| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Temysry
Sergeant
514 Posts
    
 | | 04/10/2006 11:15 AM |
| After reading yesterday's tournament report, I came across an interesting question:
Is the current tournament format good for DDM?
The reason I thought of this was because of the comment made by who said he seriously considered dropping out of a 6 round swiss format tournament after going 2-1 in the first 3 games. If one early loss is that detrimental to winning the tournament, why are we even playing swiss rounds? The major problem I see is that with a field relatively large compared to the size of the cut (29 to 4 in this case), after one early loss you have a good chance to lose on the tie-breaker even if you can win all the rest of your games. This being the case, many players are out of contention after only 2 rounds of play. So, why aren't we using some other format that either a) keeps players in the running to win or b) knocks out those not in the running so that they may play in a secondary tournament or c) both.
What are the options? We could use single or double elimination. Admittedly, I don't think single elimination is a good way to go because a freak loss should not end your chances at winning and because with the average field sizes, their is no real benefit in having fewer rounds of play (with up to 32 players, Swiss will have at most 8 total rounds, single elim. will have 5).
So what about double elimination? It is definately the most confusing system to use, but it has many advantages that (IMO) outweigh the disadvantages. First off, everyone who doesn't go 0-2 after two rounds still has a chance to win. In fact, after 2 rounds of play, 75% of players are still in the running. This system has about the same number of rounds as the swiss format (in a 32 player tournament, after 6 rounds we have 4 players left - same as swiss rounds when they drop to 4). Also - it is not round dependent which means games on later rounds can begin even while games from the previous round are still being played.
On top of all this, after 3 rounds, you'll have 16 players (of the 32 that started) who can compete in a secondary tournament without having to decide if they should voluntarily drop out of the main tournament.
Just an idea. | |
A Proud Gelatinous Dude
www.gelatinousdudes.com
| |
|
sienar
Sergeant
640 Posts
| | 04/10/2006 11:53 AM |
| Couple things on this.
The poster of that statement clariefied what he meant. He did not like his chances of running the table, given the skill level of many that were there. It's not that one loss would take him out of contention - it was the expected second loss.
Swiss is the most efficient way to determine a single winner, while giving everybody a chance to play every round. Typically, we are going to be under a time constraint for the length of the tournament.
You will typically be out of the running after one loss when there is no cut to top N. You will most likely make the cut with 1 loss. Depending on the size of the tournament, 2 losses can still make it, but the second loss is likely going to have to come late in the tournament, rather than early.
Swiss and single elimination should have the exact same number of rounds. At 32 players, 5 rounds in the minimum to complete either. Swiss allows for a cut to top N that single elimination doesn't. The cut is not necessary to determine a clear winner. What it does is allow for some bad luck or bad matches to not automatically take you out of contention. Double-elimination requires at least 6 rounds. (It's been a while since I looked at double-elim, but I recall it being +1 rounds to single or Swiss at a minimum) | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
| 
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10446 Posts
United States
| | 04/10/2006 12:23 PM |
| I think that Swiss followed by single elimination really is the best format. I don't think another one would do.
But, I think that sometimes people (not the poster refered to in the post above) don't understand how losses affect the chances of making it to the playoff rounds and so could get discouraged.
In a large tournament (say, one where there's one undefeated player, six players with one loss, and one with two losses that all make it to the top 8 for a playoff), those two losses can actually even come early. If those two losses are two players who end up as the last two undefeated players in teh last round of the event, then these two losses are to the best two records there.
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
DrX
Sergeant
408 Posts
| | 04/10/2006 12:26 PM |
|
Also, add in to the mix the fact that there was a second tournament starting after the 3rd matchup. Because Guy wanted to try and keep a winning record overall, he may have had a better chance of doing that in the "losers" tournament (where Fenris, Tried and I ended up).
I'm sure that if the second tourney wasn't taking place there would have been no consideration of dropping.
| |
HW List: http://www.maxminis.com/hwlist.asp?user=DrX
References: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12409
| |
|
kgradert13
Sergeant
909 Posts
| | 04/10/2006 12:29 PM |
| I have mixed feelings about swiss. I like it in some ways, and in others I'd rather control my own destiny with decisive results instead of tie-breakers.
Nothing sucks more then finishing "out of the money" so to speak, because one of your victories was against a guy who went 0-4 before dropping. | |
| |
|
Foxman
Sergeant
417 Posts
Calgary, AB, Canada
| | 04/10/2006 12:47 PM |
| I prefer swiss for one reason.
I get to play.
I pay money to enter a tournment and play some competive players and learn *more* about the game and how to play. If I get eliminted in a single elimination in round one, I don't get to play any more. This happened to me one time at my first tournment. I relized some of the mistakes in tile placement (I didn't really understand how it worked) but couldn't adjust my play style and come back from it.
For the sake of all the inexperienced player who take time out of thier day to come and spend it playing in a tournment, please keep it as is. Even if they place 0-4 at least they have had 4 games they get to learn from and enjoy. | |
It would be very unlikely for unlikely events not to occur.
- J. A. Paulos "Innumeracy" | |
|
forkedmoon
Underboss
1305 Posts
| | 04/10/2006 1:29 PM |
| | Swiss is no better than single elimination if there is no cut to the top. One loss and you are out because you play until only one remains. On the positive side yes you do get to keep playing with is nice but I would hope for reward potential at the end. | |
Champion of Cyclops
| |
|
Temysry
Sergeant
514 Posts
| | 04/10/2006 1:36 PM |
| Thanks for the opinions thus far, but I should reiterate one thing about my original post - I do not want the format to be single elimination.
The major point I was trying to get at was double elimination vs. swiss rounds with a drop to 4 (or X).
If you read the tournament report I was refering to, the person in question would have had played MORE games if he had been knocked out of the original tournament. Of course, this is only because there happened to be a secondary tournament running (for no additional cost, I might add).
So - here are the main points:
1) In double elimination, some players will only get to play 2 games.
2) In Swiss rounds, these same players who lose their first two games(usually) have no chance of winning the tournament.
3) In double elimination, everyone still playing has a chance to win which would make drops very rare.
4) In Swiss rounds, even 1 early round loss can cost you the tournament if you must go to a tie-break.
I would propose a format using double-elimination along with a secondary "fun" tournament starting after the 3rd round. This would be exactly the same as the California tournament except with double-elim. instead of swiss rounds dropping to 4.
Assuming we begin with =<32 players (which they did: 29), in the swiss rounds, everyone would play 6 games. After dropping to 4, we have 2 more rounds of single-elimination for a total of 8 rounds of play. With double-elimination, we play a total of 9 rounds with each player having a minimum of 4 games. Also, because of the double-elim format, both the original tournament and the secondary one would finish at the same time (as close as you can hope anyway).
As a side note, it is possible in the swiss rounds format for the winner to have a worse record than the 3rd place finisher. This is impossible in double-elimination since the winner is the only person who doesn't have 2 losses.
I'd be curious to know how many players continued to play in the main tournament with an 0-4 record on Saturday, just for comparison's sake. Anybody know? | |
A Proud Gelatinous Dude
www.gelatinousdudes.com
| |
|
Gunthar
Commander
2938 Posts
| | 04/10/2006 2:05 PM |
| In general, minis tournaments aren't like softball tournaments, which is good and bad. In a softball tournament, the teams are signed up in advance and you know how many teams will be there (basically) for sure. That gives you a lot of flexibility in designing tournaments that you don't have in minis because you don't know who or how many individuals will be playing until it actually happens and by then, it's too late to change the format. If you "knew" you would have exactly (ex:) 32players, you could set it up something like the draft already does, but for actual games. Swiss would still work, or you could have round-robin pods of 4 or 8 with the person winning each "pod" going on to a final, single-elimination portion.
4-pods would be okay for those who want to play at least 4 games, with the eventual winner and runner-up playing 7, along with possibly a consolation game for 3-4. This would be good for those wanting to leave after elimination from the finals, and would leave those not in the finals a chance to wacth and/or socialize. While this is okay, it's not far off from the current swiss format except you "cut" to 8 vs. 4.
8-pods are a grinder, and you still cut to 4. Everyone plays 8 games and the finalists play 10. That's 10 hours of game time, probably 14+ of the actual tournament, even if run tightly. That's fairly brutal. If someone decides they're tired before 8, it screws tie-breakers up in the pods anyway.
That said, I was originally not a fan of swiss, but I'm okay with it now. It works fairly well and it's pretty straight-forward. | |
Champion of Prit(Wemic vindication is here)
Minneapolis/St. Paul area
Completed trades: Aspect of Cheese (Love that moniker), Tickparasite, Elderthing, Lalato, Sodj, Grimoire, SmilinIrish, Zeb, RWarehall,Link, wikkawikkawa, Auramancer, Rommers, HK, Ivid5,Qillan_dvra, Puggins, Arcabius, Ironfist Boulderbender, Robby, Corim Danex, monster_slayer, DNDJUNKIE, Kelemvor, Krush, ckissee, Massawyrm, hockey fan, Wish, Uninspiring Lieutenant, vtloon x2, Vrecknidj, Darthpoke, WakeXX, AnarionZell, lycusmike, papabear5 and umpteen local trades with board members
| |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10446 Posts
United States
| | 04/10/2006 2:07 PM |
| Not that anyone asked, but, if you have very few players (let's say 4, for the sake of ease of calculations), a Round Robin format (I think that's what it's called) isn't a bad option.
Everybody plays three games, once against each of the other three players. At the end of those matches, there are lots of ways that the four players' records could look. But, if anyone is undefeated, then there's only one that is. If there's one undefeated player, he's declared the winner.
If two players have one loss each, they play each other for the top spot. Other than this, though, everyone gets to play in every match.
For obvious reasons, this would work best with an even number of players, and, for other obvious reasons, 4 or 6 is best (2 isn't a tournament, and 8 players means 7 matches--too much for only 8 players).
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
640 Posts
| | 04/10/2006 2:43 PM |
| I understand better now.
Double-elim with a side tournament would make a good tournament format for large tournies. A problem I see with it would be requiring (require might be too strong of a word) TO's to be ready to run two tournaments. Most will probably be ok with it.
For tournies like the CA open, this works great. While most of us enjoy the game and play for fun (most of us prefer to win, too ΖD]), tournaments like the Championship are not 'for fun'. Right now, we only have a few tournaments outside of the championship and some of its qualifiers that would have the attendance to make double-elim with a side tourney worthy.
I like the format you are proposing as a concept and would be all for it being sanctionable as an option (with or without side tournies).
Round-robin is great. I like it a lot. It's just too inconsistent (as Vrecknidj has presented) to be a consideration for tournaments as a general rule.
Your numbers on Swiss rounds are off. 32 players only need to go 5 rounds in normal Swiss. The qualifiers have an additional round. I'm not totally sure on the logic behind the additional round, except that I imagine it would lessen losses and let the cream rise to the top better, as it were. That would be achieving one goal of the double-elimination you are proposing, in that a loss is not devastating, and even a second loss is acceptable. That makes 7-8 for Swiss and 9 for double-elim. Not too great of a difference in the end.
The length of the tournament is a big concern. Being the most efficient (even if it is only by one round), my favor in sticking with Swiss. Given time to do your proposed format, I'd be all for playing in it. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
640 Posts
| | 04/10/2006 2:45 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vrecknidj
Not that anyone asked, but,
Dave - when has that *ever* stopped us (all of us) from interjecting a semi- or wholly unrelated opinion? [:D] | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
Temysry
Sergeant
514 Posts
| | 04/10/2006 2:56 PM |
| Actually, despite having an additional round, in my experience double-elimination runs just as quick as swiss rounds. The main reason for this is that games can be played on the fly. Matchups in future rounds are determined without ALL of the previous round games being completed. So, if two people are slotted to play in the next round, they can start right away. In tournaments I've run, I've found that this can lead to less downtime for players that play quicker than others.
Of course, the worst case scenario is still that the person playing the longest route to the final takes the full time every round. So it is technically still possible to be longer than the swiss round format, but experience shows otherwise. | |
A Proud Gelatinous Dude
www.gelatinousdudes.com
| |
|
lynchpt
Sergeant
930 Posts
| | 04/10/2006 3:13 PM |
| I believe the rationale for adding an extra round in the Qualifiers (this was also done for last year's Limited Qualifiers) is precisely to address some of the concerns voiced in this thread.
The extra round before cutdown gives more opportunity for the best bands/players to rise to the top. An early loss is much less devastating in this format because, in most conditions, all players with only 1 loss will make the cutdown. It can happen that a 2-loss player can make it. The key is the extra round avoids the phenomenon we saw at some Constructed Qualifiers last year that several (4-6) players all end up with one loss and 2 or 3 of them miss out on the playoffs solely due to tiebreakers. Tiebreakers are a very unsatisfying way to determine playoff advancement, so it's a good thing to minimize dependence on tiebreakers.
Pat Lynch | |
Dreamblade Rules Advisor | |
|
shemnon
Warrior
279 Posts
| | 04/10/2006 4:56 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by lynchpt
The extra round before cutdown gives more opportunity for the best bands/players to rise to the top. An early loss is much less devastating in this format because, in most conditions, all players with only 1 loss will make the cutdown.
Unless we get more than 52 players at a qualifier, in all cases all players with only one loss will qualify. Being the Computer nerd that I am I wrote a python script to run all of the possible results for a tourney of X players. My chart basically mirrors WoTCs chart up until 52 players for 4 people and all players one loss of the pace advancing. But this seems to be a problem that WoTC almost wants to have darn, 53 players at a non grinder qualifier? That's a good issue to have to deal with at this phase in the life of DDM.
Except in cases where a lot of players in the no loss pool playing down losing WoTCs chart should be sufficient. Since losing would put you in the dog fight for the last slot for the elimination rounds there is no advantage to throwing a game to a lower player, so there really isn't an issue of possible collusion.
If I could reshape the qualifier scene, I would do a continual swiss, where when you have two or three losses (depends on tourney length) you are dropped from the tournament. The last four players in the tournament get the invite, the last two get the free tickets, and when there are only two players the final round is declared and the winner gets the airline tickets and the title. If there are too many players cut at any of the breaks, the last spot is either awarded via tiebreakers or (my preference) more playoffs! So if you go from 6/5 to 3 the last spot goes to one or two more rounds of play for the eliminated parties in what basically amounts to a side playoff.
Why do I want that? The only time you get a prize is after winning a game, and the only time you get cut from consideration is when you lose. Nothing worse than winning the last preliminary round and winding up one short of the break.
| |
The Miniatures War College -- Advenio paratus. Egressus melior paratus. | |
|
doranur
Warrior
180 Posts
| | 04/11/2006 2:16 AM |
| as stated earlier guy was considering dropping with a 2-1 record because of the skill of the playing field. he stayed in, and i don't think he regrets that decision, but do you go for more wins or more challenging play?
of the people who remained only 1 i believe had a 1-2 record, no one had a 0-3 record. all that being said, derry lost his 1st match, and went on to get 2nd in the tourney, running undefeated after his first match until his loss in the final.
with all the top players in the tournament,all it takes for us average folk is 2 bad matchups to knock us out, but you have the option of farming points afterwards and learning. double elim would not have been nearly as satisfying imo. | |
-Doranur
join the revolution! down with round/turn fascism! viva la resistance! | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |