Wondering how my players will perceive the difference for changing from 3 to 4 game multi-matchplay. Think that there was a bit of a chance to gather thoughts as the off player. In general though I agree with the sentiment that more games should be better for promoting skilled players.
I probably need to just get over trying to optimize TGP and just grow the number of rated players. Will still have a chance to hit 150% when running our leagues.
Pretty sure that switching game banks in 5.8 will cause all MGP after the switch to be zero.
“Any tournaments that eliminate games due to time (this is often done by switching to “all Classics” when a tournament is running long) will no longer earn TGP after the point in time in which games are eliminated. For tournaments that run into this problem often, we recommend you changing the format to a lower amount of games played, or eliminating any long playing games at the start of the tournament.”
Though what if you aren’t switching due to time? Not sure how you establish intent. Is it okay when it is pre-baked into the tournament description? Very fiddly feeling rule
well I don’t think you can say After X time of day we will go to all Classics and then be able to say it’s not about being due to time. Maybe after round X that happens all the time.
alternating round of Modern and then Classic in a Matchplay format is fine, if you have enough Classic games available for it to be viable.
Having only Classics after X PM or after X rounds, which is always due to “time” constraints is not.
For local monthly tourneys, I run them as “we’ll play as many rounds as possible in 3 hours, with no new rounds starting after X:59PM”
I’ve found it’s better to meet people’s time expectation more so than getting 1-2 more MGP.
That sounds fair to me thinking on it more. Just wondering if I missed a rule already present in 5.7 that says finals must use the same game banks as qualifying? To me this is what that wording seems to imply. I’ve never switched game banks as the location I host at is mostly 90s and newer games.
Believe I have seen tournaments that use previously unused games for finals. Possibly selected because they will play faster due to difficulty
That’s a good idea. I may implement that in my format. Was also eyeing target match play qualifying.
Ya they are pretty tough… We run 4 modern and 3 Classics in that timeframe. We are looking to go with 3 Modern and 3 Classics with a top 12 (less than 48) or top 16 (more than 48) for next year. We are hoping that will finish in 4-5 hours.
12TGP + 18TGP = 30 TGP 116% rated
not sure how they are going to police “oops looks like every game except high hand and doodle bug just had tech issues and had to be taken out of the tournament!”
“strange that happens every week at about 9:30!”
Oh man. I just spent some more time reading this thread compared to the description on IFPA website about 5.8. There the max was 150%, but I see the new proposal is 200%. Plus certified makes for 250% x base value…
What’s the certification process for leagues 
Make that 300% for a 200% TGP tournament with a 150% Certified+ booster. The booster is multiplied with the TGP.
This can be sort of confusing. In 5.7, multiple boosts were added together instead of multiplied, e.g. a certified major was +50% (major) +20% (certified) for a total of +70%, i.e. 170% total. But this total boost was then multiplied with the TGP, not added, which wasn’t that obvious, because everything had a TGP of 100% anyway, so adding and multiplying gets you the same total value.
In 5.8, the boost is still multiplied with the TGP, but the adding together of different boosts is gone now, because only one boost can be applied. There’s no 250% boost for a Certified+ major. If a major met the criteria for Certified+, in theory the 200% major boost and the 150% Certified+ boost are available, but only the higher one gets applied, and the lower one gets discarded.
@pinwizj can correct me if I got any of that wrong. I think the fact that multiple event weights don’t stack any more should be added to the 5.8 change log, it’s a material difference to how things used to work in 5.7.
You got it right. I’ve updated the verbiage to make it clear that Majors and Championship Series events are ineligible for any additional boosts via the certification process.
As you said 300% for Certified+
Different for Certified
Doubt my league will get 128 players (or that leagues are infact eligible to be certified at all)
I see what you mean. You wrote “Plus certified”, and I mistook that for Certified+.
@pinwizj here are the issues I have trying to digest this sneak peek.
1 - The TGP ceilings are not defined in the rules anywhere I can find, nor in the TGP guide. It’s just mentioned in the changes section - This is not explicit and confusing. Are the change briefings part of the rule or explanations?
2 - The linked TGP meaningful game guide still says 2020… introducing conflusion.
3 - The ceilings for TGP grading out are not anywhere in the actual rules or TGP guide that I can find. Again, these boosts and new ceilings only seem to be covered in the ‘changes’ notes instead of the actual TGP definitions.
4 - Same with ‘event weights’ - they don’t seem to be defined in the rules or definitions of TGP or TVA - just mentioned in the changes section without explicitly defining how ‘event weight’ connects to TGP or TVA. (this leads to the questions of stacking, exclusivity, etc)
5 - The mention of the 10% making finals is conflicting in the text. In the body of the rules it only mentions 10% being a requirement for INDIRECT formats to be allowable. But in the change log it mentions 10% making finals as if it’s part of qualifying if FINALS themselves justify the new 200% cap. If I have a direct play format (match play) and a finals… are there any other restrictions for the event to get the 200% cap? This is ambiguous in the writeup… and complicated in that the caps are not discussed in the body of the rules or TGP sections.
Where I’m going with this in total is… trying to confirm a weekly league format. If I play 4 matchs of 3 players for 10 weeks… I see that as 40 meaningful games, plus 1.5x due to 3 player match player groups = 60 meaningful games. 60 x 0.04 = 240%
As long as I have a finals, can’t I grade out at 200% TGP?
Then there is the ambiguity on what the requirement for the finals are. Your change text mentions ‘Please note the Finals format must include an elimination format that includes a minimum of 10% of the participants to be eligible’
But no where else can I find what it defines as minimum for something to qualify as a finals format. So all formats require an elimination round and 10% qualifying for the finals to actually count as finals towards lifting the 100->200% cap?
I would be really helpful if these changes were actually incorporated into the body of the rules so consistency is more clear and enforced. Right now it’s like two sets of rules bolted together…
Thanks in advance for taking the time to clarify
I plan on trying to clean up the rules section of our page before year end. We list the change section first, which usually does the best job of highlighting to organizers the differences between the system they were working with prior, and the system they will be working with the following season.
For now I can answer your explicit question:
“As long as you have finals” is not enough to trigger the ability to reach 200% TGP.
For example, if your finals format is “We’re having all 16 finalists play one ball of Meteor.”, that would not work per our rules.
@pinwizj Can leagues be certified?
My league has a way to go to hit 48 players, but I’m sure there are leagues out there that could benefit from it.
Does amazing race finals go against point number 2?
Leagues cannot be certified.
I believe Amazing Race has a round of 4, a round of 3 and a round of 2 before declaring their winner?
Can see an arcade analogy. More grounded and thoughtful gameplay than Frenzy, so why not
“Ball Berzerk”