Some people seem to be stuggling with the fact that tie breakers only, you know, break ties, so let me explain how this works.
When the tournament breaks to top eight, the top seed plays the eighth seed, the second seed plays the seventh, etc. So if you go 7-0, you are rewarded by playing against the guy who went 5-1-1 and just barely got into finals. Now, in addition to that, you will get to choose play/draw.
The only game that where the decision is likely to come down to opponent's win percentage is 4th seed versus 5th seed. Everyone else will be playing someone at least three places above or below them.
This cannot be done. The number of judges is always way, way lower than the number of players: someone seeing that he/she can no longer make it and dropping is a valuable option to both the TO (who needs less resources to keep everything in check) and to the player (who saves time and might actually do something else that afternoon/evening, even something stupid like, you know, sleeping because next day he'll there's school/work)
This would lead to an inefficient use of the venue, often a place that is not all-day and not totally reserved for the tournament (I'm talking PTQs here). Having half the number of players grouped in a smaller space makes the other half of the venue ready for another use or at least ready for cleaning etc. Also, when you have 200+ people PTQ with four judges, these last poor fellows will be very glad not to have to run like crazy to give timely rulings all around the tables. And I assure you, a sweaty judge is not a pleasant view
I don't understand why they don't just ban intentional draws outright and have judges closely monitor the top ranked players in the round or two before the cut to top 8.
See the previous described situation for why judges won't always be able to closely (!) monitor the top ranked players. Draws can't be banned because two 3-0 players with control decks might want to draw and have lunch, or two friends that can choose would refuse playing each other in the early stages of the game, or the top 4 drawing saves everyone a lot of time and stress, or, or, or...
Same hereNo comment since I don't like LegacyThis is what I'm afraid of. With the current tie-breaker system, as you said, it's easily to screw up the tie-breaker result by having a few people drop out of the tournament, and with the new T8 rules that's unfair. You should use old randomizing methods such as die roll or coin flip to decide who plays/draws game 1. It's the fairest thing for everyone.
That's part of the issue, I'd imagine. By beating someone, you really push them towards dropping, which is ultra-relevant to your breakers.
I don't think this matters much at the PT level, where there's considerably more distinction between getting to the top 8 and not, and the matches are BO5. But for PTQs, this is going to mean more dreamcrushing, since playing or drawing in a 3 game set is ultra relevant.
I think the correct way is to cut a round of swiss, so that under pure win/loss leaves 4 players on top, and some X-1s trying to get in on breakers. Since we know the X-0s are going to draw anyways, just ignore that fact, and have the matches which would be played out played out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Be they worthy or just plain riff-raff, my warhead shall punish all without distinction. -Rip Van Winkle
I think this is very awesome. Rewarding the players with the highest ranking during the swiss is definitely a good idea.
I thought they already rewarded the top player of the Swiss in the top 8...by making them play the bottom-ranked player in the playoffs. Player #1 plays #8, #2 plays #7, #3 plays #6, and #4 plays #5. So, the top 4 already play the least competitive opponents in the top 8, at least according to the score.
I don't understand why they don't just ban intentional draws outright and have judges closely monitor the top ranked players in the round or two before the cut to top 8. Would fix a LOT of problems, and also prevent other forms of cheating as a side effect.
See, you are going off the assumption that an intentional draw is cheating/bad. In a larger tournament, players who "draw into top 8" have generally only dropped 1 match throughout the tournament (maybe 2 in a two-day). Occasionally only one or two spots are "locked up" for the top 8 by last round, other times, only a handful of spots are left. Banning intentional draws would put a greater emphasis on the "randomness" of tiebreakers, as more players would have the exact same record at the end of swiss.
However, if you want to ensure you will do well in a tournament, don't lose. That's the key right there. People who get locked out of top 8 before the final round because of IDs had lost at least one round in the tournament. At most PTQs/large events, even one loss won't stop you from making Top 8. They had their fair shot at the top, they just aren't getting a second (or third) chance.
In theory, I like this rule change. I like how wizards is deciding to reward players for playing it out, and it might allow a player or two to have an extra chance at Top 8; the flip side is that it can bump off a player who would have otherwise gotten in. However, we'll have to see pro reaction come Pro Tour time.
This system does seem unfair in either the semi-finals or finals as the problem is that this rule applies to all matches in the top 8.
For example if the players who finished 2nd and 3rd in the swiss that both had the exact same points and record at the end of the swiss play each other in the final the player who finished 2nd gets an unfair (albeit small) advantage.
All because the random pairings during the rounds paired them against different players at different times the player who came 3rd never got the opportunity to play the better players.
For example if the players who finished 2nd and 3rd in the swiss that both had the exact same points and record at the end of the swiss play each other in the final the player who finished 2nd gets an unfair (albeit small) advantage.
All because the random pairings during the rounds paired them against different players at different times the player who came 3rd never got the opportunity to play the better players.
If it's actually random, it's exactly as fair as the coin flip would be.
this honestly shouldnt change anything at the PT level... Games are best out of 5 which makes game 1 matter FAR FAR less.
Also payout is staggered for 3/4 and 5-8th at the PT... if several hundred dollars guaranteed didnt make people play it out winning the right to play first in 1/5 games wont either.
However at the PTQ level it significantly would change things as best out of 3 makes winning the die roll more important... Now instead of good players going x-1-1 in sealed especially they need to x-0.
Honestly I dont know many players who PLAY these events that are happy... all those who feel its some GREAT injustice that people who do really well get to ID in likely dont play this level of competition regardless.
I don't understand how people can call the die roll LESS random than this. A die roll is pretty much the definition of random.
And there is a pretty simple solution if the top priority was to remove draws. You could as someone said simply remove the draw option and let the game be decided on life total instead if time ran out. However, this would introduce a number of other problems with stalling and such, so I'm not sure it would be a good thing.
Its not that it isn't a good idea, it just seems pointless. Why is this happening? To stop ID's? If I'm given the option to ID in and be guaranteed top 8 qualification or to play a match that if I win I get to go first for a game in top 8 but if I lose I don't get top 8 qualification I'm just going to ID in.
I can't believe how everybody has missed the point of this change.
Who can remember people complaining that people going first have as much as a 60% chance of winning (all other things being equal, in constructed).
This is wizards saying, "wait, how about we try to find a way to take that advantage away from the winner of a dice roll and give it to someone who's earned it with a better record." This might be something that wizards tries to implement further.
For the people who claim tiebreakers are random they're not as random as you think.
For people saying this will reduce IDs it will but not by that much. It's all upside as far as I can see. I would love to see the DCI software decide all 'dice rolls' and bias pairings so that over the course of any long event your 'dice rolls' even out but I am certain most people hate a computer deciding these things.
I don't think it really matters. I still just think that you should have to play to get into top 8 not decide huh well i'll try to ID in rather than use this nifty 60 card deck I brought with me. Maybe it's the fact that look how useless it seems when one person is 1% better than someone else *places 4-5* and gets to decide the match because of it. Why not just roll a die? Ehh, just think this doesn't actually change anything about how people ID into the Top8. The only real way to make people not ID into top8 is make top8 a required X amount of match wins where X is the number of rounds. And not saying that is perfect either but it would get rid of ID's for top8. I just think this rule is useless and just not needed to play magic. More of an annoyance because people will always get paired with bad players at one time and get messed out of tie breakers because of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: Esper Spirits-WUB
Modern: Bant Geist-WUG
Legacy: Reanimator-UB-WRG
EDH:
Ramirez DePietro: Pirate Themed-UB
Riku of Two Reflections: "Oops I Win"-URG
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When the tournament breaks to top eight, the top seed plays the eighth seed, the second seed plays the seventh, etc. So if you go 7-0, you are rewarded by playing against the guy who went 5-1-1 and just barely got into finals. Now, in addition to that, you will get to choose play/draw.
The only game that where the decision is likely to come down to opponent's win percentage is 4th seed versus 5th seed. Everyone else will be playing someone at least three places above or below them.
That's part of the issue, I'd imagine. By beating someone, you really push them towards dropping, which is ultra-relevant to your breakers.
I don't think this matters much at the PT level, where there's considerably more distinction between getting to the top 8 and not, and the matches are BO5. But for PTQs, this is going to mean more dreamcrushing, since playing or drawing in a 3 game set is ultra relevant.
I think the correct way is to cut a round of swiss, so that under pure win/loss leaves 4 players on top, and some X-1s trying to get in on breakers. Since we know the X-0s are going to draw anyways, just ignore that fact, and have the matches which would be played out played out.
I thought they already rewarded the top player of the Swiss in the top 8...by making them play the bottom-ranked player in the playoffs. Player #1 plays #8, #2 plays #7, #3 plays #6, and #4 plays #5. So, the top 4 already play the least competitive opponents in the top 8, at least according to the score.
See, you are going off the assumption that an intentional draw is cheating/bad. In a larger tournament, players who "draw into top 8" have generally only dropped 1 match throughout the tournament (maybe 2 in a two-day). Occasionally only one or two spots are "locked up" for the top 8 by last round, other times, only a handful of spots are left. Banning intentional draws would put a greater emphasis on the "randomness" of tiebreakers, as more players would have the exact same record at the end of swiss.
However, if you want to ensure you will do well in a tournament, don't lose. That's the key right there. People who get locked out of top 8 before the final round because of IDs had lost at least one round in the tournament. At most PTQs/large events, even one loss won't stop you from making Top 8. They had their fair shot at the top, they just aren't getting a second (or third) chance.
In theory, I like this rule change. I like how wizards is deciding to reward players for playing it out, and it might allow a player or two to have an extra chance at Top 8; the flip side is that it can bump off a player who would have otherwise gotten in. However, we'll have to see pro reaction come Pro Tour time.
"I'm the Best!"
Toad, Mario Kart 64
For example if the players who finished 2nd and 3rd in the swiss that both had the exact same points and record at the end of the swiss play each other in the final the player who finished 2nd gets an unfair (albeit small) advantage.
All because the random pairings during the rounds paired them against different players at different times the player who came 3rd never got the opportunity to play the better players.
A flawed system if you ask me
If it's actually random, it's exactly as fair as the coin flip would be.
Also payout is staggered for 3/4 and 5-8th at the PT... if several hundred dollars guaranteed didnt make people play it out winning the right to play first in 1/5 games wont either.
However at the PTQ level it significantly would change things as best out of 3 makes winning the die roll more important... Now instead of good players going x-1-1 in sealed especially they need to x-0.
Honestly I dont know many players who PLAY these events that are happy... all those who feel its some GREAT injustice that people who do really well get to ID in likely dont play this level of competition regardless.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
And there is a pretty simple solution if the top priority was to remove draws. You could as someone said simply remove the draw option and let the game be decided on life total instead if time ran out. However, this would introduce a number of other problems with stalling and such, so I'm not sure it would be a good thing.
LOL
Who can remember people complaining that people going first have as much as a 60% chance of winning (all other things being equal, in constructed).
This is wizards saying, "wait, how about we try to find a way to take that advantage away from the winner of a dice roll and give it to someone who's earned it with a better record." This might be something that wizards tries to implement further.
For the people who claim tiebreakers are random they're not as random as you think.
For people saying this will reduce IDs it will but not by that much. It's all upside as far as I can see.
I would love to see the DCI software decide all 'dice rolls' and bias pairings so that over the course of any long event your 'dice rolls' even out but I am certain most people hate a computer deciding these things.
Modern: Bant Geist-WUG
Legacy: Reanimator-UB-WRG
EDH:
Ramirez DePietro: Pirate Themed-UB
Riku of Two Reflections: "Oops I Win"-URG