logo

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:02 pm 
The One True Sith Lord
The One True Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:12 pm
Posts: 2026
Location: Nixa,Missouri
3 points for a bye as the player should not be punished for something no one has zero control over.

_________________
ImageImage
"What is your bidding, My Master?"

Collection: 934/934

SWM DCI Content Manager


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:41 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:22 pm
Posts: 4982
SteveSpikes wrote:
Forgive me for posting so late. I have been following the discussion, though. I agree with the vast majority upcoming changes to the game we love.

The only problem I have is with the gambit debate. I agree that "Reinforcements" should not score gambit. I also agree that certain "low-value" pieces not be allowed to score gambit (forgive me if this has bee addressed elsewhere). I believe the number chosen was five points. However, I think that number should be raised to a higher number. The reasoning behind this is players should fight for gambit. This will prohibit players from having "diplomats" (Caamasi Nobles and Imperial Dignitaries) camping out in the gambit area, soaking up gambit. Someone at my LGS brought this up last night, and it got me thinking. The exception would be, in my opinion, Leia Organa, Senator. She can attack at range without reprisal, as long as the opponent has line-of-sight to another piece.

To counter this, I would like to see future maps that have the gambit area in such a way the opponents may obtain line-of-sight to just the "diplomat", or any other enemy and no one else.


5 was the value chosen because thats what you get from gambit. It makes sense as if you put a 5 point piece in gambit, then it gets sniped you're both even stevens except your a piece down.

As to the diplomat issue, if you play around with it you will find that it is pretty difficult to put a diplomat and another figure in the same LOS to ALL squares surrounding gambit. If you take a short minute or two and draw LOS to the diplomat and the other figure, you can usually find a LOS where the diplomat is exposed.

I wanted to use this Tactic in this years gen con and my combo was Obi Ghost and Leia Organa. I found, however, that it was too easy for my opponent to pick off Leia by examining the LOS carefully. Weaker players would throw up their hands and prtest at teh broken nature of the combo, good and clever players would sit and figure out where Leia was in LOS and Obi wasn't. Some times it needed some form of flanking othertimes it was just a case of looking from the right squares.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:04 pm 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
First, being the "clear winner" is not the only concern, and second, yes pairing same records together is, IMO, the best way to go. But that's not what happens, and thus the biggest part of my hatred about the Swiss style of play. Let me try to explain


Yes it is. The pairings are simply set up by the rankings at the end of each round. Being paired down is the result of being the lowest ranked among your given record currently, and in the future should be based on the new tie breakers based off of your own points scored.

In effect, what typically happens, although extremely rare, is exactly what Boris showed. Everyone who follows Swiss knows there are certain rounds you just don't want to lose in. Losing in round 3 for example can be a death sentence, and it has to do with the quality of opponents you end up facing as a result. For example, in a 26 person tournament:
End of round 1: 13 unbeaten - 1 paired down.
2: 6-7 at 2-0, 13-14 at 1-1, 6-7 at 0-2
3: 3-4 at 3-0, 7-11 at 2-1

The key here is the 3-4 3-0s will now play each other, and only the guys with the best SoS at 2-1 will even have a chance at moving up the rankings. A guy at 2-1, whose opponents have gone 0-3, 1-2 and 3-0 has a SoS of 4/9 or .44. Conversely, a guy who lost in round 2 to a now 3-0 opponent likely has a SoS of something like, 3-0, 1-2, 1-2 for a SoS of 5/9 or .55. Its just the way it works.

Under Dennis' complaint, a guy who is ranked at the bottom of the odd number of 1 loss, has little chance to make up the ground, but only in tournaments where odd numbers happen at his division in record every round. Otherwise, pairing down never occurs. But let's assume it will here for sake of argument. Under the current rules, there is nothing the player can do to move up other than win his/her games, and that won't necessarily get them far. SoS is not at all in their control at this point, and what's worse is that they are artificially being hurt more and more each round by their SoS since they keep playing opponents with records of one less win than that of their equally ranked players' opponents. So their SoS keeps getting hit more and more.

In the new system, SoS is not the first ranking tie breaker any longer. Points scored is (well technically it is this way now, it's just a win counts as 3 no matter what). In this system, you are then almost always awarded your particular matchup based on SoS (which is the first tie breaker in the ranking system currently in place). After that it's based on order of sign up for the tournament and then last name alphabetical. In the new system, the guy who gets paired down early by one of the random factors, can easily move right back up based on getting a full win, which often happens in these situations. Let me show you what I mean.

End of round 1, guy A loses. There will now be 3 divisions of players instead of two at this point. Instead of 1-0 and 0-1s, where SoS is completely tied for each, and pairings are done based on order of entry or last name alpha, we have 0, 2 and 3.

By round 3, instead of the options of 3-0, 2-1, 1-2 and 0-3, we now have something like:
9, 8, 7, 6 for the 3-0s
6, 5, 4 for the 2-1s
3, 2 for the 1-2s
and of course 0 for the 0-3s
That makes 10 different levels of differentiation instead of only 4 in the current system. It does mean pairing down will still occur, but it won't matter nearly as much! Getting a full win against a paired down opponent can actually gain you ground if those above you only get a partial win on tie breakers!

Breaking up the ties of those with the same points scored of course will be done by most wins (likely the same this early) and then SoS which is still out of that players control largely this early in swiss. But look at the differenciation the new system already employs just in determining match ups.

Going back to my example of having 3-4 3-0s at the end of round 3, we see that instead of a 3-0 fast player facing a 3-0 slow player based on arbitrary SoS ranks (per Boris' complaint), we now will have the top game being paired off likely between the 2 fast players instead, and the guy who won only on points each round potentially getting paired down (in the 3 3-0s scenario). SoS doesn't even factor in at this point, until points and then wins are tied. This puts getting the good matchups back into the hands of the players themselves, rather than an arbitrary SoS rank, that at this point in a tournament is not meaningful.

I know some slower players might cringe at this, but I ask you honestly here, you now have some control over the rankings and matchups within your power as a player. Do you not see that as a positive?

_________________
Image

http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.aspx?UserID=29


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:48 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
billiv15 wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
First, being the "clear winner" is not the only concern, and second, yes pairing same records together is, IMO, the best way to go. But that's not what happens, and thus the biggest part of my hatred about the Swiss style of play. Let me try to explain


Yes it is. The pairings are simply set up by the rankings at the end of each round. Being paired down is the result of being the lowest ranked among your given record currently, and in the future should be based on the new tie breakers based off of your own points scored.


You are assuming a couple of things here, Biil. First of all, that the person who wins when time is called is the one who was playing cautiously/fighting for points. Secondly, that points applied in this way will change a person's position in the ranking system. Nothing I have heard or seen about this proposal has indicated that to be the case.

Additionally, I didn't realize that the rankings are based on the lowest standing of the previous round. That would definitely explain my poor showing at Coolecticon. I would also note that I didn't have the lowest rank among people of my same standing until AFTER the first round in which I was paired down, which was random. There was no way to determine that I was playing a weaker SoS at the end of round 1.

Thanks for explaining some of this, I hope some of the others here have a better understanding of what a screwy system Swiss is. Essentially the way you have explained it demonstrates what I have been saying - that the system arbitrarily knocks players out of contention. Frankly, I'm disgusted with playing the game under the Swiss system and this is exactly the reason. Now that I know there's no way of ever making a come back from this kind of screwing, it's the nail in the coffin until something changes.

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:00 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
Pretty interesting analysis from Bill. Regarding the core topic of pairing down--it's one of those inevitibilities. I prefer not to be the one with that unluck of the draw but it has to be someone. While Swiss isn't perfect, it's better than any other option for small tourneys, and even if it wasn't, it's sort of our only option within DCI and not much can be done about it beyond doing what Dean is already trying to do by improving tiebreakers.

On a topic I find more interesting...

I missed the live SHN broadcast yesterday but listened to the download and Dean revealed the expected changes to the map list.

Removed: Hoth Outpost, Teth Monastery, Taris (no surprises there)
Added:None

So the interestings bit there is that Crystal Caves of Ilum is not being added. And it seems Dean was bit bit on the fence about removing Starship along with those other three. How do people feel about those two?

Given a list that's going to include Commerce Plaza, I don't see much reason to keep Ilum off the list. In fact, I find Taris only marginally more problematic than Commerce Plaza so those sort of link together in my mind to both stay or both go. Teth and Hoth are the pretty crazy ones. The other four sort of fall in a middle ground for me where stay or go isn't a big deal either way, but if you have any, it doesn't hurt much to allow them all.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:16 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
NickName wrote:
Pretty interesting analysis from Bill. Regarding the core topic of pairing down--it's one of those inevitibilities. I prefer not to be the one with that unluck of the draw but it has to be someone. While Swiss isn't perfect, it's better than any other option for small tourneys, and even if it wasn't, it's sort of our only option within DCI and not much can be done about it beyond doing what Dean is already trying to do by improving tiebreakers.

On a topic I find more interesting...

I missed the live SHN broadcast yesterday but listened to the download and Dean revealed the expected changes to the map list.

Removed: Hoth Outpost, Teth Monastery, Taris (no surprises there)
Added:None

So the interestings bit there is that Crystal Caves of Ilum is not being added. And it seems Dean was bit bit on the fence about removing Starship along with those other three. How do people feel about those two?

Given a list that's going to include Commerce Plaza, I don't see much reason to keep Ilum off the list. In fact, I find Taris only marginally more problematic than Commerce Plaza so those sort of link together in my mind to both stay or both go. Teth and Hoth are the pretty crazy ones. The other four sort of fall in a middle ground for me where stay or go isn't a big deal either way, but if you have any, it doesn't hurt much to allow them all.


Well once those others are gone Commerce Plaza will be the default abuseable one. Maybe we can get rid of it in the next cycle.

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:19 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:38 am
Posts: 1959
I think that is worse than Taris or Teth for movement at least on teth or Taris you can move about 12 squares and still be safe. on Commerce Plaza its just really hard to move up without getting shot.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:21 pm 
The One True Sith Lord
The One True Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:12 pm
Posts: 2026
Location: Nixa,Missouri
as I said on the SHN I am not done with the maps I was giving an quick rundown of the no brainers.


As for the ILum Cave Map.... As I said I am really worried as to what it would do to the newer players using it. I think veteran players would understand well enough to not have too many problems. I am just afraid for newer players it would be a kiss of death against a better player.


As for Starship unfortunately that maphas kind of a emotional attachment to the game with me..... can anyone else get that.

_________________
ImageImage
"What is your bidding, My Master?"

Collection: 934/934

SWM DCI Content Manager


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:41 pm 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
You are assuming a couple of things here, Biil. First of all, that the person who wins when time is called is the one who was playing cautiously/fighting for points. Secondly, that points applied in this way will change a person's position in the ranking system. Nothing I have heard or seen about this proposal has indicated that to be the case.
Well, it will. Ranking has always determined the match ups. The current system in round 1, uses points, then OMWP (Opponent's Match Win Percentage - more on this in a minute), which after say 1 round, is all tied. Every 1-0 has an OMWP of 0, and every 0-1 has 100. This means the system goes to the next tie breaker, which currently is who entered the tournament (or was entered) first. After that is alphabetical last name. So Zimmerman, after round 1, will often be the guy paired down.

Now, back to OMWP. As it currently works, we always just talk about wins and loses. But the actual number for OMWP is based on points. We just use WL record because it works exactly the same way in the current system. Again, after one round, 3/3 = 1/1, and 0/3 = 0/1 for determining OMWP. In the new system, those numbers aren't always the same. And the encouragement is if you are going to lose, to actually lose fully rather than by tie breakers. Because now, you will be divided not only by points first, which already gives us an additional differentiation of 3/2/0, but also in OMWP, which would not have the options of 3/3, 2/3. 0/3 as well. And this multiplies the effects of ranks each round to a point where differentiation actually occurs much earlier and is more manipulated by your play than the current system.

I asked Dean for confirmation before I posted this and he told me it was right. OMWP actually works this way currently. It is not Wins divided by Total Games played. It is points earned divided by Total points possible.

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Additionally, I didn't realize that the rankings are based on the lowest standing of the previous round. That would definitely explain my poor showing at Coolecticon. I would also note that I didn't have the lowest rank among people of my same standing until AFTER the first round in which I was paired down, which was random. There was no way to determine that I was playing a weaker SoS at the end of round 1.
Yep it sucks. In big tournaments, losing your second game in round 3 almost always means you have 0 chance to make the top 8. You likely won't ever move above 12-15. In the new system, you have much more control. After losing your second game in round 3, you likely will know to win full wins the rest of the day, and likely can make the top 8 doing so.

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Thanks for explaining some of this, I hope some of the others here have a better understanding of what a screwy system Swiss is. Essentially the way you have explained it demonstrates what I have been saying - that the system arbitrarily knocks players out of contention. Frankly, I'm disgusted with playing the game under the Swiss system and this is exactly the reason. Now that I know there's no way of ever making a come back from this kind of screwing, it's the nail in the coffin until something changes.
Well let's be honest here. Swiss isn't that bad. It has it's quirks like any system, but it's been proven to be one of the best systems for gaming environments for a long time. Any other system you can name has equally if not more problems with it. For example, everyone's favorite of double elimination, means that a bunch of players are done after 2 rounds of play. In single elimination, without seeding, the 2nd best player can be knocked out in round 1. Let's not get over the top with these complaints here.

And further, I don't think you have paid attention to how much Dean's changes to it actually help make Swiss work much better, as I have been showing it to.

Think about it. What are the issues you have with Swiss?

1) No player control over rankings, especially when you lose vs control based on winning full games and much greater differentiation in the rankings.

2) Getting screwed by a pair down - vs much greater control, and perhaps you can start to see a pair down as a great benefit actually, given that it gives you a greater chance at a full win.

3) Too many tied places with arbitrary differentiation based on spelling of name - vs a system that should almost never result in anyone being tied with another player at the end of a tournament.

It isn't just swiss that was the problem. It was the way we were using swiss. Swiss works much better with greater differentiation. I really don't see the value of continuing to discuss it's faults or benefits here, other than for the fact that it has allowed me to show some of the finer nuances of the change to a 3/2/0 system really offer us beyond simply encouraging faster play. If you do all the math I did with a 2/1/0 formula, it works ok, but not nearly as tightly as this.

If anything, the most likely abuse we will ever see are people giving away concessions to easily to let their opponent's get full wins (for the very minor benefit of boosting their own OMWP in the early rounds for a better ranking and match up next round). Compare that to what happens now in the arbitrariness of the issue Dennis has explained, and I think anyone interested will see the massive benefits of the new system for actually determining results.

_________________
Image

http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.aspx?UserID=29


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:14 pm 
Mandalore
Mandalore

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:05 pm
Posts: 1170
Are you saying you want to loose outright? And not by time?

_________________
Image
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:28 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
billiv15 wrote:
Well let's be honest here. Swiss isn't that bad. It has it's quirks like any system, but it's been proven to be one of the best systems for gaming environments for a long time. Any other system you can name has equally if not more problems with it. For example, everyone's favorite of double elimination, means that a bunch of players are done after 2 rounds of play. In single elimination, without seeding, the 2nd best player can be knocked out in round 1. Let's not get over the top with these complaints here.


Well I am aware that no system is perfect. But I will take double elimination with my chance to come out of the loser's bracket and win it all over Swiss any day of the week. I also don't have to worry about how my opponents are faring - or whether they are even still playing the tournament - as a condition of how well I will end up.


Quote:
And further, I don't think you have paid attention to how much Dean's changes to it actually help make Swiss work much better, as I have been showing it to.


Probably a lot of that has to do with the fact that how Swiss works is as clear as mud. Every time I think I have it figured out, something happens in a tournament that creates a whole new set of questions.

Quote:
Think about it. What are the issues you have with Swiss?

1) No player control over rankings, especially when you lose vs control based on winning full games and much greater differentiation in the rankings.

2) Getting screwed by a pair down - vs much greater control, and perhaps you can start to see a pair down as a great benefit actually, given that it gives you a greater chance at a full win.

3) Too many tied places with arbitrary differentiation based on spelling of name - vs a system that should almost never result in anyone being tied with another player at the end of a tournament.


Well #1 and 2, yes. I have never really said much about #3, though I am aware of it. I think before #3 would be the issue of order of registration as a tie-breaker, since in local events most TOs tend to just enter all their local players first and then anyone new.

Also, I would add #4, which I'm surprised you didn't mention - the ability of the opponent to control my outcome in a tournament, even deliberately. I know you don't want to hear this, but for all the good that the 2 pt. vs. 3 pt. system you mention, it adds another layer where the opponent can control the outcome of a person's game. Even if a player gets paired down, he/she can still end up facing someone who plays cautiously and goes for a points win rather than kill-em-all. In the main tournament at Coolecticon, I went 3-1, as you know, and finished in 6th place. One of those games that I won went to time because my opponent was cautious about engaging and so I focused on controlling Gambit. I can tell you that if that had been something like GenCon, I would have just locked the doors in the middle of the map for 10 rounds and called it. That feels like playing dirty, but I will take that over the game being called on time because my opponent is waiting for me to make a stupid play he/she can take advantage of.

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:38 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
jonnyb815 wrote:
I think that is worse than Taris or Teth for movement at least on teth or Taris you can move about 12 squares and still be safe. on Commerce Plaza its just really hard to move up without getting shot.


I wouldn't say that so much about Teth, but Taris and Commerce are indeed very similar in that regard with all the diagonal LOS.

dnemiller wrote:
As for Starship unfortunately that maphas kind of a emotional attachment to the game with me..... can anyone else get that.


Nope. We all consider you a merciless cyborg overlord operating on pure (and evil) logic. What have you ever done to dissuade us of this opinion? :P

I don't worry too much about newbie massacre due to Ilum specifically. Anything with long LOSes is going to have a learning curve and we're not rid of them all even excepting Ilum. And generally newbs get slaughtered due to tactical and squad issues as much as anything else. Some slaughters are inevitible if a veteran really wants to pour it on.

I forgot to mention, I enjoyed your anecdote about our long ago game on Rancor Pit. It just shows that there's always a ton to learn even if you're experienced with the game. I wasn't even that new to Pit, but that was the first time I'd seen that diagonal corner to corner LOS could snake from setup to setup once you get the door open. You made the rolls and the result wasn't pretty, but you never really lose if you learn something important and don't repeat mistakes. That was also the last time it happened to me. :)

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:41 pm 
The One True Sith Lord
The One True Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:12 pm
Posts: 2026
Location: Nixa,Missouri
so Dennis is your number four example what is different frm what we have now???? Currently someone can do that to you. So why are you against the changes??

Lets see you could call a judge under the new system and let him know that the game is going slow. That you would like him to monitor the situation. I am sure by placement if you are up in gambit and your oppponent is still near his start area it would be quite clear what the problem is. Under the new system the judge can award you a full victory instead of a 2 point win using the situation you have stated.

I understand you dont like swiss but I am little confused. You want double elimination??? So at a big tourney there would never be a cutting to the top 8. Because at Gencon with 81 players the top 8 still had at least 2 5-2 rcord players. By double elimination we would end up with a top 6. I dont know how well that would work. I just dont think you would get quite the turnout when people realized that with 2 losses they are out and they paid $20 to be in the event.

_________________
ImageImage
"What is your bidding, My Master?"

Collection: 934/934

SWM DCI Content Manager


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:00 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
I don't think Dennis ever said he's against the changes. I think he actually said the exact opposite early on...

Pointing out the weaknesses or expressing a preference for Double Elim over Swiss isn't the same thing as being opposed to the changes.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:07 pm 
The One True Sith Lord
The One True Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:12 pm
Posts: 2026
Location: Nixa,Missouri
NickName wrote:
I don't think Dennis ever said he's against the changes. I think he actually said the exact opposite early on...

Pointing out the weaknesses or expressing a preference for Double Elim over Swiss isn't the same thing as being opposed to the changes.


well originally i thought that too. But I am beginning to think that is not so much. Of course I am also considering what has been said that is not in this thread.

_________________
ImageImage
"What is your bidding, My Master?"

Collection: 934/934

SWM DCI Content Manager


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:09 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
dnemiller wrote:
NickName wrote:
I don't think Dennis ever said he's against the changes. I think he actually said the exact opposite early on...

Pointing out the weaknesses or expressing a preference for Double Elim over Swiss isn't the same thing as being opposed to the changes.


well originally i thought that too. But I am beginning to think that is not so much. Of course I am also considering what has been said that is not in this thread.


??

I don't really know what you are referring to about something said outside of this thread.
But what Nickname said is correct. I am not opposed to the changes. I think all of them are things that should have been done a long time ago, save for the one we are actively discussing, and really my only contention with it is that a player can be penalized for his opponent's actions during the game. I win ALOT of games simply because my opponents are hesitant to engage me. I can see how a player's ranking in a tournament will slip through no fault of his or her own because of this change, so yeah I'm gonna speak up. I don't want to see that happen to anyone. I know that is not the intention of this change, but neither was it the intention of Gambit to create this mess in the first place.


Tell me how a player who is intentionally trying to win on points but loses anyway will be further penalized or how a player who was subjected to this approach won't be penalized and I will be completely on board with this. :)

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:50 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
The question is mostly rhetorical I guess since you know the answer.

There is of course the opportunity for the player subjected such tactics to report it to the judge as slow play and the judge could award him the 3 points anyway if the situation is clear. And then of course, the slow player's tactics are likely to backfire on him in the long term as his overall finishing position will tend to be lower than if he tries to play at a pace capable of completing games.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:37 pm 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:17 pm
Posts: 5934
dnemiller wrote:
As for Starship unfortunately that maphas kind of a emotional attachment to the game with me..... can anyone else get that.


I thought sith had no emotions except rage :)

_________________
Really???....... DRINK


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:37 pm 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Tell me how a player who is intentionally trying to win on points but loses anyway will be further penalized or how a player who was subjected to this approach won't be penalized and I will be completely on board with this. :)


I believe Jason answered it well enough. But I want to ask you something in response. Show us how this abuse will actually work. I'd like to see first a real example of it (not a real tournament, but using the new system and how it will really affect the math). Then, I want to see what the opposing player did or did not do in response to it.

In short, I do believe it's a possible scenario that might exist. However, I believe it to be quite rare, and it requires that you are the player are playing slow yourself throughout the tournament for this one game to matter in that way. Further, I am not convinced there is nothing you can do about it, and I mean tactically and strategically, not just the obvious of calling the judge.

I stand by my record, I complete something like 80-90% of all my games, even at Gencon against the best of the best. I've long argued that the strategy of sitting on a small points lead is a very good winning strategy. You are actually much better off forcing the action, even with the lead in most cases.

Oh and as to how the opponent suffers, their OMWP is increased by you getting a 3pt win vs a 2. Its in their interest to lose a full win rather than a tie actually. A player as you called it, "intentionally trying to win on points" is stalling, that's worthy of a DQ from the tournament. I believe the new floor rules make it clear that the game is meant to be played to it's conclusion under the time limit, and that players are required to play fast enough to at least allow that to be possible.

_________________
Image

http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.aspx?UserID=29


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: January DCI Changes Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:54 pm 
Major Tierce
Major Tierce

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 3201
Swiss isn't that bad guys. In large tourneys it is double elim plus (and by tht I mean that some peeps with 2 losses do make top 8 and everyone can keep playig for fun pride whatever). Also if things were set up properly with the correct number of rounds and everyone played the correct number of rounds and did the t8 cut-off (or t4) to single elim it would work better than fine. As Gencon shows every year it works out fine. If you don't want to be hoping an praying then don't lose twice (o and if you do you still have a slim chance). The new 3/2 system makes it even easier for a 2 loss person to make t8 as some 2 loss peeps will finish better than some 1 loss peeps. So what we have is way better than double elim.

At the local level it does break down somewhat as many LGS just play until 1 undefeated with no playoff (which is fine for time purposes at most LGS and makes all tourneys effectively single elim). Our regional had more thn 16 peeps but we only played 4 rounds because that was all it took to leave 1 undefeated. This year will be much better (thanks Jim and Dean) with forcing the correct number of rounds (16-32 should be 5 rounds) and a playoff.

From many years of Magic the gathering 1 loss doesn't doom you and 2 will almost always especially because magic has draws. Bottom line isthat 1 loss doesn't matter it is the second onethat is the problem. What swiss does is allow everyone to play as many rounds as they want which is great.

_________________
When I left you I was but the learner . . . now I am the master.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights style by Scott Stubblefield