Highlander 2E Constructed Southwest Regional
Static Cat
Ancient Immortal
What are you looking at nancy boy!
Posts: 408
|
Post by Static Cat on Apr 20, 2009 18:14:33 GMT -5
And I'd like to reply to Tims post about this too . . . sorry I have to do this.
DOUBLE ELIMINATION 1. True 2. True 3. True 4. er . . . not necessarily, but it also depends on the number people.
SWISS 1. Actually, it's possible to have a tie, but they are very unlikely, unless you only have a few people, if Highlander got up to the numbers that it should ( 20+ per tournament ) then there wouldn't be a tie. 2. That's the problem with any game, you can loose because of a bad draw, same with Double Elimination, you could loose and be sent to the loosers bracket because of a bad draw. 3. False, they go to your opponent just like they do in double elimination ( however we have a house rule of giving them back at the end of the tournament ) 4. False, it becomes a part of your "differential" and thus determines the place where you sit for the next and future rounds. 5. True/False - if you have enough players, then you have a final round ( 4 - 8 ) people, so even if you loose your head in one round and win every other game, and take a head or two through out the rest of the tournament, you can in theory come back to the top spot ( 4 - 8 - depending ) and then beat the guy that beat you.
So, as it said, there are reasons for both . . . and everyone can dispute them one way or another. Like I said, in future we will do as you ask, again at least I will.
Cat
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 20, 2009 18:54:32 GMT -5
5. True/False - if you have enough players, then you have a final round ( 4 - 8 ) people, so even if you loose your head in one round and win every other game, and take a head or two through out the rest of the tournament, you can in theory come back to the top spot ( 4 - 8 - depending ) and then beat the guy that beat you. I am NOT starting a fight, I am simply trying to put 2 and 2 together between what you say and what we see in the tournament reports. In your Regional you had 7 players and played only 3 rounds. How could the guy who lost in round 1 come back to play the top seed in round 3, and why didnt that happen at your regional? Looking over the reports, I have not seen a single time that this has occured when you have had at least 4 players. Is this a very rare occasion? That ability is what MAKES Double Elimination what it is. You want us to understand your format, so I am respectfully asking the pertinent questions. I have one other question, it was asked in the heat of the argument and reitterated, but the answer really wasnt what was being asked - If Player A has the Marcus Q and loses his head in Round 1, how do you handle this, since he has had to give over the Q and his deck is now illegal?
|
|
|
Post by swisherfan on Apr 20, 2009 20:09:58 GMT -5
5. True/False - if you have enough players, then you have a final round ( 4 - 8 ) people, so even if you loose your head in one round and win every other game, and take a head or two through out the rest of the tournament, you can in theory come back to the top spot ( 4 - 8 - depending ) and then beat the guy that beat you. I am NOT starting a fight, I am simply trying to put 2 and 2 together between what you say and what we see in the tournament reports. In your Regional you had 7 players and played only 3 rounds. How could the guy who lost in round 1 come back to play the top seed in round 3, and why didnt that happen at your regional? Looking over the reports, I have not seen a single time that this has occured when you have had at least 4 players. Is this a very rare occasion? That ability is what MAKES Double Elimination what it is. You want us to understand your format, so I am respectfully asking the pertinent questions. I have one other question, it was asked in the heat of the argument and reitterated, but the answer really wasnt what was being asked - If Player A has the Marcus Q and loses his head in Round 1, how do you handle this, since he has had to give over the Q and his deck is now illegal? How about some Round by Round Coverage. With 8 people in Swiss you need 4 rounds. Less then 8 and 3 will do it, so 3 rounds was perfect. Round 1 pairings were random Round 1: Jeff vs Cat - Cat Wins via Headshot Jason vs Jon - Jon wins via Headshot Ryan vs Chris - Chris wins via Headshot Carlos gets the bye Round 1 scores Cat 1-0 (+2) Jon 1-0 (+2) Chris 1-0 (+2) Carlos 1-0 (+1) Geoff 0-1 (-1) Jason 0-1 (-1) Ryan 0-1 (-1) With 3 people tied for last, the bye was randomly determined from those 3. You then pair from the losing bracket up. Round 2: Cat vs Jon - Jon wins Chris vs Carlos - Chris wins via Headshot Jason vs Ryan - Ryan wins Geoff has the bye Round 2 results Chris 2-0 (+4) Jon 2-0 (+3) Cat 1-1 (+2) Ryan 1-1 (+0) Geoff 1-1 (+0) Carlos 1-1 (-1) Jason 0-2 (-1) Round 3 pairings: Chris vs Jon - Chris wins Ryan vs Geoff - Ryan wins Cat vs Carlos - Cat wins via headshot Jason has the bye Round 3 results: Chris 3-0 (+5) Cat 2-1 (+4) Jon 2-1 (+3) Ryan 2-1 (+1) Jason 1-2 (+0) Carlos 1-2 (-1) Geoff 1-2 (-1) There ya go. The Head Shot still matters in Swiss because it creates a differential that boosted Cat above Jon, and Jon above Ryan despite all sharing 2-1 records. A second tie-breaker would be strength of schedule (how well your opponents did). Carlos who played the 1st and 2nd place people ranks higher then Geoff who did not play me. With the Q thing, your ruling on the Ramirez's Master Advantage really changed things. Previously if a ramirez q that lets you play 12 slashes was taken it did not alter deck construction at the beginning of the tournament, so no harm - no foul. However, with your ruling that does pose a question. Nobody actually plays with those q's, the most we see are Kurgan +1 damage, Horne, and Annie (Dodges). Do you guys have a lot of people putting in deck altering q's? I still think the Ramirez ruling is a poor one that will hurt overall tourney play. Not because of the Swiss ramifications, but the fact that it slows down gameplay as you have to constantly check things and I believe it is not in the spirit of the card. Hope this helps... Chris
|
|
|
Post by Tim Small on Apr 20, 2009 21:21:16 GMT -5
One thing that we do for round robin is not give points for head shots. They are used for tie breakers, but that is it. When you take someones head, they are penzalized for it, you do not gain any points for it.
This makes the tournament winnable by all deck types, not just head shot.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 20, 2009 21:25:23 GMT -5
If your bracketing works on win-loss pairings, shouldnt the 3rd round have been : chris/jon, cat/ryan, geoff/carlos and jason with the bye? That would have been the pairing with the closest rankings, instead you put cat (3rd place) vs the lowest ranked available player.
|
|
|
Post by swisherfan on Apr 20, 2009 22:32:09 GMT -5
One thing that we do for round robin is not give points for head shots. They are used for tie breakers, but that is it. When you take someones head, they are penzalized for it, you do not gain any points for it. This makes the tournament winnable by all deck types, not just head shot. That is the EXACT way we do it too. Notice, even though I was a HS deck, I won because I went undefeated. If you have a record of 3-0 wins (+3) in a 3 round tourney, you would still beat a 2-1 (+4). Record first, then differential, then finally strength of schedule.
|
|
|
Post by swisherfan on Apr 20, 2009 22:37:30 GMT -5
Ryan and Geoff had the exact same record and differential (1-1 +0) so the pairing was semi-random (they could not face an opponent they had faced previously).
|
|
|
Post by swisherfan on Apr 20, 2009 22:38:37 GMT -5
I haven't forgotten your questions/points Tim, I am just making sure I say everything in a way that communicates my thoughts in a concise manner.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 21, 2009 5:32:03 GMT -5
Ryan and Geoff had the exact same record and differential (1-1 +0) so the pairing was semi-random (they could not face an opponent they had faced previously). So for the 3rd round you break with the "pair from the bottom" and instead pair from the middle? I am trying to understand how the last seed available played a higher ranked player when he should have played the guy right above him, when none of those players had faced one another in previous rounds. This created an almost no win situation for the bottom seed guys as they have to face players with a wider point gap.
|
|
|
Post by spacewolf on Apr 21, 2009 7:23:10 GMT -5
I've played other card game tournies, and what we usually do (with a small group that is-maybe 4-8 people) is a round robin, followed by cutting to top 4 by record then str of opp. The top 4 players play best 2-3 with 1st playing 4th and 2nd playing 3rd. Then the winners of those games go on to play each other for 1st and 2nd place, while the losers play each other for 3rd and 4th. Now, it has been my experience that just because 4th has to play 1st (when cutting to top 4), does not necessarily mean that the 1st place player will win.
|
|
|
Post by swisherfan on Apr 21, 2009 14:02:58 GMT -5
Ryan and Geoff had the exact same record and differential (1-1 +0) so the pairing was semi-random (they could not face an opponent they had faced previously). So for the 3rd round you break with the "pair from the bottom" and instead pair from the middle? I am trying to understand how the last seed available played a higher ranked player when he should have played the guy right above him, when none of those players had faced one another in previous rounds. This created an almost no win situation for the bottom seed guys as they have to face players with a wider point gap. You would be correct, but I mistyped. Carlos was at 1-1 (+0), not 1-1 (-1). He got the bye in the first match to make him 1-0 (+1), then lost by HS to make him 1-1 (+0). We had 3x 1-1 (+0)'s going into the final round. My bad...
|
|
|
Post by swisherfan on Apr 21, 2009 14:33:36 GMT -5
I am saying that the Ban Hammer should be flown around casually, but throwing insults around and showing a disregard to the forum rules is no way to make your case. Saying the design team is clueless, is also not a way to make your point. A simple discussion could have mitigated through the forums, but you debased it like most web forums by letting your passion for the game take it's route. I was upset that you were name calling, but the thing that got me aggrivated about the entire thing was that you were not stopping to make your point. I disagree with your Swiss format for a couple of reason for Regionals and I will point them out here: 1. Double Elimination allows the stronger decks to compete in the upper bracket. 2. If a stronger deck is pushed out by a one trick pony or a bad draw, it still has the ability to win. 3. It matches with the "There can be only one!" montage of the series. 4. This format allows standing brackets which coinside with your ranking better then swiss. Problem I see with Swiss: 1. You can have TIES, no, if's, and's or but's. 2. You play x amount of players and that is it, you can get shafted out of the tournament by one unlucky match. 3. Quickenings become an issue when your head is taken. 4. Head shots are supposed to take you out of the tournament. In swiss, this can be done, but causes havoc on your brackets. 5. Swiss has the issue that it has no way for a deck that lost to you (due to bad draw) to come back and clean your clock. 1. Double Elimination allows the stronger decks to compete in the upper bracket.1A. Swiss has similar records playing against other so "strong" decks also go against other "strong" decks. Swiss also gives the benefit of being able to come back from a loss due to random factors sucha s a bad draw that do happen. With Double Elim and the Headshot rule that is not always the case. 2. If a stronger deck is pushed out by a one trick pony or a bad draw, it still has the ability to win.2A. This is actually more so in Swiss then Double Elim for the example above. 3. It matches with the "There can be only one!" montage of the series.3A. Swiss does this also rewarding players who take heads while hurting players who have their head taken. However, the reward which is differential only separates you from people of identitcal records. For example if a deck goes 3-1 and takes 3 heads, and never loses its own it would have a records of 3-1 (+6), while a player who is also 3-1 who has not taken any heads and gotten his head taken once would be 3-1 (+2). Shouldn't the player who is 3-1 (+6) be higher...yes. Swiss fits theme. 4. This format allows standing brackets which coinside with your ranking better then swiss.4A. I believe you are referring to starting pairing with Nexus rankings. Well, I will believe it when I see it, but there is no reason why that could not be modified for Swiss. Double Elim is currently seeded random for the 1st match, so is Swiss. Same exact system for pairing can carry over easily. Problem I see with Swiss: 1. You can have TIES, no, if's, and's or but's.1A. This is actually 100% false. Look at the tournament report to see that we do not have ties. We have tie-breakers on 2 levels which prevent it. 2. You play x amount of players and that is it, you can get shafted out of the tournament by one unlucky match.2A. Once again, it seems to me that Double Elim is much more likely to get shafted in one match if you lose your head. Swiss shows how your deck performs over a set # of rounds. Therefore a deck is more likely to show what it is truly made of because it will get those 4+ rounds to play in an 8 man tournament. That is not always the case with Double Elim. 3. Quickenings become an issue when your head is taken.3A. With the Ramirez Master Advantage ruling this is absolutely true. Something that fundamentally alters deck construction such as a Q should only be counted on when signing the deck up. Ramirez's MA should not affect the part of their abilities based on deck construction such as his own or Galen. That is 100% opinion. ;D 4. Head shots are supposed to take you out of the tournament. In swiss, this can be done, but causes havoc on your brackets.4A. This is 100% your opinion. Headshots should matter in Highlander and in the version of Swiss we play they do. I won't bore you with how we do it since we have discussed it at length. Nobody should ever be eliminated from a tourney, it is bad for newer or beginning players. There is also an option to cut to top 8 (or top 4) which I will discuss next... 5. Swiss has the issue that it has no way for a deck that lost to you (due to bad draw) to come back and clean your clock.5A. This is untrue. In many high level Swiss formats you can run a Swiss event with a single elimination top 8 (or top 4). For example 50 players could play in the Highlander Worlds Championship and play in 6 rounds of Swiss with a cut to top 8 which would then be Single Elimination. I could lose to you in round 1, but we could both make top 8 and I could take my revenge on you then (and I would). This is how card games such as MTG and WoW do it, and we have modified it to play with Highlander in a way that allows for theme and efficiency. Hope this helps...
|
|
|
Post by brendanparochelli on Apr 21, 2009 15:07:37 GMT -5
Nobody here packs Divine Intervention because none of us here CARE about this game enough. This kind of nuts really makes me want to build the Mako, Chainsaw, Under the Color, Break Weapon, Dead End Ally/Cat Walk deck. I just want to see your foundling face start to cry as I break your weapon, take away your special cards and watch you try to block or dodge any head shots. You can yell impossible as much as you want through the interweb. It's happened before and it's happened on turn 2. I apologize for posting again, but I realized the above was meant as a serious deck and I would like to see a full posting in the deck forums. If you care enough to post it, it would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 21, 2009 16:58:12 GMT -5
4. Head shots are supposed to take you out of the tournament. In swiss, this can be done, but causes havoc on your brackets.4A. This is 100% your opinion. Headshots should matter in Highlander and in the version of Swiss we play they do. I won't bore you with how we do it since we have discussed it at length. Nobody should ever be eliminated from a tourney, it is bad for newer or beginning players. There is also an option to cut to top 8 (or top 4) which I will discuss next... #1 - Why doesnt your group ever use the "cut to top 4" option? Running only 3 rounds is awfully short. #2 - RARELY does anybody take the head of a beginner. Beginners are given every chance to play in every tournament I have ever played in or ran as a judge. A beginner is going to play just as many rounds in Swiss as in Double Elimination (2 rounds) because you give the bye to the lowest ranked.
|
|
|
Post by swisherfan on Apr 21, 2009 17:09:54 GMT -5
4. Head shots are supposed to take you out of the tournament. In swiss, this can be done, but causes havoc on your brackets.4A. This is 100% your opinion. Headshots should matter in Highlander and in the version of Swiss we play they do. I won't bore you with how we do it since we have discussed it at length. Nobody should ever be eliminated from a tourney, it is bad for newer or beginning players. There is also an option to cut to top 8 (or top 4) which I will discuss next... #1 - Why doesnt your group ever use the "cut to top 4" option? Running only 3 rounds is awfully short. #2 - RARELY does anybody take the head of a beginner. Beginners are given every chance to play in every tournament I have ever played in or ran as a judge. A beginner is going to play just as many rounds in Swiss as in Double Elimination (2 rounds) because you give the bye to the lowest ranked. Usually top cuts are reserved for only larger events. If you have 8 or more people it would have been 4 rounds. If you see the results, there are clear winners at each level and only 3 rounds were needed. Your #2 point only applies if there are an odd # of people. If even, then everyone will always play.
|
|
|
|