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

    • AnomalyCobra wrote:

      im not going to sit here and debate anout hypothetical situations that will never occur
      Of course not. Because there's no way you could justify in that case that the person would be 'better' in that case, and in being unable to justify it, you'd prove one of the many glaring faults in using strength of schedule as the first tiebreaker and thus weaken your overall argument.

      It doesn't actually do a good job of proving who is better. It's just a relic of a decade-or-so old decision made by Wizards of the Coast that people are married to because they're afraid of change.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Yeah i'll weaken my argument by using some made up situation that will never happen. Sounds like one of your greatest arguments ever, i really should just mute you at this point because nothing that congress out of your mouth is Ever educated. You just grasp at straws trying to make your argument stronger by using situations that will never arise outside of your warped mind
    • AnomalyCobra wrote:

      Yeah i'll weaken my argument by using some made up situation that will never happen. Sounds like one of your greatest arguments ever, i really should just mute you at this point because nothing that congress out of your mouth is Ever educated. You just grasp at straws trying to make your argument stronger by using situations that will never arise outside of your warped mind

      Actually, Eraia's exact situation has occurred in Hex: Shards of Fate history before.

      Of course, it isn't going to happen in single elimination.

      But with the way people drop out of tournaments, the round robin style has made it possible.
    • But the performance wasn't better. There were 2-3 matches out of close to 100 that made up the difference in standings. 2-3 matches that neither player participated in. That's not a statistically relevant number of matches. Also with Hoogland's system (which you still probably haven't read) he would have one less round so there would be almost the same number of players at each bracket. Furthermore after top 8, you don't get cash anyways, and you have to play into top 8 if you're tied for 8th. I'm replacing 3 matches played by neither player in contention with a play in match by the two players where the winner makes top 8 and gets the prize. For the next cutoff it's all digital stuff anyways, hex can just give out ~5 more AA herofalls it doesn't cost them anything.
    • I just want to say that first of all someone dropping from a tournament doesn't cause their remaining rounds to count as losses for the opponent. Someone who goes 1-3 drop is going to count as someone who went 1-3. It's not going to help your tiebreakers, but it isn't going to further hurt them either.

      Tiebreakers are going to fluctuate round by round, and unfortunately you have no control over them. Just because you start the round with 60% opponent win percentage doesn't mean that if you win it will go up. Unless you are X-1 or so, it isn't likely to improve. Keep in mind that your win drops your opponent's win percentage too. If you both were 5-3 coming into the round, your opponent is going to have a 56% win percentage after, which would drop your opponent match win percentage as well. If a number of your previous opponents lose that round, it's also going to go down as well. In fact to keep the opponent win percentage where it is or better, you're going to need to have your previous opponents win at least 6 of the matches that round.

      I've been on both sides of the tiebreaker fence and trust me it hurts when you finish day 1 at 97th when top 96 move on to day 2. Or when top 100 gets cash prizes and you finish 104th. I also had a string of 4 WoWTCG Regionals where I missed out on top 8 due to tiebreakers. So much so that the one where I finally broke through I made sure to have enough wins so that tiebreakers weren't an issue, even though I was the lone undefeated after 6 rounds in a 9 round event (Regionals had a Constructed portion of so many rounds then a draft for 3 rounds). In the case that I wasn't fighting for top 8, I was just playing to try for guaranteed prizes. If I made it, I was just happy with where I finished. If I didn't, well, better luck next time.

      As for the argument for prizes based on record, its fine for smaller events like Lixil and VIP but larger more competitive events it doesn't. Sure giving 5 extra AA Herofalls now doesn't seem like a big deal, but it will eventually decrease the value of the card in the future. Keep in mind that those 5 Herofalls could lead to 30-40 extra ones that Hex didn't count on getting put into the economy. In fact, for a tournament like this the number of people who missed out on tiebreakers at the same record could be 30 or 40, meaning a lot more Herofalls getting put in. Sure this makes them easier to obtain, but it decreases their value and hurts the economy.

      Just my 2 cents.
    • TripleZed wrote:

      I think the real answer is using ladder ranking as a tiebreaker.
      Not to be negative, but I think that may be the worst solution. Just because someone is #1 on the Cosmic ladder doesn't mean they deserve prizes more than someone who might still be in bronze but at same level skill-wise. People shouldn't be punished for not having time to climb the ladder.

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

    • What if tiebreakers were assigned randomly at the start of the tournament?

      If they're mostly RNG anyway, might as well remove the illusion of control. It would make them less feelbad and give players more reliable information about when it's worth it to stay in and when they should just drop and go have a pizza.
    • Thoom wrote:

      What if tiebreakers were assigned randomly at the start of the tournament?

      If they're mostly RNG anyway, might as well remove the illusion of control. It would make them less feelbad and give players more reliable information about when it's worth it to stay in and when they should just drop and go have a pizza.
      I actually commented earlier that if they're going to use an RNG method of assigning tiebreakers, they might as well stop hiding it and just make it obvious. But sime people seem to think the current rng method actually does a good job of determining who is better, which is a belief they're not willing to give up, flawed or otherwise, and thus they don't acknowledge that the current method is just RNG.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

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

      i don't know how this went from "current tiebreakers are imperfect" to "current tiebreakers are just RNG"

      opponents' strength is better than pure random, even if it's not the only factor that should be considered
      The current tiebreaker is imperfect because it is essentially just rng... that's the problem with it. It's an rng method that judges the player based off of games they weren't even involved in.

      you should be predominately judged based off of the games you participated in, not the ones you didn't, because that would remove some of the rng from it and give you some measure of control in it.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

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

      i don't know how this went from "current tiebreakers are imperfect" to "current tiebreakers are just RNG"

      opponents' strength is better than pure random, even if it's not the only factor that should be considered
      There are some advantages to having SOS matter for tiebreakers, but there are also advantages to determining tiebreakers randomly at the start of the tournament. If tiebreakers are determined at the start of the tournament, you will know with far greater accuracy what rank you will end up with for any record, and therefore it will be easier to know if you can safely drop knowing that the prizes you are looking for are out of reach with the number of losses you have. It also would make it far more clear what you are playing for in the last round - who is still capable of beating you, and who is not.

      These do not necessarily mean that pure RNG is better, but they are advantages to look for in other proposed systems, and highlight some of the issues with the current tie-breaking system.
    • AnomalyCobra wrote:

      your opponents are the best way to judge your performance

      You go 2-0 vs a rookie using a starter deck
      I win 2-1 vs an expert player running kagu...

      Who did better? If T3 ended up becoming T1 the game would say you did but realistically we know that was just because of pairings
      This isn't what I'm arguing against. If one player has much higher breakers than another, it illustrates the situation you described. But when the tiebreakers are <5% apart (which is the overwhelming majority when determining things such as top 8 cut), strength of schedule is virtually the same for both players.
    • I'm not saying tiebreakers mean nothing, even one match means strength of schedule is slightly higher. What I'm saying is that a system where we have a play in round for top 8 is a better system because a head to head match between two contenders for top 8 is far more significant than OMW%.
    • Eraia wrote:

      Biz wrote:

      i don't know how this went from "current tiebreakers are imperfect" to "current tiebreakers are just RNG"

      opponents' strength is better than pure random, even if it's not the only factor that should be considered
      The current tiebreaker is imperfect because it is essentially just rng... that's the problem with it. It's an rng method that judges the player based off of games they weren't even involved in.
      you should be predominately judged based off of the games you participated in, not the ones you didn't, because that would remove some of the rng from it and give you some measure of control in it.
      I'm not sure why you think SoS is pure RNG. It's not. It's a measure of how good your opponents are. Plain and simple. If you faced strong opponents then your SoS will be high. If you faced terrible opponents then your SoS will be low. This is a great way to compare players that end up with the same overall record.

      THIS IS NOT RNG.

      Edit: This isn't to say this is the be-all end-all of ways to score tournaments. I actually like the x-y = prizes method even though it does mean some players had an easier "route" to their prizes than others.