Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

How to Fix Tournament Scoring

* * * * * 1 votes

  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#121
Toots

Toots

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 255 posts

The issue you described of having same amount of game and match wins and yet somehow having less points has already been taken care of with the scoring adjustment. You can no longer have the same number of game and match wins as another player and not be tied on points.

In a thread about alternatives to the current system you aren't sure why best out of 3 is being brought up? Wouldn't that fall into the alternatives to the current system category?


But you can currently have the same amount of game wins and end up on different points.

If you go to a 3rd because of luck, sure you can make up for it, but if you go to a 3rd because your light side sucks vs that particular dark your opponent has, then its luck if you have to play light or dark. Unless of course by best of 3 you mean 6 games. Then you will just create a huge length for games and a very long event.

#122
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3910 posts
The change to the scoring system made it so that you can no longer have different points with the same number of game wins and the same number of match wins. Having the same number of game wins but fewer match wins will result in fewer points... Matches still count for something.

I'm certainly not a fan of best 2-out-of-3 for this game. It makes sense in Magic when you're playing the same deck all 3 games, but just doesn't make sense when you're playing 2 different decks.

#123
Toots

Toots

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 255 posts
which is my point that they shouldn't. They should be on equal because of the fact that you win the same amount of games. Just like it shouldn't be more rewarding to stall out game 2 if you won the first over completing it.

#124
YEEZUS

YEEZUS

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 413 posts
Concerns about SOS and a random round 1 pairing are alleviated if you drop the lowest score from the calculation before SOS is calculated. Some games drop the lowest 2, or highest and lowest. Basically, there are ways to do it fairly.

Anyway, until a good solution to prevent game 2 stalling in a match is created, I see no reason to continue the farce that is the 2 game match. The stalling happens a lot, and there is no incentive not to- in fact, you get rewarded FOR stalling actually. How absurd

Also claims that swccg is a skill game are greatly exaggerated. Perhaps it was during decipher era (1995-2001), but for most of the Players Committe era (2002-current) it HAS been a rock paper scissors environment. Also consider, that many of the best decks from the decipher era were surprise decks that people did not prepare for, and this is due in part to the internet having still been in its infancy- there were not as many places to share deck ideas. Decktech was good but decks only got posted after events, there was no StarCity or anything with articles about possible new decks.

#125
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3910 posts
I'm all for ignoring matches and only rewarding games... But there are also a sizable contingent of players who feel like only matches should matter and the player who goes 4-0 (all 5-4) should place above the player who whent 3-1 (9-0x3, 0-9). I personally feel like the current system makes for a good compromise... Winning more games will almost always keep you ahead but winning more matches effectively becomes the tie breaker for players who won the same number of games.

#126
TGO

TGO

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2588 posts

I'm all for ignoring matches and only rewarding games... But there are also a sizable contingent of players who feel like only matches should matter and the player who goes 4-0 (all 5-4) should place above the player who whent 3-1 (9-0x3, 0-9). I personally feel like the current system makes for a good compromise... Winning more games will almost always keep you ahead but winning more matches effectively becomes the tie breaker for players who won the same number of games.


Players feel that way because the point system encourages that mentality with a modified win. Take away the bonus points and you put more emphasis on individual games.

Flips proposed system is pretty much a straight win/lose system and takes away the match mentality.

#127
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3910 posts
And I like that about his system, but I have talked to others who would not like it. I'd love to take the straight game scoring, do the single-game pairing system, and try to refine the tie breaker points. That kind of system would make me very happy. Honestly, I think flip's tie breaker/game points system works just fine for Swiss. I just don't like how it plays out in elimination rounds... But it's pretty much impossible to come up with a good tie breaker for split matches that doesn't put some pressure on play style and deck construction. I think the current system places less pressure than his system would, but both systems have problems.

#128
YEEZUS

YEEZUS

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 413 posts
All this discussion.... i think we can at least agree that the current system is very flawed.

then again, perhaps every iteration will have some hole in it that can be probelmatic

#129
Toots

Toots

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 255 posts
And we can all agree that deciphers version of ccg was awesome as well, even though it had one flaw with its scoring which was when time was called and one player didn't get to dump their hand into their reserve for differential.

:D
  • ZackyMidnight likes this

#130
Scottie

Scottie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1968 posts

Players feel that way because the point system encourages that mentality with a modified win. Take away the bonus points and you put more emphasis on individual games.

Flips proposed system is pretty much a straight win/lose system and takes away the match mentality.


I think players also feel that way because Match Play is how the Swiss format is made to be played. It for all intents and purposes is a glorified single elimination event, that allows continued participation. You play enough rounds until you have one undefeated player left, with that player at least being forced to play against some other players doing well that day. You need a winner of each Match to make that event system run reliably. Currently we have a system that not only doesn't always yield a winner (the 4-4 split) but in order to get a winner in many cases opts for a tiebreaker system that; skews deck building, isn't terribly indicative of winning "better" , and leads to a less then ideal second game where one player is not forced to attempt to win the game in some cases. Game Scoring gets rid of the tiebreakers, but significantly ups the chance you won't have a clear winner in the end.

I think you can get away with Game Scoring in order to get to a Top Cut, but I don't think you can rely on game scoring to give you an event winner. It's very anti climatic to have an event with a bunch of evenly matched players going game for game with each other, to have the winner decided on what is (no matter how you try to hedge it) a random score in no one controls.

#131
Scottie

Scottie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1968 posts

Concerns about SOS and a random round 1 pairing are alleviated if you drop the lowest score from the calculation before SOS is calculated. Some games drop the lowest 2, or highest and lowest. Basically, there are ways to do it fairly.

Anyway, until a good solution to prevent game 2 stalling in a match is created, I see no reason to continue the farce that is the 2 game match. The stalling happens a lot, and there is no incentive not to- in fact, you get rewarded FOR stalling actually. How absurd

Also claims that swccg is a skill game are greatly exaggerated. Perhaps it was during decipher era (1995-2001), but for most of the Players Committe era (2002-current) it HAS been a rock paper scissors environment. Also consider, that many of the best decks from the decipher era were surprise decks that people did not prepare for, and this is due in part to the internet having still been in its infancy- there were not as many places to share deck ideas. Decktech was good but decks only got posted after events, there was no StarCity or anything with articles about possible new decks.


There certainly are ways to do SoS better. Privateer Press has a special SoS calculation for their con events in order to accommodate for the fact that players drop before events end. That, for sure, is better then the base SoS system. But you can't describe a system that is completely out of every players hands as fair, it's really not all that fair to be judged based on your opponents performance in the remainder of the event. The only thing fair about it is that it's something everybody needs to deal with, but it's an arbitrarty score because you have no control. It's too random for frequent use as a secondary tiebreaker.

We've seen in Netrunner, that FFG has moved SoS to the third tiebreaker. Behind prestige and weak side wins.

#132
Scottie

Scottie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1968 posts

I'm all for ignoring matches and only rewarding games... But there are also a sizable contingent of players who feel like only matches should matter and the player who goes 4-0 (all 5-4) should place above the player who whent 3-1 (9-0x3, 0-9). I personally feel like the current system makes for a good compromise... Winning more games will almost always keep you ahead but winning more matches effectively becomes the tie breaker for players who won the same number of games.


I think with the point change you are right, in-regards to the preliminary rounds. Of course you still have the issue that you might not get a clear winner, but most can accept the chance of that (and it only effects events without a top cut). The issue comes in when you get to the elimination rounds and you have the event being decided on a bad match play system.

That is where I think the system really needs to change, elimination rounds while needed, have some really ugly aspects to them right now. In regards to have it changes deck building and how it can lead to second games where players aren't even attempting to win.

I want to see more Finals like the one we had at Worlds, not just because it went best 2 out of 3, because it was exciting and in the end felt right (not because of who won just in general) as opposed to the possible Finals we could see where the match ends because the Dial just got to 6 and the DS player can't take enough objectives to make up the difference.

#133
yodaman

yodaman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2741 posts
As always, I find the threads about scoring and the tournament format fascinating. I do wonder if perhaps the problem is less about the scoring system and more about the Swiss format itself, especially since the win conditions are asymmetrical (unlike chess and Magic). Perhaps the format should be changed and use something like a "World Cup" approach where there are different "groups" of players who all play each other in a round robin format. Then the top 1 or 2 in each group (depending on how many people are in the tourney overall), move to the elimination rounds. If there aren't the same number of players in each group, then there are ways (like they do in World Cup qualifying in Europe) to account for that (by eliminating results against the last placed player in each group that has more players). I agree with the Scottie's post that for all elimination rounds (not just the finals) it should be best 2 out of 3. Perhaps some tie-breaking approach, either the current one, the one by Flip or something different would then be used for determining who would get to pick the side in a 3rd game if it's needed.