New Rules for Final ?

Pyrocuror wrote:

100% against that swiss round thing.
I think final is a special spot, and it needs to stay the way it is.
Final represents the 5 best players of this tournament, at this time - even if we can argue about seating luck, or draw, or whatever - they are the players that did their best with all the parameters available at their tables.

They deserve to be in that spot.

They still would be in that spot Pyrocuror... the only change is that for instance for those who share a car with the "real" finalist, they will be playing too...
And of course the "Prize" and ranking will go tothe first Finalists winner, except if there is no winner...

And there won t be Finals lasting more than two hours, because every one will be playing a 3 or 4 rounds tournament...

So more fun to anyone and an incentive for the first table to kill before the second one...

And for acbishop objection, of course we will have to make the first and the second table 5 players' table, as usual in tourneys with these unlucky numbers...

I don't see any advantage of playing the swiss final round, if we want to remove the final round it seems better to just play a 4th normal round and let the highest score after that win.

Oskar wrote:

I don't see any advantage of playing the swiss final round, if we want to remove the final round it seems better to just play a 4th normal round and let the highest score after that win.

My goal never was to remove the Final...

as Pyrocuror said


Final represents the 5 best players of this tournament, at this time - even if we can argue about seating luck, or draw, or whatever - they are the players that did their best with all the parameters available at their tables.

so one of them deserved to win the tournament and no other player

Oskar wrote:

I don't see any advantage of playing the swiss final round, if we want to remove the final round it seems better to just play a 4th normal round and let the highest score after that win.

I think Vlad did mean it this way:

Play a normal tournament with 2 or 3 preliminary rounds.
Then add 1 final round for all players. According to ranking, players get to play 5-player tables: 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 15-20, etc.
Those tables are played according to standard rules. In their respective pod, player can try to improve their ranking by gaining a GW and VPs. Tiebreaker as normal would be TPs.
So pod 3 (players 11-15) can try to rearrange their final ranking (player 15 might get the GW and then be ranked 11th, e.g.)

Tournament win: in case the first table times out with no GW, the next table is elegible to determine the tournament winner if there is a GW, and so on.

Did I get that right, Vlad?

pros:
- every player gets to play the same amount of rounds
- players still have a tiny chance to get the tournament win, even if not in the top 5
- there will (most, most likely) be a "real" winner of the tournament with a GW
- players have more incentives to go for the GW.

cons:
uh, can't see any right now.

Here are additional ideas:
Players might opt not to play the final round. Then the next highest ranked player(s) would then be put before him, so a full 5-player table could be played.
E.g. Player 12 decides not to play a final round. He get's ranked fixed as 16th, player 16 moves into pod 11-15. All other pods are moved downwards one rank. So the next pod would be 17-21, then 22-26, and so on.

Remove the 0.5 VP for remaining alive. That means very defensive play is not rewarded, and high risk moves could be more common to get a GW.

Amenophobis wrote:

Oskar wrote:

I don't see any advantage of playing the swiss final round, if we want to remove the final round it seems better to just play a 4th normal round and let the highest score after that win.

I think Vlad did mean it this way:

Play a normal tournament with 2 or 3 preliminary rounds.
Then add 1 final round for all players. According to ranking, players get to play 5-player tables: 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 15-20, etc.
Those tables are played according to standard rules. In their respective pod, player can try to improve their ranking by gaining a GW and VPs. Tiebreaker as normal would be TPs.
So pod 3 (players 11-15) can try to rearrange their final ranking (player 15 might get the GW and then be ranked 11th, e.g.)

Tournament win: in case the first table times out with no GW, the next table is elegible to determine the tournament winner if there is a GW, and so on.

Did I get that right, Vlad?

Absolutely right Amenophobis... B-)
I was almost getting a nervous breakdown wondering why my proposal wasn't understood and everyone was just talking about adding time...

But it's good to see that there are some people (you, nc-italy and Boris) who can definitely read what I wrote and not interpretating it for something else...