Big fan of the progressive strikes over regular KO. As mentioned earlier in the thread, there can be an issue if if you get down to 2 players with very few strikes at the end. It could end up being a long battle back and forth since they’re only getting one strike at a time.
Has anyone artificially “fast forwarded” this portion? Say you have two players left in a 10 strike and they each only have 5. Maybe bump them both up to 7 or 8 so you’re not looking at a potential 9 game showdown since that’s probably not practical for a variety of reasons.
We’ve talked about it to be prepared should we run into this situation. I think it needs to be clear to the ifpa though just in case that changes the calculation of points. Not sure if it does or not.
Right I guess I’m confused on how TGP for strikes events are calculated so I always overcommicate on how we did ours. For example, for a standard 3 strikes, why is it 96% TGP for 24 players all the way up until 64?
I also use TGP slave and it doesn’t have peramiters for progressive strikes yet I don’t think.
Could the rules of the tournament be that the progressive strikes are used until only 2 players remain at which time the two play a finals/championship game for the win? How many rounds is it taking to get to that point? We often have 1-2 people with no strikes when it gets down to the final few in a 3-strikes knockout so I could see that being an interesting challenge if we get to final 2 and they each only have 3 or 4 on their way to 10.
Say it gets down to 2 players and one of them has 9 strikes and the other has 0. The player with 0 has earned the right to have the heavy advantage to win the tournament. I think if it broke into some kind of “other” style finals match it would have to preserve the competitive advantage earned to that point. Unfortunately I don’t know a way to do that without requiring the 9 strike player to win 10 games in a row.
They have earned a higher seed for the finals portion of the tournament. The specific advantage offered should be spelled out in the tournament rules published prior to the event. Since the qualifying portion of the event is already direct play you are not required to have a finals portion.
If I were running a progressive strikes event I would say after (specific time period) or (specific number of rounds) the top X players have a three game match. Top seed chooses game or position…
As the TD, it’s part of my job to ensure the event doesn’t drag on for hours past the expected finish time. That means using a format that has a means of handling a 9-0 strikes situation and still finish in my allotted time. You communicate that to all participants before the tournament and let them decide if they want to play under those conditions or not.
If we get down to 4 players or less, and everyone has the same number of strikes . . . it’s the “last game”.
I’ll then just report the actual number of rounds played for TGP purposes, so we do sacrifice the 3-4 extra rounds that would probably be played, but I get home 90 minutes earlier
I’d be okay with a general rule where the last two players are manually given an equal number of strikes such that it puts the greater strike player in a must-win situation.
Example - 10 strike progressive event. Last two players have 4 and 7, respectively. Manually give them 2 each so they now have 6 and 9. It maintains the competitive advantage earned, but makes it much less likely to drag on.
Or perhaps have all 1v1 matchups in progressive strike tourney give 2 strikes to the loser? Maybe not for the 5-players-remaining scenario (3-player and 2-player group)… but at least once you get down to last two standing.
Or… when down to final 2 matchup: game 1 gives 1 strike. Game 2 (if needed) gives 2 strikes. Game 3 gives 3 strikes, etc.
Just brainstorming.
Has anyone created an online calculator – or spreadsheet that they can share – that calculates expected # of rounds given X players and Y strikes for elimination in the Progressive Strikes format?
Swiss definitely seems like the way to go for progressive. Seems like random or balanced would increase the likelihood of multiple low strike players at the end.
As a way to shorten potentially lengthy head to head finals, I did once implement a “2 up” rule (me and another player were at least 7 rounds a piece away from being eliminated) and it worked great. Got out of there in 5 rounds and it was exciting to watch the lead go back and forth similar to an scs match.
I just did a test tournament with progressive strikes and noticed it drops people who go out with 11 strikes lower than people who go out in the same round with 10 strikes. For those running this format, are you adjusting strikes down to 10 so that everyone who goes out in a particular round is tied (like they would be in a normal knockout) or if they get more than 10 are you keeping them lower in the standings for having more strikes? I was assuming I’d adjust the strikes but curious how others handle that.
What tiebreakers were you using? Automatic tiebreakers should place the greater number of strikes lower in the standings. If using no tiebreakers they should remain tied.
@gorgarsupperlip hit hits the nail on the head. When two players are eliminated in the same round, the player with the most strikes are placed below other players eliminated that round.
I personally feel quite strongly that this is the right way to determine final placement in this kind of tournament. If a player is eliminated with 9 strikes they played better than a player eliminated with 10 strikes in the same round and the final standings should reflect that.
I’ll take the version that finishes the fastest, which I agree would be the Swiss method to increase the likely spread of strikes across the player distribution.
