Jump to content
zephir

Top Table

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, nobby said:

Same with me and sos, one of the reasons I stopped playing Blood Bowl.

SoS certainly has its drawbacks, people being soft and dropping from the events being the big one. But it doesn't allow for submarining so I'll take it over the VP tie breaker any day of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Korak said:

I can't, and never will get behind a scoring system that opens that potential. It's nice that it tries to encourage people to keep playing, but it allows for dumb luck to grant podium placements over someone who had to work harder. I won't allow for that.

Honestly though, every system allows for luck to play a part somewhere somehow. Dropping a few places due to SoS really means you didn't get to display your skills properly because some of the games you won you presumably won easily. Who knows what you'd have done against better opponents? What you value more really depends on the perspective from which you look at things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Pangur Ban said:

Honestly though, every system allows for luck to play a part somewhere somehow. Dropping a few places due to SoS really means you didn't get to display your skills properly because some of the games you won you presumably won easily. Who knows what you'd have done against better opponents? What you value more really depends on the perspective from which you look at things.

Yes that's true, but not every system rewards luck for no effort in return. You may get lucky in that you face harder opponents through SoS, but at least now you have to defeat the harder opponents. As opposed to the VP system which can reward someone for dodging, for all its faults SoS never rewards dodging.

I've been well and truly burned by bad luck through both systems, but at the least SoS doesn't leave me with a bad taste in my mouth when someone who had a far easier run places ahead of me because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about using head to head and performance against common opponents as the first and second tiebreaker? If the players played against each other I think it makes sense for the winner of that game to place ahead of the loser of that game. As far as performance against common opponents, if two players are tied at the end of the day and they happened to play against the same person, and one of them won that game and the other lost, it also seems fair to place the player who won ahead of the player who lost. You can't always apply these obviously but when they do apply  it seems like they are more fair than SoS or VPs as a game result is determining who places higher as opposed to the luck of the draw. 

Alternatively, what if guild ball ties went into a shootout? Each player picks 3 players and takes turns rolling against the TN of 4 with each of their 3 players kick stats. Whoever scores the most goals wins. If it's still tied, then each player uses the remaining 3 players who were on the pitch and rolls it again. If it's still tied then maybe the next round the TN goes up to 5. Might not be practical, but still beats VPs or SoS to me. I also think having the tiebreaker potentially decided by a mascot needing to score a goal to claim the shootout victory sounds awesome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a bit of anecdotal evidence regarding the way tie breaks work now.

Last month we had a 14 person tournament. Myself and Steve faced off in the finals. I won and Steve ended up taking 4th place. However...Steve had beaten both the players who came in 2nd and 3rd and only lost to the overall winner. 

Color me pro strength of schedule. Under the current system, it rewards you for getting paired up to with newer players and favors teams that win the game quickly (thus allowing for a larger gap in the final score). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, tkoguildball_gabe said:

Just a bit of anecdotal evidence regarding the way tie breaks work now.

Last month we had a 14 person tournament. Myself and Steve faced off in the finals. I won and Steve ended up taking 4th place. However...Steve had beaten both the players who came in 2nd and 3rd and only lost to the overall winner. 

Color me pro strength of schedule. Under the current system, it rewards you for getting paired up to with newer players and favors teams that win the game quickly (thus allowing for a larger gap in the final score). 

Thank you for pointing this out. This is one of the biggest calls for a top table rule, and I totally forgot it.  The 1st place game loser can (and often will) fall behind people they beat on the way to the top game.  If you face someone in round 3 and have a great game say 12-8, then get beat up in round 4 say 12-4, while they get an easier opponent, you will drop below them in the rankings.  But head 2 head isn't taken into account for rankings.  And it would be tough to include it, because you are likely to get multiple people who are 3-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, zephir said:

Thank you for pointing this out. This is one of the biggest calls for a top table rule, and I totally forgot it.  The 1st place game loser can (and often will) fall behind people they beat on the way to the top game.  If you face someone in round 3 and have a great game say 12-8, then get beat up in round 4 say 12-4, while they get an easier opponent, you will drop below them in the rankings.  But head 2 head isn't taken into account for rankings.  And it would be tough to include it, because you are likely to get multiple people who are 3-1.

It's less a call for top table and more a call for not using VPs because it's a totally flawed system. Top table can create the same benefit where someone gets and easier run and places because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Korak said:

It's less a call for top table and more a call for not using VPs because it's a totally flawed system. Top table can create the same benefit where someone gets and easier run and places because of it.

With swiss pairings how can you get an easier path?  your round 2 opponent will be 1-0, round 2 2-0, etc.  Winners will always face winners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, zephir said:

With swiss pairings how can you get an easier path?  your round 2 opponent will be 1-0, round 2 2-0, etc.  Winners will always face winners.

Because not all winners are equal and the tournament isn't seeded. Take this as a very basic example for illustration:

You have a pool of 4 players. Of the pool, players 1, and 2 are experienced veterans, both are near equal in ability and play largely flawless games. Player 3 has been playing for a while, he has a decent grasp on the game, but nowhere near as good as the first two players, he rarely beats either of them. Player 4 is very new, and tends to make many mistakes in his game.

The rounds are drawn randomly. It results in Player 1 vs 2, and Player 3 vs 4 in the first round.

No matter how the games work out, under top table format one of the less experienced players will place second over a veteran player who is the stronger player, just by luck. If you had a larger pool of 8 players, with only 2 veterans and 6 new players, the veterans could potentially face in round 1 or 2 and one of them gets eliminated from 1st or 2nd just by pure luck of how the draw worked out while a less experienced player who didn't have to face either of them is guaranteed at least 2nd place.

Because the rounds aren't seeded like a real sports tournament, veteran players aren't guaranteed to face off later in the tournament, and will frequently wind up knocking each other out in early rounds. Real sports use seeding to prevent this kind of situation from happening, you don't want 9/10 best teams knocking each other out at the start of the tournament and ending it with Spain roflstomping Cameroon in the grand final. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup_seeding

Top table would work great under a player seeded system, but you're not going to get that in this kind of game because you don't have a regulated body or league of players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeding is for entertainment purposes.  Later rounds you want the big games to attract the big audiences for TV, which means more money.  It has no place in amateur wargaming events where all players should enter as equals.

 

Every system has flaws.  Maybe we need to focus more on coming X-1 (for example) rather than the tiebreaks to decide who comes where in that bracket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, rwould said:

Seeding is for entertainment purposes.  Later rounds you want the big games to attract the big audiences for TV, which means more money.  It has no place in amateur wargaming events where all players should enter as equals.

 

Every system has flaws.  Maybe we need to focus more on coming X-1 (for example) rather than the tiebreaks to decide who comes where in that bracket.

Entertainment and fairness aren't mutually exclusive. What makes the event entertaining that it's fair, because it's fair then when the upsets happen and someone makes a cinderella run it's entertaining. If a team makes an undeserving run then it's not interesting at all and lowers the value of the competition.

But that point aside, yes every system has its flaws, but the flaws of VPs and Top Table is that you wind up with scenarios where players are potentially rewarded for nothing given in return.

38 minutes ago, rwould said:

 

Every system has flaws.  Maybe we need to focus more on coming X-1 (for example) rather than the tiebreaks to decide who comes where in that bracket.

That system actually works ok at large conventions for Warmachine. They have qualifying events where the players who are undefeated after several rounds qualify, then the main event later. Doesn't work for smaller tournaments though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although the big games being later in a tournament does attract the bigger audiences and bigger money, to say that is the whole point of seeding a tournament is wrong. That is certainly a side effect of the seeding system and one that big leagues take advantage of, it is not the whole point of seeding. Seeding is intended to reward past performance and help ensure that the teams that do well during the regular season or group stage are rewarded with an easier path to the later rounds of the tournament. 

I agree that it really doesn't belong in a one off amateur tournament, but tournaments that are attached to a league or something similar could be seeded with no issues in my opinion. 

I don't think there is really a catch all tie break scenario. In some instances a top table works out and the "right" person takes second. In some cases SoS would have given it to the most deserving player, but it just depends on how the tournament plays out. I think head to head games should be considered first. Other than that, maybe the TO needs to announce the tie break criteria at the beginning of the day. Making sure every one is at least aware of the criteria being used and allowing players to plan accordingly is probably about as fair as it gets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cincinnati GBC said:

Although the big games being later in a tournament does attract the bigger audiences and bigger money, to say that is the whole point of seeding a tournament is wrong. That is certainly a side effect of the seeding system and one that big leagues take advantage of, it is not the whole point of seeding. Seeding is intended to reward past performance and help ensure that the teams that do well during the regular season or group stage are rewarded with an easier path to the later rounds of the tournament. 

I agree that it really doesn't belong in a one off amateur tournament, but tournaments that are attached to a league or something similar could be seeded with no issues in my opinion. 

I don't think there is really a catch all tie break scenario. In some instances a top table works out and the "right" person takes second. In some cases SoS would have given it to the most deserving player, but it just depends on how the tournament plays out. I think head to head games should be considered first. Other than that, maybe the TO needs to announce the tie break criteria at the beginning of the day. Making sure every one is at least aware of the criteria being used and allowing players to plan accordingly is probably about as fair as it gets. 

 

 

The tiebreaks are set in the official play document, which every player should read before attending a tournament. As I found out recently, not every player does read official documentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, nobby said:

 

 

The tiebreaks are set in the official play document, which every player should read before attending a tournament. As I found out recently, not every player does read official documentation.

That's true and people definitely need to read those to make sure they are up to date. Earlier in the thread though there is mention of someone being at a tournament where the tiebreak criteria was switched and that was not announced. Granted that was in a Warmachine tournament and not a guild ball tournament, but I doubt that is the only tournament that has ever changed up the tiebreaks to fit what they see as being more fair. I guess I could have said if you aren't following the documented criteria then you need to announce it, but it might be safer to just make sure everyone knows what it is just in case it comes up later in the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cincinnati GBC said:

That's true and people definitely need to read those to make sure they are up to date. Earlier in the thread though there is mention of someone being at a tournament where the tiebreak criteria was switched and that was not announced. Granted that was in a Warmachine tournament and not a guild ball tournament, but I doubt that is the only tournament that has ever changed up the tiebreaks to fit what they see as being more fair. I guess I could have said if you aren't following the documented criteria then you need to announce it, but it might be safer to just make sure everyone knows what it is just in case it comes up later in the day. 

As a TO I would always make sure that I announce the format regardless of how standard/unusual it is just to make sure that attendees know what is going on and can make plans accordingly. I really wouldn't want to put someone else in the situation I mentioned earlier in the thread. This is really important to do before an event and is not something you should be announcing on the day.

In regards to tiebreakers, every system has flaws and each system is going to have stories of people that were screwed by it. Given JamieP's past experience in tournaments for Warmachine I trust that he chose what he felt would be best for organised play. I also imagine Strength of Schedule was considered. It would be interesting to know why the tiebreaks were chosen over other choices. Personally I am fine with the tiebreaks that were chosen but I do acknowledge there are situations where they don't lead to expected final standings. I feel like adding top table would negatively impact more players than it would positively impact.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top table, assuming it fixes anything, only fixes something for the runner-up as well. All players vying for a high rank at an event have the same issue, it just gets magnified for that player who plays against the winner. Top table doesn't solve anything for players who'd end up in 3rd or 4th place if it weren't for a few others with a similar win record but better tiebreaker scores (regardless of the actual tiebreakers used).

I definitely agree that total VPs or VP difference are pretty bad tiebreakers though, and aside from those and SoS there aren't exactly many valid options for Guild Ball event tiebreakers to begin with. I prefer looking at it as a single winner followed by small groups of participants who did close enough to equally well that it doesn't matter to try and separate them. It's why I'm not a fan of prizes being awarded for 2nd through xth place either: one for the winner, a few special prizes for special achievements if you want, a wooden spoon prize and a raffle with everyone who finished the event and hasn't won anything yet seems better to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Korak said:

Entertainment and fairness aren't mutually exclusive. What makes the event entertaining that it's fair, because it's fair then when the upsets happen and someone makes a cinderella run it's entertaining. If a team makes an undeserving run then it's not interesting at all and lowers the value of the competition.

 

Why in an amateur event is it fair that one person has a distinct advantage over another by being excluded from playing other recognised good players?  Using Warmachine as an example I am a reasonably average player who can defeat the top players but am less likely to, and accordingly why I should I have less chance of winning than someone who is 'seeded' and so has more chance of an easy game first round?  What you are doing with seeding in a hobby such as this is making it even more likely the same people stay at the top as you make it easier for them to do so.

So in this case fairness is excluded.  You are giving some players an advantage over others.  The event is there for the players and not for any outside audience.  If they want to derive pleasure from an event they need to start paying for my travel, accomodation costs, and models if they want to have any influence over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rwould said:

Why in an amateur event is it fair that one person has a distinct advantage over another by being excluded from playing other recognised good players?  Using Warmachine as an example I am a reasonably average player who can defeat the top players but am less likely to, and accordingly why I should I have less chance of winning than someone who is 'seeded' and so has more chance of an easy game first round?  What you are doing with seeding in a hobby such as this is making it even more likely the same people stay at the top as you make it easier for them to do so.

So in this case fairness is excluded.  You are giving some players an advantage over others.  The event is there for the players and not for any outside audience.  If they want to derive pleasure from an event they need to start paying for my travel, accomodation costs, and models if they want to have any influence over it.

They already do that in Warmachine, teams hold fundraising for the WTC events and people pay to send the players over and have the event broadcasted. I actually expect Guild Ball will end up doing some similar things in the near future.

But, my original point was that seeding doesn't actually work for table top games, because there is no infrastructure to track the player rankings right now. Which is why a system like top table that wants the use of seeding isn't good for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Korak said:

They already do that in Warmachine, teams hold fundraising for the WTC events and people pay to send the players over and have the event broadcasted. I actually expect Guild Ball will end up doing some similar things in the near future.

But, my original point was that seeding doesn't actually work for table top games, because there is no infrastructure to track the player rankings right now. Which is why a system like top table that wants the use of seeding isn't good for the game.

How countries select their players, and how those players are funded, are independent of the event itself.  Most countries select upon the basis of the players being able to fund the event themselves (irrelevant of any potential fund raising) and from those who have the ability to fund it some process then determines who the 'best' players are to represent the country.  So for example the US was based upon events from the last two years as laid out in a resume whilst England had a listing of qualifying events that you had to achieve a certain placing at, a resume, and then a selection day to further demonstrate your ability.

The event broadcast is also separate from the event.  Whilst there are discussions about which game to stream that has no influence on the draw process itself (I should know, i am the one who pushes the button on it!).

And it all is relevant as you want seeding and therefore favouritism for some players over others.  That is bad for the vast majority of players in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rwould said:

And it all is relevant as you want seeding and therefore favouritism for some players over others.  That is bad for the vast majority of players in the game.

You seem to misunderstand. I haven't said we should seed Guild Ball tournaments, I said the Top Table format doesn't work properly without seeding, hence we shouldn't use the Top Table format because we have no way to fairly seed the majority of players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit a part of me loves the fact that many good points are put forward and arguments well made over how we might prefer to 'not come first' :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Korak said:

You seem to misunderstand. I haven't said we should seed Guild Ball tournaments, I said the Top Table format doesn't work properly without seeding, hence we shouldn't use the Top Table format because we have no way to fairly seed the majority of players.

I understand perfectly.  I am pointing out that, irrelevant of whether there is a reliable ranking system, seeding is not good for the vast majority of players.  All it helps is the players at the top of the seedings avoid each other thereby increasing their chance of maintaining their ranking and of them artifically doing better in the event as they have a higher chance of doing so by avoiding what is a more difficult game in the first (or early) round(s).  You have failed to demonstrate why those players deserve an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeding also has the potential for a relatively new player to play every game at a tournament against good players, if it were me that would mean a pretty crappy day. 

The Swiss does a fairly good job of balancing out the experience/ability/luck levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rwould said:

I understand perfectly.  I am pointing out that, irrelevant of whether there is a reliable ranking system, seeding is not good for the vast majority of players.  All it helps is the players at the top of the seedings avoid each other thereby increasing their chance of maintaining their ranking and of them artifically doing better in the event as they have a higher chance of doing so by avoiding what is a more difficult game in the first (or early) round(s).  You have failed to demonstrate why those players deserve an advantage.

 

Well, firstly you don't understand perfectly. You just said that I want seeding in tournaments. I don't, I haven't said that. In fact all I've done is agree with you that seeding wouldn't work in a hobby based game.

Secondly, under a ranked system players do not enter a competition as equals, this is the flaw in your thinking. Some players are ranked higher than others, by definition there's an inequality. If you have a system of rankings, the higher ranked players have earned their seeds by playing and winning games against other well ranked players in competition, they are therefore more deserving of an easier path than the newcomer who has yet to prove himself.

It doesn't artificially inflate their rankings over a new player either. If a new player with a lower ranking faces much higher ranked players in a row and defeats them, his own ranking rises much faster. Vice versa, under many ranking systems if you as a higher ranked player/team repeatedly lose to much lower ranked opponents your ranking drops considerably faster while defeating them yields little to no bonus to your ranking.

Regardless, the point remains that there's no way to implement a ranking system into Guild Ball due to the nature of the hobby. So I wouldn't worry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×