You need a tournament structure that rewards wins more than punishes losses.

Graduated cut from FFG's own fundamental tournament document fixes many of these problems by rewarding the top players with byes in elimination instead of draws in swiss and is actually recommended for large events.

If you want to TO a tournament, but don't want to break the rules, you can run your tournament with this structure and ID won't be an issue.

Unfortunately, assuming players know the number of rounds at the start (which they should be informed of), the top tables can still ID knowing they will be part of the cut. In the Graduate 24 + 8 example if it works out to a situation like Roanoke, where after the next to last round the 24 players are set, they can just ID gain one more point than the next 8 players can possibly achieve, locking those players out of the graduated cut.

Another problem, besides the extra time requirements, is that this graduated cut is "usually followed by additional Swiss rounds", meaning after the first graduated cut, some players will be in a position to ID into the final cut. It unfortunately won't make IDs a non-issue.

Now if you Gradauted Cut straight into the Elimination Cut (Ie. - less over-all Swiss rounds, with the top players getting a first round of cut Bye) that would be more interesting, and do away with IDs, since players a motivated to finish the Swiss well to earn the right to a Bye in the Elimination rounds.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Vorpal and think Swiss into Single Elimination is just a bad format for competitive play. I like IDs in that context, but it's a pretty bad context to begin with.

There is another thread that suggests that IDs be limited to the most competitive tournaments. I think it should just change entirely:

Casual events with prize support are pure Swiss, play until one person is undefeated.

Competitive and Premier events are double elimination.

It doesn't have to be separated based on Relaxed versus Formal and Premier (although I think that's a good idea): you could divide league play and Store Championships from Regionals and national-level events, or you could separate events with 4-31 players from events with 32 players or more.

And it doesn't even have to be double elimination. There are a lot of intriguing formats with much better and fairer outcomes than they currently use: I do like double elimination, because it's fairly straightforward and fairly quick, but it does have the drawback of holding on to random pairings.

But it has to be something else. This has gotten ridiculous.

So in a regional, with a bye, you make the cut having only played and won 3 games.

"Seems legit" -- FFGOP

So in a regional, with a bye, you make the cut having only played and won 3 games."Seems legit" -- FFGOP

Yep, Duncan could have done that. He's the only one, though, none of the other bye-holders were sitting at 4-0.

Now if you Gradauted Cut straight into the Elimination Cut (Ie. - less over-all Swiss rounds, with the top players getting a first round of cut Bye) that would be more interesting, and do away with IDs, since players a motivated to finish the Swiss well to earn the right to a Bye in the Elimination rounds.

I'll say this again.

You want to force people to play a round where a loss could result in them being eliminated so they do not have to play in a round where a loss would eliminate them.

Now if you Gradauted Cut straight into the Elimination Cut (Ie. - less over-all Swiss rounds, with the top players getting a first round of cut Bye) that would be more interesting, and do away with IDs, since players a motivated to finish the Swiss well to earn the right to a Bye in the Elimination rounds.

I'll say this again.

You want to force people to play a round where a loss could result in them being eliminated so they do not have to play in a round where a loss would eliminate them.

Isn't there a difference though? The earlier game is needed to effectively determine if they are worthy of making the cut in comparison to all other players.

So in a regional, with a bye, you make the cut having only played and won 3 games."Seems legit" -- FFGOP

Yep, Duncan could have done that. He's the only one, though, none of the other bye-holders were sitting at 4-0.

You didn't have to be 4-0. You had to be 5-0 or 4-1 (3-1 not including bye). Without double checking, I'm pretty sure Duncan had a loss.

But about that first part, this was in reference to being 4-0 (including bye) at the start of Round 5. If he was undefeated through Round 4, he could have taken 2 rounds of intentional draws and still make Top 8.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Vorpal and think Swiss into Single Elimination is just a bad format for competitive play. I like IDs in that context, but it's a pretty bad context to begin with.

There is another thread that suggests that IDs be limited to the most competitive tournaments. I think it should just change entirely:

Casual events with prize support are pure Swiss, play until one person is undefeated.

Competitive and Premier events are double elimination.

It doesn't have to be separated based on Relaxed versus Formal and Premier (although I think that's a good idea): you could divide league play and Store Championships from Regionals and national-level events, or you could separate events with 4-31 players from events with 32 players or more.

And it doesn't even have to be double elimination. There are a lot of intriguing formats with much better and fairer outcomes than they currently use: I do like double elimination, because it's fairly straightforward and fairly quick, but it does have the drawback of holding on to random pairings.

But it has to be something else. This has gotten ridiculous.

By separating it into competition levels, it lets them group rulings without setting specific rules for each tournament type any time a new tournament is created.

No, it doesn't have to be double elimination.

I also doubt it will be something else.

So in a regional, with a bye, you make the cut having only played and won 3 games."Seems legit" -- FFGOP

Yep, Duncan could have done that. He's the only one, though, none of the other bye-holders were sitting at 4-0.

You didn't have to be 4-0. You had to be 5-0 or 4-1 (3-1 not including bye). Without double checking, I'm pretty sure Duncan had a loss.

Oh, that might be. I thought he lost in Round 5, not Round 4.

But about that first part, this was in reference to being 4-0 (including bye) at the start of Round 5. If he was undefeated through Round 4, he could have taken 2 rounds of intentional draws and still make Top 8.

In exactly 64 people 4 people could double draw in.

As soon as it becomes 65 they can't.

In exactly 64 people 4 people could double draw in.

As soon as it becomes 65 they can't.

In exactly 64 people 4 people could double draw in.

As soon as it becomes 65 they can't.

That's true, but it's also accurate for numbers of players less than 64 with the same number of rounds and cut.

For <64 the proper rounds for swiss and cut is 5. FFG has that number wrong (their September 2015 rules had it right though for some reason)

Now if you Gradauted Cut straight into the Elimination Cut (Ie. - less over-all Swiss rounds, with the top players getting a first round of cut Bye) that would be more interesting, and do away with IDs, since players a motivated to finish the Swiss well to earn the right to a Bye in the Elimination rounds.

I'll say this again.

You want to force people to play a round where a loss could result in them being eliminated so they do not have to play in a round where a loss would eliminate them.

The complete top8 taking draws last round is just a rare situation, have played tons of mtg tournaments with last round IDs always on the table and have never experienced a full top IDing because the situation is abnormal. Usually what happens is that 2 or 3 tables at max get the ID and the other tables have to play to get the spots still undecided.

I dont think its a bad rule, i dont think the problem is IDing. For all the people claiming that ID kills competitive play just ask for a different format rather for the removal of something that happens that is beneficial for both parties y a competitive enviroment.

I also like PGS point of view, as i also play to win and try to do my best to WAAC. The difference is the assumption that WAAC goes against the rules and the politeness of a player.

If the best players of a tournmanet get the situation to ID to ensure the top cut i prefer to have them on the top rather than the one submarining. Even if PHeaver lost the second round and prefers other players to play instead of drawing to have the opportunity to reach the cut.

I just like to play good lists, i copy them if i think they are good, i test them and try to get maximum value every time. I am not a ***** and i prefer other competitive players rather than those that cry because you brought a broken list.

You are misusing the phrase "win at all costs." You should be saying TMBTW (try my best to win). There is nothing wrong with TMBTW. WAAC means you will win at ALL costs, including losing your morals, ethics, and trust. It means you are willing to cheat to win. You are willing to distract the other person or seedplay to get an advantage. All of that is covered under WAAC. If you truly play to win at all costs, then you don't belong in this community and we don't want you. If, however, you simply made a mistake and meant to say TMBTW, then I have no issue with you. But people need to stop trying to defend WAAC because it's not a position worth defending.

The complete top8 taking draws last round is just a rare situation, have played tons of mtg tournaments with last round IDs always on the table and have never experienced a full top IDing because the situation is abnormal. Usually what happens is that 2 or 3 tables at max get the ID and the other tables have to play to get the spots still undecided.

I dont think its a bad rule, i dont think the problem is IDing. For all the people claiming that ID kills competitive play just ask for a different format rather for the removal of something that happens that is beneficial for both parties y a competitive enviroment.

I also like PGS point of view, as i also play to win and try to do my best to WAAC. The difference is the assumption that WAAC goes against the rules and the politeness of a player.

If the best players of a tournmanet get the situation to ID to ensure the top cut i prefer to have them on the top rather than the one submarining. Even if PHeaver lost the second round and prefers other players to play instead of drawing to have the opportunity to reach the cut.

I just like to play good lists, i copy them if i think they are good, i test them and try to get maximum value every time. I am not a ***** and i prefer other competitive players rather than those that cry because you brought a broken list.

You are misusing the phrase "win at all costs." You should be saying TMBTW (try my best to win). There is nothing wrong with TMBTW. WAAC means you will win at ALL costs, including losing your morals, ethics, and trust. It means you are willing to cheat to win. You are willing to distract the other person or seedplay to get an advantage. All of that is covered under WAAC. If you truly play to win at all costs, then you don't belong in this community and we don't want you. If, however, you simply made a mistake and meant to say TMBTW, then I have no issue with you. But people need to stop trying to defend WAAC because it's not a position worth defending.

If that is your definition, I don't see what WAAC has to do with the issue of IDs....

The players who ID'ed did nothing wrong, ethically or otherwise.

Don't really mind about ID'S I'm just wondering why people are not complaining more about modified wins being 3 points and how after 5 rounds someone with 5 wins can be on less points than someone who has gone 4-1

Now if you Gradauted Cut straight into the Elimination Cut (Ie. - less over-all Swiss rounds, with the top players getting a first round of cut Bye) that would be more interesting, and do away with IDs, since players a motivated to finish the Swiss well to earn the right to a Bye in the Elimination rounds.

I'll say this again.

You want to force people to play a round where a loss could result in them being eliminated so they do not have to play in a round where a loss would eliminate them.

in theory all rounds force a player to play a round that would force then to be eliminated. Why should the last round matter more Than every round before it.

You're saying they must play the sixth round but then get a bye in the extra round of elimination round. Rather than letting them get a bye so to speak in the sixth round but having to play the first round of elimination. Which also means you're rewarding someone for having a better record at a certain point. Which defeats the argument that a lot of people are banking on that every round should matter.

The complete top8 taking draws last round is just a rare situation, have played tons of mtg tournaments with last round IDs always on the table and have never experienced a full top IDing because the situation is abnormal. Usually what happens is that 2 or 3 tables at max get the ID and the other tables have to play to get the spots still undecided.

I dont think its a bad rule, i dont think the problem is IDing. For all the people claiming that ID kills competitive play just ask for a different format rather for the removal of something that happens that is beneficial for both parties y a competitive enviroment.

I also like PGS point of view, as i also play to win and try to do my best to WAAC. The difference is the assumption that WAAC goes against the rules and the politeness of a player.

If the best players of a tournmanet get the situation to ID to ensure the top cut i prefer to have them on the top rather than the one submarining. Even if PHeaver lost the second round and prefers other players to play instead of drawing to have the opportunity to reach the cut.

I just like to play good lists, i copy them if i think they are good, i test them and try to get maximum value every time. I am not a ***** and i prefer other competitive players rather than those that cry because you brought a broken list.

You are misusing the phrase "win at all costs." You should be saying TMBTW (try my best to win). There is nothing wrong with TMBTW. WAAC means you will win at ALL costs, including losing your morals, ethics, and trust. It means you are willing to cheat to win. You are willing to distract the other person or seedplay to get an advantage. All of that is covered under WAAC. If you truly play to win at all costs, then you don't belong in this community and we don't want you. If, however, you simply made a mistake and meant to say TMBTW, then I have no issue with you. But people need to stop trying to defend WAAC because it's not a position worth defending.

If that is your definition, I don't see what WAAC has to do with the issue of IDs....

The players who ID'ed did nothing wrong, ethically or otherwise.

And I also haven't made any comment on IDs. I'm just saying that being WAAC is nothing to be proud of.

I don't think he means WAAC, I think he means "try-hard". Though that might be more of an online gaming term.

The complete top8 taking draws last round is just a rare situation, have played tons of mtg tournaments with last round IDs always on the table and have never experienced a full top IDing because the situation is abnormal. Usually what happens is that 2 or 3 tables at max get the ID and the other tables have to play to get the spots still undecided.

I dont think its a bad rule, i dont think the problem is IDing. For all the people claiming that ID kills competitive play just ask for a different format rather for the removal of something that happens that is beneficial for both parties y a competitive enviroment.

I also like PGS point of view, as i also play to win and try to do my best to WAAC. The difference is the assumption that WAAC goes against the rules and the politeness of a player.

If the best players of a tournmanet get the situation to ID to ensure the top cut i prefer to have them on the top rather than the one submarining. Even if PHeaver lost the second round and prefers other players to play instead of drawing to have the opportunity to reach the cut.

I just like to play good lists, i copy them if i think they are good, i test them and try to get maximum value every time. I am not a ***** and i prefer other competitive players rather than those that cry because you brought a broken list.

You are misusing the phrase "win at all costs." You should be saying TMBTW (try my best to win). There is nothing wrong with TMBTW. WAAC means you will win at ALL costs, including losing your morals, ethics, and trust. It means you are willing to cheat to win. You are willing to distract the other person or seedplay to get an advantage. All of that is covered under WAAC. If you truly play to win at all costs, then you don't belong in this community and we don't want you. If, however, you simply made a mistake and meant to say TMBTW, then I have no issue with you. But people need to stop trying to defend WAAC because it's not a position worth defending.

If that is your definition, I don't see what WAAC has to do with the issue of IDs....

The players who ID'ed did nothing wrong, ethically or otherwise.

Did they agree with their opponents to manufacture an outcome that otherwise would not have occurred in order to prevent their slipping in the standings?

If you say that they did, which you have to, then you have to be able to distinguish between agreeing to draw and agreeing for one player to lose. A lot of people think that such an action is unfair to the other competitors. If the only distinction that you have is that one is permitted by the rules and the other is not, so the permitted act is fair, then you are standimg on very shaky ground.

I am out of likes! **** you audio weasel and your delicious gifs!

What's the cooking time for that?

Shouldn't you be called Video Weasel?

Mind. Blown.