In a 16 player tournament how are four people with a 4 in 1 record eliminated from the Placing with strength of schedule, Without a top 4 cut ?

Because the event rules say no Top Cut at 16 players.

The more important question is why were there 4, 4-1 players at a 16 person event? You're only suppose to play 4 rounds.

Play a top cut. We had the same thing locally at a 16 person store champs when the organiser announced during the second round that it was going to be 4 rounds with no top cut. I asked if we could vote on that because everyone went there expecting a top cut and they changed to a top 4.

32 minutes ago, joshstix said:

Play a top cut. We had the same thing locally at a 16 person store champs when the organiser announced during the second round that it was going to be 4 rounds with no top cut. I asked if we could vote on that because everyone went there expecting a top cut and they changed to a top 4.

I mean it's not as if the TO came up with that on their own, that's the format for that type of event at that attendee level.

Yes I know but generally with it being a game and all the store wants the players to enjoy it.

I know that myself and most that went 4 and one went be going to any more events. After spending large amounts on this game, I may just be turning to Keyforge.

9 hours ago, ozmodon said:

I know that myself and most that went 4 and one went be going to any more events. After spending large amounts on this game, I may just be turning to Keyforge.

Again why was anyone 4 and 1 in an event that should only have 4 rounds? You had an undefeated player at the end of round 4 and played another round only to muddy the waters.

That's the venues fault. And going to a different game isn't going to fix that.

23 hours ago, ozmodon said:

In a 16 player tournament how are four people with a 4 in 1 record eliminated from the Placing with strength of schedule, Without a top 4 cut ?

This seems very strange to me. I'd be interested in seeing the round breakdown on this. Assuming "placing" means Top 4 (or even Top 2), you're looking at half the field with only one loss? I'm not sure that's even possible unless the TO was doing some VERY odd pairings.

Sorry guys, it was 3 and 1 without a cut to top 4 so prize support won't the a local favorite for third place leaving most people feeling ripped off. I know I'm walking away for a while maybe forever. We'll have to see.

If the tournament was following the Tournament Guidelines from FFG for the Basic Structure, Relaxed Format (which is what the Store Championship is classified as), a 16 person event runs 4 rounds without a top 4 cut. I have seen store owners use their own discretion and still have a top4 cut (which I believe is their call), but the default is 4 rounds without a top4 cut. 17-24 participants would have resulted in a 4 prelim rounds with a top 4 cut.

As it stands, 16 people in the event should have resulted in:

1 4-0

4 3-1

6 2-2

4 1-3

1 0-4

So...I definitely see why you are upset since a 3-1 would have just missed out on a playmat. 3 2-2s would have left with a deckbox and the other 3 without.

Regardless, I do think we're still in growing pains mode on the local level. GenCon may have had over 280+ players for the NA Champs event, but that didn't impact the numbers at our local SCs much...the high point this year was 18. Now, compared to last year at the same store, the number doubled...but still not where I'd like it to be. Just gotta keep striving for more. Hope that breakdown helps though...and I've been in that position. Last year, I was 5th. Only SC I was able to attend. This year, made up for it and was able to attend 4. Sorry you have a negative experience though.

Someone will get screwed by SoS more often than not, that's just the way it is.

Single elimination with no top 4 cut. Yeah they can run it that way. Maybe If they would have randomly determined who was going to get 3rd in front of everyone . Because the players at the top 2 tables didn't get 3rd. I could get upset or just not do it again. That old saying goes once shame on you, twice shame on me.

14 minutes ago, ozmodon said:

Single elimination with no top 4 cut. Yeah they can run it that way. Maybe If they would have randomly determined who was going to get 3rd in front of everyone . Because the players at the top 2 tables didn't get 3rd. I could get upset or just not do it again. That old saying goes once shame on you, twice shame on me.

Still trying to understand exactly what you're saying here, but it sounds like at least one of the players in the "top 4" going into the last round fell below someone else who was below them before that? I'm confused because you say it was single elimination, but no cut? That makes no sense.

Couple of things here. First, that's perfectly possible with Swiss pairings. Especially with FFG's system, because pairings within the same score block are random, SoS isn't considered. So the "second table" wasn't necessarily the #3 and #4 players going into the last round. It was just whoever at 3-0 or 2-1 got shuffled up there. After that, it will come down to SoS, and someone who had a better record before the match won't necessarily be better than anyone below them after (when it falls to SoS). If you're 3-0 going in but lose, and I'm 2-1 and win, we both land at 3-1. My SoS could have been better than yours before, and still better after, depending on who we've played.

I'm struggling to figure out what the problem here really is. It sounds like people just didn't understand the scoring system, and got upset with how it fell out? Seems like that will be true and happen with any system. SoS isn't perfect, but it's about the only thing you've got in an event with so little input data.

One person only loses was to the player that lost at the top table IE playing for first. How does that not make them third? I was just a player and people were coming up to me saying WTF just happened?

14 hours ago, netherspirit1982 said:

Someone will get screwed by SoS more often than not, that's just the way it is.

FFG does not recommend you play enough games, if you can play more Swiss Rounds than FFG suggests you'll start making SoS less likely be used to eliminate players and when you do it will be far more relevant.

SoS takes into consideration of all of you opponents. And your first round or two opponents can be a total crap shoot. The player who only lost to the another 3-1 player, might have also beat a 0-4 and 1-3 player in the first two rounds, whereas someone with the same 3-1 record could have beaten a couple of 2-2 players which could be enough of a difference to push them ahead if their rounds 3 and 4 opponents were similar in strength.

Oh I get how it works. It's just not for me. I'm not perfect and make mistakes. It just sucks all the air out of the room and zaps all the fun out of the game. I spent a lot of money on this game to have fun with it. People traveling long distances to be told one loss and you are out can be the way they choose to run it, if they so choose. I'm just on the fence as to weather or not to leave something I've invested so much in.

I understand the frustration. But, I don’t get that you think quitting the game and going to something else would solve it. Every competitive hobby tournament that doesn’t use an elimination format is going to have the same issue. There is no way to prevent ties in record.

In your scenario, even with a top four cut, you end up with one of your 3-1 players missing the top four. So, I guess you could expand the cut to top eight. But, then which 2-2 finishers get screwed?

This is going to happen in any competitive card game that uses Swiss. Changing games won’t solve the issue.

People traveled some more than 200 miles. Myself it is our only local store. People came to have fun and 4 single elimination games left myself and others feeling let down.

54 minutes ago, ozmodon said:

People traveled some more than 200 miles. Myself it is our only local store. People came to have fun and 4 single elimination games left myself and others feeling let down.

You're not the first person to get screwed by SoS and you certainly won't be the last. The sooner you come to terms with the fact that it's going to happen sometimes the better off you'll be

18 hours ago, ozmodon said:

One person only loses was to the player that lost at the top table IE playing for first. How does that not make them third? I was just a player and people were coming up to me saying WTF just happened?

Because all your opponents matter, not just the best one. If your first round opponent goes 0-4, and your second goes 1-3 (or even potentially 0-4 if you're really unlucky and there's an odd number) then you didn't play strong opponents.

SoS is often frustrating, but unless you want to play elimination where half of those people who drove 200 miles go home after one game, it's about the only option. There is certainly going to be a bit of randomness to it, especially from the early rounds. The farther you get into the event the less random each game's contributing SoS is. If there's one thing FFG should change it would be to increase the number of swiss rounds so it lessens the impact of the early randomness. I'm honestly not sure why they don't - Destiny plays quick enough that 1 or even 2 extra rounds wouldn't extend events by that much.

I also have to admit I'm having a hard time reconciling "People came to have fun" and "The system didn't rank people where they thought they deserved so I'm quitting this game." If people are that tied up in the final standings or the status symbol of a mat that can be had on eBay for $20, that feels like the opposite of coming to have fun.

3 hours ago, Buhallin said:

If there's one thing FFG should change it would be to increase the number of swiss rounds so it lessens the impact of the early randomness. I'm honestly not sure why they don't - Destiny plays quick enough that 1 or even 2 extra rounds wouldn't extend events by that much.

I agree, and if I recall correctly, this was a problem last year during Store Championship Season, many content creators were talking to this last year.

I enjoy the game and I'm sure I'll continue to play in a casual way. As long as single elimination without a cut to top exists, I'll be out of the competition end of it.

On 8/14/2018 at 2:28 PM, Buhallin said:

Because all your opponents matter, not just the best one. If your first round opponent goes 0-4, and your second goes 1-3 (or even potentially 0-4 if you're really unlucky and there's an odd number) then you didn't play strong opponents.

SoS is often frustrating, but unless you want to play elimination where half of those people who drove 200 miles go home after one game, it's about the only option. There is certainly going to be a bit of randomness to it, especially from the early rounds. The farther you get into the event the less random each game's contributing SoS is. If there's one thing FFG should change it would be to increase the number of swiss rounds so it lessens the impact of the early randomness. I'm honestly not sure why they don't - Destiny plays quick enough that 1 or even 2 extra rounds wouldn't extend events by that much.

I also have to admit I'm having a hard time reconciling "People came to have fun" and "The system didn't rank people where they thought they deserved so I'm quitting this game." If people are that tied up in the final standings or the status symbol of a mat that can be had on eBay for $20, that feels like the opposite of coming to have fun.

Yes true, but this speaks to the weakness of SoS in my opinion. The problem Oz, and I have to agree with him, has is that your final finishing point can be COMPLETELY out of your hands. Oz is phrasing it odd and Ill phrase it in as simplet terms as possible. SoS can result in a "Well you where unlucky enough to get paired against the seals first round so **** you for trying". So ones finishing in a tournament should be decided by RNG if its a tie? Really the better games Ive played have always used a tiebreaker that you can CONTROL or plan for.

Also I can see where Oz is coming from on the having fun part reconcilling with the bad SoS situation. People dont mind losing when they can fully comprehend a system, most X-Wing players understand that they dont make top or drop spots because they didnt fly right or just couldnt kill that last ship. When your told that you placing had zero to do with how you played but that you just happened to get paired against the easy players, well that sucks all the fun out of it as you couldnt fully comprehend why.

3 minutes ago, GamerGuy1984 said:

Also I can see where Oz is coming from on the having fun part reconcilling with the bad SoS situation. People dont mind losing when they can fully comprehend a system, most X-Wing players understand that they dont make top or drop spots because they didnt fly right or just couldnt kill that last ship. When your told that you placing had zero to do with how you played but that you just happened to get paired against the easy players, well that sucks all the fun out of it as you couldnt fully comprehend why.

It's not hard to understand why. I'll agree that the system has notable flaws (more on that in a sec) but if you're going to get hurt rather than understanding the system, that's on you.

3 minutes ago, GamerGuy1984 said:

Yes true, but this speaks to the weakness of SoS in my opinion. The problem Oz, and I have to agree with him, has is that your final finishing point can be COMPLETELY out of your hands. Oz is phrasing it odd and Ill phrase it in as simplet terms as possible. SoS can result in a "Well you where unlucky enough to get paired against the seals first round so **** you for trying". So ones finishing in a tournament should be decided by RNG if its a tie? Really the better games Ive played have always used a tiebreaker that you can CONTROL or plan for.

I do agree with all this, and even said as much in what you quoted The problem is... what do you do to fix it?

Elimination will suck worse - sure, it'll be a lot easier to understand what happened, but it's far worse overall results. Two of the best players end up in the same bracket and one knocks the other out, how is that any more representative? Still luck, unless you want to suggest some seeding system that would require full history and tracking of players. Plus you end up with people playing one or two games and then being out, which isn't much fun either.

Tiebreakers sound nice enough, but how do you actually handle them? He says there were 4 people at 4-1, that would be two more rounds to eliminate them, and that's just for third (second, maybe?) place, and in a small tournament. What if there are 3? Or (as is more common in a large event) 12? If I remember right, our regional last year had about 10-15 people at 5-2, and only one made the cut. Are you really going to run another full event to determine who gets that last spot in the cut, so they can then go into the cut? And there are prized for Top 4, and Top 8, which can be nice in large events. What do you do when 3rd-5th are 5-1, and 6th-10th are 4-2?

SoS certainly has its issues, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a better system that actually holds up to full implementation and is reasonable to implement. The one thing that can be done is to add more Swiss rounds, but even that won't solve all the problems. It's important to note that a cut doesn't solve it either - it just changes the SoS impact from "Why did I miss out on the Top 4 prizes, I was 4-1!" to "Why didn't I make the cut, I was 4-1!"