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

    • 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.
      Actually that's the very definition of a tiebreaker that IS in a person's control.

      It is a measure of their own personal stats, those stats were up to them in each game. A person can't control how their opponents perform in their other matches, but a person can control how THEY performed in their OWN other matches.

      If the other player has a better score, then they win the tiebreaker. That seems reasonable, since it's a measure of their own performance. That means that, all other things being equal, the other player was better over the course of the rest of event/season since they performed better overall.

      Edit: Although in most of those leagues, it's typically a round robin or double round setup, so there's no rng of opposing teams at all so this isn't even an option...
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

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

      If the other player has a better score, then they win the tiebreaker. That seems reasonable, since it's a measure of their own performance. That means that, all other things being equal, the other player was better over the course of the rest of event/season since they performed better overall.

      Hmm, isn't this what's happening here too though? The player that took OP's spot due to better tiebreaker was better because he fought better opponents (as evidenced by OP's opponents losing = playing bad / being unlucky / quitting).

      If athlete A ran 100m in 10s with favorable wind and athlete B ran 100m in 10s with unfavorable wind, the general consensus is that athlete B is the better one.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      The player that took OP's spot due to better tiebreaker was better because he fought better opponents (as evidenced by OP's opponents losing = playing bad / being unlucky / quitting).
      But this is something you have no say in. How well you performed is something you had a say in.

      If the system allowed people to choose their opponents, that'd be a different story, but it doesn't... so it's basically saying the tiebreaker is rng.

      If you're going to go that route, might as well have it be a roll of the dice. In fact, I'd argue a roll of the dice would be a better system than this personally, since at least it's transparent rng.

      Edit: To clarify, I see a good tiebreaker as being something that measures how well you performed in the matches you were given, not something that measures how good your luck is in which matches you were assigned by the rng gods.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

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

      Vroengard wrote:

      The player that took OP's spot due to better tiebreaker was better because he fought better opponents (as evidenced by OP's opponents losing = playing bad / being unlucky / quitting).
      But this is something you have no say in. How well you performed is something you had a say in.


      Eraia wrote:

      If the other player has a better score, then they win the tiebreaker. That seems reasonable, since it's a measure of their own performance. That means that, all other things being equal, the other player was better over the course of the rest of event/season since they performed better overall.

      Am I reading this wrong? I don't see a difference.

      EDIT: Clarification - I don't see how this same situation ("Losing the tiebreaker because you had no say in it" and "the opponent has a better score so they reasonably win") induces different reactions from you (indirect disagreement with the first, which is the point of the thread vs calling it "Reasonable", thus implying you agree with it).

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Vroengard ().

    • Vroengard wrote:


      Am I reading this wrong? I don't see a difference.

      EDIT: Clarification - I don't see how this same situation ("Losing the tiebreaker because you had no say in it" and "the opponent has a better score so they reasonably win") induces different reactions from you (indirect disagreement with the first, which is the point of the thread vs calling it "Reasonable", thus implying you agree with it).
      Every tie has (at least) two players. There are two possible tie breakers - breakers involving factors that one of those two teams are involved in, and breakers involving factors those two teams are not involved in.

      Consider the soccer example. Number of goals scored is the first tie-breaker. All goals scored by a team involved in a tie occur in a game that one of the teams involved in the tie is playing in.

      Consider Hex. The first tie breaker is the win rate of your opponents. Almost none of those games involve one of the two players in the tie.
    • Vroengard wrote:

      EDIT: Clarification - I don't see how this same situation ("Losing the tiebreaker because you had no say in it" and "the opponent has a better score so they reasonably win") induces different reactions from you (indirect disagreement with the first, which is the point of the thread vs calling it "Reasonable", thus implying you agree with it).
      It's simple: If I lose a tiebreaker based off of score, there's a logical projection to correct the problem. "I lost because he performed better over the entire season than me, scoring more goals on average in his games, if I improve my performance in my average game, next time I can avoid this". If I lose a tie breaker off of opponent win record, all I can say is "Well I guess I just got the shitty luck to be placed against crappy opponents. Better luck next time".

      One is an actionable loss, the other is not. One is something that, had I played differently, I could have avoided. The other is something that was decided completely by rng. One is something I can look at and see how I can correct, thus making the problem feel like it was within my control. The other is something that there is nothing I could have done to impact.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

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

      Vroengard wrote:

      EDIT: Clarification - I don't see how this same situation ("Losing the tiebreaker because you had no say in it" and "the opponent has a better score so they reasonably win") induces different reactions from you (indirect disagreement with the first, which is the point of the thread vs calling it "Reasonable", thus implying you agree with it).
      It's simple: If I lose a tiebreaker based off of score, there's a logical projection to correct the problem. "I lost because he performed better over the entire season than me, scoring more goals on average in his games, if I improve my performance in my average game, next time I can avoid this". If I lose a tie breaker off of opponent win record, all I can say is "Well I guess I just got the shitty luck to be placed against crappy opponents. Better luck next time".
      One is an actionable loss, the other is not. One is something that, had I played differently, I could have avoided. The other is something that was decided completely by rng. One is something I can look at and see how I can correct, thus making the problem feel like it was within my control. The other is something that there is nothing I could have done to impact.
      We talked a bit about this on my stream today with chat etc & I still think the issue is being conflated. Players have pretty good control over their breakers... consistently play well. There might be room to improve the system but it is being exaggerated how much RNG in pairings has to do with your breakers. The solutions I've seen suggested just skew things in a different direction, I haven't seen anyone say yet "X solution cuts out Y problem without shifting it to Z new and almost identical problem." Ex: making T3 become the new T1 just flips it so that the player who faced weaker opponents early is now favored.

      The current system works pretty well (haven't seen much argument otherwise, but rather that there may be room for improvement). Over the course of a long tournament it does a good job of measuring your ability to remain focused across the day. If it was going to be replaced with something then it needs to be replaced with something that is clearly better across the board rather than a horizontal shift; otherwise you risk breaking a system that already works just fine or expending social capital on a change that wasn't necessary in the first place.
    • The tiebreaker system is fine. The only control anyone has is over whether or not they built the best possible deck and played to the best of their ability. There is a ton of RNG in HEX, and over the course of a long tournament. The people on the cusp of top X are there because they lost at some point. That is really all that matters.

      That is why I suggest looking into modes that do not need tiebreaker systems. It doesn't solve the problem, or offer a better solution, but allows for people that can not cope with a system like this, an alternative where they do not feel victimized by it. Tiebreakers are not the RNG you want to be complaining about.... It isn't really why you need to rely on them in the first place, if you are an on the cusp player.
    • jvluso wrote:

      Every tie has (at least) two players. There are two possible tie breakers - breakers involving factors that one of those two teams are involved in, and breakers involving factors those two teams are not involved in.
      Consider the soccer example. Number of goals scored is the first tie-breaker. All goals scored by a team involved in a tie occur in a game that one of the teams involved in the tie is playing in.

      Consider Hex. The first tie breaker is the win rate of your opponents. Almost none of those games involve one of the two players in the tie.
      Your example is flawed. You would need to look at a series of soccer games within a tournament format for it to be equivalent.
    • The fix for things like this is really pretty simple and one I hope Hex adopts at some point -

      Pay out prizes based on final standing, not placement.

      I understand this gets messy with free events because it means the prizes scale with attendance, but for an event with an entry fee like the clash you can predict how much more $$$ you are taking in compared to the amount you are paying out as the event grows in size.

      Paying out based on final record not only eliminates the feel bads of tie breakers, but it puts a clean line in the sand for people to know when they are out of contention of prizes instead of making them figure out if they should "risk it" and keep playing hoping to be one of the lucky few with good breakers.

      You can even do the single elimination cut based on final record like I described here: Shorter Clock Times for Events and Other idea for shorter major event.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by JeffHoogland ().

    • Because i would think someone with your tcg background would understand the importance of tiebreakers in a tournament.

      Tell me this Jeff... without tiebreakers how do you determine the top 8? Or are they forced to run a tournament with exactly enough players such as 64 128 256... Because you won't have a clear top 8 without tiebreakers

      Or should we just do away with the top 8 cut also because the player in 9th will feel bad...
    • Top 8 is a completely arbitrary cutoff point. We could easily cut to a top everybody who had the same match record as 8th place and draw up a bracket like that with a play in round for top 8. The fact that you can miss top 8 or any cutoff by having 1% worse opponents match win percentage isn't a good feature of the game that we need to be championing.
    • top 8 a majority of the time is a draft... You can not do that without exactly 8 players... so now we have to change the final format to account for this unnecessary change for the sake of a few people feeling bad that they got screwed by the tiebreakers.

      Also forget about prizes such as salty Sam sleeves in the future. But yeah let's change everything that works for the sake of a few bad feelings
    • AnomalyCobra wrote:

      Tell me this Jeff... without tiebreakers how do you determine the top 8? Or are they forced to run a tournament with exactly enough players such as 64 128 256... Because you won't have a clear top 8 without tiebreakers
      Did you not read the post I made / follow the link at the end? Because I literally posted a solution for this.

      Talk to most people who play a lot of high level TCG play - they will agree with me that tie breakers suck. It adds another elemental of variance to our games that already have variance by design.