I have now played in two official tournaments for AGOT (gencon), so with that substantial background I feel I am able to comment on what exactly needs to be done.

Melee:

* Officially announce that seats are to be randomized. I am not sure even what is the most advantageous way to sit, but there is no reason to not to do this.

* All rounds should be seated swiss style. It works for joust for a reason, and will work for melee for the same reasons.

* Ties should be broken if one player did not get to his challenges phase on the final turn (assuming someone finished the game)

Joust:

* 5 points for a win, 2 points for a Draw - players can officially decide the outcome of a match without playing. This is important because I felt that people were unfairly hurt by the timing out rule if the judge happened to be watching their game. Also the losing playing should never be put in the position to have to decide if they 'give' a full win or timed win. It's terrible to be put in the "should i be a jerk or be cool" position

* Tiebreakers should be decided by opponents win percentage, not opponents total points...and there should be a floor (.25 or .33) to how bad one person can affect your score. This solves two big problems 1)winning a regional gives you an arbitrary 5-1 bye which is massive; and 2) people dropping totally screw their opponents schedule and at gencon I assume a fair amount of people drop because there are a million things to go do (as opposed to say a regional)

As a note. I was initially frustrated at ktom for enforcing the timed win rules. But it's quite clear the rules give you the timed win unless you win in time. There is nothing in the rules that allow you to give your opponent the full win. It's not his fault that the standard way people behave goes against the rules.

Melee:

* Officially announce that seats are to be randomized. I am not sure even what is the most advantageous way to sit, but there is no reason to not to do this.

I agree, though I think that happened at some tables anyways.

* All rounds should be seated swiss style. It works for joust for a reason, and will work for melee for the same reasons.

I thought there was a strong reason that prevented that, but I'm all for it if there isn't

* Ties should be broken if one player did not get to his challenges phase on the final turn (assuming someone finished the game)

Unless I was wrong, you were supposed to finish the phase for everyone.

Joust:

* 5 points for a win, 2 points for a Draw - players can officially decide the outcome of a match without playing. This is important because I felt that people were unfairly hurt by the timing out rule if the judge happened to be watching their game. Also the losing playing should never be put in the position to have to decide if they 'give' a full win or timed win. It's terrible to be put in the "should i be a jerk or be cool" position

I agree that the eliminated of the "should or shouldn't I" would be good. And I'm a bit split on the full win v modified win. A modified win is closer to a loss than a win in my experiences. You are clearly at the bottom of the 4-2's for example. Maybe the rule should be changed based on community wishes (if that is indeed the case).

* Tiebreakers should be decided by opponents win percentage, not opponents total points...and there should be a floor (.25 or .33) to how bad one person can affect your score. This solves two big problems 1)winning a regional gives you an arbitrary 5-1 bye which is massive; and 2) people dropping totally screw their opponents schedule and at gencon I assume a fair amount of people drop because there are a million things to go do (as opposed to say a regional)

That's a great point that I never thought of. I knew you always have a bunch of drops after people start 0-2 or 0-3, but I never internalized how much havoc that plays with your SoS.

As a note. I was initially frustrated at ktom for enforcing the timed win rules. But it's quite clear the rules give you the timed win unless you win in time. There is nothing in the rules that allow you to give your opponent the full win. It's not his fault that the standard way people behave goes against the rules.

Exactly

goshdarnstud said:

"Players are randomly assigned to a table in the first tournament round of a Melee tournament. Each sub- sequent tournament round, the players from one table should be separated throughout the overall number of tables as evenly as possible (so that the composition of any one table is not completely identical from one tournament round to the next), and the rest of the field should then be randomly assigned to these tables.

ktom said:

Talking about two different things. I am saying that there should be a rule (or maybe there is) that says when the 4 people get to the table they need to draw for spots.

goshdarnstud said:

I think the immediate reaction is that it isn't fair to the people who win the first round. Because you don't play enough games to make up the difference (compared to joust). I think it's far worse to have people who can't make the cut matched up with people who can make the cut. Leads to uncomfortable situations.

goshdarnstud said:

Taking about a game that ends with someone getting 15 power - not going to time.

Don't know how I screwed up the background color, here's a repost. Sorry to lose the quoting:

papalorax>>>>>* Officially announce that seats are to be randomized. I am not sure even what is the most advantageous way to sit, but there is no reason to not to do this.

goshdarnstud>>>>>I agree, though I think that happened at some tables anyways.

papalorax>>>>>* All rounds should be seated swiss style. It works for joust for a reason, and will work for melee for the same reasons.

goshdarnstud>>>>>I thought there was a strong reason that prevented that, but I'm all for it if there isn't

papalorax>>>>>* Ties should be broken if one player did not get to his challenges phase on the final turn (assuming someone finished the game)

goshdarnstud>>>>>Unless I was wrong, you were supposed to finish the phase for everyone.

ME>>>>> Absolutely with regard to swiss seating. Part of melee's complexity (or should I say chaos) is what kind of decks/players you are facing, but I think pairing (quading?) like that does reduce the likelihood of not attempting to win. The rules suggest:

Each subsequent should be separated throughout the overall number of tournament round, the players from one table tables as evenly as possible (so that the composition of any one table is not completely identical from one tournament round to the next), and the rest of the field should then be randomly assigned to these tables. Both a player’s table and a player’s seat at that table should always be assigned by the TO. under Seating. Swiss tables would also do a reasonably good job at preventing re-pairings. As it was, I had Zeiler at both my 1st and 2nd round tables.

@goshdarnstud: I had every table I sat at randomly assign seats, it's not always easy to see what's most advantageous, but no player should have choice because they were sitting their first. I think it's simpler if the grouping was listed in an order randomized by the tourney software so players don't have to waste the time when they get to their table.

@papalorax: It's not always easy to tell until your in game which is the most important. In my "semi-final" game, Dobbler sat to my left, and on his winning turn, I sat to his right and went second. We'd both marshalled dupe'd Red Viper's (his had Taste for Blood). There was no possibility (my opponents did not know I didn't have Make an Example or some other power grab event) of me taking a win during my challenge phase starting at 6 power. Greg, even with 9 power, successfully convinced them that I was the bigger threat since I was attacking "at that moment." Their subsequent ability to defend against him was compromised. Had our seating been reversed, he wouldn't have made it that far (and I would have used another Burning on the Sand to make sure he didn't get to the win before I had a chance to take my turn.

Perhaps it comes down to one's definition of second or third place, but if Also, I'm unsure if you were supposed to complete the phase if someone "winned" before everyone had their opportunity. Since that doesn't occur in joust, I don't think it particularly makes sense in melee. If anything, it just emphasizes the importance of initiative... something often ignored. I would suggest modifying the scoring for ties however. It currently reads:

Players will receive 3 points for every player he or she defeats, 1 point for any tie, and 0 points for a loss. Additionally, the player who wins the entire table will receive a bonus point for his or her efforts.

Two players even for first at time would score 7, 7, 3, 0. Three tying in the same fashion would be 4,4,4,0. Tables lose 2 and 7 points from normal 10,6,3,0.

If one person wins at 15, two tie for second: 10,4,4,0 and if three participants finish even: 10,1,1,1. Costs the table 1 and 6 points. Two players even at the bottom score at 10,6,1,1, losing a single point. The biggest discrepancies come in three way ties.

I'd proposegiving ties an equal share of points they would have accumulated rounded down. The four scenarios above become 8,8,3,0 / 6/6/6/0 (lose 1) / 10/4/4/0 (lose 1) / 10,3,3,3 / 10,6,1,1 (lose 1). Two 2-way ties for first equal a first and second rather than 2 points worse, a 3-way tie for first equals a second rather than 2 points worse, a 2-way tie for 2nd is now better than finishing 3rd. I guess it depends on whether you consider two players tied to receive the worst score of their match-up.

Your scoring of ties makes a lot of sense to me.

Rule Change I propose:

No more Overall Champion.

Dobbler said:

+1

___

finitesquarewell said:

First, removing the overall title would remove the aspect of people trying to "game the system" in order to help their overall point total. People would play Melee just for sake of playing melee. People would play joust just for the sake of playing joust. The only thing that would matter in each of the events would simply be "did you win?", not "how many points did I get towards the overall championships?"

Second, players would not feel compelled to play in a format they may not like without feeling like they are missing out on an opportunity. I know people who don't like melee but play in it because they feel like they have to in order to compete for the overall title. Likewise with Joust (although to a lesser extent).

Third, when discussing Nedliness to the books, there were no overall champions in Westeros Tournaments, just Joust Champions, Melee Champions and Archery Champions.

~Fourth, if we remove the overall champion title, the GoT Community can retroactively remove your Gencon Championships

Dobbler said:

And that begs the question- WHERE IS THE ARCHERY FORMAT?!??! FFG ARE YOU LISTENING?!?!

papalorax said:

"Both a player’s table and a player’s seat at that table should always be assigned by the TO."

In thinking more about the scoring.

Just use the DCI system:

Joust

17–32 players 5 rounds of Swiss
33–64 6 rounds of Swiss
65–128 7 rounds of Swiss
129–226 8 rounds of Swiss

Cut to top 8

Game won 3 points
Game drawn 1 point
Game lost 0 points

Melee scoring would be easy to do 6-4-2-0 scoring or 8-4-0. Melee ties would be 6-3-3-0, 6-2-2-2

Yup...those numbers are much easier to deal with.

goshdarnstud said:

QFT! I want an Archery format. How would this work? My opponent is seated at a different table and whoever is able to read cards from a distance wins?

Kennon said:

Pishposh! It is whoever can kill a man at 80 paces with a thrown card, of course!

Archery Format:

Begin the game with 12 different titled cards in a side deck (quiver and arrows)

After revealing plots, each player may take one card from his quiver and place it in his hand (load the bow)

That card play for -1 gold this turn (let it fly)

If that card wins a challenge claim an extra power (bullseye)

if that card is in your hand at the end of the turn, place it in your discard pile (miss)

your arrows may not be returned to your hand by opponents cards or effects

Why isn't melee built like a swiss? I assumed it would be built that way, so you dont have a fourth round of melee before the cut where you have a perfect record, a bunch of people at 2-1 and a person 0-3 who is trying to screw you out of the cut for the fun of it.

Dobbler said:

+ 1 x infinity

It makes no sense to think that by removing something, anyone gains something.

papalorax said:

If that "something" is detremental or undesirable , then it makes perfect sense. (Not to say that is necessarily true in this case.)

I put a honey badger in your car last night. Do you want it removed?

JackT said:

That is one hell of a security system

Shenanigans said:

Interior takes a bit of a hit, though.

papalorax said:

I was sure that in the third grade I learned that subtracting a negative is actually just addition. But I have been wrong before.

papalorax said:

As a parent to four children, I will vehemently disagree with this statement.

I have to take stuff away all the time. Sometimes taking stuff away creates a peaceful situation, sometimes it creates discipline, sometimes it creates an appreciate for "other stuff", sometimes it means the room is cleaner, etc, etc