How did people like the format? Any changes to scoring that you would want to see in the future? Here are a few ideas I have for four player FFA tournaments in the future (whether hosted by me or someone else):

1: My pairing method where everybody plays each other exactly once in qualifying requires at least that the number of players is a multiple of 4 and the number of opponents is a multiple of 3. Therefore, possible player numbers would be 4, 16, 28, 40 etc.

I chose 16 for this tournament because that is a number of players I could get relatively quickly while keeping the number of asynch games at a time low (5 games). After Jack of All Trades failed, I am hesitant to have a qualifying round take place over multiple subrounds. Now that our asynch limit has increased, 9 games for 28 players might be possible, but playing nine FFA's at a time could get quite confusing. So I'm not sure if expanding to 28 players would be a good idea or not.

2: I think the fairest tournament formats are ones where the pairing is either random or balanced (I play you a fixed number of times). People that want to play more live-friendly tournaments where you play the players who are online can do so on Law & Chaos.

3: That being said, there are other ways to expand the format. For example, one could have two 16 player qualifying groups for which the top two players from each group make it to the final round. But that could be unfair to the players who get placed in the "stronger" group.

I'm also considering dividing future tournaments into qualifying and candidate groups. As a baseline, I would say that players who scored 7 or more points in the last 4Most Masters would get qualified automatically into the candidate group, while other players would have to qualify through some format to fill out the remaining 16 - x players. And in general, for example, one could have that the top 8 players from a candidate group have the right to take part in the next candidate group, while others have to qualify. But this depends on how many people would want to participate.

4: An alternative format for a final round could be more interesting. Here, the top 5 players qualify, and everyone plays four games, with each game missing one finalist. The top scorer from this round would be the champion, with draw odds defined somehow.

5: I'm happy with the scoring system so far as the players with multiple outright wins (apart from Incarnadine who never finished lower than 2nd) are in the final. It suggests to me that understanding how to win games can make a difference. Some people play to survive, but surviving does not equal winning. Also, nobody survived all five games, which tells me something about the skill level of this tournament.