TIE Breaker for finals

Okay, this is my attempt to get the emotions out of this discussion. Feel free to correct me if I do re-phrase something wrong.

We have a proposal: »Please, change the winning conditions in a final when there is a 2–2–1 table split.«

This is based on personal perception of some players that the actual »The top seed player wins« condition is suboptimal in comparison with a suggested »The last player standing wins« condition.

We have some other players who disagree with this suggestion for various reasons.

Without any valid data or playtesting, this discussion has much in common with e.g. the »Let’s change the text of a specific card« discussion or the »I want to have a new card that does X« discussion or the »I want to have card X banned« discussion.

I don’t know what would be the best way to go on now.
What I can imagine personally:
1) The »official way«: Ask the Inner Circle to collect information from the National Coordinators, if the case is considered »a problem« or at least »worthy to discuss«.
2) The »French way«: Invest a year (or more) of (unsanctioned) tournaments (e.g. in Sweden) with the rules changed according to the suggested »The last man standing wins in case of a 2–2–1 table split«, and report the results.
3) Create a new tournament format (e.g. for side events at the EC or Grand-Prixs) »The Last Man Standing«: In every round at every table, you get a VP for ousting your prey (maybe you still get 0.5 VP if there is a time-out and you are still alive) up to a maximum of 4 (!), and there is only one (!) way to get a Game-Win, and that is to be the last man standing. [And the final table should be played with 2.5 hours time-limit or without any time-limit at all.]

Hakuron wrote:

We have a proposal: »Please, change the winning conditions in a final when there is a 2–2–1 table split.«

But why only in that situation? And what is it that is objectionable? Unless anyone can actually explain why this is a problem, it's very difficult to evaluate whether any change is actually an improvement. If we use option 2, we can see that in 25 tournaments without this change, the following things happened, and that in 25 tournaments with this change, the following things happened - but with no actual agreement on what is actually problematic. If we see fewer ties, is that the right outcome? If we see more ties but with the lower seed player winning, is that the right outcome? If we see more ties, but with the top seeded player playing for last man standing rather than miscalculating a lunge/sweep, is that the right outcome? If we see a distinct change in the overall makeup of decks in a tournament (e.g. more walls, more !Malk back-ousters), but no significant change in the ties/tie-break scenario, is that the right outcome?

What about the current situation is problematic, and why? Is the alternative better, or just arbitrarily different?

So far, it appears to be just "But we could change this because I think it's weird." And we could change literally any V:TES rule based on that.

From what I understood the issue is Player A being ousted with 2 VPs and player B being last standing also with 2 VPs, while A wins because he is higher seed than B.
Specially if player A did it purposefully to die in a way he would win, OR someone else played in a way for that to happen.
Player A wins while being ousted and out of the game with the same points as a player that endured.

I have no problem with this.
None what so over.
VtES is (still) a game of human machinations and plotting, besides having a deterministic math element with the card text (and THAT is also questionable sometimes).
This is part of that human part that makes the game great, imho.

The problem is not whether B deserves to win or not, it is that B enters the duel with no goal, so he can only decide how to play based on out-of-game considerations. The Swede's proposal is to give B a goal, then play the duel. Another solution would be to decide the winner somehow without playing the duel.

Non-existant user wrote:

The problem is not whether B deserves to win or not, it is that B enters the duel with no goal, so he can only decide how to play based on out-of-game considerations. The Swede's proposal is to give B a goal, then play the duel. Another solution would be to decide the winner somehow without playing the duel.

I dont understand the problem. If the top seated player has 2 VP, and no other player can gain 2,5 VP or more the game is over. All players have an already determined finishing spot, e.g. Top Seat wins, all other non-winning finalists tie for second place. Stop the game and drink beer.

I do agree that promoting slow endgame wall deck is very bad.
Its just that losspositions are so wierd...

The goal of my original post was to hear some arguments.