A problem that must be corrected.

[NoPoke]

A cycle:- A beats B, B beats C, C beats A.

the presence of a cycle makes the head to head tie breaker problematic. As much as I like the head-to-head to break ties, those pesky cycles mean that it cannot be universally used. And universality is a necessary feature of the software.

Cycles will occur in age modified tournaments. I have been unable to prove to myself that cycles cannot occur in minimum number of rounds swiss where players dont drop. I think cycles can occur with a large number of dropping players.

 

[ninetales1234]

A cycle:- A beats B, B beats C, C beats A.

Which would leave the tie unbroken, which is why we have tiebreakers after that one. I have run a lot of theoretical tournaments on TOM since its release and I have never seen such a cycle before.

 

[NoPoke]

run an age modified tournament... all you need is a small number of players in one age group say 4 and 17 or more players in a different age group (5 rounds). Its true that cycles aren't guaranteed in age modified but they most definately do occur.

I like the head-to-head tie breaker primarily because it doesn't come with all the bagage associated with establishing strength of schedule. But its not a solution in its own right. The head-to-head is a good way of determining which of two candidates should be rejected. But it does not tell you if both or neither should be rejected.

The head to head tie breaker can be elevated in priority when there are no other candidates within the group being considered for selection. Which would mean that it would appear twice in the tie breaker order: First as a powerfull but rather limited discriminator and then lower down the order after the question of both or neither has been resolved.

I've just checked all the 36 possible 7-2 cumulative tiebreakers for a 9 round tournament. Cumulative and time-of-1st-loss give different ordering of the tied 7-2 players. eg

WWLWWWWWL= 37 point cumulative tiebreaker
WWWWLLWWW= 36 point cumulative tiebreaker

======================
Having a drop-proof tiebreaker ahead of one that is effected by drops would seem to be a beneficial change. Cumulative looks like a good candidate for that role.

1) tardiness
2) a drop-proof tiebreaker
3) opwin%
4) etc...

 

[FireFighter095ReBorn]

Hye youw anta talk about getting screwed by dropps talk to benny richlin. The guy has mised the cut on major tourneys over 5 times thanks to 1 or more drops and he never forgets it. God at cedar grove he was 9th place thanks to a player who dropped and he couldent believe it.

He has been the worst player when it comes to getting screwed by drops and i fell bad for him. Drops do hurt players but there is nothing POP can do. If a player dosent wanta play anymore they have the right to walk away and if they dont drop its just a longer period it takes for a person who get that loss. I am with pete ortiz in hoping POP looks at it and does something by next years nationls.

 

[Benlugia]

Hye youw anta talk about getting screwed by dropps talk to benny richlin. The guy has mised the cut on major tourneys over 5 times thanks to 1 or more drops and he never forgets it. God at cedar grove he was 9th place thanks to a player who dropped and he couldent believe it.

He has been the worst player when it comes to getting screwed by drops and i fell bad for him. Drops do hurt players but there is nothing POP can do. If a player dosent wanta play anymore they have the right to walk away and if they dont drop its just a longer period it takes for a person who get that loss. I am with pete ortiz in hoping POP looks at it and does something by next years nationls.

yes, sadly, joe is referring to me. this whole dropfest has happened to me. =/

 

[Bolt]

The biggest reason something needs to be done is because if you beat somebody who has a grudge against you, they can drop and cost you a trip to Worlds. Petty, but possible.

 

[GrandmaJoner]

I think resistance should be based on street cred.

 

[ryanvergel]

I think resistance should be based on street cred.

I've been shot six times, stabbed twice, and have 9 years of experience.
What you know about that?

 

[The Gorn]

That's how you roll Ryan.

 

[pop_webmaster]

Having a drop-proof tiebreaker ahead of one that is effected by drops would seem to be a beneficial change. Cumulative looks like a good candidate for that role.

1) tardiness
2) a drop-proof tiebreaker
3) opwin%
4) etc...

Cumulative is good, but it still has its problems. One of the many complaints about our tie breakers is that they are too heavily influenced by the first round loss. Half of the field is going to lose the first round, so it is important that the penalty is not so severe that the losing half doesn't want to continue.

While OP Win % is affected by drops, Cumaltive is greatly affected by that first round loss. The OP team needs to think about all of these factors when making this large of change. Like I said before, nothing has been decided, but I wanted to let you know all the factors we're taking into consideration.

Thanks,
Eric