[Discussion] Top 16's vs. Top 8's at Major Tournaments

[Evenpence]

It seems we only have a few Top 16's for major tournaments.

This is particularly discouraging, as some of our events reach upwards of 200 people.

Why do many tournaments which gather 150+ people (such as SCG events) only allow for a top8?

If I paid 1,000 dollars to assemble my T1 deck, and 30 dollars for an entrance fee, and I get anywhere from #9-#16, I'm not happy that I get a smaller prize, I'm quite angry that I didn't make the cut, except on a few tiebreakers.

In a tournament of 200 people, where I make #12, shouldn't I have a chance for the Lotus?

Waterbury proved that top 16 matches are great.  Not only did we have a more diverse smattering of builds (although drains dominated), the #16 player, Josh, who squeaked in, won it all.

It's understandable that it's an extra round to get knocked out if you're seeded #1, and it takes a full hour more of playing time, but isn't it worth it?

Are you all satisified with a top8 in major tournaments, or are you wanting more top16 single elimination tournaments?

[SonataOfTheCathedral]

Oh I cannot agree more. Tiebreakers have screwed over so many players constantly. On the PTQ scene I am dubbed as the infamous 9th place guy, I have taken ninth or tenth and got my crappy boosters in huge tournaments at least 6 or 7 times. Thats the best part about Waterbury, if you hit the X-2 bracket you still should have a brink of hope in mind and not mope around after falling x-2 in round 7 or something.

So, yes more cuts to top 16.

[Komatteru]

Personally, I don't like to be there all night.  Cut to T16 means one more round.  Tournaments already begin at like 9-10 am and already go to 11-12 PM.  I don't want to get out the event at 1-2 AM.

[Moxlotus]

No matter what the cut is there will always be people that lose out on tiebreakers.  However, it is hard to miss out on X-1-1 tiebreakers unless the tournament is only a few people short on going to another round.

[Vegeta2711]

It seems we only have a few Top 16's for major tournaments.

This is particularly discouraging, as some of our events reach upwards of 200 people.

Why do many tournaments which gather 150+ people (such as SCG events) only allow for a top8?

If I paid 1,000 dollars to assemble my T1 deck, and 30 dollars for an entrance fee, and I get anywhere from #9-#16, I'm not happy that I get a smaller prize, I'm quite angry that I didn't make the cut, except on a few tiebreakers.

In a tournament of 200 people, where I make #12, shouldn't I have a chance for the Lotus?

Waterbury proved that top 16 matches are great.  Not only did we have a more diverse smattering of builds (although drains dominated), the #16 player, Josh, who squeaked in, won it all.

It's understandable that it's an extra round to get knocked out if you're seeded #1, and it takes a full hour more of playing time, but isn't it worth it?

Are you all satisified with a top8 in major tournaments, or are you wanting more top16 single elimination tournaments?

If 1000+ player GP's are played with T8, remind me why your 'angry' about missing out on tie-breakers. My suggestion? Don't lose. Then you won't be put in that situation.

People will ALWAYS miss out on tie-breakers. In fact if you look at the T16 of waterbury, eight people missed out on tiebreakers  (Going off Kowal's report where he was reportedly the last place 6-2 and came in 24th), which is signficant.

In addition as JD said, extra rounds = even later getting the fuck out. This also means you add another single-elim round, making the T16 even more of a crap-shoot than a T8.

[Evenpence]

I understand that people will always lose out on tiebreakers.  That's a given.

However, less people will.

It's worth it to see someone #9-16 winning it all.  They sure wouldn't trade it for 'getting out earlier'.

[UR]

No. Just as many people will miss out on tiebreakers. That is what they have been trying to point out to you. Just as many people will miss out on T16 or T24 or whatever. You are only moving the line about...

[Nazdakka]

I understand that people will always lose out on tiebreakers.  That's a given.

However, less people will.

It's worth it to see someone #9-16 winning it all.  They sure wouldn't trade it for 'getting out earlier'.

But that just makes consistant performance in the Swiss less relavent in favour of random single elimination, which hurts the more consistant players and makes it less likely that the best people will win. Shouldn't doing well in the Swiss be worth something, too? If someone who finished 16th in the Swiss wins the tournament, then how about the guy who came first in the Swiss? How will that person feel about having put up a comprable record over the course of the tournament to the eventual winner, but not finishing first because their wins came at a time when they mattered less? Even with a top 8 it's possible to drop only one round all day and still get nowhere near the final because of the cut to single-elim, and playing out a top 16 makes that far worse. Your thinking is flawed in a similar way to people who tell WoTC to stop printing awful rares and make every one a tournament staple. Certainly opening a power rare/making top X every time would be nice, but it's a bad idea if you think through the consequences.

[TheBrassMan]

Unless these tournaments are being run with an extra round, like JD commented, (and they're not, at least in the case of Waterbury, correct me if I'm wrong), it's much MORE likely for people to miss out on tiebreakers in a top 16 event.  If you've been playing events long enough to know how swiss math works, and you've stared at the round 7 standings at Waterbury, you know exactly what I'm talking about.  In a normal event, the cutoff is X-1-1, if your tiebreaks are terrible, or if an abnormal number of draws/drops happen in the swiss, you might not make it, but you can usually tell where you stand.  At Waterbury, cutoff is X-1.5, and it's basically impossible to know where you stand before the last round.

[Komatteru]

I was actually referring to the extra round in the elimination part.  The fact is, an extra elimination round can add 2-3 hours more, since the matches are untimed, and it takes twice as long to check 16 decks instead of 8.  And we already know how long it usually takes for the T8 to get started once the swiss has finished.  Double that.  Man, it would be forever.  Then you get people who play waaaayyy too slow in the elimination rounds, or games that are super intense and take forever, like Mark Biller and Kevin Cron's shootout in round 1 of T8 at Gencon 2004.  I think game 2, which was one of the best games of Vintage ever, took about an hour to play.

[Jacob Orlove]

With a cut to top 16, X-1-1 is guaranteed to make it in, and some of the X-2s will make it. This shouldn't be confusing.

To solve some of the time issues for the T16, at waterbury we just had people start playing as soon as they had the right opponent. That did mean that at one point we had a T16 match and a T4 match going at the same time, but it sped things up a lot.

[forests failed you]

I don't like the idea of playing for top 16.  While it does kind of bite for people who go X-1-1 with bad tie breakers and miss out, it is also unfair for the players who have a really great day and go x-0-2 to have to play another round in order to secure a Power 9 prize.  If one goes X-1-1 through the loser bracket and is unlucky enough to miss, it sucks for that person, however he undoubtably (or at leaast) presumably had a much easier day (based on the qualitiy of his or her opponents) than the people who made it in with equal points. 

Me, not in favor of Top 16s.