Originally Posted by Skipeo
my point is that the double system you are talking about rewards slower players,if your fast and win fast you are going to play more matches..thus you have more of a chance to lose two matches faster then i guy going slow and stalling...i gt that you don't get you prize if you leave early but what prize would you have gotten if your in the bottom of a tourney?one pack maybe??its your choice if you want to leave early or not or you can just play the other games to play test more against other decks...swiss does suck because people throw away games for their team or whatever..so 2 elimination would prevent that,but i think it would work of it is set rounds and not you win fast you go right to play another game...so lets say you have two rounds everyone must play then people that are eliminated are cashed out and get the prize and are free to do whatever...
you have to keep time limits and have to keep rounds there is no benefit for going faster just to lose faster...and it might get sticky sometimes too as things might end up going wrong..like multiple people get eliminated at sometime so who goes to the top when 3 guys get eliminated at same time and their is one open spot left top???also it might take longer then 6 rounds to make a top cut...there is tons of problems that can happen with double elimination..you really need to sit down and think of all possibilities and makes rules..and thus swiss is more simple and easier to manage i think
if you noticed i suggested to have the same time limit for each round and have the pairings be random. Its essentially what we have now but two loses and your out. Scaling amount of loses allowed based on attendance would probably be best (same way as they scale to top 16 instead of top 8), and a "top cut" to single elim would probably be needed once a certain amount of players are left. Only reason why I am even suggesting this over swiss is that its incredibly annoying to have to hope that the people you play early on don't drop out and mess up your tie-breakers. At least this way, when you get knocked out of the top, its because you lost, not because the people you played against decided they didn't want to pay to stay there overnight. Also, having the side events go on at the same time could potentially increase turnout, since people know that even if they don't do well at the scj they still will probably be leaving with something that makes the trip worth while.
As far as no one caring for side events, its actually a pretty common practice in tcg's. Ex: have chuunin's running every time you get up to x amt of people (say, 24). Or win a box draft events.
Originally Posted by Genre
There were at least 2 X-2's that topped Gencon 2011 (with 200+ players at it btw)...
You're allowed to lose twice; depending on who you lose to.
Yes, but at that point your crossing your fingers, and as anyone who constantly bubbles can tells you, it sucks. As I said above, with double elimination at least your out b/c you lost. The amount of loses can also scale based on attendance. Ex: <32: two losses. 32-64: 3 losses. 64-96: 4 losses. These numbers probably aren't ideal and someone would have to sit down and really start thinking about at what point the top tables get stale (aka, people have basically played each other) as well as collusion at top tables. Its also why a top cut to make it single elim once x amount of people are left is probably needed. But it should be possible to think of a system that makes sense and doesn't encourage collusion. (Simulation model would probably be ideal to figure this all out, not too complicated to build either...)
To recap, two main positives of this system are
1. No missing top cut due to bad tie breakers.
2. Side events to increase general attendance.
Sorry if this was entirely redundant, felt like I wanted to respond to both.
After actually doing some of the numbers, its pretty apparent that my idea won't work and i'm not for double elimination either, though it does have the nice benefit of multiple events...With that said, bandai definitely needs to do something. Someone should not be able to go 6-2-0, have played 3 people in the top 16, and not top. Putting some value on dropped players for the rounds they aren't there would be a nice start.