Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

An alternative tiebreaker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mune said:
How does this system work when you opponent concedes early despite the fact that he has Pokemon still on the bench?
Click to expand...

Too many of you post without reading through the thread! I suggested that if your opponent ever concedes, they would still get credit for each prize card they drew, but you would automatically be credited as drawing six prizes.
Secretsmeargle said:
eg. someone who goes 0-3 but ends up 5-3 faces 'weaker' opponent's than someone who is 5-0 and ends up 5-3. Doing a prize count would not necessarily put the 5-0 -> 5-3 person ahead of the 0-3 -> 5-3 person
Click to expand...

This is an awesome observation. I think you're right. This is a big problem. Hmm...back to the drawing board.
 
How about this?

All legitimate games (by one of the 3 methods or Lost World) are worth 6 prize wins (loser gets 6 prizes against). GAmes won on time get the prize differential based on the prize count at the time the game ends. Concessions will be treated the same.

It does overvalue donks, but I'm not sure how else to phrase that so that it's not too complex...
 
Bullados, I don't like a concession ever not giving you the highest possible tiebreaker. Many of the times your opponent concedes you were dominating the game. Additionally, I think it's best if the tiebreaker is kept simpler. My favorite idea was Prizes Drawn minus Prizes allowed, but as pointed out, those that lose earlier face easier opponents and thus are more likely to win by higher margins. A player who played easier opponents could then end up with better tiebreakers than a player who played harder opponents and thus allowed more prizes. I'm not sure how to fix this. That is a huge problem.
 
I don't think this is a fair way of deciding the top cut. Some decks require sacrifices over others just to pull out a win alone.
 
Imprecise language... Concessions should be treated the same as a timed game. i.e. count the prize situation at the time of the concession.
 
SteveP said:
I hope you're just being funny. I know I reported quite a bit on the old WOTC forum, plus some here on the Gym (probably lost in old archive dumps). EDO also reported quite a bit on other sites. Plus, I've uploaded images of the very exclusive VS decks that were used by the players in the pod rounds
Click to expand...

Not trying to get off-topic, but I am unable to PM you. Can you send me some links to reports or pictures or any record of this event ever happening? I've always been so curious but a Google search turns up nothing.
 
I think people in a position to bench their opponents turn two might decide not to if they think they might need to count on their resistance and their board position is looking pretty good.

Is this good? It would discourage early benching wins to an extent, but imho forcing people to think strategically about whether or not to win is changing the game too profoundly. So I don't know about this change. Maybe simply replace resistance with the rounds the person lost? Losing later in the tournament would be better; ie 4-0 to 4-2 over 3-1 to 4-2. Of course, if you play someone really good early on it would suck, but the chances of that happening are relatively low compared to the benefits imo. It would also lessen the advantage of being paired up.
 
I very much like the prize idea.
I think prizes taken can be a great way to show the actual skill of the player
HOWEVER
It is probably not a good idea because of decks that focus on winning in other ways, i.e. decking your opponent or taking advantage of lost world.
 
If it's best 2/3, how would you choose how many prizes are taken for a game of 1 game compared to a game of 3 games? Average?
 
I think we should eliminate tie-breakers for bubbling. The problem lies in X-1/2's missing cut because of limited top cut.

For tournaments with 5-6 rounds, all X-1's have to make cut. For tournaments with 7-9 rounds, all X-2's have to make it in. This results in non 2^x number of players. To resolve that, give the top X players byes for the first round of top cut and add an extra round of cut to get it down to a power of 2 (2, 4, 8, 16...). For nationals, have the cut be at 6-3 if we still have 9 rounds, or 7-3 if we go up to 10 rounds.

Still use tie-breakers to determine who gets the byes in the first round of cut, but other than that top cut should be solely based on record.
 
How does everyone feel about giving the X-0 a bye in the first round of top cut at nationals and worlds....(maybe regionals aswell)

We've all seen the 8-0 9-0 maybe even 10-0 lose to something ridiculous in t128 and get nothing for it.
 
I think having byes for the top players is a great idea.

Additionally, there could be a loser bracket for top cut. Much like they do in a lot of SC2 tournaments where you have to lose twice to get knocked out once you reach the top cut. That would increase the tournament time by another couple of rounds at the end though.

Anyway, that doesn't have that much to do with tiebreakers. I like the idea of byes though!
 
Hmm, a certain record guaranteed in, which then means we'd need byes to create an even bracket size? That doesn't sound too bad to me. Of course, Opponent's Win % would then be the tiebreaker usually used to determine who got Byes, though.
 
Here's an idea. How about an indication of the maximum HP you had in play during a game, where you are valued as weaker if you have more HP in play than your opponent?
 
How about a formula per person in the tournament that changes based on each Win?

X= Current Round
P= Previous Score
T= Total number of Rounds

(T+1) + P - X

Example: 4 Round Tournament
This way, first round winners will all have 4 points.

Second round winners will have 7 points; losers who won now would have 3 points.

Third Round winners will have 9; anyone who had won in the first round, lost the second, and wins now will have 6; second round winners will have 5; first time winners will have 2 points.

Fourth Round winners will have 10 points; 1-0-1 winners will have 7; 1-1-0 winners will have 8; 0-1-1 winners will have 6; 0-0-1 winners will have 3 points.

This system fails as you become more of a loser, but is completely reliant on the individual's record rather than opponent's. Of course you also need to remember that the formula is only applied to winning matches; losers experience no change in point value between rounds. A player who loses towards the end will end up with more than someone who lost at the beginning.

I didn't put a "lot" of thought towards this, so extensive trials may yield negative outcomes, but on a brief "How about if" stance I think I like it.
 
I don't like the idea of that system dijjoe because it punishes a good player who maybe just had a bad game. I like the idea of a top percentage of players getting into cut and even out the numbers by handing out byes to the top players. Honestly I think using oppwin% is fine when it comes to getting a bye as opposed to not even making cut at all. It doesn't add to much time in tournaments and seems really fair. Everyone going in knows exactly the record they need to make cut, no guessing, no bubbling, no real way to abuse the system.

Nothing bothers me more than when I show up to a battle road and see a player who only lost one game (and to the only undefeated at that) and misses cut on resistance. So yeah, props to headsrcool for mentioning exactly what I was thinking before I read that post. =3

EDIT - oh yeah, props to Ness for all the great discussion lately. Hopefully somebody up top is giving you a listen.
 
Last edited:
Caleb said:
I don't like the idea of that system dijjoe because it punishes a good player who maybe just had a bad game. I like the idea of a top percentage of players getting into cut and even out the numbers by handing out byes to the top players. Honestly I think using oppwin% is fine when it comes to getting a bye as opposed to not even making cut at all. It doesn't add to much time in tournaments and seems really fair. Everyone going in knows exactly the record they need to make cut, no guessing, no bubbling, no real way to abuse the system.

Nothing bothers me more than when I show up to a battle road and see a player who only lost one game (and to the only undefeated at that) and misses cut on resistance. So yeah, props to headsrcool for mentioning exactly what I was thinking before I read that post. =3

EDIT - oh yeah, props to Ness for all the great discussion lately. Hopefully somebody up top is giving you a listen.
Click to expand...

In a tournament, a loss is a loss.

It's one thing to want a Tiebreaker change because getting into certain cuts are based on your opponent's records. That I get.

It's an entirely different thing to want a Tiebreaker change because "Good players" just didn't win.

That doesn't have anything to do with the "Bye" discussion, so please don't mingle the above with Byes.

My Thoughts on Byes: Don't encourage not playing. You're in a tournament to play, whether that be against a former World Champion or a homeless guy who only owns 60 Pokemon cards- beat them and advance to the next round.
 
MegaVelocibot said:
Here's an idea. How about an indication of the maximum HP you had in play during a game, where you are valued as weaker if you have more HP in play than your opponent?
Click to expand...

Too creative. The HP of your Pokémon is too unreliable of an indicator of your performance. Decks with high HP Pokémon have a tremendous and obvious advantage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top