Tournament Finals Structure Promotes Stalling

My concern is more how play to win interacts with an environment where there is no maximizing vp, only table win influenced by tie breaker. It forces bad play and turns good play into bad play.

Remove tiebreaker. Allow finals to end without winner. Have 2nd to 5th place.

You know, just like the every other game.

Mewcat wrote:

Have 2nd to 5th place.

Could you explain how you would address the issues that this created, and that the current rules are intended to prevent?

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Mewcat wrote:

Have 2nd to 5th place.

Could you explain how you would address the issues that this created, and that the current rules are intended to prevent?

I assume you mean deal making of some sort? Please explain the issue that the current rules are intended to prevent.

Snodig wrote:

Isn’t it natural to assume that the player with the best skill/deck is both top seed and the winner?
The statistic isn’t very useful on its own.
What would be of interest is whether that player won in a tie-breaker or by VP.

I don't think it's out of the question to assume the top seed may be the best positioned player at the tournament, either through skill or deck selection. Due to the nature of the Jyhad, it's really hard to say those things lead to consistent tournament wins though.

We would need to see a whole host of data to get a real picture, honestly. I think the VP breakdown and the seed of the winner of each tourney will start to tell a story we can dig deeper into.

Mewcat wrote:

Please explain the issue that the current rules are intended to prevent.

I've already done so, including in this very thread.

I will look for it when I have time