Beyond the Wall, Season 2 Episode 37

Great job everyone! looking forward to the spoilers! Edit: Wow that second spoiler is bonkers!!!

Dat tasty spoilers.

Also, I really liked the FAQ-breakdown with Jakob.

I felt like the segment with davedave could have had more of him, especially the first part was mostly just the hosts musing about tournaments. Still a good listen.

I actually like the current system with the cut. It creates a secondary target for not only the top-players (which should obvisiouly land in the cut). I can aim for the cut, and feel good even if I than get eliminated. With systems like round-robin or double elimination, you just end up somewhere, and can't even tell which place you got. Besides enhancing luck-based results (like the SoS deciding who makes the cut and who not), the Cut also softens luck-based results, because even if you lose the first and even the second game because of bad luck (for example being nervous or meeting the only deck who can beat yours), you can still make the cut and win the tournament. Two sides of the same coin. Also, it creates a orchestrated tension going up in the tournament, with every match leading more to the final. In pure Swiss or Round-Robin it can happen that there are more than 1 "final" table which dillutes a bit the feeling of a big event closing.

Question: How big are the chances for a change in tournament structure? Could we, as the players, advice/enforce FFG on changing the system?

I think most people who have made a special trip to play in an AGOT tournament, would like to continue playing the tournament even if they lose the first two games. Obviously, Gencon is an exception because there are so many other things going on.

@DarkBlue: Forgive me for starting a quote war here :-)

With systems like round-robin or double elimination, you just end up somewhere, and can't even tell which place you got.

The Swiss System only creates a clear winner and a clear loser. The farther to the middle of the field you get, the less exact those placements are (since more and more are just determined by SoS).

You also can tell which place you got with Swiss-Double-Elim.

Why is it OK to get a second (or even third) chance during the first 5 rounds of a tournament but not during the last 3?

This cannot happen in Swiss-Double-Elim. It might happen that the final table has to be played twice, though.

I would estimate slightly below 1%

Doesn't stop me from pointing out the flaws of the current system every chance I get.

Links are now up for the spoiler cards. I had to post them on facebook earlier today, because Cardgamedb was down all morning. 

I don't see the "war", actually.

But in response to your responses:

1. Swiss might only create a clear winner and loser, but still the places in between are more accurate (because of more played games), than for example double elimination, where you have a pyramid structure of placements, with the biggest number of players at last place (who lost 2 games, 1 quarter of the field after game 2) and fewer players per place as you go to the top. You could say that you can place peoples in these steps also by SoS, but this will be less accurate because less games were played.

2. This is the argument "Why can be the top player from swiss with X-0 be eliminated in the cut?" in disguise.

You could argue, that the cut is the final round of a tournament. No second chances there, if you get eliminated, than by one of the best players of the tournament. Even if he is only the 8th, 16th or 32th best player. 

The actual problem is that there is in either system luck involved who you face when. Imagine two players of equal skill with the same deck. One faces the nemesis deck, to which both would lose 100%, and the other doesn't. Does this make the player who did not face his nemesis the better player?

The only better way would be a total Round-Robin, where every player faces each other player in the tournament. This way you eliminate the luck with pairings. But as this is impractical, we are stuck with systems which might create disadvantages based on luck in pairings.

3. You're right, this can't happen in Swiss-Double-Elim. 

I don't say the current system is perfect. It has it's advantages and disadvantages, like every other system, even Swiss-Double-Elimination.

First seed bye wouldn't work, as than the math don't add up. 

Chosing your opponent might work. First player than could chose his best match-up or a player he is superior to as an opponent. But wouldn't that be unfair to the chosen player? It could be the second one with the same score from swiss (with worse SoS).
Why should he punished that way? 

My Pocket Casts still reports Ep. 36 as the last one?

Edit: Probably because on your RSS feed 36th is the last ep..

My Pocket Casts still reports Ep. 36 as the last one?

 

 

Edit: Probably because on your RSS feed 36th is the last ep..

Yeah, a morning of cardgamedb being down played merry havoc with the feed (which caches strangely already). I'll get that sorted today (as should your Pocket Casts), but I expect it'll still be a day before it hits Itunes.

The trouble with tournament structure discussions is that they're usually had by people with different objectives than the objective of the people actually making the decisions.

So usually the discussion is about how to create a fairer system that most accurately identifies and rewards the best player.  But the people making the rules only see that as the secondary or even tertiary objective of a tournament structure, whose primary objective is to be inclusive and exciting for the largest % of players in order to drive involvement in the game (and thus promote card sales).  

Also: most of the time there's not really anything much worth winning in an FFG tournament because the prize support (outside of Nats/Worlds) is 'soft' prizes like promo items, so it's probably not worth stressing too much about.  FFG tournaments primarily exist to provide players a reason to come together and play, rather than compete.

I concur - that's why I think a system that is double elimination for the championship, but continues swiss round pairings for everyone actually helps. It becomes more accurate at creating a standing for the additional players (since there are still rounds going into what used to be the cut), more inclusive - they don't just become spectators, and it, to use your words, should 'more accurately identify and reward the best player'.

The trouble with tournament structure discussions is that they're usually had by people with different objectives than the objective of the people actually making the decisions.

So usually the discussion is about how to create a fairer system that most accurately identifies and rewards the best player.  But the people making the rules only see that as the secondary or even tertiary objective of a tournament structure, whose primary objective is to be inclusive and exciting for the largest % of players in order to drive involvement in the game (and thus promote card sales).  

I thought that's what Game Night Kits were for.

I'ld be really interested in how many players attend tournaments for a reason other than competing.

Also I would argue that only because the prizes are of little worth the tournament system doesn't have to be like rolling dice.

1. Swiss might only create a clear winner and loser, but still the places in between are more accurate (because of more played games), than for example double elimination, where you have a pyramid structure of placements, with the biggest number of players at last place (who lost 2 games, 1 quarter of the field after game 2) and fewer players per place as you go to the top. You could say that you can place peoples in these steps also by SoS, but this will be less accurate because less games were played.

I am not arguing in favor of Double Elim.

If you play Swiss Double/Triple Elim and just continue doing pairings you get at least the same precision for placings as with pure Swiss.

With the added bonus of the "Lady Stoneheart" prizes for killing kicking out players although you are already dead out of the tournament yourself. Sounds engaging to me.

I would not call it "in disguise" but "broken down to the essentials". After all, that's what you have to answer.

You are in favor of the last 3 rounds being more important than everything before that. Unfortunately I cannot really follow your arguments why. To me it sounds like you are justifying the system because it is established, not because it is good.

Also, yes, there is still luck involved with pairings. It is just less luck and it doesn't change half-way through the tournament.

First seed bye wouldn't work, as than the math don't add up. 

 

Chosing your opponent might work. First player than could chose his best match-up or a player he is superior to as an opponent. But wouldn't that be unfair to the chosen player? It could be the second one with the same score from swiss (with worse SoS).
Why should he punished that way? 

Agreed.

I concur - that's why I think a system that is double elimination for the championship, but continues swiss round pairings for everyone actually helps. It becomes more accurate at creating a standing for the additional players (since there are still rounds going into what used to be the cut), more inclusive - they don't just become spectators, and it, to use your words, should 'more accurately identify and reward the best player'.

There's also the other factor though, which is most people have a 'sweet spot' for the amount of time they can devote to playing, and if tournaments go on too long then people stop entering them.  So splitting off a portion of the tournament who have an incentive to keep playing (because there's prizes) makes sense, allowing everyone else to either go home, play for fun, or spectate the remaining games.

I think if you required people to carry on playing two more rounds of swiss just to determine more accurately if they came 7th or 9th then a number of people would have preferred to just drop out.  And at the point where they're giving up 7 hours of a day instead of 4, with the final 3 hours basically wasted... they'll just sit at home and play rocket league instead.

 

I'ld be really interested in how many players attend tournaments for a reason other than competing.

 

Also I would argue that only because the prizes are of little worth the tournament system doesn't have to be like rolling dice.

 

The answer to the first question is: the majority.  At least that's been true in every other LCG/TCG I've ever played.  I suspect that AGOT 1.0 has been boiled down to a core competitive player base as most of the others left the game so in 1.0 the picture might have been different.

In my (pretty vast) experience MOST people come to a tournament to play their favourite deck.  They know they're not very good at the game, they know their deck isn't the best deck, they know they're going to spend most of the day losing... but they came anyway because they want to play.  And those guys are the true MVPs of any game because they turn up pretty much every time just for other people to wail on them and hope that, now and then, they might win a special card if they're pretty lucky.  They're there because that once-a-month tournament is pretty much the only time they can justify getting away to play the game they love for half a day, or justify buying the latest chapter pack.

IMHO FFG's tournament structure is specifically designed to disincentive competitive play because the prizes on offer are nothing of particular value - I've been at Netrunner tournaments that I've won and immediately given away all the prizes because there's nothing I want.  You've basically got to be some sort of social deviant to compete in an FFG tournament outside of the Worlds ladder events* when there's an actual trophy and meaningful prize on the line.

* I say this despite being precisely the type of social deviant who is going to compete.

Sure, there's a sweet spot - but that one varies based on tournament size *anyway* (4-7 rounds, typically, not counting the cut), so you can't really argue that the current format is 'better' at hitting the sweet spot. (Unless the sweet spot is "shorter is always better")

I also can't really support the idea that "the final 3 hours are basically wasted" - because you could argue the same of a player continuing to play after he's mathematically eliminated from the cut in a swiss+cut system. 

Finally, if the primarily motivations are the prizes - which, as you note, favours splitting the tournament into the prize-eligeable players sooner, we'd expect a lot more 0-2 drops than we actually get at tournaments in general (outside of Gencon, which is a bit of an oddity).

In my (pretty vast) experience MOST people come to a tournament to play their favourite deck.  They know they're not very good at the game, they know their deck isn't the best deck, they know they're going to spend most of the day losing... but they came anyway because they want to play.  And those guys are the true MVPs of any game because they turn up pretty much every time just for other people to wail on them and hope that, now and then, they might win a special card if they're pretty lucky.  They're there because that once-a-month tournament is pretty much the only time they can justify getting away to play the game they love for half a day, or justify buying the latest chapter pack.

That's me. 

Sure, there's a sweet spot - but that one varies based on tournament size *anyway* (4-7 rounds, typically, not counting the cut), so you can't really argue that the current format is 'better' at hitting the sweet spot. (Unless the sweet spot is "shorter is always better")

I also can't really support the idea that "the final 3 hours are basically wasted" - because you could argue the same of a player continuing to play after he's mathematically eliminated from the cut in a swiss+cut system. 

 

Finally, if the primarily motivations are the prizes - which, as you note, favours splitting the tournament into the prize-eligeable players sooner, we'd expect a lot more 0-2 drops than we actually get at tournaments in general (outside of Gencon, which is a bit of an oddity).

The sweet spot is precisely why they'd stick around and play the final round of swiss, because but wouldn't for three or four more rounds.  This sort of thing has been extensively researched by the organised play departments of multiple companies.

So catering to the "casual" tournament players is important. I get that.

I don't get how Swiss + Cut does a better job at that than Swiss-Double-Elim (with continued pairings).

The sweet spot is precisely why they'd stick around and play the final round of swiss, because but wouldn't for three or four more rounds.  This sort of thing has been extensively researched by the organised play departments of multiple companies.

[citation needed]

I guess it's the same reason that the rest of the NFL teams continue to play in their divisions right up until the Superbowl.

Because the casual teams in the NFL want to get home early?

Sorry, I know too little about American Football to understand the analogy you are getting at.

The sweet spot is precisely why they'd stick around and play the final round of swiss, because but wouldn't for three or four more rounds.  This sort of thing has been extensively researched by the organised play departments of multiple companies.

That sounds intuitive, and entirely plausible. I'm certainly more likely to stop playing in a longer tournament if I'm doing worse, or finish a shorter tournament even if I'm doing badly.

However because the structure *already* functionally varies from 4-7 (and technically should vary from 3-8, really) rounds, I'm not comfortable with the assumption that we're hitting that sweet spot with any regularity, or that adding two rounds would necessarily make that situation any worse.