Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Rules Discussions  (Read 336 times)

Offline markus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #30 on: 13 August 2017, 10:52:59 AM »
But I don't see how playing an 8th game only after a draw is fairer than the current rules. If you could choose to go first and have to win, or to go second and a draw suffices, who would want to go second?
Given a choice between two bad things, people can pick the one they prefer, and it may even be that everyone will pick the same one. That doesn't mean that offering people that choice is as good as it gets.
In my opinion the other options presented to determine a winner after 7 games are even worse. Because in those cases winning the coin toss to become 1st player is more important. And I don't want a coin toss to decide / shift the chances too much.

For Dominion, of course, this is not an important discussion as draws are unlikely nowadays. (I had 12/1000.) The much more influential rule is that the first player in game 7 is determined by coin toss - and nobody seems to have complained about that.  8)

Offline Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #31 on: 13 August 2017, 04:26:37 PM »
But I don't see how playing an 8th game only after a draw is fairer than the current rules. If you could choose to go first and have to win, or to go second and a draw suffices, who would want to go second?
Given a choice between two bad things, people can pick the one they prefer, and it may even be that everyone will pick the same one. That doesn't mean that offering people that choice is as good as it gets.
In my opinion the other options presented to determine a winner after 7 games are even worse. Because in those cases winning the coin toss to become 1st player is more important. And I don't want a coin toss to decide / shift the chances too much.

For Dominion, of course, this is not an important discussion as draws are unlikely nowadays. (I had 12/1000.) The much more influential rule is that the first player in game 7 is determined by coin toss - and nobody seems to have complained about that.  8)
Obv. if the players are equally matched, luck will decide things.

You could have the higher ranked player go first in game 7.

Offline Ingix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #32 on: 13 August 2017, 11:26:31 PM »
3.2: Yes, the bracket will be fully seeded, therefore the highest rated players will receive byes in round 1, should there be any.

Any chance to have that changed to a (uniformely) random selection of players instead? Byes are (in this case) a technical necessity so I don't see why the better seeded players should have an advantage here,

That's a necessary consequence of a fully seeded bracket, so no, that can't be done. We could not seed the tournament instead, but that leads less fairness, in my opinion.

Of course it is possible to have a fully seeded bracket after the first round, even with random first round byes:

1) Determine the random set of people to get first round byes.
2) Pair the other players of the first round according to their seed numbers (highest vs. lowest, etc.)
3) Assume no upset in the first round, then order the first round byes and the virtual first round winners according to their seed numbers and you get the fully seeded bracket for the second round.

Offline Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #33 on: 13 August 2017, 11:34:54 PM »
Any chance to have that changed to a (uniformely) random selection of players instead? Byes are (in this case) a technical necessity so I don't see why the better seeded players should have an advantage here,
I don't understand. Assume no byes. The highest ranked player is paired in the first round against the weakest player. Why is that? No don't tell me, just keep the reason in your head. Now: whatever the reason was, doesn't it then apply naturally to byes too? The bye is an even weaker player.

Offline Ingix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #34 on: 14 August 2017, 12:35:05 PM »
A bye can't win games, which even the lowest ranked player can do in theory. If you just want to find out who the highest ranking player is, then look it up in the rankings. If you want to find out who wins a tournament, let the players play.

If for technical reasons some players advance the first round without needing to play, then either make players earn that (I think I remember one could earn byes for MtG Pro Tour Qualifiers 15 years back), or make it random. Of course, being highest ranked is a form of 'earn it'.

Offline Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #35 on: 14 August 2017, 04:49:59 PM »
A bye can't win games, which even the lowest ranked player can do in theory. If you just want to find out who the highest ranking player is, then look it up in the rankings. If you want to find out who wins a tournament, let the players play.
Obv. that would be great (for example if two players are tied after 7 games), but it turns out, we've got these byes to assign.

If for technical reasons some players advance the first round without needing to play, then either make players earn that (I think I remember one could earn byes for MtG Pro Tour Qualifiers 15 years back), or make it random. Of course, being highest ranked is a form of 'earn it'.
Magic does have ways to earn byes. It also assigns byes to the best players. The Magic people have put more work into this than I have (argument by authority), and my "we pair the best against the worst in round one" argument doesn't appear to have been demolished to me (argument by looking at your argument).