who, or just straight W-L records would more accurately reflect a top player in these smaller situations. It wouldn't be too hard to do for smaller events, and it would be easy to set it to straight MOV for X number of players/rounds for larger ones in the rules to keep paperwork headaches to a minimum. 

 

Ideally, everyone has the same approximate skill level so this isn't a huge issue. But when a tournament is decided because one player had the good fortune to beat up a rookie (10-4-6=20 MOV around 490) and another had 3 very hard fought victories (6-6-8=20, MOV around 320) I can easily see it rubbing people the wrong way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This happened in my store as well this weekend the guy needed a 10-0 and got it and his MV was 456 for one game the guys who won 3 games had 3 close games they never face each other in the tournament. The 3-0 guy was ok he said but he is a good sport. He needed a 7-3 to make it so he got first but both players out thought each other and it took 5 turns before dice were even rolled. Hopefully next month this won't happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding a face to face check strikes me as adding unnecessary complications to the running of the tournament for a relatively unlikely occurrence.

Hell, you'd be adding an extra check that even if it does come up it can fail. A beats B beats C beats A, and all end on a draw - it's easy enough to say use MoV, but that still needs to be codified into the rules. What if A beats B beats C, but C didn't play A? Does A's win over B cascade down to becoming a win over C even though they didn't play?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that KISS applies here. Adding more complexity to the scoring system just to deal with edge cases is just going to create as many questions as it answers.

Where is the added complexity? First are VPs, then is H2H if applicable, ie two people tied, then is MoV.

You can say there is added complexity, sure, but can you defend that statement? Whats complex, the TO checking if the tied players faced each other? Guess not. Would the paragraph "breaking ties" be more complex? It would look like: more vps, h2h, MoV, strenght of schedule.

Your description sounds very complex, a beats d beats c etc, but the point is, no one has to think about were the points came from. Eithere there is a h2h of two tied players, or there isnt, and thats really about it. I think it will not intellectually burden any TO, there is no calculation involved, nothing. I am sure that FFG thought about this, they decided the way they have and surely had their reason, and it is accpeted by every player entering a tourney. But I happen to disagree in this, as do others, and as much as complexity is used as an argument to defend the status quo, complexity isnt one if 2 players played each other, sorry.

 

The 2 main issues you need to consider are:

- How common is the problem? The more common the issue at hand (2 drawn players have played against each other, and the loser has beaten the winner through MoV) is the more justification for adding complexity to the rules to cover it.

- How complex is the fix? If you have an issue that occurs once in a blue moon, and/or is arguably not very significant, it simply does not justify much effort in the fix.

 

Personally, I can't see this "issue" happening that often, nor do I class it as particularly significant. It's striking me more as someone after the fact saying "If only the tournament rules were written differently, I could have had a better result." Furthermore, as the 1st round bye is random (unless you've already earned it by winning a SC), it's not as if it can be gamed. This means that that a step that involves the TO having to scan through the results list, find ties, search for match up games between all possible ties, etc most likely isn't worth it when compared with the just jumping straight to MOV.

 

Also, in your last paragraph, how do you justify just ignoring any issues with the "fix" that strike you as too complicated? Sure, you can just introduce a half-baked fix that fails to deal with such issues, and such a fix will look simple on the face of it. Such an incomplete fix will also create more questions and loopholes than it solves, as already demonstrated. Want to plug those flaws? Congratulations, you now have an increasingly complicated fix, all to deal with what was an edge case not-really-an-issue-anyway problem in the first place.

Just to clarify, as we seem to speak of different things, I dont talk about byes at all. My first post in this thread concerned solely the issue of breaking ties, as it was talked about this also here.

I play three games, beat the winner and the third place man and a low ranked player, the winner plays three games, loses to me and beats two low ranked players. We tie on VPs, he wins on MoV.

All I say is that I dont see a reason for not using h2h, and that the rules you defend seem a bit countintuitive. But lets leave it that (if we do talk about the same thing) that you think this is neither significant nor happens often. I can live with that.

As for Lyraeus, I think he feels someone is taking away from his feat or risk takimg by winning the easy way.

Winning the easy way? Nice way to belittle my competition. Care to weigh in Mikael Hasselstein and Iskander4000?

NebulonB, the only reason that 1st place would have played against 2 low ranked players is because the second one lost to him.

Let's make this simple. The scenario is you are on round 3 of the tournament.

This tournament has had its first round finish and here are the results:

Player 1 place has 9 points (MoV of 278)

You have 8 points (you had the bye so MoV of 129)

Player 2 place has 7 points (MoV of 120)

Player 3 place has 3 points (MoV 0)

Player 4 place has 1 (MoV 0)

Now the second round has finished and the standings are:

You have 14 points with (new MoV of 184)

Player 1 has 13 points (new MoV of 278)

Player 2 has 13 points (new MoV of 173)

Player 3 has 11 points (new MoV of 129)

Player 4 has 5 point (still 0 MoV)

In that round to avoid duplicate matches, player 2 had to play Player 4 and Player 3 got the bye.

Now going in this last round, you know that you need a 10-0 to garentee Victory over the tournament. It has been a hard set of match but you think you can do it.

Last round and the points are:

You with 22 points (final MoV of 386)

Player 1 with 22 points (final MoV of 498)

Player 2 has 15 points from his loss against you (leaving him at 173 MoV)

Player 4 has 13 points with her bye (final MoV of 129)

Player 3 is at the tail of the tournament with 12 points (MoV of 129)

You scrape by with 2nd place because you were unable to secure a big enough margin of victory.

Back to your idea now. You want to say that you won the tournament even though you scraped a 6-4 win against player 1 in the second round?

Do tell, how is that fair?

sigh, once again you misunderstand. you seem to think that I refer to you, but what I mean is that you think others take the easy way winning without risk taking, just wanting to scrape by, while you took the risks and win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This tournament has had its first round finish and here are the results:

Player 1 place has 9 points (MoV of 278)

You have 8 points (you had the bye so MoV of 129)

Player 2 place has 7 points (MoV of 120)

Player 3 place has 3 points (MoV 0)

Player 4 place has 1 (MoV 0)

Now the second round has finished and the standings are:

You have 14 points with (new MoV of 184)

Player 1 has 13 points (new MoV of 278)

Player 2 has 13 points (new MoV of 173)

Player 3 has 11 points (new MoV of 129)

Player 4 has 5 point (still 0 MoV)

 
Player 3 should not have had the bye that should have been given to player 4. It also means that Player 2 when they played player 4 had a slightly easier opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This tournament has had its first round finish and here are the results:

Player 1 place has 9 points (MoV of 278)

You have 8 points (you had the bye so MoV of 129)

Player 2 place has 7 points (MoV of 120)

Player 3 place has 3 points (MoV 0)

Player 4 place has 1 (MoV 0)

Now the second round has finished and the standings are:

You have 14 points with (new MoV of 184)

Player 1 has 13 points (new MoV of 278)

Player 2 has 13 points (new MoV of 173)

Player 3 has 11 points (new MoV of 129)

Player 4 has 5 point (still 0 MoV)

 

Player 3 should not have had the bye that should have been given to player 4. It also means that Player 2 when they played player 4 had a slightly easier opponent.

True but there are reasons behind it. I think you are right and I messed it up but at the same time shenanigans like this does occur.

In my store championship, the tournament software that we were using had me paired up against someone 2 points under me when there was a perfectly fine Ayer 1 point under me. Thankfully the TO swapped it but things do occur that mess with these things.

There are miscellaneous factors like people who traveled together, and other such things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should a head to head matter? In a 50 person tournament you might not even play against that person, or you could have played them and tied 5-5 with you having 1 MoV more.

There are circumstances where a head to head does not make sense and should not.

Does it soothe egos? Yes. Is it needed? No.

If you played someone who was able to get a 9-1 in his first game or similar and make it to the next round near top table, then you trounce him. How is that not great for you?

It is a Swiss tournament. Your first game has the most variety, after that it balances out to a degree and the third round balances that even further.

I am not sure what the issue is anymore. You guys want a head to head game to matter more than the risks someone took in their prior games? Meh. Seems overtly complicated and not needed.

That's an easy one. Because the intent of the champion is to find the best player. MOV wouldn't even exsist if players were placed in brackets like virtually every other sport or competition. MOV is the second choice for establishing a winner because ranking and matching head to head with brackets is more work than they want to do. MOV also has some issues. Your opponent flies off the board you get a huge boost to MOV which likely could have very little to do with your skill or ability. Likewise having the luck of the draw and being matched up against a player with little to no experience. This can hugely boost MOV but may not be indicative of your overall skill as a player. Head to head is a direct apples to apples comparison. MOV is an approximation designed to function in the absence of direct head to head comparison. The direct is always better than the approximate substitute. That's really the only argument needed.

I understand the need for MOV and I think it functions fine given the circumstances. I have yet to hear a single cogent reason why MOV is actually a superior measure than head to head. And "it's the status quo and everyone knows it" doesn't make a logical winning argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, if you are able to beat your opponents and gain a much higher score how are you not the better player?

Your opponent flies off the board SHOULD give you a massive boost. That is a mistake and you get advantages for mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...