44 replies to this topic

[Stormborn]

@Pulseglazer. No need to be rude. :-p if love to play you on OCTGN but unfortunately I have a Mac.

I think it is important that people speak up when they don't agree with the majority as I'm doing in this case. I even explained my situation to help people understand why people might think differently.

Anyways. For mid level tournaments with 5 rounds and a cut. Why don't they just let everyone who is 4-1 or better make the cut and then seed the cut so people with the best records get a bye in the first round.

I'm making up numbers here but if you have a tournament with 100 players, after 5 rounds you might have 3 players 5-0 and 16 4-1. Make the 6 worse 4-1 players (by SoS or whatever is used) have a play-off and then you have a standard 16 person cut. It gives the better performing players a rest which you could argue they have earnt. Mind you, that would be one long tournament.

[bluebird503]

I think the suggested format for Store Championships and local tournaments is fine. Am I the only person who feels like this?
Here's some disclaimers: I live in A big city and I have access to casual games nearly 3 times a week, there are winter championships and Store championships somewhere every weekend within 90mins of where I live for the next 3 months. I'm new to AGOT but I have played other games competitively (travelling abroad) but I don't think I've played in tournaments with over 35 players ever.
I went to a Winter tournament last month and there were 14 participants. We had 5 rounds of Swiss and no cut. After 4 rounds there was one undefeated player and he was guaranteed to win the tournament even if he lost his last game because then 3 people would be 4-1 and he would have the best SoS.
It seems in this case that it would have been better to have 4 rounds and one undefeated winner.
I lost the first round but no big deal as there were prizes that I could still win if I could come in the top 6, also I enjoy playing the game and meeting new people so I wasn't too bothered that I couldn't win the tournament. Also I played a casual game after the tournament, if people want to play more, there is always this option.

I don't feel like your event here dismisses the old rules much since old rules call for 4 rounds when 9-16 players, your tournament organizer ran an extra swiss round.

Playing games on side is fun, but tournaments are supposed to be competitive and "find best player that day". It's not about me personally playing more games. It's about making the store champ season not very good at that. I have no problem with these rules being applied to gnks which are more casual oriented. As someone who travels for events And loves competition I'd probably choose to attend magic events or somrthing else and skip traveling to store champs that use these rules for my competitive outlet. I simply can't justify traveling 6 hours round trip every weekend to netrunner and thrones events where strength of schedule has a higher impact than before, it's silly.

[Scottie]

I'm disappointed that it appears these are going from suggestions to requirements for store champs. Hopefully that doesn't happen. If it does, I'll just create some side event

FFG should have requirements for thier season of events. Players should know ahead of time what they are traveling for. These requirements are just bad.

Having your Store Championships have no real difference with a Kit Tournament held on a week day is a needless measure given the short run time if an AGOT event.

[steinerp]

Scottie- I don't mind requirements.  I dislike that THESE requirements are going to be made mandatory from the sounds of it.

[Radix]

Scottie- I don't mind requirements.  I dislike that THESE requirements are going to be made mandatory from the sounds of it.

You do understand requirements are by definition mandatory? 

[steinerp]

Unless they say "suggested" in which case it is mandatory that I consider their suggestion.  Which I did and opted to choose something that would have made sense and resulted in happier players.

[taijibear]

Ive seen the netrunner SC handout and it says "please follow the tournament rules" it doesn't say you must. At least, that is how I understand the language.
 
Here is what it says: http://k60i.imgup.net/rules248f.png

That's still written in the imperative, as an instruction, albeit a polite one. You can look at something like this for reference: https://royuk.files..../06/feeding.jpg

I guess we'll see what kind of numbers become standard for the game, maybe it will get big enough where most tournaments will be in the less impacted sizes. Still unfortunate to have so many more situations where the tournament software will decide who makes the cut, especially when FFG are still dragging their feet on releasing their own one. Understandable that they want to help stores be able to run tournaments in an easy-ish day as much as possible, but the result creates a lot of lamentable scenarios, especially for people who mostly have to travel to play.

[supercuts]

Did we ever get the update on the ffg website mentioned by Pipes? Because the rules for the round structure are bad. Bad for new players, bad for vets, just bad. Who wants to travel an hour for a 4 round tournament with 15 people, lose their first game, and be out of the running? Do new players want that?

 

Also, the document calls the round structure "suggested", as Lauren pointed out. I don't blame Pipes, because he is just doing his job trying not to step outside of his authority, but I was frustrated to see him say that the EXACT round structure MUST be followed. I was hoping we could all just work with that suggested language and do what the audience of players at events actually wants.

 

In the past 2 years, I have 3 times taken votes on more vs less rounds when running events (2 SCs). I took those votes just before the event started, and all three times the support for more rounds was unanimous or had 0 dissenters. So now I can't even do that? "Sorry all, looks like we can't play more and have a more fair, more fun tournament." 

[scantrell24]

Did we ever get the update on the ffg website mentioned by Pipes? Because the rules for the round structure are bad. Bad for new players, bad for vets, just bad. Who wants to travel an hour for a 4 round tournament with 15 people, lose their first game, and be out of the running? Do new players want that?

 

Also, the document calls the round structure "suggested", as Lauren pointed out. I don't blame Pipes, because he is just doing his job trying not to step outside of his authority, but I was frustrated to see him say that the EXACT round structure MUST be followed. I was hoping we could all just work with that suggested language and do what the audience of players at events actually wants.

 

In the past 2 years, I have 3 times taken votes on more vs less rounds when running events (2 SCs). I took those votes just before the event started, and all three times the support for more rounds was unanimous or had 0 dissenters. So now I can't even do that? "Sorry all, looks like we can't play more and have a more fair, more fun tournament." 

 

+1

[RandomMan]

I have not had any complaints from the players in my town when they participate in our agot events and I have been using this structure for the number of rounds for a long time.  It is the same as mtg and I think that they are just used to it.  Or maybe it is because we have a embarrassment of riches here in our town, with 3-4 SC in town depending on the game (we have a lot of hobby stores here).  My players mostly grumble about the time restriction of only 55 minute rounds.  

[BaraBob]

I have not had any complaints from the players in my town when they participate in our agot events and I have been using this structure for the number of rounds for a long time.  It is the same as mtg and I think that they are just used to it.  Or maybe it is because we have a embarrassment of riches here in our town, with 3-4 SC in town depending on the game (we have a lot of hobby stores here).  My players mostly grumble about the time restriction of only 55 minute rounds.  

The issue is that FFG have changed the structure for SC level tournaments, and it is no longer the 'standard' swiss structure similar to the one used in MtG. There are now fewer rounds in some cases, e.g. 4 rounds for 20 people, rather than the 5 it would have been previous to the changes.

[cml]

We used the suggested round structure for a store championship last Saturday, and it was brutal.  Fewer games, multiple undefeateds at the end of Swiss, tiebreakers determining which two 3-1 players made the cut (out of five).  If the goal was to reduce the importance of SoS, it failed.  If the goal was to make a more satisfying tournament experience, I also think it failed.  If the goal was to make shorter tournaments, well, it succeeded on that front.  But I don't think that goal was worth the cost.

[istaril]

We used the suggested round structure for a store championship last Saturday, and it was brutal.  Fewer games, multiple undefeateds at the end of Swiss, tiebreakers determining which two 3-1 players made the cut (out of five).  If the goal was to reduce the importance of SoS, it failed.  If the goal was to make a more satisfying tournament experience, I also think it failed.  If the goal was to make shorter tournaments, well, it succeeded on that front.  But I don't think that goal was worth the cost.

 

Yup, you hit one of the inflection points where the system is at its worst. In the article I co-wrote deriding these new changes, I focused in on the 40 man tournament, but mathematically, 23 people is almost identical.

 

Note that no matter what Pipes says (and I'm glad he's in touch with us), a local TO could not have been expected to know that the "suggested" number of swiss rounds was in fact required (unless it is stated as much in the kits?), as per Pipes's earlier comment. That information has not been widely circulated officially...

 

I'm very glad that my SC wasn't aware of it, and ran an additional round for 23 players, or we'd have been in the same boat as you CML.

[Pipes]

Did we ever get the update on the ffg website mentioned by Pipes? Because the rules for the round structure are bad. Bad for new players, bad for vets, just bad. Who wants to travel an hour for a 4 round tournament with 15 people, lose their first game, and be out of the running? Do new players want that?

 

Also, the document calls the round structure "suggested", as Lauren pointed out. I don't blame Pipes, because he is just doing his job trying not to step outside of his authority, but I was frustrated to see him say that the EXACT round structure MUST be followed. I was hoping we could all just work with that suggested language and do what the audience of players at events actually wants.

 

In the past 2 years, I have 3 times taken votes on more vs less rounds when running events (2 SCs). I took those votes just before the event started, and all three times the support for more rounds was unanimous or had 0 dissenters. So now I can't even do that? "Sorry all, looks like we can't play more and have a more fair, more fun tournament." 

 

The Organized Play article in question was posted here: https://www.fantasyf...aring-for-2016/. Specifically, the first and second bullet points refer to the new rules for Store Championships and announce the upcoming tournament rules update for Regional Championships and higher levels of competition. 

 

As a fellow Thrones player, I can certainly understand and sympathize with the concerns that many of you are expressing. I'd encourage you to address any comments or questions to organizedplay@fantasyflightgames.com. 

 

Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions not directly related to OP policies (since I don't work in Organized Play, I don't feel qualified to speak for them.)

 

Evan

[istaril]

Yikes. That was not much of a clarification. I didn't realize that was the "anticipated" explanation - it was, to put it bluntly, rather devoid of substance. It confirmed your initial comment about there being a new structure for Regionals & higher, but otherwise did nothing but state the "recommendations" were requirements.

 

I had very much hoped for, as I had alluded to initially and you had suggested would be forthcoming, a justification *for* the changes to SCs, given that how the system plays out directly contradicts at least one of the stated goals of the changes (increased cut size). That aside, we're all still reeling as to why the base of the OP pyramid should be the *least* forgiving system.

 

I don't want to shoot the messenger here... I really do appreciate you being in contact with us about these issues. I also understand that you have to act as a spokesperson for FFG rather than as an individual who can engage us in a discussion of this...

 

Maybe I can phrase it this way so that you can answer without being forced to take sides; if, as a community, we really wanted to get this changed or at least attention drawn to it  - would mass pestering of FFG through that organizedplay email be the best path to take? Or consolidating feedback in one place? A petition? A spokesperson to contact someone involved in OP and relay a conversation to the community?

[Pipes]

Yikes. That was not much of a clarification. I didn't realize that was the "anticipated" explanation - it was, to put it bluntly, rather devoid of substance. It confirmed your initial comment about there being a new structure for Regionals & higher, but otherwise did nothing but state the "recommendations" were requirements.

 

I had very much hoped for, as I had alluded to initially and you had suggested would be forthcoming, a justification *for* the changes to SCs, given that how the system plays out directly contradicts at least one of the stated goals of the changes (increased cut size). That aside, we're all still reeling as to why the base of the OP pyramid should be the *least* forgiving system.

 

I don't want to shoot the messenger here... I really do appreciate you being in contact with us about these issues. I also understand that you have to act as a spokesperson for FFG rather than as an individual who can engage us in a discussion of this...

 

Maybe I can phrase it this way so that you can answer without being forced to take sides; if, as a community, we really wanted to get this changed or at least attention drawn to it  - would mass pestering of FFG through that organizedplay email be the best path to take? Or consolidating feedback in one place? A petition? A spokesperson to contact someone involved in OP and relay a conversation to the community?

 

Yes, at the time of my posting, I was under the impression that there would be more clarification/justification in that article. I apologize for the unintentionally misleading nature of the post.

 

There is an upcoming Organized Play article that will contain more information about the Regional Championships structure, including the corresponding tournament rules. I just spoke to Organized Play, and they would like to encourage everyone to wait until that article is published (thus giving you the full range of information about the new Organized Play structure) before making any petitions. If you want to convey any comments or concerns before then, I've been directed to ask you to use the organizedplay@fantasyflightgames.com email address.

 

Thanks, and hopefully that helps!

 

Evan

[cml]

You probably can't answer this, but do we have any idea when the article they are talking about is likely to come out?

 

As it stands, the structure is damaging my enjoyment of the SC season, and I'm certainly much less inclined to travel to get to events.  It's a rough thought that the structure will stay the same throughout the season without a word of explanation, especially when the reaction seems to be overwhelmingly negative (the most positive reaction I've seen to this structure is apathy).

 

Like Istaril, I'm not trying to shoot the messenger.  Things around this structure are really unclear right now, though.

[Pipes]

You probably can't answer this, but do we have any idea when the article they are talking about is likely to come out?

 

As it stands, the structure is damaging my enjoyment of the SC season, and I'm certainly much less inclined to travel to get to events.  It's a rough thought that the structure will stay the same throughout the season without a word of explanation, especially when the reaction seems to be overwhelmingly negative (the most positive reaction I've seen to this structure is apathy).

 

Like Istaril, I'm not trying to shoot the messenger.  Things around this structure are really unclear right now, though.

 

I'm afraid I don't have an answer to that right now. :-/ Sorry!

[cml]

I'm afraid I don't have an answer to that right now. :-/ Sorry!

 

It's okay, I didn't really think you would.  Just thought it was worth a shot.

[JCWamma]

Yes, at the time of my posting, I was under the impression that there would be more clarification/justification in that article. I apologize for the unintentionally misleading nature of the post.

 

There is an upcoming Organized Play article that will contain more information about the Regional Championships structure, including the corresponding tournament rules. I just spoke to Organized Play, and they would like to encourage everyone to wait until that article is published (thus giving you the full range of information about the new Organized Play structure) before making any petitions. If you want to convey any comments or concerns before then, I've been directed to ask you to use the organizedplay@fantasyflightgames.com email address.

 

Thanks, and hopefully that helps!

 

Evan

 

As with others, I don't intend to shoot the messenger here Evan and fully appreciate you delivering this information to us. But this message from OP seems like it's missing the point - we're not (currently!) worried about the Regional structure, but the Store Championship structure, and our complaints are around the structure for the SCs. "Wait until we tell you about the Regionals!" can only really be considered an answer to "we have problems with the SCs structure" if it's taken as a threat... I obviously presume that's not the case, but it would frankly be weird if the regionals article addressed specific issues the community has with the SCs, so without further word from them I can only presume the response from OP is essentially "we're not changing it, now wait until the next article that moves onto a separate issue", which is pretty unsatisfactory for the people who are having their organised play experience actively diminished by the new SC structure rules.