Round Robin Rule. Is it time for a change?

[SirSebstar]

Koontz, If you rule were not there, I would have suggested a 3 game playoff in the case of an twoway tie.. Best of 3 would win I can see an argument for a best of 1 to keep games fast, but best of 3 is more… fair..

In a 3 or more player tie, I would play another round of games 1vs1 against each opponent.
3 players 3 more games. 4 players 6 more games. Ect ect and then see who is the winner, and if there is still a tie, continue doing this until there is a winner( and drop the looser). Downside is obvious, when and where does it end.

Overall, I understand the quickness of your rule aka the Koontz rule.

In a lengthy tournament, say 30+ teamgames then I could easily imagine an extra best of 3 games in the case of a tie.. Then just an arbitrary underling game previously played would indeed be unsatisfactory, maybe..
A clear objective winner is always more appreciated, I think we all can agree on that.

[koontz1973]

The problem I see with having a play off game is this...

Right now we have the normal game deciding the outcome of the tournament when two players are tied. If we have a play off game, does the situation not arise that if the team that lost the normal game wins the play off game, how can I then award them the win as both teams have won one game each. We are back to having a dilemma of one player winning a tournament when he has not bested another player, only equalled him. So do we then go in for a third game which if the original team wins, we are back to having a wins tie but with no overall majority.
Which ever way it is done, someone in the end will have to lose.

[SirSebstar]

Totally agreed with your statement koontz.
Therefor I suggest a best of 3. But only for tied teams, That way you will always have a game difference...
on the other hand one game could do it, considering both teams are then no longer equal in total games won (since one lost)

Its like blitz said. C wins over B who wins over A who wins over C. B & A are tied, who wins. According to Koontz team B.
According to the playoffs, A or B could win, but if A wins, B &A would both have lost a game ot eachother...

I prefer the Koontz method as long as it is clear upfront AND its a quick and dirty tournament. The every game is a finals game appeals to me. But for a huge tournament, to have it end like this, e.g. HA's tournament, no that would not be fitting, then a best of 3 is warrented.. and for singles maybe a best of 5??

anyways Koontz, you dont have to agree with that. Basicly your suggestion for the tiebreaker rule is a great one, simple and clear. Are you clear on the examples? Maybe you should also take the blitz example to show how it works.. A looses because B beat it even though C beats B but he is not tied with AB.. or something..

[DJ Teflon]

One round, everyone plays everyone in 1 on 1 matches; at the same time. Player with most wins, wins the tournament. If two players are tied the player that won the 1v1 match wins the tourney--if multiple players are tied and there is no clear head to head winner -all the players involved will play another round robin

I would suggest:

One round, everyone plays everyone in 1 on 1 matches; at the same time. Player with most wins, wins the tournament. If two players are tied then those players play-off -- if multiple players are tied and there is no clear head to head winner - all the players involved (in the tie) will play another round robin.

[SirSebstar]

yuck..
and then what? how does the faceoff look like 1 game? 3 games?
What is player A beat player B, but are both tied. and if player B now beats player A, then they both have beaten eachotheer once, but still player B wins? Won is this better?

[Dukasaur]

The problem I see with having a play off game is this...

Right now we have the normal game deciding the outcome of the tournament when two players are tied. If we have a play off game, does the situation not arise that if the team that lost the normal game wins the play off game, how can I then award them the win as both teams have won one game each. We are back to having a dilemma of one player winning a tournament when he has not bested another player, only equalled him. So do we then go in for a third game which if the original team wins, we are back to having a wins tie but with no overall majority.
Which ever way it is done, someone in the end will have to lose.

Which is why you should just go ahead and do it the way you have been. As Sebstar said yesterday, your tournaments have a certain flavour. They start quickly, they are quite brutal sometimes, and they end quickly. That's your "style" or "flavour" or "schtick" ... call it what you will, but it's the way you do things. You shouldn't water down a distinctive flavour to be more like "everybody else." Look what happened to Coke when they tried to play with the formula to be more like Pepsi!

Definitely don't get wrapped up in debates about "fairness." This isn't chess, this is a game with a large luck component -- your opponent can drop a +3 bonus and get first turn (as happened to me two days ago!) dice and cards can screw you, team-mates you're counting on can suddenly develop R/L problems and miss their turns at critical moments, the list goes on and on. The only way you could make this into a game of pure skill would be to play some catastrophically large number of games so that all random forces would even out.

Just do it YOUR way, not somebody else's.

[koontz1973]

That is it. Debate is over now but it will continue . SirSebstar has had a go at re writing the rule - some may say better, some may not.

But from...

Monday 4th April

3 New Tournaments will be posted

Unification (Part two) Singles.

North & South Doubles.

Hong Kong Phooey Triples.

These will use the rule as stated in previous RR tournaments hosted by me.
I will take on board some of the suggestions like posting a link to this thread and putting a spoiler at the bottom with further explanation.

I believe it is the fairest way and the guys who voted, voted to keep it the same. The guys who have tried to re write it, have not made any progress. The extra game at the end as suggested by Blitz and a couple of others gives another problem so neither solves it or makes it better.

Thanks to everyone who took part in this and I will keep looking in from time to time to see if anyone has made any more suggestions.

[koontz1973]

I would suggest:

One round, everyone plays everyone in 1 on 1 matches; at the same time. Player with most wins, wins the tournament. If two players are tied then those players play-off -- if multiple players are tied and there is no clear head to head winner - all the players involved (in the tie) will play another round robin.

Huge problem with this. You suggest that if 2 players tie then a second game should be played but if more than 2 tie and one has beaten the others in normal play, then he should win outright.