Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Apostasus wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
No, both of those would be a terrible tournament structures.

Why? Because it would require limited numbers of people? Also, why not just randomize opponents in all rounds? I kinda wonder because I came in 2nd in my FLGS weekly tournament tonight (3 rounds, 1st random, 2nd ? and 3rd paired somewhat like swiss) but according to some of the discussion, I shouldn't have had a shot because I lost my 1st game?

Why? For one, elimination tournaments wouldn't be fun and it's possible to lose a game and still do well overall. A secondary tournament with the chance to be reinserted to the main tournament is too clunky and also pretty dumb. The main reason random pairings aren't used is that it doesn't separate winner last from losers like Swiss rounds do after the first round. Swiss rounds keep a theoretically even playing field by matching players with similar tournament scores but also not allowing people to play each other multiple times. Just doing random pairings creates an environment where strong players could continually play weak players which would be terribly imbalanced.