[LSJ] Tournament Point Tie Breaker

So in our Storyline tournament last night, there ended up being a 4 way tie in terms of GW/VP for the 3rd, 4th, and 5th seat in the finals. As it was a storyline event, and thus non sanctioned and non official, I wasn't worrying so much about the official rankings and tournament points and what not, but there ended up being a bit of consternation over the tie breaking system--in the end, even with Tournament Points factored in, three of the four tied players were tied in Tournament Points as well (so we had 3 people with 1GW, 3VP, 84TP). And the end result was that as far as we could tell, when you get to this point, still, your only option is to randomly determine who the "winners" are by virtue of rolling dice or something. Is this correct? If, after taking into account Game Wins then VPs and then TPs, there is still a tie among players, you need to roll some dice? Thanks, -Peter

Peter D Bakija schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] As far as I know, any fair method is good. Dice/random option is one method, consensus between the contestants is another. B

Bram Vink wrote: > Peter D Bakija schreef: >> Is this correct? If, after taking into account Game Wins then VPs and >> then TPs, there is still a tie among players, you need to roll some >> dice? >> >> Thanks, >> -Peter > > As far as I know, any fair method is good. Dice/random option is one > method, consensus between the contestants is another. Um, consensus technically isn't a correct method. You need a fair random method. People can drop from the tournament to allow others to go through, though. But if you need to split 4th and 5th, for example, it still needs to be a fair random method. Just deciding among yourselves doesn't cut it. from the tournament rules (who'd have thought to look there?!): 3.1. Round Structure V:TES tournaments shall consist of a minimum of three rounds. After the preliminary two or more rounds, the players are ranked according to the number of Game Wins (see section 3.8.1). For players with the same number of Game Wins, the players' total accumulated Victory Points from the preliminary rounds are used as a tie-breaker. In the event that ties still exist, Tournament Points (see section 3.1.3) are used. Remaining ties for any of the top five rankings are resolved using *****any fair random method (e.g., a coin toss or a die roll)*****. The five highest-ranked players advance to the final round. (Emphasis added by me) -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

> 3.1. Round Structure > > V:TES tournaments shall consist of a minimum of three rounds. After the > preliminary two or more rounds, the players are ranked according to the > number of Game Wins (see section 3.8.1). For players with the same > number of Game Wins, the players' total accumulated Victory Points from > the preliminary rounds are used as a tie-breaker. In the event that ties > still exist, Tournament Points (see section 3.1.3) are used. Remaining > ties for any of the top five rankings are resolved using *****any fair > random method (e.g., a coin toss or a die roll)*****. The five > highest-ranked players advance to the final round. Frankly, I find it preposterous that any section of any set of floor rules should contain the statement "a coin toss or a die roll" when referring to a method used to determine players who are cut from a final round. Perhaps a competition of rock, paper, scissors between the persons in danger of elimination should be the preferred method of determining who is cut. At least that could be argued to have something to do with the skill of the participants.

[ quoted text not captured ] Rock-paper-scissors really doesn't measure their vtes skill, though. It'd be kind of like getting players to play a game of monopoly to split ties (except be a bit faster, and a lot closer to being random anyway). I'd proposed 'ousting points' as another level of tie breaking a while back. you get 12 points if you are ousted first, 24 if second, etc. Simultaneous oustings get to share the points (ala tournament points) last player in gets 60. I figured ousting-points (or 'survival points', or 'eternal points', whatever you want to call them) would be so far down the tie-breaker chain as to not overtly encourage 'turtling' (at least no more than the current 0.5 vps for time outs does), but still be some bearing on the skill of the participants. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <454da098$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >I'd proposed 'ousting points' as another level of tie breaking a while >back. you get 12 points if you are ousted first, 24 if second, etc. >Simultaneous oustings get to share the points (ala tournament points) >last player in gets 60. > >I figured ousting-points (or 'survival points', or 'eternal points', >whatever you want to call them) would be so far down the tie-breaker >chain as to not overtly encourage 'turtling' (at least no more than the >current 0.5 vps for time outs does), but still be some bearing on the >skill of the participants. While any game-based tie-breaker that operates this far down is going to be annoying in some fashion, I'm not sure that this implementation is necessarily that great. See, say we're in a 2+F tournament and I'm playing some deck that's disliked by a lot of players - perhaps a particularly nasty Gehenna Imbued deck, or a Turbo-deck, perhaps Turbo-Arika. In the second round, I get jumped on because a couple of decks at the table saw me or heard about me and thought "Oh crap." While obviously there is always an element of managing table-hate in the game, and I certainly don't want to see that go away, something about losing on a tie-break because I got jumped in my second round game where another player got ousted second in the second round appeals to me that much. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

The Kaiser wrote: > Frankly, I find it preposterous that any section of any set of floor > rules should contain the statement "a coin toss or a die roll" when > referring to a method used to determine players who are cut from a > final round. I pretty much agree with you on an absolute level, but I'm hard pressed to see what a way is that could realistically further rank the players--there is already GWs then VPs and the a third level of TPs. Is there a way to rank the players in a 4th way to break the third level tie? In our tournament the other night, 'cause it was a 2 preliminary round event (which is, presumably, more likely to end up with such a result), we ended up with a 3 way 1/3/84 tie (all three players won 1 game, got 3 VPs in the game they won, and in the other game they played, all three players tied for 3-5 at a 5 player table. The 4th guy with 1GW/3VP had 90 TPs due to sitting at a 5 player table where someone swept all 5 VPs, so he tied for 2-5th, which got him an extra 6TPs). There might be a good way to further rank the players, but I'm not clear on what it is. > Perhaps a competition of rock, paper, scissors between > the persons in danger of elimination should be the preferred method of > determining who is cut. At least that could be argued to have > something to do with the skill of the participants. I agree that it is unsatisfying to sometimes have to decide who makes it to the final by virtue of random determination (which becomes less of an issue the larger and longer the event goes, I'd figure--does this ever happen in 25+ player 3R+F events?). But again, other than Rock Paper Scisors, what is a viable method for ranking the players out to 4 places? -Peter

Salem wrote: > I'd proposed 'ousting points' as another level of tie breaking a while > back. you get 12 points if you are ousted first, 24 if second, etc. > Simultaneous oustings get to share the points (ala tournament points) > last player in gets 60. That might be something, but often, the rank at which you get ousted is so far outside the realm of your control to be essentailly a random determiner anyway. I'd think something along the lines of giving you tie breaker points based on the scores of the people you ousted is probably more along the lines of a "skill" based tie breaker, but could be really complicated and wildly impractical to impliment. But it might be something--maybe you get a point for every VP a player you oust gets, but that would require keeping track of every person every other person ousts, and then going back after the last preliminary round and giving people 4th level tie breaker points based on this or something. Which might count for something, but is complicated. -Peter

I don't see how letting someone decide on their own to drop out is different from the tied players conferring among themselves and coming to consensus. Wouldn't be fair if three players pushed one to drop out, but that's not a real consensus. Anyways... .what's wrong with having 6 people at the final table? At least at a storyline I played at, I think we had 7 at a final table. [ quoted text not captured ]

d wrote: > I don't see how letting someone decide on their own to drop out is > different from the tied players conferring among themselves and coming > to consensus. Wouldn't be fair if three players pushed one to drop out, > but that's not a real consensus. I agree, but technically, determination needs to be fair and random. People can decide to drop out, but if folks don't voluntarily drop out, it generally needs to be random. But practically speaking, if folks come up to some consensus, it is probably just as good as someone voluntarily deciding to drop out. > Anyways... .what's wrong with having 6 people at the final table? At > least at a storyline I played at, I think we had 7 at a final table. 6 player games are horrible, as they are considerably longer than 5 player games, and there are too many people who have nothing to do with you at the start of the game. That, and the official tournament rules don't support 6 player games (although for non sanctioned events, a 6+ player final is fine if you are so inclined. But most folks tend not to be.) -Peter

d wrote: > I don't see how letting someone decide on their own to drop out is > different from the tied players conferring among themselves and coming > to consensus. Wouldn't be fair if three players pushed one to drop out, > but that's not a real consensus. because the tie might not always be for 5th/6th. It could be for 1st/2nd, 2nd/3rd, etc. Say me and you were tied for 1st/2nd. I know I really really want to be your predator, as in a prelim game when I was I ousted you easily. You really really want to be across table, as once you get set up, you'd have no trouble handling my deck. Is one of us going to 'drop out' and not play the final at all? I don't think so. Are we going to be able to decide amicably among ourselves who came 1st, and thus gets final seating choice? I don't think so. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > So in our Storyline tournament last night, there ended up being a 4 way > tie in terms of GW/VP for the 3rd, 4th, and 5th seat in the finals. As > it was a storyline event, and thus non sanctioned and non official, I > wasn't worrying so much about the official rankings and tournament > points and what not, but there ended up being a bit of consternation > over the tie breaking system--in the end, even with Tournament Points > factored in, three of the four tied players were tied in Tournament > Points as well (so we had 3 people with 1GW, 3VP, 84TP). And the end > result was that as far as we could tell, when you get to this point, > still, your only option is to randomly determine who the "winners" are > by virtue of rolling dice or something. Yes. Ties for the top places are very common in small tournaments. > Is this correct? If, after taking into account Game Wins then VPs and > then TPs, there is still a tie among players, you need to roll some > dice? Yes. [VEKN 3.1]

Salem wrote: > I'd proposed 'ousting points' as another level of tie breaking a while > back. you get 12 points if you are ousted first, 24 if second, etc. > Simultaneous oustings get to share the points (ala tournament points) > last player in gets 60. Here's a thread with that proposal restated (and analysis): http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/ce714ac646061ed1

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:1162738180....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > I'd think something along the lines of giving you tie breaker points > based on the scores of the people you ousted is probably more along > the lines of a "skill" based tie breaker, but could be really > complicated and wildly impractical to impliment. But it might be > something--maybe you get a point for every VP a player you oust gets, > but that would require keeping track of every person every other > person ousts, and then going back after the last preliminary round and > giving people 4th level tie breaker points based on this or something. > Which might count for something, but is complicated. Uhm, this might be another overtly stupid idea (haven't thought it out... just posting "stream of consciousness"), but how about adding up the tournament ranking of each opponent that the two tied players faced, and breaking the tie in favor of the guy with the lower final tally (the guy who faced more opponents that did better)? Presumably, he did equally well, but against a stronger field of opponents (which is enough justification for a tie-break to me). It'd be fairly easy to tally up (simple arithmentic on 6 to 12 numbers), and could only be trotted out in times where tie-breaker determines finals seating. Just a thought. DaveZ Atom Weaver

[ quoted text not captured ] I like. for the Archon, you could weight GW as 100, VP as 20, and ignore TP? This way you could get an RPI (Ratings Percentage Index) ranking for your opponent. best - chris

atomweaver wrote: > Uhm, this might be another overtly stupid idea (haven't thought it > out... just posting "stream of consciousness"), but how about adding up > the tournament ranking of each opponent that the two tied players faced, > and breaking the tie in favor of the guy with the lower final tally (the > guy who faced more opponents that did better)? > Presumably, he did equally well, but against a stronger field of > opponents (which is enough justification for a tie-break to me). It'd be > fairly easy to tally up (simple arithmentic on 6 to 12 numbers), and > could only be trotted out in times where tie-breaker determines finals > seating. That isn't bad, and pretty easy to reonstruct when necessary, although it does require making sure you have the actual ranking of everyone in the event, when in reality, in a smallish (10-20) person event, generally you only need to know the actual ranks of the top 6 or 7 players (and don't need to figure out the TPs of people with no VPs at all and whatnot). But then, I suppose most folks (who aren't me) use a computer for this sort of thing. -Peter