Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Roman_Sandal

Tournaments

66 posts in this topic

MarthWMaster said:

 

Since the game is so short, I guess having multiple games in a match wouldn't be the worst thing. But how do players determine who plays which side during a tiebreaker game?

 

 

I would much rather have some sort of consistent way to figure out margin of victory as the tie breaker than playing a third game.  Remember, if there's a tie it means that either LS or DS won both games of the match, so your margin of victory score wouldn't even have to be fair between LS and DS, but just within each side.  Of course, Heart of the Empire and Trench Run make it hard to come up with a good way to do that.  The other option: a 1-1 split is a tie (1 point each), while a 2-0 match is a win (3 points to winner, 0 to loser).  Or maybe each game is worth 1 point and that's it.

For those interested, here's a link to the SWCCG tournament guide with the explanation of how they handle the LS/DS split in modified swiss.  It's been running since 1995 with relatively little in the way of changes.  Relevant section (not yet updated for SOS, still using margin of victory - "differential"):

Running the Tournament
Pairings – Constructed Deck
1. First pairings - Randomize the pile of scorecards. Flip a coin (or use a similar method) to determine what allegiance the top scorecard (and thus every odd scorecard in the pile) will be. Take the top 2 scorecards off the pile and pair off these players, noting the names and affiliations on each card. Then repeat this process for the 3rd and 4th scorecards, and so on through the pile. If there are an odd number of players competing in the tournament, a bye (for that game) will be assigned to the player with the last card remaining.
2. Reporting the game score - When players complete their game, they must approach the director’s table together to report the results. Players must never mark their (or any other) scorecards unless asked to do so by the Tournament Director or judge. Mark each player’s card with their game score (See Scoring). Collect all scorecards, including the card from a player with a bye if there was one. After each game, update the player’s cumulative score by adding the victory points and differential for this game to their previous cumulative score. Each player must initial their own card
to show acceptance of reported score for that game. A player should report any problems on a scorecard to the judge immediately.
3. Subsequent pairings - When all players have completed play and all Command Cards have been marked with the results of the first games, separate the Command Cards into two piles according to each player’s allegiance in the game just played. Arrange the cards in each pile in descending order according to the player’s total score, with the highest score on top, second highest score beneath it, and so on until the card with the lowest score is on the bottom. For the second game of the round, pair the highest scoring player from the Dark Side pile with the highest scoring
player from the Light Side pile, and so on, until all players have been paired. If there are an odd number of players, the last player left receives the bye for the next game. If that player has previously received a bye in this tournament, reassign the bye to the next lowest ranked player in the same pile (that has not already received a bye). Players now play the second game of the round with an allegiance opposite that which they just played in the previous game. This way, each player completes a round having played one game with a Dark Side deck and one game with a
Light Side deck. Again, be sure to record the player’s allegiance for each game on their Command Card. It is possible that players could be matched up to face the same opponent more than once with the same allegiance. In this event, an attempt must be made to modify the pairing. Pair one player with the next highest ranked player after the one they were originally supposed to play. If they have already faced that person, pair them against the next highest ranked player of the opposite allegiance, repeating if necessary. In the rare case that the player has already faced all the players remaining in the pile, then leave the pairing as it originally was. A player should report any problems in pairings to the judge immediately.
4. Completing a round - Once the second game is over, the round is complete. Calculate cumulative scores on each card as it is received. Now, place all Command Cards together in a single pile, arranging them in descending order, with the highest cumulative score on top, and the lowest on the bottom.
5. Beginning a new round - To begin the next round, repeat the pairing process from Step 1. It is possible that players could face the same opponents more than once. If the two players previously played each other with the opposite allegiances, then the pairing stands. However, if the two players have already played each other with the same allegiances, an attempt must be made to modify the pairing. If the two players have not played each other with allegiances opposite to the current paring, modify the pairing to create that match. If that modification is not possible, the lower-ranked of the two players should switch rankings with the next highest ranked player, repeating if necessary. In the rare case that the player has already faced all the players remaining in the pile, then leave the pairing as it originally was.
Repeat Steps 2 through 4 to finish the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it.

Would you stick with the standard swiss format ie. 3 rounds for 1 - 8 players, 4 rounds for 9 -16 players etc…

Or would there be a minimum of say 6 for example?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roman_Sandal said:

 

I like it.

Would you stick with the standard swiss format ie. 3 rounds for 1 - 8 players, 4 rounds for 9 -16 players etc…

Or would there be a minimum of say 6 for example?

 

 

 

In this context "Round" typically means 2 matches/games (ie one game each with LS and DS against 2 different opponents so that everyone always plays an even number of LS and DS games).  In my experience, 3-4 rounds (6-8 games) is almost always suffecient.  For tournaments smaller than 8 people or so, 2 rounds (4 games) works pretty well.

 

Edit - Also, the change from margin of victory (differential) to SOS for tie-breaker makes the process even easier: instead of sorting by victory points and then differential, you just sort by victory points and shuffle randomly within the same score group.  In that case, tie breaking doesn't come into effect until the final standings are determined.  However, a good Margin of Victory algorithm would still be nice so that you could cut to the top 2 and have them play a 2-game match to determine the winner, or some such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a tournament for Star Wars held at the FFG Event Center during the World Championship Weekend.  I did not get to play in it, but I did watch for a bit.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe the system was similar to Netrunner.  You get paired with an opponent, and you play that opponent twice.  Once with your LS deck, and once with your DS deck. 

Did anyone here get to play in it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roman_Sandal said:

Thanks for the feedback mate. The original star wars was just rock up with both decks and you played one game per round in a swiss format. I actually dont mind the idea with this version but the main complaint has been that you could play all your games with the same side.

 

I agree, a tournament where you establish if you are light or dark and then alternate each other round. 

 

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think theres a lot of good points going around but for me, I want to play two games vs one opponent. No matter what. I've played to many games where I just drew (even twice) a really bad strating hand. I'd hate to loose a whole tourny cuz of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather use points away from win (closest possibility) for tiebreakers. keeping note of clicks left on DS dial, or total objective damage left before win (these, of course, only being counted if you lose). The points assigned would reflect this, and the player with the lowest points (in the tiebreaker column) wins

I.E:

Player #1 is playing DS first. Player #2 Wins the first game, but the DS dial was at 8, so there's 4 tie-breaker points for P1, and 10 points for P2.

Player #1 wins the second game, when the DS dial is at 7. That makes 5 tie-breaker points for P2, and 10 points for P1.

 This equivalates to 10 match points each, with tie-breaker points being 4 for P1, 5 for P2. Player #1 wins the match.

(example 2)

When Player #1 wins the first game, there is a total of 3 damage left on his/her last objective. P2=3pts (tie-breaker), P1=10pts

Player #2 wins the second game, but only has 1 damage left on his final objective when he speeds the DS to 12. P1=1pt (tie-breaker), P2=10pts.

P1=10 match pts, 1 tie-breaker. P2=10 match pts, 3 tie-breaker. Player #1 wins.

 

I know this is probably not how it's gonna go down, but just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stormwolf27 said:

or total objective damage left before win

That wouldn't really work well b/c not all Objective cards have the same Health. Two (or more) players could face the same opponent, inflict the exact same amount of damage against his DS Objectives but have different tie-breaker scores.

FREX the DS player's Ojb Deck has 2x Take Them Prisoner (6 Health), 1x Heart of the Empire (10), 2x Emperor's Web (4), 1x Hit and Run (4), and 3 others with 5 Health each.  If he faced 3 players and each of them destroyed 2 Objs with 5 Health (IE they each inflicted 10 pts of dmg on their Objectives) then the DS player won w/no damage on his remaining Objs, the LS player's Tie-Breaker score would be equal to the Obj card w/the lowest Health.

1st game ends w/ Emporer's Web, Hit and Run, and Take them Prisoner on the table - Player 1's tie-breaker score would be 4.

2nd game ends w/Take Them Prisoner, Heart of the Empire, and a 5 Health card on the table - Player 2's score is 5.

3rd game ends w/both Take Them Prisoners and Heart of the Empire. His score is 6.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very, very unlikely you will see a sideboard. I was hoping the tournament rules would get posted today with the regionals 2013 applications now up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toqtamish said:

Very, very unlikely you will see a sideboard.

Why? I'm not new to card games but I've never played competitively before. I only know about sideboards from reading Magic strategy articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hans Chung-Otterson said:

Toqtamish said:

 

Very, very unlikely you will see a sideboard.

 

 

Why? I'm not new to card games but I've never played competitively before. I only know about sideboards from reading Magic strategy articles.

 

Because the LCG's haven't needed them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hans Chung-Otterson said:

Toqtamish said:

 

Very, very unlikely you will see a sideboard.

 

 

Why? I'm not new to card games but I've never played competitively before. I only know about sideboards from reading Magic strategy articles.

 

Because no LCG has ever had one before and I don't see any reason why Star Wars would be an exception to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sideboards are only really needed when you're playing a best-out-of-X series using the same deck each time.  If you're going to play LS once and then switch to DS for the next game, there's really no reason to sideboard any cards/objective sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chrome said:

stormwolf27 said:

or total objective damage left before win

 

That wouldn't really work well b/c not all Objective cards have the same Health. Two (or more) players could face the same opponent, inflict the exact same amount of damage against his DS Objectives but have different tie-breaker scores.

FREX the DS player's Ojb Deck has 2x Take Them Prisoner (6 Health), 1x Heart of the Empire (10), 2x Emperor's Web (4), 1x Hit and Run (4), and 3 others with 5 Health each.  If he faced 3 players and each of them destroyed 2 Objs with 5 Health (IE they each inflicted 10 pts of dmg on their Objectives) then the DS player won w/no damage on his remaining Objs, the LS player's Tie-Breaker score would be equal to the Obj card w/the lowest Health.

1st game ends w/ Emporer's Web, Hit and Run, and Take them Prisoner on the table - Player 1's tie-breaker score would be 4.

2nd game ends w/Take Them Prisoner, Heart of the Empire, and a 5 Health card on the table - Player 2's score is 5.

3rd game ends w/both Take Them Prisoners and Heart of the Empire. His score is 6.

 

 

Right. I see where you're coming from. It was just a thought. I was only thinking of tie-breaker points counting within the match, though, to determine winner. For the tournament tie-breaker, you use SOS and Prestige, like with Netrunner and AGoT. (Netrunner does Prestige where it's 2 points per game win and an extra point per match win, for a possible 5 points prestige, which helps break ties between people in the rare case of matchins SOS's).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MarthWMaster said:

Since the game is so short, I guess having multiple games in a match wouldn't be the worst thing. But how do players determine who plays which side during a tiebreaker game?

 

 Issue the player's a starting side randomly during pairing. This will be their side if a tie breaker is needed. If time runs out during a tie breaking game, either issue both players 1 point as a tie, or hand out a win based on cards remaining in the play deck.  Is there something I'm not considering? This is of course assuming that a match consists of each player playing a game with both sides. 

 

Or just alternate a player's side between rounds and run matches as best of three. I don't remember players in a SWCCG tournament ever really being stuck playing one side during the majority of the tournament…unless it was sealed/draft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qwertyuiop said:

 I don't remember players in a SWCCG tournament ever really being stuck playing one side during the majority of the tournament…unless it was sealed/draft

SWCCG you always played the same number of games as LS and DS (unless you had a bye).  I posted a link to the tournament guide for SWCCG a little earlier in the thread - I plan on using that format if I run any tournaments between now and when FFG releases actual tournament rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locally, we have been planning on running our events in the same fashion as Netrunner, since that is the most likely way FFG will handle the tournament scenario. (It also has never been an issue for our Netrunner events. People love the ability to play two different decks in one round) 

As for the points decisions…that is the tricky part. But we shall see what happens. I hope it is as simple as A:NR or reasonably close to it. 

When I discussed the idea of only using one of the two decks per round, it was unanimously shot down. People are required to build two decks, and want to enjoy the experience of playing both of them. It is a core part of the game, so it only makes sense to exist in the tournament structure as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once some form of points system for, for and against is worked out, I believe either SWCCG or the NR way will work fine. The main concern I have seen when chatting with people is:

How long will one match (2 games, one each side) go for? (I don't think this can be done in an hour)

A lot of people don't want to play a tie breaker, again because of time.

I am a fan of either my original post at the start of the thread or how SWCCG was run, I don't mind either at least with the system my group is currently using, there is no need for a tiebreaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roman_Sandal said:

Once some form of points system for, for and against is worked out, I believe either SWCCG or the NR way will work fine. The main concern I have seen when chatting with people is:

How long will one match (2 games, one each side) go for? (I don't think this can be done in an hour)

A lot of people don't want to play a tie breaker, again because of time.

I am a fan of either my original post at the start of the thread or how SWCCG was run, I don't mind either at least with the system my group is currently using, there is no need for a tiebreaker.

Most players I have seen play at this point take about 35-40 minutes a game, but they are still in the "read every card that's played" stage. Once everyone entering a tournament is more familiar with the cards, there is no reason the games should take longer than 30 minutes, netrunner has 65 minute rounds, which feels more than adequate for any tournament level play. 

That said, I really don't expect serious tournaments to kick off for a month at least, which would provide people time to get acquainted with their decks. 
Locally we probably will use a bit longer of a time limit in the coming weeks, maybe 80 minute rounds, to take a bit of pressure off newer players. Either that or I may just keep an eye on how long games are taking in competive play and go from there. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kryptonite Kollectibles said:

Roman_Sandal said:

 

Once some form of points system for, for and against is worked out, I believe either SWCCG or the NR way will work fine. The main concern I have seen when chatting with people is:

How long will one match (2 games, one each side) go for? (I don't think this can be done in an hour)

A lot of people don't want to play a tie breaker, again because of time.

I am a fan of either my original post at the start of the thread or how SWCCG was run, I don't mind either at least with the system my group is currently using, there is no need for a tiebreaker.

 

 

Most players I have seen play at this point take about 35-40 minutes a game, but they are still in the "read every card that's played" stage. Once everyone entering a tournament is more familiar with the cards, there is no reason the games should take longer than 30 minutes, netrunner has 65 minute rounds, which feels more than adequate for any tournament level play. 

That said, I really don't expect serious tournaments to kick off for a month at least, which would provide people time to get acquainted with their decks. 
Locally we probably will use a bit longer of a time limit in the coming weeks, maybe 80 minute rounds, to take a bit of pressure off newer players. Either that or I may just keep an eye on how long games are taking in competive play and go from there. 

 

Swiss Draw?

How many rounds are you looking at having for 8 or less players?

3 matches therefore 6 games each in a tournament?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stormwolf27 said:

Right. I see where you're coming from. It was just a thought. I was only thinking of tie-breaker points counting within the match, though, to determine winner. For the tournament tie-breaker, you use SOS and Prestige, like with Netrunner and AGoT. (Netrunner does Prestige where it's 2 points per game win and an extra point per match win, for a possible 5 points prestige, which helps break ties between people in the rare case of matchins SOS's).

Ah, and I see where you were coming from now.  I wasn't considering it from that point of veiw. Only for breaking ties for future pairings/cut downs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Swiss Draw and in an 8 person event each person would end up playing 6 games total. 

The more we play, the more we are seeing games come in under the 30 minute mark, it just comes down to familiarity. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0