Outwitters WORLD CUP Winner - Alvendor (SWEDEN)

[Thrutchy]

(10-15-2012 05:53 PM)awpertunity Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 02:49 AM)Thrutchy Wrote:  Here are the reason I like the Swiss format:
* gives a reasonable ranking for all players involved rather than just one winner that single elimination gives

Yes, everybody would get a "rank" in the tournament in the end, but I'm pretty sure the ones near the middle aren't very accurate of where they actually stand skill-wise.

Correct. The closer a rank is to the highest or lowest, the more accurate. But, each additional round should improve the accuracy of all ranks.

(10-15-2012 05:53 PM)awpertunity Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 02:49 AM)Thrutchy Wrote:  * similarly skilled players play each other in each round. Using ranking/points/wins from leagues can be used for initial ordering. Compare this with single elimination where the seeded best plays the seeded worst in the first round.
* about the same number of rounds as single elimination (but a lot more overall games)

The problem with this is that the tournament will take significantly longer to finish. And the fact that there is no climactic game makes it feel more like a league rather than a tournament. For example it is very possible for the winner of the "tournament" to be decided before all rounds have even been played.

It will take a lot longer because in each round, we must wait for all other matches to be finished before pairings for the next round can be announced.

I think the Group Play we did here was a nice balance, it guaranteed everyone a least 6 games, all in one "round" since all 6 games were played simultaneously.

I like the fact that in group play, all players stayed in for at least 6 games (3 matches). But, this is also equivalent to the amount of games for 3 rounds in a Swiss tournament (but, they'd be serialized). For 32 players, you only need 5 rounds. It probably would be longer overall since you have to wait on all players in each round, but probably not that much longer.

I think a Swiss tournament also offers the possibility of not making each matchup be composed of 2 games, which would cut down the time needed per round. One possibility might be the currently lower ranked player in each matchup gets P1. Or have each player alternate from round to round as it is done is chess tournaments (also Swiss).

(10-15-2012 05:53 PM)awpertunity Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 02:49 AM)Thrutchy Wrote:  * tie breakers (which affects game-play) can be avoided

How's that?

You clearly don't need any for the initial rounds (which I think is more problematic). If the top players don't have a point differential, then you'd just have them play more games - either full rounds or just between top players.

The tournament you chose was round-robin with groups of 4 (keeping 1st and 2nd for each group) followed by single elimination. Here might be other interesting hybrids:
* round-robin -> like-rank round-robin -> ...
* swiss -> single elimination (top 4)
* swiss -> round-robin (top 4)
* swiss -> more swiss rounds

This stuff is reminding me of sort networks.