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

That's not true. That's impossible!

- - - - - Tournaments FAQ Scoring Change

  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#61
America

America

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 990 posts

I like most of the changes except for that goofy double elimination bracket and the rules for games going to time.

 

First, I shouldnt need to bring a calculator to a tournament to figure out my score.

 

Second, the winner of the winner bracket will sit 2-3 rounds while his opponent for the finals is determined.

 

Third, the winner of the winner bracket is up a game and the finals could be a single game.

 

The finals should not be a single game. I just think they are giving the winner of the winner bracket too much of an advantage over his finals opponent.

 

TGO, I understand where you are coming from. I don't care much for the use of decimals and wild calculations to determine a winner in a timed game, but you have to end it sometime. Maybe untimed finals might be for the best. However, untimed games in a double elimination bracket might call for players and judges to bring pillows and sleeping bags because it could take awhile.

 

As for your point of contention with the person who succeeds in the double-elim bracket having too much of an advantage - I come from the approach that such a player should have a monumental advantage over his opposition. While the rest of the players were losing games and struggling to stay alive in the bracket, this winner was unscathed. As such, he should be rewarded when it comes to him playing an opponent with a loss in the bracket. 

 

I'm interested to see how this plays out at GenCon. I don't think it will be as bad as some folks believe it will be. 


  • Toqtamish, ZackyMidnight, Blinkkite and 1 other like this

#62
KennedyHawk

KennedyHawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1890 posts

I'm a fan of almost all the changes except for timed elimination rounds. the scoring system favoring deck types just got pushed to a different spot. It's a lot harder to tech to it now but it's still in there.



#63
GroggyGolem

GroggyGolem

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 439 posts

I like most of the changes except for that goofy double elimination bracket and the rules for games going to time.
 
First, I shouldnt need to bring a calculator to a tournament to figure out my score.
 
Second, the winner of the winner bracket will sit 2-3 rounds while his opponent for the finals is determined.
 
Third, the winner of the winner bracket is up a game and the finals could be a single game.
 
The finals should not be a single game. I just think they are giving the winner of the winner bracket too much of an advantage over his finals opponent.


Determining your score in the double eliminations shouldn't need a calculator, it is simple decimal math.
  • doctormungmung likes this

#64
TGO

TGO

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2588 posts

TGO, I understand where you are coming from. I don't care much for the use of decimals and wild calculations to determine a winner in a timed game, but you have to end it sometime. Maybe untimed finals might be for the best. However, untimed games in a double elimination bracket might call for players and judges to bring pillows and sleeping bags because it could take awhile.

 

As for your point of contention with the person who succeeds in the double-elim bracket having too much of an advantage - I come from the approach that such a player should have a monumental advantage over his opposition. While the rest of the players were losing games and struggling to stay alive in the bracket, this winner was unscathed. As such, he should be rewarded when it comes to him playing an opponent with a loss in the bracket. 

 

I'm interested to see how this plays out at GenCon. I don't think it will be as bad as some folks believe it will be. 

 

I agree that the winner should have some sort of advantage, I just dont think they should have a one game lead in the finals. Being able to sit and wait for a couple of rounds is a pretty monumental advantage. It gives that person a much needed break and if they have already played the potential opponents he gets to prepare for that match up again.

 

Also, if they are a higher seed than each other potential opponent they may have the advantage of choosing sides.

 

I dont think these changes are earth shattering or anything, I just feel like they are giving too big of an advantage. I also think that the finals should be something worth watching and should be a great match. I dont know that a one game final fits that bill. Just saying.


  • America and KennedyHawk like this

#65
Elrathion

Elrathion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts

I think Gencon might be very anti-climax at the finals. Probably the side that gets to pick light at finals will win. It won't even come down to playing good or bad. 

I applaud FFG for wanting to try and make the game better, but I don't think this is the way. As bad as the system was, at least if you were a good player you had control over the dial to certain extend (bar goddraws or horrible draws) and your decisions could give you enough time to give the stronger side in the meta to come back. 

 

You thought going out because your light side won faster then theirs was bad? Wait until you miss out on a potential Gencon victory because the final has become pointless in that the one who gets to play light side wins. This game from inception until now always had 1 side that was significantly stronger. Going into your final and knowing you have a 25% chance of winning is really demotivating ;) Finals at national or worlds should be a best of 3. I will hold my breath until after Gencon, but if my fears become true, there is no way I am dishing out the money to fly to world's.


  • Hida77 and fliptheforce like this

#66
chiller087

chiller087

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 836 posts

Also, if they are a higher seed than each other potential opponent they may have the advantage of choosing sides.


Yeah, at first I thought this would bone them in the finals, because if the top player had been choosing LS the whole time to go undefeated, then in the first game of the finals, he'll almost certainly be forced to play DS in game 1, and most likely lose.

But then I remembered they'll just switch sides, and the top player will get to play his LS anyway, and most likely win. So yeah...
  • Hida77 likes this

#67
st1200L

st1200L

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts

We have a tournament in Palm Bay, FL this weekend and a few of us from Miami are driving up.  The TD has said that he is going to try out the new scoring system.  I'll be interested to see if it works or if there is player discontent.  I never paid much attention to the tournament scoring anyways as I'm a more casual type of player and I like to make jokes and have fun while I'm playing, so the time limit stuff isn't so great.  I used to go by the Al Davis mantra "Just win baby" before, but I guess now I have to pay more attention to points.  Does anyone know if FFG has any tournament software to support the new rule changes that I can refer him to?  Does he have to order it, download it?



#68
JackCade

JackCade

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 319 posts
How are byes scored now?

#69
BobaFett

BobaFett

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3037 posts
Should be 6 points right? 2 wins at 3 points a piece.
  • JackCade likes this

#70
Scottie

Scottie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1968 posts

 

Finals at national or worlds should be a best of 3.

 

And if your contention is that LS=Auto Win isn't a best of 3 just as decided?  It will go to whoever get's to play LS twice.



#71
Boreas

Boreas

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 951 posts

No, if LS = Auto Win, then the player who won all his games in top wins. You cannot play LS twice during finals.



#72
brimmstorm

brimmstorm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 900 posts

I'm sad to see the tie-breaker point go. I felt like it gave meaing to me playing DS right now. If I had a bad chance to win with a certain deck I was sure going to try and get that extra point.



#73
Elrathion

Elrathion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts

I'm sad to see the tie-breaker point go. I felt like it gave meaing to me playing DS right now. If I had a bad chance to win with a certain deck I was sure going to try and get that extra point.

 

This justified an imbalanced ls/ds to me to a certain extend. I always reasoned, I can live with the idea that I lose a game, it's the match that counts. 

 

To me tie breakers are a great thing in Swiss. Where they fell short was in the elimination rounds. I've won all my store championships and regionals by being top seed. As soon as I was there, I felt I had a super big advantage. First off, I played against weaker players and left the better players to fight amongst themselves first, and secondly, on a tie I won ;) I think they should have just tweaked how the elimination rounds played out so that the second game didn't become meaningless (aka losing the tournament because you won faster by 1 click of the dial). TL/DR Swiss tiebreakers were fine, elimination rounds should have been fixed.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Tournaments, FAQ, Scoring Change