Does anyone else think that FFG should consider abolishing the Top 8 single elimination brackets from Store Championships?

In the current game, four 75-minute matches is already five hours. of gaming. Throw in a Top 8 on top of that (including an untimed final round), plus giving players meal breaks and/or allowing time to set up between matches, and the average event that I've been to has been around 11 hours. One local venue went to 2AM to resolve their final round after what was apparently a three-hour matchup. It's grueling, especially since most game shops usually otherwise close early on Sundays.

How bad would the game suffer if it abolished the Top 8 and went entirely to scoring based on win/loss and MOV?

EDIT: Crap. I meant the Top 8, not the Swiss Pairings.

See? This is why Top 8 needs to go.

If the Swiss rounds are working correctly and you have the right number of them for the number of players, the Swiss should give you a clear winner anyway. Draws and modified wins can muddy the water a bit, but with MoV is there still a need for modified wins?

Does anyone else think that FFG should consider abolishing the Top 8 single elimination brackets from Store Championships?

In the current game, four 75-minute matches is already five hours. of gaming. Throw in a Top 8 on top of that (including an untimed final round), plus giving players meal breaks and/or allowing time to set up between matches, and the average event that I've been to has been around 11 hours. One local venue went to 2AM to resolve their final round after what was apparently a three-hour matchup. It's grueling, especially since most game shops usually otherwise close early on Sundays.

How bad would the game suffer if it abolished the Top 8 and went entirely to scoring based on win/loss and MOV?

75 minute rounds in addition to time setting up? Imo, that is excessive.

In my area, TOs regularly opt to go on the lower end of the allowed scale, with 60 minute rounds and a 5 minute setup/move your stuff period. These timings have been successful for the vast majority of the games I have played at SCs and other tournaments. So 5 hours for 4 games becomes 5 games in 5.5 hours, obviously adding a lunch break length to taste.

A 3 hour final match is insane! But, I would definitely say that a game of that duration is an outlier, and I have never even seen a tournament (or casual) 100 point game come close to that.

To me, the elimination bracket in the SCs offers a great point of difference from league play or seasonal tournament kit based events. Without the elimination bracket the SC becomes just another tournament kit event. It also offers players a taste of playing single elimination before potentially facing it at any of the other tiers of competition.

I have heard several TOs,who have much more knowledge about running Swiss events then I do, express the opinion that FFG require too many games in the Swiss rounds to then also have a cut. If something had to change, perhaps the amount of Swiss rounds could be tweaked prior to the cut? Or even leave the same amount of Swiss, but make a cut to Top 4 common for all but the largest tournaments?

Personally, I like the way it works at the moment, and the more time spent playing with plastic spaceships the better!

After running TO for an 11-hour event, it's definitely a topic I'm musing.

There are certainly limitations in how you can deal with it - reducing time between matches is extremely problematic, and basically impossible anyway. Reducing from the 75-minute rounds to 60-minute is basically game-breaking, and I'd never attend a venue that did that. Cutting out a lunch break certainly increases your available time, but then your players are hungry and cranky, and are you really getting their VERY BEST? (Ostensibly the reason for the number of rounds?)

I mean...after even 4 rounds of swiss, our 33-player event had a clear leader - only two players had a 4-0 record; and one of those with a 'modified' win, resulting in both a difference in match score and considerable difference in MoV.

And that's pretty typical of events I've been at - given FFG's recommendation that a 33-player event have six rounds of Swiss before a 'cut to top 8'...I dunno, makes my head spin. I can't see what the point in that would be? I could certainly see the value in six rounds of Swiss on its own. That would definitely help refine the player rating, but adding three more rounds in a 'cut to top 8' afterwards? Why??

As in happens, in our event, the 1st place player beat the 8th place in elimination #1, but then lost to the winner of the #4 vs #5 matchup in elimination #2. The ultimate winner of the event was originally, from Swiss rounds, in 6th place - having a 3-1 score with average MoV for it. (NOTE: That's absolutely not a criticism of the players - all of those last three rounds were amazing...but they'd have been just as amazing with one round less and all of them settled via Swiss pairings vs single-elimination) So...did the elimination rounds really help identify the player who was having the best day/strongest list? I dunno.

So...yeah, OP, I guess I don't really see the value, myself, of the extra pile of single-elimination rounds on top of the Swiss rounds. For our event size, FFG suggests 6 rounds Swiss and 3 rounds elimination. I think we got, for a Swiss+elimination format, as good a result as anyone would have wanted with just 4 rounds Swiss + 3 rounds elimination. But I'm pretty sure that 6 rounds of Swiss, alone, would have split that difference even better.

Swiss pairing works perfectly fine in major Tournaments for other games...though X-Wing matches are 1/2 or even 1/3 as long.

In a recent event I placed 3rd in Swiss. In the first round of top 8 I had an epic round of dice fail and lost badly. The final table ended up being 2 guys I had tabled during the Swiss rounds. Now, I was happy to make the cut, but it is disappointing that a single moment of bad luck, a point where you have set up your opponent and sprung the trap...he's toast and he knows he was outplayed...then an entire round of shooting with zero damage done while return fire kills just enough to swing the win into the other column; can end an excellent run. And the guy who went undefeated in the Swiss rounds ends up being knocked out early also.

Just about every other game event runs Swiss...because it works. A round of bad luck can be recovered from and a true "undefeated" Champion can be crowned.

If you want to make the event a bit harder...run enough rounds to get a single undefeated, then add one more.

We've had events "Start" as late as 2PM (actual start time was more like 3PM) and the event not end until 2-3AM; usually with the looser just throwing in the towel because if he stops now he has enough time to get home, clean up, then leave for work.

Yeah, who came up with SUNDAY for an event that historically goes 12+ hours (6+ if you don't make the cut). Most people have to be at school or work Monday.

At least our Tourny's aren't insane events of 3 hour long rounds with 4 rounds on Saturday and another 3 on Sunday...and only 4 players end up getting anything.

I would gladly go with 3/4/5 rounds of swiss depending on number of players and then name a winner. People with normal family lives and jobs have trouble finding time for these day-long tournaments. You also have to factor in travel time...

Seriously, if you are in the lead after 5 rounds of swiss you deserve the win IMO.

I disagree.

I believe that several rounds of Swiss followed by a cut to the (roughly) top 25% followed by elimination rounds is a better judge of player skill than Swiss alone.

It's not uncommon for someone to come across a repeat matchup in the elimination rounds, and this results in games where both players are more aware of each other's playstyles, list strengths, and weaknesses, and it becomes more about each player's skill and ability to adapt to what they faced before.

Additionally, if an otherwise skilled player has poor luck/makes bad mistakes in a single Swiss round without elimination, then they're usually out of the running. Bad luck happens, mistakes happen, and there's no perfect way to remove them from the picture, but Swiss followed by elimination provides at least some moderation to prevent a single bad round from ending someone's day prematurely. True, a bad elimination round will also send a player home, but a bad round in Swiss without elimination does the exact same.

Yeah we had a four rounder then top four and it went on for awhile. But I do like the top finalists elimination rounds. Reminds me of the playoffs portion of a sports league.

It's also worth mentioning that everybody gets to play the Swiss rounds. So more Swiss rounds means more overall game time and you're not keeping the store open past midnight for basically two people playing one match.

There's an easy way to do this

Play on Saturday

Start the tournament as soon as the doors open

Run cryodex to help move things along

Communicate with shop owners.

A good shop owner will know what is required of the event ahead of time. They will know about how long it takes, a general guess on attendance, and will be prepared to kill a whole day on the event. You're a small, niche business owner. If you don't bow to the customers, the customers will leave. Literally everyone in Atlanta understands this.

Just start at an earlier time.

Something that a lot of folks are missing regarding the Swiss rounds: Your first match pairing is entirely random.

If you rely solely on Swiss, your first round will literally define whether you have a good day or bad day. Nothing worse than traveling 2+ hours to an event, lose your first match, and realize that you have NO chance for prizes because of no top 8 cut. At least with a top-X cut, you have a shot at coming back in round 2 (where you will be paired according to standing).

Since time is a pretty valuable resource I far prefer having the regular swiss rounds. More matches for everyone and the winner is decided when people are actually present. What I have experienced is a regular exodus when the cut happens. Very few people stay behind for the last 3-6 hours of matches.

I know that the first swiss round is random but hey, if you want to win a tourney then go win your matches. Don't start by losing

Yes, FFG should eliminate Swiss pairing from organized play for X-wing. (And yes, I realize that's not what you meant when you posted. )

The current system of Swiss + single-elimination does an objectively bad job of identifying the best player, if you look at the research on tournament systems. It doesn't even do as well as Swiss, and it takes longer.

What it does well is create a system with just enough uncertainty. If you just play Swiss rounds until you have at most one undefeated player, you typically end up with exactly one undefeated player; it's effectively a single-elimination tournament with non-random seeding, so lots of players will pack up and go home after a single loss. Playing some number of Swiss rounds and then cutting to single-elimination means you get some undefeated players and some players with 1 and even 2 losses. That means lots more people engaged in the outcome of at least the Swiss rounds, which means (from the point of store owners) more people looking at the shelves and buying drinks and snacks.

And Swiss + cut is also relatively short--certainly shorter than something like round-robin pools with a cut to Swiss--although not as short as straight-Swiss or single elimination. So with the current system, I think FFG's Organized Play struck a compromise that's acceptable to many TOs. It's also going to be familiar to veterans of other competitive games, which is meaningful to some degree.

But that doesn't mean Organized Play is right. Double elimination is fairer, does a better job of identifying the best player, and in comparison with the Swiss+cut system wouldn't typically take any longer. It also keeps players around for a fairly long time; everyone is there for at least 2 rounds, which is about an hour and a half in X-wing; 3/4 of your players are there for at least 3 rounds, which is about 4 hours. So I would be very, very happy to see X-wing drop Swiss pairings for their major events and to double-elimination tournaments.

The prospect of 10 hours of X-Wing is not something that I am interested in, so I prefer fewer rounds. Six rounds of swiss is enough to determine a winner and doesn't send everyone else home early.

I personally like Swiss and then a playoff because it means if you make a mistake halfway through or have a bad game, you're not necessarily out of the tournament.

After running TO for an 11-hour event, it's definitely a topic I'm musing.

There are certainly limitations in how you can deal with it - reducing time between matches is extremely problematic, and basically impossible anyway. Reducing from the 75-minute rounds to 60-minute is basically game-breaking, and I'd never attend a venue that did that. Cutting out a lunch break certainly increases your available time, but then your players are hungry and cranky, and are you really getting their VERY BEST? (Ostensibly the reason for the number of rounds?)

I mean...after even 4 rounds of swiss, our 33-player event had a clear leader - only two players had a 4-0 record; and one of those with a 'modified' win, resulting in both a difference in match score and considerable difference in MoV.

And that's pretty typical of events I've been at - given FFG's recommendation that a 33-player event have six rounds of Swiss before a 'cut to top 8'...I dunno, makes my head spin. I can't see what the point in that would be? I could certainly see the value in six rounds of Swiss on its own. That would definitely help refine the player rating, but adding three more rounds in a 'cut to top 8' afterwards? Why??

As in happens, in our event, the 1st place player beat the 8th place in elimination #1, but then lost to the winner of the #4 vs #5 matchup in elimination #2. The ultimate winner of the event was originally, from Swiss rounds, in 6th place - having a 3-1 score with average MoV for it. (NOTE: That's absolutely not a criticism of the players - all of those last three rounds were amazing...but they'd have been just as amazing with one round less and all of them settled via Swiss pairings vs single-elimination) So...did the elimination rounds really help identify the player who was having the best day/strongest list? I dunno.

So...yeah, OP, I guess I don't really see the value, myself, of the extra pile of single-elimination rounds on top of the Swiss rounds. For our event size, FFG suggests 6 rounds Swiss and 3 rounds elimination. I think we got, for a Swiss+elimination format, as good a result as anyone would have wanted with just 4 rounds Swiss + 3 rounds elimination. But I'm pretty sure that 6 rounds of Swiss, alone, would have split that difference even better.

I'm thinking about proposing doing away with elimination rounds (which we currently do not run in friendly monthly tournaments) all-together. After running the correct number of Swiss rounds the top 8 should be tallied. If there are record ties (same win/loss) between players, then those that HAVE NOT played each other will be given a face-off round. Otherwise, whoever won the meeting between the two will have earned the higher place. If there are undefeated players in the Top 8, they will be assigned face-off matches based on points. (Example: 1st - 4th are undefeated. 1st and 2nd will battle for 1st place and 3rd and 4th will battle for 3rd.)

12+ hours of X-wing is just too long, even for a Store Championship. Different story for higher level tournaments and elimination rounds should be kept there.

There's an easy way to do this

Play on Saturday

Start the tournament as soon as the doors open

Run cryodex to help move things along

Communicate with shop owners.

A good shop owner will know what is required of the event ahead of time. They will know about how long it takes, a general guess on attendance, and will be prepared to kill a whole day on the event. You're a small, niche business owner. If you don't bow to the customers, the customers will leave. Literally everyone in Atlanta understands this.

This. I feel like I've heard multiple stories of SCs starting at 1 or 2 in the afternoon. The one I was in started at noon, and it wasn't really enough time. What's the problem with starting at 10:00 am? I come from the Warhammer side of games, and 10:00 was a pretty normal start time for a 3-round tourney. Store Championships are also not every-month kinds of things. Stores only host one once a year. Most players would go to only a handful each year at most. It's supposed to be a cut above a standard casual tournament. So what if it lasts all day?

Personally, I prefer the cut to a top percentage, but I can understand people that would like more rounds of Swiss for various reasons. I like that the cut to top players means in the end, it's about victory, not steamrolling your opponent. There were armies in Warhammer 40k that could win games, but were bad in tournaments, because they didn't win by enough to build up an MOV equivalent to win the tournament. The final single elimination means that someone can't build up a bunch of easy MOV by being fortunate enough to play a power list that beats up on some good match-ups. They still have to get through multiple other top players to gain final victory.

After running TO for an 11-hour event, it's definitely a topic I'm musing.

There are certainly limitations in how you can deal with it - reducing time between matches is extremely problematic, and basically impossible anyway. Reducing from the 75-minute rounds to 60-minute is basically game-breaking, and I'd never attend a venue that did that. Cutting out a lunch break certainly increases your available time, but then your players are hungry and cranky, and are you really getting their VERY BEST? (Ostensibly the reason for the number of rounds?)

I mean...after even 4 rounds of swiss, our 33-player event had a clear leader - only two players had a 4-0 record; and one of those with a 'modified' win, resulting in both a difference in match score and considerable difference in MoV.

And that's pretty typical of events I've been at - given FFG's recommendation that a 33-player event have six rounds of Swiss before a 'cut to top 8'...I dunno, makes my head spin. I can't see what the point in that would be? I could certainly see the value in six rounds of Swiss on its own. That would definitely help refine the player rating, but adding three more rounds in a 'cut to top 8' afterwards? Why??

As in happens, in our event, the 1st place player beat the 8th place in elimination #1, but then lost to the winner of the #4 vs #5 matchup in elimination #2. The ultimate winner of the event was originally, from Swiss rounds, in 6th place - having a 3-1 score with average MoV for it. (NOTE: That's absolutely not a criticism of the players - all of those last three rounds were amazing...but they'd have been just as amazing with one round less and all of them settled via Swiss pairings vs single-elimination) So...did the elimination rounds really help identify the player who was having the best day/strongest list? I dunno.

So...yeah, OP, I guess I don't really see the value, myself, of the extra pile of single-elimination rounds on top of the Swiss rounds. For our event size, FFG suggests 6 rounds Swiss and 3 rounds elimination. I think we got, for a Swiss+elimination format, as good a result as anyone would have wanted with just 4 rounds Swiss + 3 rounds elimination. But I'm pretty sure that 6 rounds of Swiss, alone, would have split that difference even better.

60 minute rounds are not game breaking, all of the stores in the tampabay area normally play 60 minute rounds for our weekly games and our tournaments

I think that a four round Swiss tournament with 75min matches should be more than adequate to crown a store championship. I understand the fear of losing a game and being eliminated... That is the point. Put on your "big boy pants" and play tough. If you lose, you lose. Start at 10am, play two rounds then take a lunch break. Come back refreshed an decompressed, play two rounds and crown the winner.

Yes, FFG should eliminate Swiss pairing from organized play for X-wing. (And yes, I realize that's not what you meant when you posted. )

The current system of Swiss + single-elimination does an objectively bad job of identifying the best player, if you look at the research on tournament systems. It doesn't even do as well as Swiss, and it takes longer.

What it does well is create a system with just enough uncertainty. If you just play Swiss rounds until you have at most one undefeated player, you typically end up with exactly one undefeated player; it's effectively a single-elimination tournament with non-random seeding, so lots of players will pack up and go home after a single loss. Playing some number of Swiss rounds and then cutting to single-elimination means you get some undefeated players and some players with 1 and even 2 losses. That means lots more people engaged in the outcome of at least the Swiss rounds, which means (from the point of store owners) more people looking at the shelves and buying drinks and snacks.

And Swiss + cut is also relatively short--certainly shorter than something like round-robin pools with a cut to Swiss--although not as short as straight-Swiss or single elimination. So with the current system, I think FFG's Organized Play struck a compromise that's acceptable to many TOs. It's also going to be familiar to veterans of other competitive games, which is meaningful to some degree.

But that doesn't mean Organized Play is right. Double elimination is fairer, does a better job of identifying the best player, and in comparison with the Swiss+cut system wouldn't typically take any longer. It also keeps players around for a fairly long time; everyone is there for at least 2 rounds, which is about an hour and a half in X-wing; 3/4 of your players are there for at least 3 rounds, which is about 4 hours. So I would be very, very happy to see X-wing drop Swiss pairings for their major events and to double-elimination tournaments.

Competitive merits aside, Double Elimination would certainly take longer then the current format at most participation levels.

Currently a 16 person event will take 5 rounds (3 Swiss, Top 4), Double Elim 7-8 rounds. At 32 currently you have 7 total rounds (4 Swiss, Top 8), Double Elim is 9-10. Though I admit maybe my math is off.

While seeding is quicker I do not see where running 2-3 extra rounds is going to help shorten the time it takes to run an SC.

I think that a four round Swiss tournament with 75min matches should be more than adequate to crown a store championship. I understand the fear of losing a game and being eliminated... That is the point. Put on your "big boy pants" and play tough. If you lose, you lose. Start at 10am, play two rounds then take a lunch break. Come back refreshed an decompressed, play two rounds and crown the winner.

And that doesn't work once you have more then 16 player.

No.

Yes, FFG should eliminate Swiss pairing from organized play for X-wing. (And yes, I realize that's not what you meant when you posted. )

The current system of Swiss + single-elimination does an objectively bad job of identifying the best player, if you look at the research on tournament systems. It doesn't even do as well as Swiss, and it takes longer.

What it does well is create a system with just enough uncertainty. If you just play Swiss rounds until you have at most one undefeated player, you typically end up with exactly one undefeated player; it's effectively a single-elimination tournament with non-random seeding, so lots of players will pack up and go home after a single loss. Playing some number of Swiss rounds and then cutting to single-elimination means you get some undefeated players and some players with 1 and even 2 losses. That means lots more people engaged in the outcome of at least the Swiss rounds, which means (from the point of store owners) more people looking at the shelves and buying drinks and snacks.

And Swiss + cut is also relatively short--certainly shorter than something like round-robin pools with a cut to Swiss--although not as short as straight-Swiss or single elimination. So with the current system, I think FFG's Organized Play struck a compromise that's acceptable to many TOs. It's also going to be familiar to veterans of other competitive games, which is meaningful to some degree.

But that doesn't mean Organized Play is right. Double elimination is fairer, does a better job of identifying the best player, and in comparison with the Swiss+cut system wouldn't typically take any longer. It also keeps players around for a fairly long time; everyone is there for at least 2 rounds, which is about an hour and a half in X-wing; 3/4 of your players are there for at least 3 rounds, which is about 4 hours. So I would be very, very happy to see X-wing drop Swiss pairings for their major events and to double-elimination tournaments.

Competitive merits aside, Double Elimination would certainly take longer then the current format at most participation levels.

Currently a 16 person event will take 5 rounds (3 Swiss, Top 4), Double Elim 7-8 rounds. At 32 currently you have 7 total rounds (4 Swiss, Top 8), Double Elim is 9-10. Though I admit maybe my math is off.

While seeding is quicker I do not see where running 2-3 extra rounds is going to help shorten the time it takes to run an SC.

If there are N players and R = ceiling(log(N)/log(2)), then DE takes R + ceiling(log®/log(2)).

So currently a 16-person event takes 3+2 rounds... or 4+2 if you use the chart OP originally sent out, which a lot of SCs did. Double-elimination takes 6 rounds. For a 32-player event FFG recommends 4+3 rounds, or 5+3 if you use the original note, and DE takes 8.

You can add another round on the DE totals if you run a second match between the top pair, but if you take the result of their first meeting as the result for the tournament, it takes one round longer than their current recommendation (the same length as their original recommendation this season), and the results are a lot cleaner and more desirable overall.

But you're right that it doesn't solve the time problem.