I am sure that this has been discussed before:
In a seven round Swiss Carcassonne-tournament (https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=43043) I had a bye (free win) in the first round (bc. of an odd number of participants) then I played against six very strong opponents in the preceding rounds.
The first tiebreaker (points of opponents) is heavily punished. My first "opponent" is calculated to have won -6 games out of 6 games (not 0 out of 6, as I did expect). This will increase to -7 wins after the last round is over.
The second tiebreaker (ELO of opponents) is heavily punished too. My first "opponent" is calculated to have an ELO of -1000 (not 0, as I had expected).
Please note, that there can never exist a fair ruling if any byes occur in a tournament. Why should I have an advantage because I got a free win? But on the other hand, why should I have such a heavy disadvantage if I get a bye? I never had the chance to play the first round and thus win the tournament (which I probably would have, even if my first round player were a novice with 0 Elo points and made 0 wins in the whole tournament). Now I can take at best something like the 5th to 7th place in the tournament (which is still in progress - and I am happy with this result too
.
Has this topic been discussed before? Is there a broad agreement that a player with a bye should have as little as possible chance to win a tournament?
Please note that I am fine with any rules. In all my previous tournaments that I played online or offline (chess,...) the tiebreaker penalty for getting a bye was less severe. Thus I am eager to learn if there is a broad consensus on the BGA rules presented above.
Have fun, euklid
In a seven round Swiss Carcassonne-tournament (https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=43043) I had a bye (free win) in the first round (bc. of an odd number of participants) then I played against six very strong opponents in the preceding rounds.
The first tiebreaker (points of opponents) is heavily punished. My first "opponent" is calculated to have won -6 games out of 6 games (not 0 out of 6, as I did expect). This will increase to -7 wins after the last round is over.
The second tiebreaker (ELO of opponents) is heavily punished too. My first "opponent" is calculated to have an ELO of -1000 (not 0, as I had expected).
Please note, that there can never exist a fair ruling if any byes occur in a tournament. Why should I have an advantage because I got a free win? But on the other hand, why should I have such a heavy disadvantage if I get a bye? I never had the chance to play the first round and thus win the tournament (which I probably would have, even if my first round player were a novice with 0 Elo points and made 0 wins in the whole tournament). Now I can take at best something like the 5th to 7th place in the tournament (which is still in progress - and I am happy with this result too
.Has this topic been discussed before? Is there a broad agreement that a player with a bye should have as little as possible chance to win a tournament?
Please note that I am fine with any rules. In all my previous tournaments that I played online or offline (chess,...) the tiebreaker penalty for getting a bye was less severe. Thus I am eager to learn if there is a broad consensus on the BGA rules presented above.
Have fun, euklid
