Tiebreaker Criteria??

[leogarto]

Hello, I was playing a 7 Wonders Duel Tournament (The Round • 7 Wonders Duel 10-dayer).

https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=127909

The tournament is divided into 2 Stages:
A Groups Stage (Round Robin) where 2 out of 14 players advance to a Single Elimination Stage

In Group 4:

3 players tied in points for the 2nd position.

Final Standing

Position 1: 13 points and only lost against position 3
Position 2: 12 points, lost against positions 1 and 3
Position 3: 12 points, lost against positions 4 and 5, however, beat positions 1 and 2
Position 4: 12 points. lost against positions 1 and 2 but beat position 3

I would like to know what's is the algorithm/criteria for the tiebreaker.

[iphilfree]

I am quite sure it is luck only...

I have just finished a group stage of Seasons, tied with only one player, I won against this player... and was ranked 2nd!

and have other example for other games with elimination at group stage round with same ratio.

[leogarto]

I hope is not only luck, that would be a downside to the competitive aspect of a tournament. Luck is reasonable when flipping a coin is the 4th or 5th criteria to advance, but using luck as the 2nd criterion discourages me a little bit.
It is "only a game" but "only a game" is a friendly simple match. For me, tournaments bring more (it is like an expansion to a base game) I feel attracted to improving my game, raising ELO even studying the stats and the top player matches.
I REALLY appreciate BGA putting this website together. I understand the challenge has been through and can count on my yearly subscription lifetime ever.
In my humble opinion, the rules should be explicit somewhere on the tournament page, and if luck it is just the 2nd criterion for tiebreaking, adding something like the winning result between the players tying is a fair tiebreaker.

[Crispy23]

I don’t know the answer for sure, but since the three were tied in every sense from what I can tell. I’m guessing it came down to thinking time which I’ve seen used in single elimination.

Here are the time breakdowns for the games between the three of you.
So not sure if thinking time was used or not or if it was just a coincidence that the three of you were ranking on the following head to head thinking times.


Merl
15.05
43.37

Leo
24.58
44.17

Super
21.28
13.33

[StoryTime]

A tiebreaker in Tournament results is always the player with the oldest account. If you signed up in 2020, and another player in 2016, the 2016 player will take the higher result. This is only for ties in Swiss, or Round Robin tables.

[SYushen]

A tiebreaker in Tournament results is always the player with the oldest account. If you signed up in 2020, and another player in 2016, the 2016 player will take the higher result. This is only for ties in Swiss, or Round Robin tables.

https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=217264
The 2nd place's account is the oldest.

[DrRockenheimer]

A tiebreaker in Tournament results is always the player with the oldest account. If you signed up in 2020, and another player in 2016, the 2016 player will take the higher result. This is only for ties in Swiss, or Round Robin tables.

https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=217264
The 2nd place's account is the oldest.

That result appears to be yet another undocumented tie breaker (all of which makes no sense in round robin, where head-to-head results should be the initial tie breaker, resolving most ties). I believe it is because there was a player who is marked as withdrawn from the tournament, and their unfinished games were abandoned. Among the three players tied for first place, only one of them beat the withdrawn player in a completed game. That player was awarded first place in the tournament, so the complete game win appears to be valued higher than the abandoned game wins for the other two tied players, who were placed second and third according to age of account. (This is consistent with some other placement oddities I have seen involving Swiss system pairings and abandoned games.)

And this especially bugs me because I have played in this series of round robin tournaments against many of these talented players. The results of a round robin tournament should make sense, and be documented as part of the stated result.

[Mathew5000]

A tiebreaker in Tournament results is always the player with the oldest account. If you signed up in 2020, and another player in 2016, the 2016 player will take the higher result. This is only for ties in Swiss, or Round Robin tables.

https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=217264
The 2nd place's account is the oldest.

That result appears to be yet another undocumented tie breaker (all of which makes no sense in round robin, where head-to-head results should be the initial tie breaker, resolving most ties).

I'm bumping this thread 1½ years later because I referred to it in this thread, which mostly discusses the multiplayer-elimination format but the topic veers to ties in round-robin standings on pages 3 and 4.

SYushen links to https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=217264 suggesting it is a counterexample to the rule stated by StoryTime. But when I look at that tournament, it does follow the rule, that after win-loss-draw record and score difference, further ties are resolved by player id number, with the least player id number given the best rank. Looking at the top 3 players in the rankings, who all have a win-loss record of 11-3, the standings show:

#1 id 89,492,283 Scarlet 93
#2 id 90,140,915 Chrisss12
#3 id 91,454,158 SYushen

If you don't like this algorithm, of breaking ties in round-robin standings by player id number (a proxy for age of account), you may wish to upvote https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=31816