The way me and Tragic are thinking for our comming competition is that you just use the normal game score from your best winning game, then each game gets a +score penalty for each loss. Nice and simple and covers all angle as far as we can tell. It allows bets for 3 matches, and due to the length of LoTRlcg games I do not think we want to run best of 5 or 7 anyway.. but it works for that as well.

booored said:

This does not sound right to me. If I understand you correctly, the following can happen according to your system: I win 1 game with a ridiculously good score and lose all others. This might place me ahead of the guy that wins 2 games but with bad scores. In my opinion someone winning more games than me should finish ahead of me.

Um, I do not think I explained it very well... as this can not happen... um... let me try again.

You play the best out of three. 3 games in a round. You need 2 wins in a round to advance. There is only 1 score attained. You choose the hiest score forom your 2 winning games. (remeber as per FFG rules, losses are NEVER scored) This single score value is the score you record for that round. If you lost 1 of your 3 games you get a +value penalty added to your final score.

booored said:

Lets see, if I get you now...

So you play 3 games vs a quest. In order to score a "win" against this quest, you need to go 2/3 or 3/3, you take the best score out of the wins, but if you played 2/3 get a small penalty for the lost game.

Right?

And in the end the person with the highest number of "wins" wins? With those scores for tie breakers?

The way we are thinking of running it is a classic "bracket" system just like a normal duel game, exactly like in MTG or CoC event.

So think of the "encounter deck" as a 2nd player that you are facing. Someone you need to beat in a best of three... this means you need to play 3 games max and win at least 2 of them. Your "opponents" in your bracket, have to do the same thing.. the team with the higher score goes into the next round. Just like a normal bracket comp.

So winning a single round of your best of three, gives a score (from official rules), loosing give no score. You need 2 winning scores to pass the round, and if both teams make it though, then the winner of the bracket is decided by whom has the highest score. Only 1 wining score is counted (obliviously the highest). If you fail the quest, and your opponent wins, you advance the round and scores do not matter. If both teams fail the quest they are both into the looser bracket, (if comp is big enough for a looser bracket) or out of the comp. If both teams pass but for a fluke have the same score, a sudden death round is played, highest score wins.

It is pretty simple, but I am not sure I see any problems.

The next bracket is a different quest. All quests are hidden. Like everyone plays the same quest in the same round, but no one knows prior to the round starting what quest they will be playing.

We are still deciding if you need submitted decks for the entire comp, if you can sideboard and other things.. but we are leaning to a single deck for the entire comp.

I mean this is just work in progress but this is what we are thinking for our comp. I would welcome constructive comments.

Thank you for explaining that. Much appreciated.

I still see some problems though: The KO system doesn't seem to fit well as getting a bye against a certain quest might be pretty big (especially given the probably(?) small number of participants).

And the byes are not only limited to the first round since it is possible to only have 3 people enter the semi-finals, if on quarter-final game went lost for both players.

And how do you determine the winner, if both players in the final fail the quest?

Personally I would "simply" score the number of wins and not eliminate players from the game, but do it more swiss like. All the 8 players are playing quest 1, then quest 2 and so on. After a set number of quests, the player with the most wins has won the tournament. Would that be against any of your vision?

The other issue with your system, in the way I want to run it, is that you are playing a single elimination tournament, and that's not what I want at all...

Maggical said:

Why not out of curiosity? Though we are planning to run it as double elimination, with a looser bracket. This allows players to have a good 6 games at absolute minimum.. that is a decent chunk of play time and enough that people will not be upset about getting knocked out "before they got a chance to see what their deck could do.

We are also planning to enforce table talk rules.. but we are still a bit divided on exactly what they should be... though we are in agreement that the table talk rules is one of the more interesting and impressive rules in this game that makes it awesome.

plueschi said:

Well in tiebreakers on the final round then you hit the sudden death single game elimination tiebreaker rule.

But yea.. byes are a big concern for us for this same reason. That is defiantly worth thinking of ... swiss style.. but the problem with swiss is that it is a format to just play and have fun, there are no winners. Each game is seperate event. Like you could as you say tally the scores up and get a overall winner, and I guess that is an option, but we really like the feeling of eliminations comps that as you progress you are meeting up with better players. In swiss you may as well be playing at home and emailing your scores in.

How about using pretty much the same deal , 3 game / top score per quest / +value to score per lost game. Highest Score wins... tiebreakers on draws. Then instread of a looser and winner bracket like in elimination use a split bracket system to sift the players in groups. So there is no "elimination" like before, and everyone gets to play all quest and use their score, but like double elimination you are pushing players that loose a round into a "separate" comp they need to fight out of to win. I think this might work best.

Somehow the idea of an elimination tournament feels wrong for me in a cooperative game. Not only feels it somewhat artificial to have each player run a best of 3 vs the encounter deck, but also bothersome since you essentially play 6 games for one elimination instead of the "usual" 3.

If you want to have elimination, you could make a cut after a certain number of rounds. Like after 3 quests only the top 4/6/8 whatever remain in the competition. And then proceed to some finals from there on. I honestly don't know, because elimination still feels wrong to me

BTW, have you (or others) thought about a multiplayer tournament?

Tragic and I are trying to work on a 2 player event.. not solo.

booored said:

So, are those brackets and such all for 2 player games? One team vs. another? I was under the impression that you were talking about single player games.

I aim more at the tournament type of Magic or L5R, with several rounds of players playing the game and then a Top-4 or Final wich will be single elimination off course. After more than 10 years playing CCG tournaments I really think this is the best approach...

Just 1 week away from my event. I was thinking yesterday about the scoring system and I will not score the losses as someone mentioned. The tiebreakers will work fine either way for me =)

I'll award 1 point for win, 0 for loss and then write down the scoring of each winning player to use as tiebreakers =)

Hope you'll post a report here about your event.

Have a great time!