Just a random thought that popped into my head, given the amount of conversations that tend to come up about winning on time in large events.  What if they scored each round like a hocky game.  By that I mean if you win in regulation, you get 3 points but if you win in time (unless you actually end up winning a second game on damage in the overtime period) you get 2 points and your opponent gets 1?  Has anything like this ever been considered?

 

I think a few people have suggested that games won on damage in extra turns should be the #1 tiebreaker.

---

+++ www.daveplays.blogspot.com +++

2383840:

I think a few people have suggested that games won on damage in extra turns should be the #1 tiebreaker.

I think the tiebreakers (at least the first two) are pretty good as is.  If we have the same record, but I played people who did better than the people you played, that should certainly count for something.

~

---

Basem.

1473012:

2383840:

I think a few people have suggested that games won on damage in extra turns should be the #1 tiebreaker.

I think the tiebreakers (at least the first two) are pretty good as is.  If we have the same record, but I played people who did better than the people you played, that should certainly count for something.

But by dropping a point for games won on time you're effectively making it a tiebreaker anyway.

Say you're tied with a guy - you have both gone 4-2, and you have played against better people.  But if you won 2 of those on time you have a couple of points fewer than him (10 pts vs 12) so the tie is decided before you get as far as tiebreaks.

Docking a point for a win on time is actually like making it a super tiebreaker.

If you said:
3pts for a straight win
2pts for a win on damage
1pt for a loss on damage
0pts for a straight loss

The it becomes more interesting and would create more fluctuations in the rankings.  Rewarding a loss on time with a point would be a big step towards keeping the system honest - the losing player now has a reason not to just go "before you beat me on damage I'll concede, so you can have an extra point and make Top-8".

---

+++ www.daveplays.blogspot.com +++

Why should a person losing on time get more points than a person losing on damage?

Why shouldn't a person losing 2-1 on damage get more points that one losing 2-0 on damage?

BTW: I think 2 -> 3 is too skewed. Maybe 4 -> 5 or something.

How about:

10 points for winning on damage 2-0.
9 points for winning on damage 2-1.
8 points for winning on time.
1 point for losing on damage 2-1.
1 point for losing on time.

Cheers.

---

Come play at C & Js in Newark, CA

1189990:

Why should a person losing on time get more points than a person losing on damage?

Why shouldn't a person losing 2-1 on damage get more points that one losing 2-0 on damage?

Cheers.

Because a person losing on time may have a win in hand or on the board but still lose anyway.  Maybe they should track game record as third tiebreaker instead of the sum of the squares of the round you lose in.  If you end up losing 2-1 to the top player in the world in round 1 that should be better than losing 2-0 in round 6.

How often have you seen the 3rd tiebreaker count for anything? Almost never, so I wouldn't worry about fixing that.

---

Part of the CCGs Crew: We're awesome so you don't have to be!

1473012:

if you win in regulation, you get 3 points but if you win in time (unless you actually end up winning a second game on damage in the overtime period) you get 2 points and your opponent gets 1?  Has anything like this ever been considered?

 

Let's say we're in game three, tied 1-1 and you're winning the game handily enough, but there's about 5-10 minutes left on the clock. By your rules, it's now in my best interests to stall the game for 5-10 minutes as much as I can and get to time rather than just playing at the normal pace I'm supposed to be just so I can squeeze a point out of it.

I'm not sure that providing a rules system where there's an incentive for a sizeable portion of the players each round to intentionally slowplay in order to go to time because they'll be rewarded for it is something we'd want to encourage.

Or am I missing something?

---

====================
Jeff Piroozshad
Marketing Events Specialist
Upper Deck

Level 80 Blood Elf Mage
Level 80 Blood Elf Paladin
Level 80 Blood Elf Death Knight
Level 77 Blood Elf Hunter
(Blood Elves are pretty!) :)

I have an idea. Both players get zero points if the game goes to time. No overtime rules. As soon as time is called anyone who hasn't handed in their slip yet gets zero points.  Increase the length of rounds to help matches going to time be a less frequent occurrence.  Rounds already last a solid 90 minutes with all the super slow overtime turns that go on in 100+ person tournament anyways. Just make those extra 30 minutes be part of regulation but with no overtime for anyone.

---

Jeff pretty much has a point. The losing player now has incentive to drag to the game out, especially if the point system holds much weight. What may have been intended to encourage players to finish on time, could in fact lead to the exact opposite. 

 

---

No quote for you!

How about this system?

60 Minute Rounds

1 Point for winning and 0 for losses.  Tiebreakers are based on difficutly of opponents. 

---

1509196:

How about this system?

60 Minute Rounds

1 Point for winning and 0 for losses.  Tiebreakers are based on difficutly of opponents. 

Does that difficulty adjust depending on whether you're playing at home or abroad?

---

Zapped Giants - UK Community Site, now with daily articles!

You can make all the "side" rules you want but as long as there is any grey area in slow play people will exploit it for one reason or another.

People exploit it now make no mistake about it. With $1000 loot cards and other valuable prizes up for grabs you can bet there are some players pushing every single grey (and not so grey) area possible.

The best way to stop it is to have well defined rules. Players need to be informed and active in enforcing the rules. Judges need to be well trained and actively enforce rules.

I am not sure how big an issue this is but then again I have never lost a match more important then a RealmQ swiss round due to slow play.

1503087:

1473012:

if you win in regulation, you get 3 points but if you win in time (unless you actually end up winning a second game on damage in the overtime period) you get 2 points and your opponent gets 1?  Has anything like this ever been considered?

 

Let's say we're in game three, tied 1-1 and you're winning the game handily enough, but there's about 5-10 minutes left on the clock. By your rules, it's now in my best interests to stall the game for 5-10 minutes as much as I can and get to time rather than just playing at the normal pace I'm supposed to be just so I can squeeze a point out of it.

I'm not sure that providing a rules system where there's an incentive for a sizeable portion of the players each round to intentionally slowplay in order to go to time because they'll be rewarded for it is something we'd want to encourage.

Or am I missing something?

Maybe an option would be

If you win outright you get a win. You get 2 points for a win.

If you win by time rules you get 1 point.

if you lost you get nothing.

The first tiebreaker could be adjusted to this

1st Tie Breaker = combined opponent win points - match losses

That way if you are going to lose but you force the game to go to time it hurts your tiebreakers.

This still would not solve the problem if people are playing in the final rounds and they realize they will not make playoffs anyways by taking a loss so maybe they force a game to time to mess with tiebreakers.

Personally I think the problem will be ultimately solved because no one will even consider playing a slow deck and taking the chance of not making the playoffs because they only got 1 point for a win instead of 2.