Thoughts on VPs as Tie-Breakers?

[NoWorries]

To be clear, I'm not trying to critique the tie-breakers used in any current or past tournaments. Just trying to talk a bit more abstractly about the pros and cons and how's of using VPs as tie-breakers in tourneys. At the end of the day, we need tie-breakers, and VPs are a less arbitrary metric than some. That said, here is a concrete brainstorm:

Imagine a tourney like the current STS Worlds Cup but with the group stage provide for two 1v1 matches involving each player? Thus, everyone gets a Player 1 and a Player 2 start against everyone else in their group. For tie-breaker, whoever has the fewest VPs in getting their wins advances to elimination. For the elimination rounds, do a series of 2-6 1v1 matches per set of players where they get equal Player 1 and Player 2 starts, and again track VPs. In the event of a series tie, the player with the fewest VPs in getting their wins advances to the next elimination series of matches. Emphasizing fewer VPs as the tie-breaker would incentivize quicker play, and the new 101 match async match quota provides more than sufficient allowance to permit as many simultaneous async matches as are needed to advance the tourney. What say peeps?

[SpiteAndMalice]

I think you could possibly play a 'score as few VPs as possible' game as a special game mode. But playing a match where you're actively trying to avoid gaining VPs would skew natural game play more so than playing a match where you're trying to gain VPs. VPs are gained from making kills, which is the player's natural inclination within a match. Imagine a game where your opponent plays Magic Wood when you're trying to not score VPs.

[NoWorries]

Good points, Spite. Probably the better approach than fewest VPs might be lowest total turn taken. For example, rewarding someone in a tournament context for winning a match in 2 turns as opposed to someone who wins on turn 20. At worst, this encourages more risky and aggressive gameplay. Also, for tie-breaker purposes, it penalizes people who tied their games more than people who won them outright.

[SpiteAndMalice]

Good points, Spite. Probably the better approach than fewest VPs might be lowest total turn taken. For example, rewarding someone in a tournament context for winning a match in 2 turns as opposed to someone who wins on turn 20. At worst, this encourages more risky and aggressive gameplay. Also, for tie-breaker purposes, it penalizes people who tied their games more than people who won them outright.

Yeah you could potentially do that, though it presupposes that offensive game-play is more desirable than defensive. I think in a system like that I'd personally like to see a way where a player who is defeated on turn 19 is also somehow rewarded over a player who is defeated on turn 2. That way you'd keep a balance between styles of game-play.

[NoWorries]

Hmm. How about the NoWorries Spiteful and Malicious tie-breaker formula which considers as beneficial the lowest turn in a win and the highest turn in a loss. We'd have to play around with the formula to make it fair, but in concept seems to encourage simultaneously aggressive offensive and effective defense.

[anjovi]

What if Vp's were lost every turn?

Might stop players who got in the lead point wise from hit and running. Perhaps Vps could also be distributed for stuff like:
+ points for Launching attacks on enemy wizard (amount of points based on the % of the hit chance)
- points for going a round without casting a spell.

Might not be best examples, though elements like this working in a dwindling point system might balance things out.

[SpiteAndMalice]

It 'might' but then it 'might' also encourage players to do something else which is artificial such as soaking up pressure early on, and then casting heavy later in the match, saving a dragon til the last turn, or sitting in a corner doing nothing at the end of the match for fear that any action will cost them VPs.

The more we try to solve VPs the more I just think it's not a good way too resolve a game. We've got win/draw/loss options. You can set infinite turns if people want to avoid a draw, and you've got a timebank.

I don't think VPs do anything for the game as a way of deciding matches. As a tie breaker in leagues/cups, the only reason to use them is the absence of other deciding factors.

[SpiteAndMalice]

What if Vp's were lost every turn?

This penalises players who play offensive at the start of a game.

+ points for Launching attacks on enemy wizard (amount of points based on the % of the hit chance)

This penalises players who play as battle mages and want to take the risk of soaking up some hits.

- points for going a round without casting a spell.

This penalises players who like to burn and/or don't have useful spells to cast.

(and you could still cast and dispel).

Maybe a better fix on that note, would be to charge players VPs if they do dispel something.