Does States need a bigger cap when it comes to Top Cut?

[Ditto]

@Ditto : or they could impose a maximum attendance , Or change the tournament rules on top cuts (which has happened in the past)

I don't know any practical way to make a quart go into a pint pot. Even if that would be ideal from a storage point of view.

I did mention limiting attendance as an option, but of course that is bad for the game.

Since swiss and the top cut are designed on powers of 2, the math actually works out on it's own. Artificially limiting the cut IS putting a quart into a pint pot.

 

[NoPoke]

Swiss does not fit with power of two top cuts. There is nothing power of two about the binomial distribution that swiss rounds produce. I know you know this so I don't get what you are saying that the math works out on its own. The math can't work out for anything other than lucky accident.

Swiss is designed to produce a single winner in as few rounds as possible. Swiss doesn't care about ranking 2nd and lower.

 

[sdrawkcab]

I know, we could simply make these tournaments a round robin event. Everybody plays everybody. No top cut nessisary!

 

[Ditto]

Swiss does not fit with power of two top cuts. There is nothing power of two about the binomial distribution that swiss rounds produce. I know you know this so I don't get what you are saying that the math works out on its own. The math can't work out for anything other than lucky accident.

Swiss is designed to produce a single winner in as few rounds as possible. Swiss doesn't care about ranking 2nd and lower.

I should've been more clear, by doing both in power of two, with the incremental steps, you guarantee that 12.5% (worst case) to 25% (best case). This is widely seen as fair for the amount of work needed to be done. When you artificially limit the cut then you reduce each of these percents in half on something that "should" have a top 32 and is given a top 16.

When at BEST you have to be in the top 12.5% to make it, that's a lot harder than a tournament where you only have to be in the top 25% to get the same prizes.

 

[NoPoke]

aren't you making the case for a fixed percentage and non power of two cuts?

FWIW I'm in the group (minority??) that thinks that 12.5% to 25% cuts are not a universally good match to the outcomes from the swiss rounds. The group that views a percentage approach as inherently incorrect no matter what you do to it (definitely a minority now!). T16s generally produce good tournaments the same cannot be said for some of the other cut sizes that are run. T16s do this because the cut size greatly exceeds the number of rounds so some players with an unlucky loss and another loss can still make the cut.

 

[Ditto]

aren't you making the case for a fixed percentage and non power of two cuts?

FWIW I'm in the group (minority??) that thinks that 12.5% to 25% cuts are not a universally good match to the outcomes from the swiss rounds. The group that views a percentage approach as inherently incorrect no matter what you do to it (definitely a minority now!). T16s generally produce good tournaments the same cannot be said for some of the other cut sizes that are run. T16s do this because the cut size greatly exceeds the number of rounds so some players with an unlucky loss and another loss can still make the cut.

I guess you are correct about the percentage vs power of 2. Still a fixed percentage means the cut size actually varies, and can be odd, which I think is probably bad. I still think power of 2 gives the best of both worlds on that, and because swiss is a power of 2 you get the percentage by product.

Off topic, but what would be a better way to do top cut if not percentage and not power of 2? Triple elimination (lose 3 you're out)?

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

The scenario we're dealing with now being discussed here, in reality is as if I played in a local event. I went 3-0 because there were only three rounds. Needless to say, there are plenty of other 3-0's but because of who we all got paired up with, the majority of us miss top cut because of something out of our control. I'd be pretty ticked off if I placed well in a tournament after traveling with the prices of the costs of gas prices these days and it was an event of higher significance.

 

[Mystery Thing]

The scenario we're dealing with now being discussed here, in reality is as if I played in a local event. I went 3-0 because there were only three rounds. Needless to say, there are plenty of other 3-0's but because of who we all got paired up with, the majority of us miss top cut because of something out of our control. I'd be pretty ticked off if I placed well in a tournament after traveling with the prices of the costs of gas prices these days and it was an event of higher significance.

If there were "plenty" of 3-0s, then the wrong number of swiss rounds was played, AND one would have to intentionally override TOM to do it. That's not the rules' fault.

The maximum number of players a 3 round tournament can have is 16. No matter what happens, there will be exactly two 3-0s at the end of 3 rounds.

Pre round 1: 16x 0-0
After R1: 8x 1-0; 8x 0-1
After R2: 4x 2-0, 8x 1-1, 4x 0-2
After R3: 2x 3-0, 6x 2-1, 6x 1-2, 2x 0-3

And the minimum top cut you can run with 16 players is a T2. So all of the 3-0s would make the final.

 

[bullados]

Age-Modified pairings do some funky things to the final standings....

 

[Puff N Stuff]

Okay, I'll give you that I was massively disappointed to miss cut once against going 5-2 on resistance. I've had it happen every time I've gone that in the Prof. Cup, a CC this year, and States. I just think that if you are going to give CP points to players, it shouldn't be based on how my opponents did. I think that having a system where all 5-2's make it is the better choice. It's not fun when you do well enough to ensure yourself to make cut, only be told because of percentage points you can't get a fair shot to win, even though you deserved it.

It's not fair for half of the 5-2's to make it, and others to miss, just because a States has more players. I mean giving me 2 CP for finishing 19th where T16 gets at least 3 is another slap in the face. I now lose a better chance to earn a Worlds invite based on percentage points? How is that fair at all? I know life's not fair, but there are way to make it easier to accomplish. I mean there should be a sliding scale record wise of what makes cut. MTG has it right, they give all players that are X-2 a chance. I obviously can understand it depends on the event and everything, but if a CC has 14 players that are 5-2 or better, shouldn't they all get an equal shot to win in top cut?

On another point, the ONLY excuse I've heard is lack of time to ensure that all 5-2's make it in. That's a poor excuse. You can start the event earlier. You can give yourself an extra few hours to make this happen. It's not asking too much as many people think it might be. I understand where those are saying are coming from, but I just don't agree with it.



I think the new system has only a little bit to do with it. I think it's more of that if you go 5-2, you should make cut at States. You shouldn't be missing with that type of record. I'm more understanding at a CC (still not happy about it), but when the stakes are bigger, it matters more.




I agree. It's not my fault if I get paired up against someone who is playing a theme deck compared to someone who consistently makes top cut in tournaments. I mean if I got paired up against Jimmy O. in R1, win or lose, I've got a better chance resistance wise than if I play someone who is playing a theme deck. It's not my fault, and I shouldn't be punished because of it.

As far as the AZ, that's totally off topic, can we please not worry about the typo or error that Vaporeon made? It's not the point of this discussion in any sense.

Drew

I agree fully. I believe at 4 Cities that I attended, I whiffed top cut by 1-2 spots.. Why? Because the people I beat did poorly.. : / My only losses being to X-0's and X-1s.. If I do well, why does it matter how my opponents did? It shouldn't..

 

[vegitalian]

How does that not make sense? If you have 27 players who are X-2 or better, you give the top 5 players byes. They automatically get to T16. You have the other 22 players play like it was a T32 cut. It's not rocket science and totally doable.

Drew

And at how many rounds do you say 'all X-2s make cut'? What if Juniors is 4 rounds? Will all 2-2 Juniors make cut? Seems a little bit ridiculous. Even at 6 rounds, giving top cut to all 4-2s is a little too generous... although only letting 5-1s in would be too harsh.

There has been one good solution to the OP, in my mind: Extending the swiss rounds. Excluding Worlds, 5-2 is a pretty average performance (for a seasoned player), and I have missed cut with that record numerous times. While it would be nice to make cut at 5-2 regardless, it would disadvantage the people that performed better in the swiss rounds.

The easier to implement solution to make cut is to go 6-1 or 7-0

 

[Mystery Thing]

I agree fully. I believe at 4 Cities that I attended, I whiffed top cut by 1-2 spots.. Why? Because the people I beat did poorly.. : / My only losses being to X-0's and X-1s.. If I do well, why does it matter how my opponents did? It shouldn't..

Would it be fair for baseball to make the AL East play only each other the whole year, and only let one of them make the playoffs, while letting the Brewers and Cardinals only play against Houston (sorry Astros, you had the worst record in 2011), beating the tar out of them every time, while letting both of them make the playoffs?

Or in hockey, would it be fair to let one team abuse poor Columbus and Edmonton the entire year, award them first in the conference, and make some other team have to play St. Louis and the Rangers all year, thus dooming them to a handful of wins?

Of course not.

How good your opponents are, in an unbalanced schedule (which a swiss round tournament is), ABSOLUTELY should be a factor. Now, that said, I'm not disputing that the computer can screw you over based on who you randomly get paired with in the first two rounds. I'm not disputing that maybe that could be looked at.

But the blanket statement that "it doesn't matter how your opponents did" is pointedly false.

 

[untitled]

Yes, we need top 32. No question. I have a few friends who are probably quitting after this season because Magic lets all the X-2's in in many events (I don't know anything about Magic, but that's what they tell me). Of course, that's just one part of it. There's also the optional mulligan, Bo3 rounds, etc. But all that is discussion for another day.

Many players drive 8+ hours just to participate in these States. I think they're ALL going to be willing to devote an extra hour of their time to the tournament (which, again, I add that many of them drove eight times that amount just to participate) if it means they get to top cut. I honestly think it almost ruins the validity of the tournament that half the X-2's are making it and half are missing. I snuck in to this last States cut in the 16th seed, beating out the 17th and 18th guys by like 5% on opponent's opponent's win %. I think they deserved to get in just as much as I did.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

And at how many rounds do you say 'all X-2s make cut'? What if Juniors is 4 rounds? Will all 2-2 Juniors make cut? Seems a little bit ridiculous. Even at 6 rounds, giving top cut to all 4-2s is a little too generous... although only letting 5-1s in would be too harsh.

There has been one good solution to the OP, in my mind: Extending the swiss rounds. Excluding Worlds, 5-2 is a pretty average performance (for a seasoned player), and I have missed cut with that record numerous times. While it would be nice to make cut at 5-2 regardless, it would disadvantage the people that performed better in the swiss rounds.

The easier to implement solution to make cut is to go 6-1 or 7-0

I'd like to point out that your point has no validity. I stated originally that I thought X should be 5 or more. So 5-2 or better, but even if you didn't see that, if you have a Junior that is 2-2, why would they have a T32? You only have 16 players, your point is for something that wasn't discussed.

I personally think you are just missing the point all together. I don't think 5-2 is average, it's 3 games above average. You should be making it in, and frankly before they changed the top cup % and caps, 5-2 would get you in.

Would it be fair for baseball to make the AL East play only each other the whole year, and only let one of them make the playoffs, while letting the Brewers and Cardinals only play against Houston (sorry Astros, you had the worst record in 2011), beating the tar out of them every time, while letting both of them make the playoffs?

Or in hockey, would it be fair to let one team abuse poor Columbus and Edmonton the entire year, award them first in the conference, and make some other team have to play St. Louis and the Rangers all year, thus dooming them to a handful of wins?

Of course not.

How good your opponents are, in an unbalanced schedule (which a swiss round tournament is), ABSOLUTELY should be a factor. Now, that said, I'm not disputing that the computer can screw you over based on who you randomly get paired with in the first two rounds. I'm not disputing that maybe that could be looked at.

But the blanket statement that "it doesn't matter how your opponents did" is pointedly false.

That's some absurd logic. This isn't sports, and baseball has one of the most unfair playoff scenarios IMO. The only thing I can say is schedules are the same every year pretty much in sports, with the NFL. In Pokemon I have players who I've gone to 20+ tournaments and never faced. Could I face them? Yes, do I? No. It's not the point to debate what schedule I'm given. It should be how I do, not who I play.

Drew

 

[Mystery Thing]

That's some absurd logic. This isn't sports, and baseball has one of the most unfair playoff scenarios IMO. The only thing I can say is schedules are the same every year pretty much in sports, with the NFL. In Pokemon I have players who I've gone to 20+ tournaments and never faced. Could I face them? Yes, do I? No. It's not the point to debate what schedule I'm given. It should be how I do, not who I play.

(Yes, the MLB has the most idiotic playoff system in all of sports.)

So if some newbie at a huge tournament manages to, by some freak of nature, play five consecutive equally noobie players, finally play "quality" opponents in rounds 5, 6 and 7, losing two and winning one by a T1 donk, thus going 5-2 and having by far the worst resistance in the tournament, you'll be ok with them making the top cut and bouncing you out in the first cut round via deck matchup or donks even though you had to play seven of the best players in the game, and also went 5-2 in seven straight grueling matches that all went to time?

Nobody will ever be able to convince me that strength of schedule should not be a consideration. Even moreso in a game such as this, with the role that luck plays in each individual game.

 

[Ignatious]

Yes states needs a higher top cut cap, if any at all. States are now harder to top cut than regionals are.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

(Yes, the MLB has the most idiotic playoff system in all of sports.)

So if some newbie at a huge tournament manages to, by some freak of nature, play five consecutive equally noobie players, finally play "quality" opponents in rounds 5, 6 and 7, losing two and winning one by a T1 donk, thus going 5-2 and having by far the worst resistance in the tournament, you'll be ok with them making the top cut and bouncing you out in the first cut round via deck matchup or donks even though you had to play seven of the best players in the game, and also went 5-2 in seven straight grueling matches that all went to time?

Nobody will ever be able to convince me that strength of schedule should not be a consideration. Even moreso in a game such as this, with the role that luck plays in each individual game.

Yes, I'd be okay with that. He went 5-2, and if he beat me, he isn't really that bad of a noobie. I'd be disappointed, but not upset. It's happened at major tournaments before, or else you can't really explain how Golem won Canadian Nationals.

You are looking at what if scenarios. If one player makes it that maybe shouldn't, so that 10 more players that are worthy do, isn't that a beneficial thing, not a negative thing?

Drew

 

[Puff N Stuff]

Well, for the most part. Who you play in the first 2 rounds do hugely impact the rest of your tournament. Ex : Round 1 play against random guy/gal with a starter deck.. Win.. That player proceeds to go 0-X or goes 0-2/3 Then drops? Same for round 2.. Now, because I had to play these players, and even if I do well every round, and happen to lose 1-2 rounds. ( to players who are X-0 or X-1 ) I miss top cut? Does that sound fair?

 

[bullados]

I'd like to point out that your point has no validity. I stated originally that I thought X should be 5 or more. So 5-2 or better, but even if you didn't see that, if you have a Junior that is 2-2, why would they have a T32? You only have 16 players, your point is for something that wasn't discussed.

I personally think you are just missing the point all together. I don't think 5-2 is average, it's 3 games above average. You should be making it in, and frankly before they changed the top cup % and caps, 5-2 would get you in.

How about we modify the circumstances slightly so that anybody can understand them?

XX winning percentage guarantees you the Top Cut.

We can debate what that winning percentage should be. I think it should be 75% (basically, 3-1 or better). Others might say 66% (2-1 or better). But it probably shouldn't be above or below those percentages.

This removes the hard requirement of "X-2", and I think illustrates Drew's point more accurately.

Personally, I dislike this system, as it provides more incentive for players to drop early, and I really don't like seeing that.

 

[untitled]

Personally, I dislike this system, as it provides more incentive for players to drop early, and I really don't like seeing that.

If a player is going to drop as soon as they can't cut, changing to this system wouldn't encourage anything. As long as we're making it easier to cut instead of harder, people are actually less likely to drop. At States last weekend, if I was going to drop after I couldn't cut, I'd drop as soon as I lost three rounds. Under the system you just described, you'd drop as soon as you lost... three rounds. Sure, there are some random scenarios where a 5-3 or whatever happens to make it with the current system, but for the most part I'm really doubtful a lot more people would start dropping.