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.

Target wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
(snip long quote)

Not going to get too involved in the slow play discussion, but just to comment, the "turn 5 oh look time is out" phenomenon is not an ITC one. It started happening that I noticed about a year from the end of 5th edition when we started bloating armies to 2k, and it's gotten worse since then. You'll find that, in general, at most events in my experience, despite the fact that we've also extended round times from the 2 hours they were then to the close to 3 hours they are now.

I personally heavily favor a drop to 1500. A drop to 1750 or 1650 won't do much to change things, you need a significant cut. To be frank, I don't get a lot of the resistance to it. For a competitive player it's just a new game size - who cares, we still design the best list we can and try to out roll/think our opponents. To a casual player, this will make the games shorter. To a new player, this will make the games more accessible. Will it fix everything? Probably not, but it definitely can't hurt, and it for sure won't make games longer.

Indeed. I don't understand the resistance to the change either. I see only pro's, with the only con being that I enjoy big games. But cuts need to be made.

Target wrote:
For a competitive player it's just a new game size - who cares, we still design the best list we can and try to out roll/think our opponents.

It would definitely shift the meta. I have no problem with this. In Fact, I enjoy meta shifts. They keep for sharp.

For some reason certain gamers object to most meta shifts that aren't GW's doing. Some of it has to do with Status Quo. If you are currently winning, or doing well, you don't want to mix things up, and have to learn a new list or way to play, or even a new meta.

 1PlusLogan wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Julnlecs wrote:
@ Tinkrr

I sent you a bunch of the Top 50 LVO lists.

Got them and they're now entered. Thank you very much that was an amazing contribution! Though there was one list I had a question about so that one isn't posted up yet.

12th place Tau is awesome, did not expect Breachers.

Where can these be found? Sounds very interesting.

The link to the drop box with this information will always be in my sig, and it's the same as Julnlecs posted, who I have to thank once again as he supplied me with so much information for this project that it couldn't be where it is without him.

I'm working on getting future events in this data base too and at least one TO has said they'll try to get a copy of the lists and send it my way so far. Any help on this will also be awesome, as it would be nice to cover all of 2016 for the ITC.

On thing I did learn while doing this whole thing is that people provide me with a ton of information as I spread this around, not only lists but extra awesome stuff like commentary about how the lists preformed and such. One awesome thing I got was when I posted about the top Ork player, someone linked me to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PaghCY_1u0 , which is a showcase of his army, and it's a ton of fun to watch, I've even thrown a link into the file for anyone who views it. I think this is something that came up incidentally from this project, but I really enjoy it, I'm hoping to get more stuff like this for future lists as it's always great to see the army, hear the battle reports, and watch the games.

There's a lot we can learn from lists, there's even more we can learn from their pilots and the information I've gotten is honestly both amazing and overwhelming, it's really made all of this super worthwhile.

Thank you!

tag8833 wrote:

Target wrote:
For a competitive player it's just a new game size - who cares, we still design the best list we can and try to out roll/think our opponents.

It would definitely shift the meta. I have no problem with this. In Fact, I enjoy meta shifts. They keep for sharp.

For some reason certain gamers object to most meta shifts that aren't GW's doing. Some of it has to do with Status Quo. If you are currently winning, or doing well, you don't want to mix things up, and have to learn a new list or way to play, or even a new meta.

I think part of the resistance to meta shifts is the time to build an army. If you see a list do well at a tournament, then try it out a fee times with proxies, buy and paint the models quite a bit of time elapses. If the meta drastically shifts a player might be stuck with a host of units that they can't use.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

iNcontroL wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Then maybe you should consider running an army that doesn't force you to slowplay your opponent.

He shouldn't have to choose armies based on which will get him bullied by those with a sense of entitlement that any army that takes longer then their own to play is "slow play" cheating them.

If you have three times the models, you need three times the time, its not exactly rocket science that it takes longer to play with 150 models then with 50.

Whining about "slow play" against people who are actually playing two to three times faster then you have to play for the same result is disingenuous and a blatant denial of the realities of having to move/roll for so many models, let alone the logistics of setting them up/tear down.

How does this only work 1 way in your brain? The guy with 150 models is being "bullied" into playing faster but what about the guy with 50 models who is being forced to have less time in a game that should give both players equal time? How the hell can you so blatantly defend one side of this but not see the side of the other?

The argument SHOULD be the guy can take whatever army he wants but if it causes problems for his opponents it should be taken care of.. like, how is that a crazy concept? Play your 300 model army.. but play it fairly and allow it to equally enable your opponent to have their time too. If you cannot do that then you took the wrong army. Sorry, that is the way it is. I own 100 termagants and 60 hormagants but if I cannot play them fairly why should I on principle be allowed to play 3 turns each game no matter what all the while crying I am being bullied when people complain about my slow playing?

I'm starting to think you and some others aren't on the same page as me. Let me try to clear something up.

-you're talking about slow playing. I totally agree with you. Anyone not making it past turn 3 had something huge and wrong happen. The issue here is that I'm not talking about slow playing. Barring a couple times where a player caused a huge delay, such as a large rules issue or general newbie-ness, I have never failed to get through turn 5 in an event with my speed at playing MSU battleco. Slow playing is not the issue I'm talking about. Natural game ending is. Not just my matches, but an incredible portion of the ones I see, including streamed games from nova and the LVO, are NOT making it into turn 6 and 7. They get to turn 5, realize they're hitting the time wall, and have to end it, ignoring the random game length roll.

That is my issue with the points/time constraints. An incredible portion of games are ending unnaturally at the time wall. At this particular moment, I could advise someone heading to an ITC event to set their list up and play it to be stable on turn 5, because 6 and 7 never happen, even though by rules they should be happening more often than not. Even Eldar vs Eldar, an army famous for abusively powerful offense and only mediocre defense, ran into the time wall instead of checking random game length.

The "average" result should be that games end after turn 6 in events, and they SHOULD have enough time to do a round 7 if the dice demand it. This is NOT what is happening. Slow players not even considered, a giant portion of the field just can't make it to random game length anymore due to all the fat and clunkiness in the game.

So like I said earlier, if the average game is running into a time issue instead of a natural finish, we need a fix. A points drop is pretty much the only thing possible since time is already stretched very hard at most events.

Ok yeah we mostly agree. my point and how it functions here is that I 100% agree something should be done to get games to end on time naturally. You seem to suggest points drop I suggest punishment / incentive for people who tend to not finish. As you said.. you yourself playing bat company can finish games.. other people should too. Things can happen of course where this doesn't happen but for the most part if both players understand there is cause to finish I bet you they will.

I would also be down with chess clocks. Obviously there's some overhead cost involved (well, quite a bit), but if they add some more stability to tournaments I feel like they'll more than pay for themselves over time. Maybe a gofundme is in order?

I wouldnt mind a shift to 1500, my bike list does well with that

What's the point in the autarch with a warp jump generator (seen in a lot of the LVO lists) when he can't flickerjump?

Surely a bike autarch is superior

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I wouldnt mind a shift to 1500, my bike list does well with that

Just as long as *you* are okay with a shift to 1500 points, I'll back you up, Hotsauceman.


@thread
Anecdotal info:
Yesterday (Feb 13), we at Game Empire Pasadena had our monthly rtt. Instead of the usual 1850 ITC based tourney, ideas were shared a few weeks back and 1500 point games were held. Sort of a, "Relax a bit after LVO" mindset. And not a whisper of griping about the points shift. And not one table had to be called Dice Down, that I'm aware of, which is not the normal occurrence.

I don't *slow play*. I play slowly, given I run eldar, Taudar or just Tau. Psy-powers, MSU and Assault Phase movement being the main culprits for lengthening my game times. At 1500, I finished all 3 rounds to Turn 5 (last one, opponent conceded at bottom of 4, but we had plenty of time left). Often, at 1850, my games get to Turn 4 and that's it. GE Pasadena has 2 hour, 15 minute rounds.

I'll be voicing favor in moving things to 1650 or so, just for fun, for change, to finish games and still hvae fun trying to work in Psypowers. And more Warp Spiders.

 Drinkgasoline wrote:
What's the point in the autarch with a warp jump generator (seen in a lot of the LVO lists) when he can't flickerjump?

Surely a bike autarch is superior

In general it is played that he can flicker jump, because he's part of the unit and he has the ability to perform a warp jump due to his generator (which is what flickerjump says to do). Definitely a rules Q, but thats how I've usually seen it played. My guess is that's how it was played at LVO (I didn't play anyone with a warp-gen autarch).

There are going to be a lot of upset Tau players who just spent ~$200 on a second Stormsurge to run at 1850 if the drop to 1500 happens (myself included ).

Personally, I don't really see a reason to change 1850. Even in tournaments with 2h15 rounds I only occasionally have issues completing games as long as my opponent also hustles. With that said, 2h45-3h hour rounds would not be bad thing as it still leaves some breathing room. I think it will be good to see how Adepticon goes as well (2h45 minute rounds) before making any immediate changes. I think NOVA ran ~3 hour rounds last year, how did attendees find that to be?

To echo what iNcontrol said earlier though, it's up to both players to keep each other moving. Using LVO stream as an example, look at the difference between Steve Sisk's game(s) compared to Geoff's games - Geoff is on top of his opponent to keep things moving in a timely fashion, meanwhile none of Steve's opponents said a word about him taking 20-30 minute movement phases.

The problem with long games, ones that reach the three hour mark, is that you can't really build a sport around that, and in the latest Signals From the Frontline they said they wanted to grow the hobby and make it such. Now this LVO had 6 rounds and then a top 8, that's really not enough as it is, and if the LVO grows any larger it only makes the problem worse.

The problem is that if you look at the records people had, it's not until something like 40th place that you see people have a record of two losses consistently. We even have multiple undefeated people (2 draws, 4 wins) in the top 40 that didn't make it. More so, there were three people tied for 8th. This should show clearly that there's already a very serious looming problem that if the event grows next year, but can't accommodate more rounds, getting to top 8 will be even more of a coin flip than it is now.

That's why the solution needs to start now, as cutting down the time from 2:45 to 2:15 lets them potentially sneak in two extra rounds, throughout the two days, and can at least alleviate the problem for a little while. They would already benefit a lot from having an extra round this year alone.

My Suggestions:

Game Size: How about 1500/1600 pts for the first part and 1850 pts for the final 8. The first day is about having fun, so emphasizing that with lower point values and relaxed time is the way to go. Plus you’ll sell more beer if players have time to go get one. The last day is all about smashing each other in the dick while hung over, so 1850/2000 could be a reward for getting to there.

Extra Point formations: How about giving the opposing player bonus maelstrom points when facing one of these things. Kind of like the super heavy bonuses. 1mp per 100 free points kind of thing.

Best of Faction should always be from the greater point value. I know I would be livid if I lost best Blood Angels to a Skitarii list using a BA Taxi service.

The only issue is that a lot of people have put work into 1850 armies, and some don't work well at lower points. I know the 5 Knight player who won 2nd best painted, and he'd like to be able to continue to use that army which might not work well at 1500.

you're talking about slow playing. I totally agree with you. Anyone not making it past turn 3 had something huge and wrong happen. The issue here is that I'm not talking about slow playing. Barring a couple times where a player caused a huge delay, such as a large rules issue or general newbie-ness, I have never failed to get through turn 5 in an event with my speed at playing MSU battleco. Slow playing is not the issue I'm talking about. Natural game ending is. Not just my matches, but an incredible portion of the ones I see, including streamed games from nova and the LVO, are NOT making it into turn 6 and 7. They get to turn 5, realize they're hitting the time wall, and have to end it, ignoring the random game length roll.

If you can show up with your army and finish your games on time, then there's no issue. If you show up and, no matter how hard you try, you can't consistantly finish your games on time, then you might be screwing your opponent over. You might not have bad intentions, but that can still be poor sportsmanship from a competitive standpoint. This has always been a thing with various horde armies, and some players do a better job of saying "it's hard to play this army quickly, I need to make an effort to keep things fair for my opponent".

 Crimson Devil wrote:
My Suggestions:

Game Size: How about 1500/1600 pts for the first part and 1850 pts for the final 8. The first day is about having fun, so emphasizing that with lower point values and relaxed time is the way to go. Plus you’ll sell more beer if players have time to go get one. The last day is all about smashing each other in the dick while hung over, so 1850/2000 could be a reward for getting to there.

Extra Point formations: How about giving the opposing player bonus maelstrom points when facing one of these things. Kind of like the super heavy bonuses. 1mp per 100 free points kind of thing.

Best of Faction should always be from the greater point value. I know I would be livid if I lost best Blood Angels to a Skitarii list using a BA Taxi service.

That's actually a pretty good idea, Magic already does split formats for multiple day events in some cases. They could even have it ramp up each day, and this would allow them to get in extra rounds throughout the event, as the lower point days would be quicker and could have more rounds that eventually cut to say top 100 for day two. Then they can have a smaller 40k side event tournament on day 2 for people who didn't make day 2, or just let everyone day 2. Either one.

More so, it would make both 1500 and 1850 relevant point values for smaller tournaments, as you'd have to practice both for the LVO. Though 1500 would obviously be more common, which is good as it's more inviting to new players and creates a smaller barrier to entry.

My third game at tge LVO vs Eldar couldve been the most glaring example of slow play EVAH. We made it to the bottom of T2!

TURN FRAKING TWO!!!!!

I will say from the start that I dont think he did it purposefully, but I was pretty bummed and just conceded. It was Purge the Alien, and I had FOUR units in reserve and missed all 4 rolls in my T2.

He was playing his first ITC event (my 5th). It was snails pace deployment, generating psychic powers, warlord traits etc...
I deployed VSG, big guns battery of 5, 3x barricades, 3x trukks and a stompa. He (Eldar gunline) argued at the begining that there was too much LOS blocking terrain and insisted on moving. Fine whatever. Adjacent tables were already on T2. He argued rules, measuring, tests, stomps, EVERYTHING. As T2 closed a judge came over and said 10min. HE EVEN ARGUED WITH HIM!!!! It was my turn and I was trying to get 2 koptas and 2 grot squads out of reserve. His back line was erased by my bully boyz and my stompa had gone down due to haywire hawks. We had basically changed sides. He said 5min was unfair to him and he needed more time... when he started arguing with the judge, I extended my hand and conceded. I was pissed, but I think he was just slow. Not malicious, not "gaming"...just slow. His real job made it very funny and ironic - he's an "Expiditer". My buddy called him "Slowdar Expidar" hah. Again... nice guy, but uncool for tourney play IMO.

I am not a slow player but I do like to make conversation and friends. I chat up, as I know Im not a top player. I like to make nice.

Anyhoo to add to my cred as non-slowplayer, my orks vs Greentide in game 2 (just before) came to a NATURAL END.

 Tinkrr wrote:
The problem is that if you look at the records people had, it's not until something like 40th place that you see people have a record of two losses consistently. We even have multiple undefeated people (2 draws, 4 wins) in the top 40 that didn't make it. More so, there were three people tied for 8th. This should show clearly that there's already a very serious looming problem that if the event grows next year, but can't accommodate more rounds, getting to top 8 will be even more of a coin flip than it is now.

A HUGE part of that is how the missions are designed - there is a very narrow set of results you can get. If you compare this to Adepticon, ETC, 20-0 system in Fantasy, etc... you get dramatically more varied (and arguably accurate) matching & results.

As for making it "a sport", Football, Soccer, Baseball, etc... are all easily 3 hour events. CS GO matches (BO3) are upwards of 3 hours, SC2 BO3 can get near that, DOTA, etc... all hit around that mark. Having a commentator makes all of the difference compared to just dead air when players aren't talking. Hell, even Warmachine is 2 hour games with the deathclock and extra time for TO calls.


Keep in mind, also, that if someone is slow playing at 1850 they will slow play at 1500. The length of the game or point value makes no major difference if both players aren't making effective use of their time (which is something that game turn penalties/clocks help with).

 doktor_g wrote:
My third game at tge LVO vs Eldar couldve been the most glaring example of slow play EVAH. We made it to the bottom of T2!

TURN FRAKING TWO!!!!!

This is a fantastic example of players needing to keep each other in check. If you're an hour in and on turn 1, it's already past time to call a TO over and call your opponent on slow play. It was probably time to do it after he wasted ~30 minutes arguing about the table.

 1PlusLogan wrote:

A HUGE part of that is how the missions are designed - there is a very narrow set of results you can get. If you compare this to Adepticon, ETC, 20-0 system in Fantasy, etc... you get dramatically more varied (and arguably accurate) matching & results.

As for making it "a sport", Football, Soccer, Baseball, etc... are all easily 3 hour events. CS GO matches (BO3) are upwards of 3 hours, SC2 BO3 can get near that, DOTA, etc... all hit around that mark. Having a commentator makes all of the difference compared to just dead air when players aren't talking. Hell, even Warmachine is 2 hour games with the deathclock and extra time for TO calls.

While more varied results are good, they don't change the problem that Swiss formats, accelerated or regular, can't really sustain that many people with that few rounds. The more you compensate for a small amount of rounds, with in game performance metrics, the more you make any given loss capable of highly skewing results, which is in itself introducing less consistency. Right now, there's already an issue that win-loss record is not as meaningful as in game performance, as going 5-1-1 or 4-0-2 doesn't mean anything in itself because there's no value to record itself. In magic there's a very simple record in that a win is 3 points, a draw is 1 point, and a loss is 0 points. Meaning that 5-1-0 is 15 points and 4-0-2 is 14 points, such that there's that distinction and then tie breakers are based on how difficult the pairing was (in this case you can say game performance as there's an alternate metric). In this system, not only is a bad match up a game loss, but it's potentially a game loss and a half if it goes that poorly. Then there are other questions, such as InControl's opponent in one round offering to play it out further to allow him to gain more points, which isn't inherently wrong, but it's getting into a very murky area because it could potentially be score padding due to how important those numbers are outside of just tie breakers for equal win-loss records.

The problem with that comparison is that a Football, Baseball, etc is a season long thing, with many games played and only one round a day per team, I mean this is what a football tournament is: "where each team plays 16 games during a 17-week period.", and a baseball tournament is: "The Major League Baseball (MLB) season schedule consists of 162 games for each of the 30 teams in the American League (AL) and National League (NL), played over approximately six months—a total of 2,430 games," it's not very comparable.

As for DOTA, League, SC2, Hearthstone, and so forth, those are also not comparable as most of them are qualified player only with far less players than 296 at the event (or should I say unique teams), and as such can afford the small round count as those players already had to qualify for that event via a long grinding process to make it to the top X players/teams, or a series of those post tournaments that lead to the final tournament.

In short, the problem isn't that the games are long, it's that because of the length the LVO can't have enough rounds currently to be a good sporting event if it grows at all, because it's already straining under the amount of players it receives.

 Tinkrr wrote:
The more you compensate for a small amount of rounds, with in game performance metrics, the more you make any given loss capable of highly skewing results, which is in itself introducing less consistency. Right now, there's already an issue that win-loss record is not as meaningful as in game performance, as going 5-1-1 or 4-0-2 doesn't mean anything in itself because there's no value to record itself. In magic there's a very simple record in that a win is 3 points, a draw is 1 point, and a loss is 0 points. Meaning that 5-1-0 is 15 points and 4-0-2 is 14 points, such that there's that distinction and then tie breakers are based on how difficult the pairing was (in this case you can say game performance as there's an alternate metric). In this system, not only is a bad match up a game loss, but it's potentially a game loss and a half if it goes that poorly.

There are two common problems in most 40K formats. The first is a lack of enough rounds to determine a single victor based solely on W/D/L record. LVO didn't have this issue, but instead through bizarre game outcomes had one undefeated player after 6 rounds. He went on to place 3rd overall. However, many events don't have enough rounds and this changes the meta for which armies win. Tabling armies do far better in those formats. ITC provides 1000 points for a W, 500 for a draw and 0 for a loss. If they changed the draw to less than 500 points then they would address that issue.

 Tinkrr wrote:
Then there are other questions, such as XXX's opponent in one round offering to play it out further to allow him to gain more points, which isn't inherently wrong, but it's getting into a very murky area because it could potentially be score padding due to how important those numbers are outside of just tie breakers for equal win-loss records.

I can't comment on this specific example, but this is a common issue, if not rampant. I think it is in fact inherently wrong (if you give someone points they didn't earn). It is essentially collusion, but hasn't been deemed to be explicitly forbidden. I think tournaments should take a clear stand on this topic.

 Tinkrr wrote:
In short, the problem isn't that the games are long, it's that because of the length the LVO can't have enough rounds currently to be a good sporting event if it grows at all, because it's already straining under the amount of players it receives.

I'll respectfully disagree. If adequate time isn't allowed for an overwhelming majority of games to come to a random die roll conclusion that supports a full 7 turns, then we're playing with differing expectations. This is not the normal outcome. People build lists and plan for 4-5 rounds.

 punchdub wrote:
There are two common problems in most 40K formats. The first is a lack of enough rounds to determine a single victor based solely on W/D/L record. LVO didn't have this issue, but instead through bizarre game outcomes had one undefeated player after 6 rounds. He went on to place 3rd overall. However, many events don't have enough rounds and this changes the meta for which armies win. Tabling armies do far better in those formats. ITC provides 1000 points for a W, 500 for a draw and 0 for a loss. If they changed the draw to less than 500 points then they would address that issue.

Ah ok, that makes a lot more sense, though it still has the issue that it factors in too many compensating factors. You're actually penalized for winning a difficult game, as opposed to winning an easy game, as in you're more likely to get more tie breaker points if you won a good match up, than you would if you won a super close game against a bad match up, for example.

 punchdub wrote:
I can't comment on this specific example, but this is a common issue, if not rampant. I think it is in fact inherently wrong (if you give someone points they didn't earn). It is essentially collusion, but hasn't been deemed to be explicitly forbidden. I think tournaments should take a clear stand on this topic.

I tend to be more of the mindset that scooping or IDing isn't bad, but that's a different discussion.

This specific example also isn't as sinister as it might sound, as it wasn't just "ok I'll give you these points" it was "Let's play it out to give you the chance of getting these extra points", so the player still had to earn it, it's just that their ability to earn it depended on their opponent's decision to be a good sport. That's really why it's so hard to make a clear stance on the subject, because it's really hard to prove intent in this situation. It's also the reason Magic allows you to draw a game without playing it if you want, because they had a clear stance that you couldn't and then two pro's basically played a round where they forced a draw by running out the clock and that hurt the event as a whole. Yes, in that case you can prove intent, but what about the countless others where two people find it best to draw, rather than play and knock one person out, it becomes really hard to distinguish if they're playing intentionally to draw or are playing how they feel is correct in the situation.

 punchdub wrote:
I'll respectfully disagree. If adequate time isn't allowed for an overwhelming majority of games to come to a random die roll conclusion that supports a full 7 turns, then we're playing with differing expectations. This is not the normal outcome. People build lists and plan for 4-5 rounds.

Sorry, I'm not sure if we have a miscommunication here, but I'm not referring to rounds as in number of turns, I'm referring to rounds as in number of rounds in a tournament. As in the LVO had 6 rounds, and then a top 8, and my claim is that 6 rounds for an almost 300 player tournament isn't enough to make a conclusive top 8 using the Swiss format. This is actually mathematically true, as there are rules for how many players an Accelerated Swiss format can contain per number of rounds.

Now I can understand the argument that 6 rounds and cut to the top 8 in this LVO was not horrendous, but more of a first sign of straining the system type of thing, but next year if the event does continue to grow, it will most likely not be feasible at 6 rounds, which is a problem that needs to be addressed now if they wish to continue growing the event not only for next year but years to come. I mean if it's already a stretch at 300 players, what are you going to do at 350 players?

 Tinkrr wrote:
Now I can understand the argument that 6 rounds and cut to the top 8 in this LVO was not horrendous, but more of a first sign of straining the system type of thing, but next year if the event does continue to grow, it will most likely not be feasible at 6 rounds, which is a problem that needs to be addressed now if they wish to continue growing the event not only for next year but years to come. I mean if it's already a stretch at 300 players, what are you going to do at 350 players?

If I remember correctly, the running for top 8 had 3 people in contention for 8th place, and the rest were clearly in, is that accurate? If so, we're literally talking about a 1% situation (3 players out of 295). Is it worth fundamentally changing the competitive field for that situation?

 Tinkrr wrote:
Sorry, I'm not sure if we have a miscommunication here, but I'm not referring to rounds as in number of turns, I'm referring to rounds as in number of rounds in a tournament. As in the LVO had 6 rounds, and then a top 8, and my claim is that 6 rounds for an almost 300 player tournament isn't enough to make a conclusive top 8 using the Swiss format. This is actually mathematically true, as there are rules for how many players an Accelerated Swiss format can contain per number of rounds.

Now I can understand the argument that 6 rounds and cut to the top 8 in this LVO was not horrendous, but more of a first sign of straining the system type of thing, but next year if the event does continue to grow, it will most likely not be feasible at 6 rounds, which is a problem that needs to be addressed now if they wish to continue growing the event not only for next year but years to come. I mean if it's already a stretch at 300 players, what are you going to do at 350 players?

I think we were talking about different things. I was talking about game length (rounds), I see you were talking about games. LVO was (essentially) a 9 round event, both this year and last, which should handle 512 players with the ability to handle a single undefeated victor. They simply drop anyone that isn't top 8 after 6 rounds. This wasn't a change for 2016, so I don't think it was a strain issue. 512 players reduce over six rounds (256, 128, 64, 32, 16, 8). They have plenty of headroom as long as they stay single elimination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 1PlusLogan wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
Now I can understand the argument that 6 rounds and cut to the top 8 in this LVO was not horrendous, but more of a first sign of straining the system type of thing, but next year if the event does continue to grow, it will most likely not be feasible at 6 rounds, which is a problem that needs to be addressed now if they wish to continue growing the event not only for next year but years to come. I mean if it's already a stretch at 300 players, what are you going to do at 350 players?

If I remember correctly, the running for top 8 had 3 people in contention for 8th place, and the rest were clearly in, is that accurate? If so, we're literally talking about a 1% situation (3 players out of 295). Is it worth fundamentally changing the competitive field for that situation?

They did, and only because a ton of people drew games this year. Last year the top 8 was simple, and only 1 person wasn't 6-0 IIRC.

Ballys staff and people who pose as staff really destroyed a lot of the enjoyment. The event staff and volunteers for LVO hit this one out of the park.

 punchdub wrote:


They did, and only because a ton of people drew games this year. Last year the top 8 was simple, and only 1 person wasn't 6-0 IIRC.

Also important to note, that they were still able to decide 8th place by merit (strength of schedule), effectively making this a non-issue outside of a few details discussed earlier.

 1PlusLogan wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
Now I can understand the argument that 6 rounds and cut to the top 8 in this LVO was not horrendous, but more of a first sign of straining the system type of thing, but next year if the event does continue to grow, it will most likely not be feasible at 6 rounds, which is a problem that needs to be addressed now if they wish to continue growing the event not only for next year but years to come. I mean if it's already a stretch at 300 players, what are you going to do at 350 players?

If I remember correctly, the running for top 8 had 3 people in contention for 8th place, and the rest were clearly in, is that accurate? If so, we're literally talking about a 1% situation (3 players out of 295). Is it worth fundamentally changing the competitive field for that situation?

While it's true there was only a three way tie for 8th, this is also only at just under 300 players, and you can assume growth going forward, which means this problem only increases.

The other issue is that while the others were clearly in, there were plenty of people at a 5-1-0 recrod, or even 4-0-2 that could have been in given slightly better in game records. Until you hit the 26th place, the difference between top 8, and not top 8 is only a few points difference from points gained each round. Worse yet, this could literally mean that quite a lot of people missed out on top 8 because they actually won harder match ups than those in top 8, while also having the same record. Even if you assume they make draws worth less than half a win, you only reduce it to 23 potential top 8 people, out of almost 300 people. That's almost 1/12 of the tournament players being potential top 8 players, only losing out by small variance during their games, in some cases being extra punished for having a stronger opponent round 1 than a player who could have had a weaker opponent and made top 8.

For example, 11th place was only 2 points shy of the 3 8th place people, and 12th place was only 4 points shy, when they all had over 5000 points each. That could easily be the difference of your opponent slow playing you during one round :/. That should clearly show the strain the system is already under.

Source for standings and scores: http://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/lvo2016

For sure - your point I think just emphasizes my earlier one about how the scoring setup for the ITC missions creates too narrow a spread of results for that number of people.

The problem is you're still creating a problem in that match ups reward or punish players a lot more than they normally should. It's a lot easier to wrack up points when you have a good match up, then a bad one, so all of a sudden working harder to win in a game is still a loss in many ways. Then the speed at which your opponent plays all of a sudden factors into how well you did that game, since it may not have progressed far enough for you to really gain as many points, despite still winning. Basically, tracking in game points, rewards you a lot more for playing weaker opponents than playing harder ones, so you're doubling down on that problem.

The easiest and best solution is playing more rounds in a tournament. I mean after all, playing more rounds not only gives consistently good players a leg up, but it also means that one bad loss doesn't ruin your chances in the event. Worse yet, right now even if you win your first two rounds, but score poorly in those wins because it was a difficult game, you could already be completely out of top 8 contention, which is really not good. Heck, you could be 5-0 and know for a fact you won't make top 8 if you don't draw or win your next game, simply on breakers... In the near future you won't even have that luxury as already the top 6 were all undefeated.

 Tinkrr wrote:
The problem is you're still creating a problem in that match ups reward or punish players a lot more than they normally should. It's a lot easier to wrack up points when you have a good match up, then a bad one, so all of a sudden working harder to win in a game is still a loss in many ways. Then the speed at which your opponent plays all of a sudden factors into how well you did that game, since it may not have progressed far enough for you to really gain as many points, despite still winning. Basically, tracking in game points, rewards you a lot more for playing weaker opponents than playing harder ones, so you're doubling down on that problem.

I don't follow you here. or I don't think you understand how the scoring systems I noted work (there's a low and high-end cap based on comparable data points, it's not straight game score). ITC scoring is almost as punishing as you could possibly be in this scenario - if you lose by a single game point, you're now 1000 points behind your opponent. In a 30-0 system like Adepticon, you're 30 points behind, and you can recover that through average big wins, if your opponent only just squeeks by. In ITC's W/L/D system, you're damned the second you lose a game as you can never catch up to someone who goes undefeated, no matter what their margin of victory.

If you do a quick comparison between ITC and Adepticon/ETC style (let's use a 30-0 scale), you get something like this in a scenario where you lose every game by 1 point over 6 rounds.

ITC: L/L/L/L/L/L
30-0: 14/14/14/14/14/14

ITC you're at the bottom of the pack, scrambling to compete for anything but last place. 30-0, you're very slightly below the middle of the pack.

If you flip the comparison around for 1 point wins over 6 rounds:

ITC: W/W/W/W/W/W
30-0: 16/16/16/16/16/16

ITC you're competing for first place despite winning by the skin of your teeth, 30-0 you're more accurately ranked toward the middle of the pack.

A scenario where you have 2 minor losses and 4 big wins:

ITC: W/W/L/W/W/L
30-0: 28/24/12/27/25/14

ITC you're sitting around top 1/3rd, 30-0 you're pushing top 1/4 (speaking anecdotally, likely much higher).

Now with this said, the fundamental design of the ITC scenarios does not play into this sort of comparative play because the primary/secondary are both W/L in and of themselves, but that's a different discussion. If anything, the other styles of systems give a better representation of relative skill and are less rewarding for a single lucky matchup. Yes, shorter games become more of an issue, but there's already a separate discussion going on how that can be addressed.

Anyway, my 2 cents, and keep in mind I'm coming from a heavy WHFB background where nearly everything is based on a 20-0 or 30-0 comparative system. Also, don't get me wrong, the way ITC handles W/L/D and associated pairings is well done (since game score does still matter) however it still has the inherent problems of a W/L/D system.

But that's what I'm arguing against in this case, I don't think the nature of your win or loss should matter, at all, but rather how many wins or losses it came down to, and the number of rounds should reduce ties as much as possible before going to breakers.

My issue isn't that a bad match up simply hurts, but that it hurts you more so in the 30-0 system. Basically, the goal is to win the event, and in the 30-0 system a bad match up doesn't give you as bad of a loss, but it gives you a worse win, even if you do win. It extends beyond bad match ups and to bad luck or a myriad of other reasons too. Basically, if you get paired in a bad match up, and you have more skill than your opponent, and pull of the win, in the ITC you're rewarded with a full win, in the 30-0 system you're punished as it's a narrow win, despite requiring more skill than a flawless victory against an opponent who is significantly less skilled and is a good match up for you.

What really irks me about that system is that it's backwards, and in a way the ITC system is too. Generally your first round should the softest round as it's the pool of all available players, your last round should be your hardest round, as it's against players with high wins only if you're doing well. In the 30-0 system, and the ITC system, you get the most reward from round one, meaning if you get paired against a good player round one you're already behind win or lose, as the game will be much closer, while other players who had a softer match up are a leg up on you, since they scored the easy points early. If in that case you and that other hypothetical player win all your future games evenly, they're still ahead of you because they did better in the easiest round of the tournament. It's why breakers based on opponent win-loss records are better, since opponents you beat round 1 are going to most likely have worse records than opponents you beat in the final round, meaning a loss early is worse than a loss late, in most cases.


Though it still doesn't address my main issue, that in an event that is only 300 people in size, has essentially a 25 person tie for top 8, that is determined completely on tie breakers (that I view as faulty, and those breakers mimic the 30-0 system), because it's incapable of squeezing in more rounds currently. This top 8 pseudo tie only grows in size as the event grows, and switching to the 30-0 system only hides the problem, and maybe exasperates it as you're now basing it even more off of the victory point tie breakers that I have such an issue with.