Tournament Tie Breakers: How My Previous Opponents Losing Their Round 9 Games Cost me a Top 32 Spot in the Clash

    • Funktion wrote:

      I don't really see this as a problem. Additionally the suggestions don't really solve the problem but rather they just push it in a different direction. There will always be players on the cusp of some prizing threshold and it is always gonna feel bad to not make it.

      Also I kinda got the vibe that folks thought not making a cut based on breakers is uncommon... it is not uncommon at all... it is rare for breakers NOT to matter.
      Suppose that my previous opponents in this situation turned out to win their games instead of losing the round 9 games. If that had happened, I would have gotten into the top 32 in this scenario.

      I have exactly zero influence over my opponent's round 9 games, and it ended up costing me an AAA herofall. I have no influence over who I am paired up against (aside from wins, but that doesn't affect much), and I have no influence over the rest of my opponents games. The results of getting top 32 and not getting top 32 fell upon pure luck. This luck is different than in-game luck, as your skill influences the outcome of your matches, and the formerly mentioned luck you cannot influence at all. At least in my opinion, this hurts the integrity of tournaments.

      Perhaps a prize support of an x-y record could potentially solve cases like this? Something like the Arcanum Vault.
    • invinible wrote:

      I feel that quitters should always rank lower than those that were straight up defeated, no matter how the ranks are calculated, at least in the round that they are no longer playing the tournament in.
      So, people who can do the math and realise that they won't be qualifying and then decide it's fine to not play 5 more rounds since they have work in 9 hours are worse players than the ones that just wanna play for fun, or the ones that want to beat someone and drag them down? Gotcha.

      What's next, people that concede and don't let their opponent take their life total to 0 being punished more than those that don't?
    • Generally these systems ignore the variance of your best and your worst tiebreaker addition i can't tell for sure if hex does this but if not it really should. But yes especially early on getting matched against someone who is likely to just drop or like i did in the clash get matched down against someone with a worse score i effectively got a worse tiebreaker by defult assuming an equal progression.

      All in all most people hate these things but i have yet to hear any good solutions to the problem would you rather have them flip a coin for top 8 an who ever gets the most heads gets the slot? Imagine how stupid that is if you played against a bunch of the 8-1 and maybe lost to one of them and the undefeated guy and you don't get top 8 despite clearly having faced much harder opponents than a majority of other players and came out in decent shape.
    • The best way to avoid being at the mercy of tie breakers is to win - no matter how you decide to calculate them some people are gonna come out worse. If you really hate tie breaks the only true answer is single elimination.

      Breaking into a 128 and having the 4-0s advance is just a slower way to implement single elimination.
    • Honestly I'm a massive fan of single elimination but i understand why people dislike it higher variance as a single loss eliminates you and tougher opponents are very punishing in single elimination where losing is defeat unlike swiss where they would give you a good tiebreaker score win or lose. For me the biggest point of singleelimination being my favorit comes from my personal feelings of having to slog through rounds after a loss just doing all you can to not lose again and most times getting one more loss at some point.

      0-1 gives me peace of mind and time to spend on other stuff lossing first winning 6 in a row and then lossing one of the last two makes it feel like wasted time. But again as long as everyone plays by the same rules its fair same as the tiebreaker system it does its best to be fair and it does a pretty good job at it considering.
    • I believe the current system is just about as good as it gets. The main reason why the OP had a bad experience is that he knew his placement and his tiebreaker coming into the last round and could therefore see it change in the final round. He has faced slightly easier competition than the 32nd place player. It's not something he has control over, but it's still a fact. Hex could simply hide the tiebreaker values until the tourney is over, but I don't think that is a good solution either.

      I would definitely not like to have single elimination in a game with this high variance though.
    • AceBladewing wrote:

      Seems easy for people to complain about tiebreakers, not so easy for them to propose workable alternatives.
      That's normal. In most cases people are far better at identifying problems than solutions. That's why game development companies prize people who are able to see feasible solutions frequently. They're a huge asset to any team.

      Funktion wrote:

      I don't really see this as a problem. Additionally the suggestions don't really solve the problem but rather they just push it in a different direction. There will always be players on the cusp of some prizing threshold and it is always gonna feel bad to not make it.

      Also I kinda got the vibe that folks thought not making a cut based on breakers is uncommon... it is not uncommon at all... it is rare for breakers NOT to matter.
      I can absolutely see why people would be upset by this. I think this is the first genre I've seen where it is seen as normal for a tiebreaker to be based off of something you had no control over...

      I guess it's lucky that I'll probably never be close enough to the top for this to affect me, but it really seems like a miserable solution...
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • There were 285 people in the clash. Meaning only 6/47 6-3's will be in top 32. When only 12% of a record gets a prize it is more of a gift to those few than a given right. Because the majority of the people at your match record get nothing. It feels bad being that close, but the only thing you can really do is play your best and accept the spot you get.
    • AceBladewing wrote:

      Reality can be harsh sometimes. Being able to deal with it is a very valuable acquired skill.
      Being able to deal with it is a valuable skill, but an even more valuable skill to consumers of a product is being both willing and able to offer articulate feedback when an implemented solution is not ideal. That's the only way a product improves.

      Additionally, sometimes a valuable skill can be knowing when to NOT tell people to just deal with a bad situation(people are way too quick to jump to 'just deal with it' as a response, and it's often very rude). Sometimes it's important to express that something is bad so that those in a position to deal with it can recognise that improvement may be possible.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Eraia wrote:

      I can absolutely see why people would be upset by this. I think this is the first genre I've seen where it is seen as normal for a tiebreaker to be based off of something you had no control over...
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League#Competition

      "Teams are ranked by total points, then goal difference, and then goals scored."

      Teams have no control over either the goal difference or the goals scored of the other team that can be ranked higher than them due to tiebreaker. I'm sure other competitions employ similar methods. I find it really weird you haven't heard of it.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League#Competition
      "Teams are ranked by total points, then goal difference, and then goals scored."

      Teams have no control over either the goal difference or the goals scored of the other team that can be ranked higher than them due to tiebreaker. I'm sure other competitions employ similar methods. I find it really weird you haven't heard of it.
      Each of two teams for which the tie is being broken has control of their own score for each of those tiebreakers.

      edit: Also, before the last game each team knows what result they need to be ahead in the tiebreaker.
    • I was waiting for the day for someone to whine over tiebreakers...

      They exist for a reason and they show the quality of the opponents you played properly.
      Going 6-3 And beating players who ended up 3-6 and lower just means you beat worse players than the players who are 6-3 And their 3 losses come from players who went 8-1 or better.
    • jvluso wrote:

      Each of two teams for which the tie is being broken has control of their own score for each of those tiebreakers.
      Team A plays its last match vs X on Saturday. They end up with 68 points, 50 goals scored, 30 goals scored against them.
      Team B plays its last match vs Y on Sunday. They end up with 68 points, 50 goals scored, 29 goals scored against them.
      Team A had no control over team B's score.

      "They could have done better" is not an argument you should use. Because I will answer with "You (the Hex player participating in the tournament and ending in a tiebreaker) could have done better, go 9W 0L and won all games 2-0", and there's nothing anyone can answer back.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      Team A plays its last match vs X on Saturday. They end up with 68 points, 50 goals scored, 30 goals scored against them.Team B plays its last match vs Y on Sunday. They end up with 68 points, 50 goals scored, 29 goals scored against them.
      Team A had no control over team B's score.

      "They could have done better" is not an argument you should use. Because I will answer with "You (the Hex player participating in the tournament and ending in a tiebreaker) could have done better, go 9W 0L and won all games 2-0", and there's nothing anyone can answer back.
      At least one team involved in the tie has some degree of control of the result. It does not depend on a match between teams C and D that happens on Monday. It does not depend on team C deciding not to show up to that match because there is nothing on the line for them.

      However, I don't think we actually disagree about very much. Every tie-breaker system has problems. It is easy to point out the problems, but impossible to make a system without any. I do think it is important enough to be worth considering the problems with a few different systems and deciding which problems we are most ok with rather than just defending the system we have for the sole reason that it is the system that we already have.