Not that anyone cares, but I think picking game confers too much advantage. I would rather assign games randomly until the last couple rounds, then have the players take turns choosing which games not to play. Then they play the remaining ones, or a random subset of the remaining ones.
That’s how selection of maps works in many RTS tournaments. I could imagine this taking a while if there are a large number of games, though.
I’ve been feeling similarly about top seed having too much advantage driving the bus in group playoffs. Here’s a system I’ve been experimenting with that spreads the game choice out which has been well received so far in lower divisions of my league playoffs. Certainly not immune to “cool kids” collusion, but haven’t tried it in any high level situations yet.
Example: (1/8/9/16) Group in a 3 game Old/Mid/New match
1 seed: Choice of 1 game from any of the 3 era lists
8 seed: Choice of 1 game from the remaining 2 eras
9 seed: Choice of 1 game from the last remaining era
16 seed: No game choice unless someone defers
(Players can not choose the same game in consecutive rounds)
Turn order choice snakes downward with the seed below the game chooser having first pick. So for example the 16 seed in this group would have 3rd then 2nd then 1st choice of order on those 3 games assuming no one defers.
A wrinkle I haven’t implemented yet, but plan to include next time… When a game is chosen that player can also determine which slot it will appear in the play order of the match. So if the top seed wants to make sure they play their favorite New game and end the match on it, they’ll be able to do so.
The idea is to still give some advantage to qualifying higher, but not as much as we’re typically used to. Of course the necessity to nerf this type of advantage can vary depending on the intensity of the qualifying format, bye structure or any other rewards for high qualifying seeds.
Side note: I think pre-made playoff banks suck >90% of the time and have absolutely been a deciding factor as to whether I return to certain events. I’m a big fan of players getting to play the games they want in playoffs, especially after surviving a qualifying slog on random draws in mixed era matchplay formats. When a final four match is held on the last bank remaining or maybe one of a few outcast banks no one else wanted to play, that’s such a dumb situation for the players and can ruin an otherwise good event.
Ahh feels good to be longposting on TF again!
← was never in the “cool kids club” even when I was a kid. But then those kids didn’t turn out so well . . . .
This hardly provides any benefit to top seed in the group (#1 in your example) vs. 2nd and 3rd seeds (#8 and 9 in your example), and I can even argue that #1 is relatively worse off than both #8 and #9:
#1 gets one game pick, and for order, will get last choice, third choice, and 2nd choice. And them having to choose first (among the three game picks) is actually somewhat of a disadvantage. See how IFPA Worlds has better seed pick games 2nd, after the worse seed picks games first.
#8 gets one game pick, and for order, will get 1st choice, last choice, and third choice. So #8 is BETTER OFF than #1? huh?
#9 gets one game pick, and for order, will get 2nd choice, 1st choice, and last choice. So #9 is ALSO better off than #1. More huh??
#16 gets no game pick, and for order, will get 3rd choice, 2nd choice, and 1st choice. At least this seed is worse off than #1.
Am I missing something?
For the new “hybrid” format, will events be required to make entry purchasing “all-or-nothing”? e.g. for a tournament with a 10 game bank, would it be permitted to allow a player to only purchase and play 10 entries, even though the cap is 40 entries? Or will the event be required to sell all 40 entries as a single unit to all players that compete?
A la carte with a cap is perfectly fine.
Those holes are all fine to poke in the system. Some are real, some are perceived. It’s still in an experimental phase and I’m just using it in lower divisions to see how it plays out and how to make it better.
Do you have any thoughts on a way to spread out game picks that makes more sense with respect to earned advantage and is also easy to explain to less experienced players?
What about instead of allowing game choice to those three players, the lower seeds can pick a game each to eliminate from the top seed’s choices?
I also think some events should have a minimum buy in at least
X1.5-X2 (unlimited) full bank or # of games that court
maybe X1 for small limited full bank or # of games that court
hybrid X1 games that count.
To help balance out an issues TD / TO trying to play games on the low end.
In general, I like the concept. I use something similar at my local monthly for game selection that nerfs the top seed’s fully drive-the-bus advantage.
I allow top pick to choose only the first pin, or they can defer to a later pick. The first pin that gets picked (Game A), the next highest player (or top seed, if they deferred) may choose a pin that is physically next to Game A – so it’s limited to two pins on either side of Game A. Game B then gets picked, and the third highest player then chooses the last pin, which must be one of the two pins on either side of the twosome of Games A&B. Note: the bank of pins wraps around, so if you have 10 pins, then pin 10 is considered next to pin 9 and pin 1.
So the top seed only gets one Game choice, and still does have the chance to influence the possible other two Game picks, via proximity. But not an outright selection of Games B & C. Top seed then gets choice of which of the Games A-C will be 1st match played, and the 2nd match moves to the right, wrapping around. The remaining 4th player who didn’t pick any of the games then gets first play order choice for all 3 games, and the player who picked Game A then gets 2nd choice, and so on. Note: top seed can defer the whole way, and opt to be the player who gets first play order choice.
If you have enough pins available, then you can completely restrict Groups 2+ from picking ANY of the 3 pins selected by Group 1. Or you can allow them to overlap by 1 or 2 pins, and force the restriction that Group 2+ can’t use the same Game as Match X (where X is when Group 1 is using that pin).
If you’re going for complete restriction (no overlapping pins at all), then for Groups 2+, I require that their Game A is at least 2 pins away from the three contiguous pins that Group 1 selected. Otherwise, the first pin chosen by Group 2 – if it’s one right next to Group 1’s pins – would then lock in all three pins for Group 2, because Games B & C would only be allowed to go in one direction from Game A.
also copies of Available machines that still count as one
Available machines: 30 (but you have 2 of each game but they are scored as one) = 15