Highlander 2E Constructed Southwest Regional
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 21, 2009 18:19:18 GMT -5
#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. Going by the "clear cut winner" argument, there never needs to be a final bracket in Double Elim either, since clearly the top of the winners bracket has won all his games. The REASON for such a playoff IS to give the underdog a chance to make a Rocky-esque comeback. The complete LACK of this in Swiss is a big turn-off to the Design Team. No playoff = anti-climactic As for #2, about 50% of tournaments will have an odd number of players (law of averages).
|
|
|
Post by swisherfan on Apr 21, 2009 18:34:08 GMT -5
The bye should be a non-issue since it can happen just as easy in double elim.
I completely disagree...when Jon (wargod) and I were playing last week, EVERYONE knew what we were playing for. The difference was that they could play too and were not having to wait around to get prize support.
The Design Team had made up its mind about this before this discussion began, but I have seen some major misconceptions represented and feel that if you guys had someone run a Swiss tourney for you it would sell itself.
|
|
|
Post by swisherfan on Apr 21, 2009 18:49:44 GMT -5
Any system that in a small tournament allows on person to sail through to the finals without winning a game is suspect to me. Now the odds are hard, but it can be done and points to an obvious flaw in the system
8 Player Tournament - Double Elimination
1 vs. 2 - 1 wins via HS 3 vs. 4 - 3 wins via HS 5 vs. 6 - 5 wins via HS 7 vs. 8 - 7 wins
Round 2: 1 vs. 3 - 1 wins via HS 5 vs. 7 - 5 wins via HS 8 has bye
Round 3 1 vs. 5 - 1 wins via HS 8 has bye
Finals 1 vs 8 - 8 wins via HS
Can you honestly tell me that 8 deserves to win it all?
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 21, 2009 19:26:51 GMT -5
Can you honestly tell me that 8 deserves to win it all? Given that we dont know HOW 8 lost his first match, that question cannot be answered correctly. #1 took 3 heads, so his deck was obviously good, but 8 may have had an answer to his deck. And if the other players hadnt lost thier heads, 8 may have shown to truly be a dominant deck by rising through all the competiton. As you pointed out, in your match the other players were excited because they knew what you were playing for, but they couldnt actually WATCH the match because they were busy playing. THIS is what we are talking about, the excitement and pressure created by spectators in a final round. The only people stuck waiting around for Prize Support are the top place finishers, everyone else could have already gotten thier Tear card if they want to go home.
|
|
|
Post by swisherfan on Apr 21, 2009 19:36:24 GMT -5
Can you honestly tell me that 8 deserves to win it all? Given that we dont know HOW 8 lost his first match, that question cannot be answered correctly. #1 took 3 heads, so his deck was obviously good, but 8 may have had an answer to his deck. And if the other players hadnt lost thier heads, 8 may have shown to truly be a dominant deck by rising through all the competiton. As you pointed out, in your match the other players were excited because they knew what you were playing for, but they couldnt actually WATCH the match because they were busy playing. THIS is what we are talking about, the excitement and pressure created by spectators in a final round. The only people stuck waiting around for Prize Support are the top place finishers, everyone else could have already gotten thier Tear card if they want to go home. The Design Team should continue to make the promo packs that do involve placing higher to get a good promo (Jimmy Sang, etc.). Tear cards can go away. I also think the design team should look at alternate images of popular cards as prize cards (i.e. Holy Ground from Search 4 Vengeance, etc.). Players playing for ranking, prize cards for all players, and experience all point to Swiss being a better environment. We are gonna disagree but at least our points have been made in a civil way.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 21, 2009 19:38:09 GMT -5
points to an obvious flaw in the system There is an obvious flaw in Swiss system as well. Player A plays a head hunting deck Player B plays a cheese deck In the end, there is a tie between these two for 1st place. Player A has taken a head, but Player B has not because his deck isnt built to do that. Player A wins because the scoring is skewed to reward taking heads. This invalidates EVERY deck type that DOESNT throw head shots. Even if neither deck takes a head, the lower seeded player will always lose the final tie breaker because HIS "strength of scheldule" tie breaker will not match up to the guy seeded ahead of him because you do matchups from the bottom-up.
|
|
|
Post by swisherfan on Apr 21, 2009 19:43:18 GMT -5
points to an obvious flaw in the system There is an obvious flaw in Swiss system as well. Player A plays a head hunting deck Player B plays a cheese deck In the end, there is a tie between these two for 1st place. Player A has taken a head, but Player B has not because his deck isnt built to do that. Player A wins because the scoring is skewed to reward taking heads. This invalidates EVERY deck type that DOESNT throw head shots. Even if neither deck takes a head, the lower seeded player will always lose the final tie breaker because HIS "strength of scheldule" tie breaker will not match up to the guy seeded ahead of him because you do matchups from the bottom-up. Completely untrue. In Swiss, there is one undefeated. Just like Double Elim, as more players enter, the # of rounds increase. The cheese deck could be 4-0 (+4), and the HS deck could be 3-1 (+6), but the cheese deck wins because it has a better record. You do it in this order. 1st - Overall record 2nd - Headshot differential (+2, +1, 0, -1) 3rd - Strength of Schedule
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 21, 2009 19:48:59 GMT -5
Players playing for ranking, prize cards for all players, and experience all point to Swiss being a better environment. Playing For Ranking - See my above post concerning this Prize For All Players - How does Swiss have an advantage here? Both formats give the same amount of prize cards to the same ranked finishers. Experience - We will all continue to disagree on this one. It is a matter of preference: Either everyone plays 3 games no matter what, or you are rewarded for good play by getting to play up to 6 matches. I am passing judgement on neither because it IS a preference. Some people WANT to know exactly how long a game is going to be.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 21, 2009 20:20:50 GMT -5
Completely untrue. In Swiss, there is one undefeated. Just like Double Elim, as more players enter, the # of rounds increase. The cheese deck could be 4-0 (+4), and the HS deck could be 3-1 (+6), but the cheese deck wins because it has a better record. You do it in this order. 1st - Overall record 2nd - Headshot differential (+2, +1, 0, -1) 3rd - Strength of Schedule You are assuming one of the two is undefeated. I am saying what if they have identical records after 4 rounds and both players have lost once.
|
|
|
Post by spacewolf on Apr 21, 2009 20:30:22 GMT -5
Again, I would say the best solution would be to cut to some sort of top (insert # here). It allows for multiple games in the early rounds (just in case you get a bad draw), and after the cut allows for an undisputed winner. Then again I don't have a lot of play experience with this game so I could be missing something.
|
|
|
Post by swisherfan on Apr 21, 2009 21:03:39 GMT -5
Completely untrue. In Swiss, there is one undefeated. Just like Double Elim, as more players enter, the # of rounds increase. The cheese deck could be 4-0 (+4), and the HS deck could be 3-1 (+6), but the cheese deck wins because it has a better record. You do it in this order. 1st - Overall record 2nd - Headshot differential (+2, +1, 0, -1) 3rd - Strength of Schedule You are assuming one of the two is undefeated. I am saying what if they have identical records after 4 rounds and both players have lost once. Won't happen for 1st place. Swiss will always have just one undefeated because it adds rounds to make sure that is always the case. You might have record ties for 2nd, but that is when headshots will come into play. If you are tied for 2nd based on overall record, then your headshots (both taking and losing heads) matter. It all makes sense...accept the love of Swiss. If it was an inferior or a flawed system every other card game would not be using it. We have adopted it for Highlander and it is good.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 21, 2009 21:50:50 GMT -5
Every other card game is NOT Highlander, for better or for worse. No other game has the mechanics of this game, it is what makes it unique. Double Elimination ALSO makes it unique. That Swiss works for your group is great.
I think we have a better understanding of Swiss now, but the fundamental differences between the formats are the very thing that helps give Highlander its flavor.
I am glad this ended in a civil manner.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Apr 21, 2009 22:28:54 GMT -5
Well, this has been a definite interesting read, first off that no one has been warned of being banned, or banned. I am not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, but speaking from past precedent, as well as personal experience on this forum. Anyway, onward, Prowler had stated a question that I am curious to hear the answer to concerning your Swiss style. If you have three people in the end with a 3-0 record and all took heads (+6), then it comes down to what you called "strength of schedule" which has been explained as referring to the seeding of the first round or ranking. In this case, say hypothetically, that two of the players were higher seed/ranking and the third is a lower seed/ranking. The third player never would have a chance at winning based on this. Am I correct, or did I misunderstand somewhere along the line? I ask this out of curiosity only, because it can happen.
The Design Team has already made known the result and direction for future Championships, so I will not go into that other than to say I support the decision.
The other thing I would like to remind everyone of, at your local tournaments, your tournament director can decide what format/style to use, as we have said in the past. Championships are the realm of the company, that is why there are special prizes and perks. I also remind everyone of Round Robin, which is as close to Swiss as the company is willing to go, and not that far off, but should only be used for less than eight person tournaments.
HWR
|
|
|
|