I think it will largely depend on the size of the tournament. The Yavin Open in the UK already has over 400 players registered to participate. Systems like round robin, just aren't possible in those circumstances. I run a lot of table tennis tournaments where I work. Yes, it's quite different. That being said, I've tried out a number of different tournament systems over the years. The one that we always come back to is:

Group into Single Elimination - This is similar to how the World Cup works for any soccer/football(not U.S.) fans. You start in a small round robin group, then the top 2 in each group advance to a single elimination bracket. If you have seeds, it's good to ensure the top seeds aren't in the same groups. You can also do things like the World Cup does, have the top player in a group play the second player in another group in the elimination bracket. Then there is a desire to be top and not just in the top 2.

The key is getting the balance right so that in tournaments like the Open, everyone gets to play a decent number of games. Well, that's also causing the issue. If it was just a standard Double Elimination, it would work very effectively, but less experienced players wouldn't be able to play as many games as they do in the current format. In the system above, they at least get to play all of their group games.

Anyway, just a thought.

I think it will largely depend on the size of the tournament. The Yavin Open in the UK already has over 400 players registered to participate. Systems like round robin, just aren't possible in those circumstances. I run a lot of table tennis tournaments where I work. Yes, it's quite different. That being said, I've tried out a number of different tournament systems over the years. The one that we always come back to is:

Group into Single Elimination - This is similar to how the World Cup works for any soccer/football(not U.S.) fans. You start in a small round robin group, then the top 2 in each group advance to a single elimination bracket. If you have seeds, it's good to ensure the top seeds aren't in the same groups. You can also do things like the World Cup does, have the top player in a group play the second player in another group in the elimination bracket. Then there is a desire to be top and not just in the top 2.

The key is getting the balance right so that in tournaments like the Open, everyone gets to play a decent number of games. Well, that's also causing the issue. If it was just a standard Double Elimination, it would work very effectively, but less experienced players wouldn't be able to play as many games as they do in the current format. In the system above, they at least get to play all of their group games.

Anyway, just a thought.

I've always liked this as option. You can even go further and use the pod system where you play 3 games and then reseed into new pods, play 3 new games, then for a larger event like the Yavin Open you could reseed into a 3rd set of pods on day 2 to get the 9 total games.

As far as byes and pools, you likely would need to change byes to be seeded players. Seeded players are equally distributed into pools, before any remaining payers are randomly assigned or something.

The other thing related to the length of tournaments is that even breaking the tournament into two pools that run swiss simultaneously but independently, then having the top player move over to single elims gets rid of a whole round I believe. Though I can't remember the exact math, and whether it works with the currents size level breaks.

I think it will largely depend on the size of the tournament. The Yavin Open in the UK already has over 400 players registered to participate. Systems like round robin, just aren't possible in those circumstances. I run a lot of table tennis tournaments where I work. Yes, it's quite different. That being said, I've tried out a number of different tournament systems over the years. The one that we always come back to is:

Group into Single Elimination - This is similar to how the World Cup works for any soccer/football(not U.S.) fans. You start in a small round robin group, then the top 2 in each group advance to a single elimination bracket. If you have seeds, it's good to ensure the top seeds aren't in the same groups. You can also do things like the World Cup does, have the top player in a group play the second player in another group in the elimination bracket. Then there is a desire to be top and not just in the top 2.

The key is getting the balance right so that in tournaments like the Open, everyone gets to play a decent number of games. Well, that's also causing the issue. If it was just a standard Double Elimination, it would work very effectively, but less experienced players wouldn't be able to play as many games as they do in the current format. In the system above, they at least get to play all of their group games.

Anyway, just a thought.

I've always liked this as option. You can even go further and use the pod system where you play 3 games and then reseed into new pods, play 3 new games, then for a larger event like the Yavin Open you could reseed into a 3rd set of pods on day 2 to get the 9 total games.

As far as byes and pools, you likely would need to change byes to be seeded players. Seeded players are equally distributed into pools, before any remaining payers are randomly assigned or something.

The other thing related to the length of tournaments is that even breaking the tournament into two pools that run swiss simultaneously but independently, then having the top player move over to single elims gets rid of a whole round I believe. Though I can't remember the exact math, and whether it works with the currents size level breaks.

Pod system sounds interesting. I've never played in a tournament like that before. I suppose the drawbacks of these types of systems is that they take longer to play out. That can be managed somewhat by the size of the groups/pods though.

I never really understood this swiss-to-single-elim structure. What's wrong with a double elimination tournament?

I never really understood this swiss-to-single-elim structure. What's wrong with a double elimination tournament?

It's fine if you just want a straight-forward tournament, though it's a bit awkward if a player is undefeated and plays the same person twice at the end. We tend to deal with that in my table tennis leagues by saying the final is a best of 3 and the winners bracket winner starts 1 game up.

The issue with double elimination is that it's not great for beginners, because they tend to only have two games. Not saying that's awful or anything, but it's quite different than what it is today, so would need some adjustment.

I also think that the real problem here is the system, i actually like the IDs in swiss-to-cut events as they exists right now here or in mtg. In Magic Online they solved the problem by removing draws, a match always have a winner so there are no IDs and the system looks good, the problem is the system as it is right now is not traspasable to real life.

I have organized a couple Padel(like tennis but in smaller closed fields) tournaments and the system i always come back to when i dont have enough time for all the people playing is poding into elimination rounds. I believe it is the better system as Slowreflex pointed out you give players an incentive for playing until the last round for poding since i do the first vs second or first vs fourth depending on the cut i am doing.

I also think the point structure is a flaw. I'd try to aproach it at first by removing the draws and always having a winner in a match, so also no mod. wins. May be if no ship is destroyed the winner is the one who dealt more damage, if no damage was dealt then we can go with the initiative winner.

I never really understood this swiss-to-single-elim structure. What's wrong with a double elimination tournament?

I think the point is to have more all inclusive tournaments. Double-elims are elitist and totally slanted towards only the best players. Double-elims in the cut would be ok(ish) but it also adds rounds and time and is largely superfluous for X-wing. I do believe they use double elims in the cut for the SWLCG, maybe also the other card games.

Would you pay good money (or travel) to a tournament where if you lose two games you don't get to play any more? I certainly wouldn't.

Tournaments are about having a good time, and meeting other players and playing other people, they aren't just about the winner and/or winning.

Is it really necessary to change the tounament structure as a whole? I think a small change to scoring can go a long way to improve the situation. Score a draw with 1 tounament point if both players gained killpoints. Score a draw with 0 points if both players gained no killpoints. Likewise score an ID with 0 tounament points.
Should prevent manupilation and give incentive to play games to a conclusion.

Greetings from Germany

PS: I think double elimination is only suitable to hardcore events like the open series invitational and would rather alienate a lot of new players.

I never really understood this swiss-to-single-elim structure. What's wrong with a double elimination tournament?

I think the point is to have more all inclusive tournaments. Double-elims are elitist and totally slanted towards only the best players. Double-elims in the cut would be ok(ish) but it also adds rounds and time and is largely superfluous for X-wing. I do believe they use double elims in the cut for the SWLCG, maybe also the other card games.

Would you pay good money (or travel) to a tournament where if you lose two games you don't get to play any more? I certainly wouldn't.

Tournaments are about having a good time, and meeting other players and playing other people, they aren't just about the winner and/or winning.

Playing games when you are already out of the cut does sound like a lot of fun, but I could do so just fine on a double elimination tourney anyway. And in case of larger 2-day events there should be a side-event for day 2 for all those who did not made the cut anyway, which means you get to play again at least two games.

Besides, meeting people, having fun, playing a few rounds with guys once I am out of a tourney or enjoying watching high skill matches is what you usually do in most of those events. That would be not X-Wing exclusive.

I never really understood this swiss-to-single-elim structure. What's wrong with a double elimination tournament?

I think the point is to have more all inclusive tournaments. Double-elims are elitist and totally slanted towards only the best players. Double-elims in the cut would be ok(ish) but it also adds rounds and time and is largely superfluous for X-wing. I do believe they use double elims in the cut for the SWLCG, maybe also the other card games.

Would you pay good money (or travel) to a tournament where if you lose two games you don't get to play any more? I certainly wouldn't.

Tournaments are about having a good time, and meeting other players and playing other people, they aren't just about the winner and/or winning.

Playing games when you are already out of the cut does sound like a lot of fun, but I could do so just fine on a double elimination tourney anyway. And in case of larger 2-day events there should be a side-event for day 2 for all those who did not made the cut anyway, which means you get to play again at least two games.

Besides, meeting people, having fun, playing a few rounds with guys once I am out of a tourney or enjoying watching high skill matches is what you usually do in most of those events. That would be not X-Wing exclusive.

I think that's fine for social butterflies, but people like me prefer to be told where to go and who to play.

I never really understood this swiss-to-single-elim structure. What's wrong with a double elimination tournament?

I think the point is to have more all inclusive tournaments. Double-elims are elitist and totally slanted towards only the best players. Double-elims in the cut would be ok(ish) but it also adds rounds and time and is largely superfluous for X-wing. I do believe they use double elims in the cut for the SWLCG, maybe also the other card games.

Would you pay good money (or travel) to a tournament where if you lose two games you don't get to play any more? I certainly wouldn't.

Tournaments are about having a good time, and meeting other players and playing other people, they aren't just about the winner and/or winning.

Playing games when you are already out of the cut does sound like a lot of fun, but I could do so just fine on a double elimination tourney anyway. And in case of larger 2-day events there should be a side-event for day 2 for all those who did not made the cut anyway, which means you get to play again at least two games.

Besides, meeting people, having fun, playing a few rounds with guys once I am out of a tourney or enjoying watching high skill matches is what you usually do in most of those events. That would be not X-Wing exclusive.

I think that's fine for social butterflies, but people like me prefer to be told where to go and who to play.

So you are asking for a side events on day one instead of wasting your time on games which you already lost, because you are out of the cut anyway already when you start with two losses? ;-)

I think they should add one more round to the Swiss format. the first round. No tourny points awarded in that round just seeding players and breaking into two groups. everyone that lost the first round is group 1 and all the winners in group 2. (this is for the larger tourney's not small SC or unsanctioned). Then start swiss based upon number of participants in each group. group 1 does not play group 2 again until the cut. Cut to top 4 in each group and 1st in group 1 plays 4th in group 2 and vice versa. (and remove ID). this way it may make the tourny shorter and you get the top players in one group but it give people less of a hole to dig out of if they completely screw up the first game.

I think they should add one more round to the Swiss format. the first round. No tourny points awarded in that round just seeding players and breaking into two groups. everyone that lost the first round is group 1 and all the winners in group 2. (this is for the larger tourney's not small SC or unsanctioned). Then start swiss based upon number of participants in each group. group 1 does not play group 2 again until the cut. Cut to top 4 in each group and 1st in group 1 plays 4th in group 2 and vice versa. (and remove ID). this way it may make the tourny shorter and you get the top players in one group but it give people less of a hole to dig out of if they completely screw up the first game.

Thats not a good idea, you are favoring worst players to reach the cut overall because you are distributing them in a way where all the first round loosers get 4 spots and all the first round winners get also 4 spots in which case it would cause the collusion of wanting to loose just to be in the loosers group because first round loose is a bonus rather than a drawback

Swiss into top 8 single elimination works fine if you set the rounds properly. I like double elimination for competitive reasons but I don't think X-Wing is a good place, because a single game could theoretically take hours, bringing the whole tournament to a grinding halt, and individual clocks just isn't fun from a TO standpoint.

FFG needs to do one of two things: adjust the number of Swiss rounds in their rulebook or drop IDs. There aren't really other simple options, and either of these options work.

I like Intentional Draws for a number of reasons, and if you structure a Swiss tournament with the proper number of rounds they will never affect the actual Top 8. See for yourself: http://swisstriangle.net/

Roanoke: 45 players, 6 rounds. If played to completion, no IDs: 2 players out of 10 at 4-2 make the cut based on tiebreakers. Obviously with IDs round 6 doesn't matter for the cut, as you've seen (but only in the case where a paired down player lost). IDs here are bad, and literally 8 people lose out on Top 8 because of tiebreakers.

45 players, 5 rounds: If played to completion, depending on the paired down situation either 1 undefeated player and 7 people at 4-1, or 2 undefeated and 6 out of 7 at 4-1 make the cut if no IDs. After round 4, there are 2 players at 4-0 (3 if the paired down wins) and 12 players at 3-1, making it impossible for anyone other than the two players who are undefeated to safely take an ID.

I'd just hate to see them drop IDs because a bunch of people on the internet got angry over something they don't understand.

I think part of the problem with the swiss is we'd like everyone to play X number of rounds. I completely support the double-elimination version Vorpal is proposing with one addition that should be easy to manage:

If you are eliminated from the main tournament, players may (between rounds) sign up for hangar-bay style events as long as there are 8 people, and at least 3 rounds remaining for the main double elimination tournament. These rounds (similar to how hangar bay was done at the Hoth Open) are on player's own time schedule, with similar levels of prizes. 3-0 gets something nifty, 2-1 get another participation prize, all players get participation prizes.

FFG already has the ability to run these types of events, and it would give players a chance to play a full 6 or 7 rounds at a large tournament. If I go 0-2 and am dropped, I didn't blow a full day for 3 hours of play. I can also play in hangar bay style events to keep playing, or I can leave if I so choose and it doesn't affect others.

I think they should add one more round to the Swiss format. the first round. No tourny points awarded in that round just seeding players and breaking into two groups. everyone that lost the first round is group 1 and all the winners in group 2. (this is for the larger tourney's not small SC or unsanctioned). Then start swiss based upon number of participants in each group. group 1 does not play group 2 again until the cut. Cut to top 4 in each group and 1st in group 1 plays 4th in group 2 and vice versa. (and remove ID). this way it may make the tourny shorter and you get the top players in one group but it give people less of a hole to dig out of if they completely screw up the first game.

Thats not a good idea, you are favoring worst players to reach the cut overall because you are distributing them in a way where all the first round loosers get 4 spots and all the first round winners get also 4 spots in which case it would cause the collusion of wanting to loose just to be in the loosers group because first round loose is a bonus rather than a drawback

And besides that: What would you do with those who decide to make the first game a draw? ;-)

I would make two simple things to prevent frustrated people etc:

1- Intentional draws forbidden

2- Swiss ranking totally secret untill the swiss ends.

Plain and easy

I would make two simple things to prevent frustrated people etc:

1- Intentional draws forbidden

2- Swiss ranking totally secret until the swiss ends.

Plain and easy

It's not bad, I agree. However, I don't know how realistic not seeing the rankings actually is. What would make that even more impactful is to randomize which table number you are at (not your opponent, your table number). You'd still know roughly where you were though, especially if you were undefeated and there was only one round to go. I would also go a step further and make it so draws are not heard of. Sounds like the favorite for that is that in the case of no clear winner at the end, the player with initiative wins. Personally, I'm more of a fan of rolling a dice, highest wins, and on a tie the player with initiative wins. I prefer that because it prevents the player with initiative going for a draw if they think they will lose.

I think they should add one more round to the Swiss format. the first round. No tourny points awarded in that round just seeding players and breaking into two groups. everyone that lost the first round is group 1 and all the winners in group 2. (this is for the larger tourney's not small SC or unsanctioned). Then start swiss based upon number of participants in each group. group 1 does not play group 2 again until the cut. Cut to top 4 in each group and 1st in group 1 plays 4th in group 2 and vice versa. (and remove ID). this way it may make the tourny shorter and you get the top players in one group but it give people less of a hole to dig out of if they completely screw up the first game.

Thats not a good idea, you are favoring worst players to reach the cut overall because you are distributing them in a way where all the first round loosers get 4 spots and all the first round winners get also 4 spots in which case it would cause the collusion of wanting to loose just to be in the loosers group because first round loose is a bonus rather than a drawback

Yeah i did not think of that this morning (lack of coffee). Still think they should do something different.

Swiss into top 8 single elimination works fine if you set the rounds properly. I like double elimination for competitive reasons but I don't think X-Wing is a good place, because a single game could theoretically take hours, bringing the whole tournament to a grinding halt, and individual clocks just isn't fun from a TO standpoint.

FFG needs to do one of two things: adjust the number of Swiss rounds in their rulebook or drop IDs. There aren't really other simple options, and either of these options work.

I like Intentional Draws for a number of reasons, and if you structure a Swiss tournament with the proper number of rounds they will never affect the actual Top 8. See for yourself: http://swisstriangle.net/

Roanoke: 45 players, 6 rounds. If played to completion, no IDs: 2 players out of 10 at 4-2 make the cut based on tiebreakers. Obviously with IDs round 6 doesn't matter for the cut, as you've seen (but only in the case where a paired down player lost). IDs here are bad, and literally 8 people lose out on Top 8 because of tiebreakers.

45 players, 5 rounds: If played to completion, depending on the paired down situation either 1 undefeated player and 7 people at 4-1, or 2 undefeated and 6 out of 7 at 4-1 make the cut if no IDs. After round 4, there are 2 players at 4-0 (3 if the paired down wins) and 12 players at 3-1, making it impossible for anyone other than the two players who are undefeated to safely take an ID.

I'd just hate to see them drop IDs because a bunch of people on the internet got angry over something they don't understand.

I do understand IDs, and I still think they're still a very bad rule. Furthermore, any tournament structure which only works well when you assume no one drops is doomed.

Even without ID, though, Swiss into single-elimination still isn't a good format. I can go into the reasons in more detail later, if you'd like, but the reason it's used in competitive gaming is mostly because it's what Magic does--and Magic does it because it's fast, not because it's good.

Swiss into top 8 single elimination works fine if you set the rounds properly. I like double elimination for competitive reasons but I don't think X-Wing is a good place, because a single game could theoretically take hours, bringing the whole tournament to a grinding halt, and individual clocks just isn't fun from a TO standpoint.

FFG needs to do one of two things: adjust the number of Swiss rounds in their rulebook or drop IDs. There aren't really other simple options, and either of these options work.

I like Intentional Draws for a number of reasons, and if you structure a Swiss tournament with the proper number of rounds they will never affect the actual Top 8. See for yourself: http://swisstriangle.net/

Roanoke: 45 players, 6 rounds. If played to completion, no IDs: 2 players out of 10 at 4-2 make the cut based on tiebreakers. Obviously with IDs round 6 doesn't matter for the cut, as you've seen (but only in the case where a paired down player lost). IDs here are bad, and literally 8 people lose out on Top 8 because of tiebreakers.

45 players, 5 rounds: If played to completion, depending on the paired down situation either 1 undefeated player and 7 people at 4-1, or 2 undefeated and 6 out of 7 at 4-1 make the cut if no IDs. After round 4, there are 2 players at 4-0 (3 if the paired down wins) and 12 players at 3-1, making it impossible for anyone other than the two players who are undefeated to safely take an ID.

I'd just hate to see them drop IDs because a bunch of people on the internet got angry over something they don't understand.

I do understand IDs, and I still think they're still a very bad rule. Furthermore, any tournament structure which only works well when you assume no one drops is doomed.

Even without ID, though, Swiss into single-elimination still isn't a good format. I can go into the reasons in more detail later, if you'd like, but the reason it's used in competitive gaming is mostly because it's what Magic does--and Magic does it because it's fast, not because it's good.

I'm mostly talking IDs from the context of a Swiss into Single Elimination. I can understand your point of view though on why you don't like Swiss.

Well, it allows people to play more games even if they've been mathematically eliminated. It also is because a single time clock is easier to manage in a game that can finish in as little as 20 minutes and take multiple hours on the long end. You can't run a tournament like that, and you can't expect TOs to individually time each game.

Was chatting with Dom about this in the car ride home from CaC and he had an ingenious solution.

Swiss as usual, but in the last round you intentionally pair down. For example, in a top 8 cut, #1 plays #9, #2 plays #10, #3 plays #13, etc.

This way you are guaranteed a healthy fight, as everyone of the down pairs is very likely going to play.

Was chatting with Dom about this in the car ride home from CaC and he had an ingenious solution.

Swiss as usual, but in the last round you intentionally pair down. For example, in a top 8 cut, #1 plays #9, #2 plays #10, #3 plays #13, etc.

This way you are guaranteed a healthy fight, as everyone of the down pairs is very likely going to play.

So now you're giving #9 and #10 a potentially big advantage when #1 & #2 could just concede the game and definitely make the cut while giving those two each a free win and 200 point MoV. Would they concede? Who knows but if someone knows they'll make the cut regardless of the result but would like that break maybe get something to eat, rest a little, and perhaps even scout the field there is nothing stopping them.

Do that and now you may have just interfered with a bunch of other games in the same way that having all of those draws did. Or are you now going to say that concessions should be forbidden as well?

Was chatting with Dom about this in the car ride home from CaC and he had an ingenious solution.

Swiss as usual, but in the last round you intentionally pair down. For example, in a top 8 cut, #1 plays #9, #2 plays #10, #3 plays #13, etc.

This way you are guaranteed a healthy fight, as everyone of the down pairs is very likely going to play.

So now you're giving #9 and #10 a potentially big advantage when #1 & #2 could just concede the game and definitely make the cut while giving those two each a free win and 200 point MoV. Would they concede? Who knows but if someone knows they'll make the cut regardless of the result but would like that break maybe get something to eat, rest a little, and perhaps even scout the field there is nothing stopping them.

Do that and now you may have just interfered with a bunch of other games in the same way that having all of those draws did. Or are you now going to say that concessions should be forbidden as well?

And also make sure to get a "weaker" opponent to fight into the top 8. Very bad idea.

I think part of the problem with the swiss is we'd like everyone to play X number of rounds. I completely support the double-elimination version Vorpal is proposing with one addition that should be easy to manage:

If you are eliminated from the main tournament, players may (between rounds) sign up for hangar-bay style events as long as there are 8 people, and at least 3 rounds remaining for the main double elimination tournament. These rounds (similar to how hangar bay was done at the Hoth Open) are on player's own time schedule, with similar levels of prizes. 3-0 gets something nifty, 2-1 get another participation prize, all players get participation prizes.

FFG already has the ability to run these types of events, and it would give players a chance to play a full 6 or 7 rounds at a large tournament. If I go 0-2 and am dropped, I didn't blow a full day for 3 hours of play. I can also play in hangar bay style events to keep playing, or I can leave if I so choose and it doesn't affect others.

Issue with this is rankings. Just because a player isn't good enough to make the cut doesn't mean they're not competitive and care about how they did in comparison to the group. To those players the rankings matter. It gives you a fair shake at getting in lots of competitive games and thereby improving your skills. It gets you a ranking placement that you can compare to previous and subsequent tournaments.

Really...removing draws entirely ought to be a good enough fix. They're so rare in actual play it wouldn't change things overly.