Question about Conquer Cup X

[CivProBlows]

I may be wrong about my analysis, but I am wondering why the setup for the current round (round 7) advancement is the way that it is.

Here are the round details: Round 7 (7 Points per Game): 64 Start, Score Resets, Random Draw, 3 Games, 48 Move On, Games: 8 Players, Standard, Escalating, Classic More

So, there are currently 24 games. If a different person won every single game (which is unlikely), then only half of the players moving on to round 8 would have a win. That means that the other 24 players moving on would be tied with a score of zero. So, the tiebreaker rules kick in, which read:
Ties in Score shall be broken by the following rules, applied in order:
(1) Percentage of wins in the tournament as a whole
(2) The cumulative number of Game rounds required to win the games they have won in the tournament (since the last point reset, or the start of the tournament if no point reset has occurred). Note: winning in less rounds is better.
(3) The order in which the player joined the tournament (first player to join wins)

The second rule seems to not apply, since there was a point reset at the beginning of round 7, so a large number of people moving on to the next round will be based on whoever joined the tournament first. Is that right, or did my math-challenged brain mess something up?

CPB

[NomadPatriot]

The Debacle Continues...

[jfm10]

https://www.conquerclub.com/player.php? ... nt_id=6637 The players are in thier positions and unless the player wins I don't believe they can climb up any higher.Although the score has reset the postioning of players has been set.

[CivProBlows]

https://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?mode=autotournament&tournament_id=6637 The players are in thier positions and unless the player wins I don't believe they can climb up any higher.Although the score has reset the postioning of players has been set.

That is not correct. The position of the players resets when the score resets. For example, I had a score of 3 (three wins in rounds 4-6) at the end of round 6, but I am now behind several players that had a score of 1 or 2 at the end of round 6 (all of which were behind me until we advanced to round 7). How is that possible? It is because my overall record (rounds 1-6) was the same or worse than all those ahead of me now. I am not sure how the position is determined when records are the same, but it seems to be random because there are multiple players with the same record as me that only had a score of 1 or 2 when round 6 ended.

In my understanding, players ranked 1-48 do not automatically advance at the end of round 7. AT LEAST #s 24-48 will have ZERO wins/score of ZERO and be tied with players 48-64 for the remaining spots. This seems like a strange wat to structure the tournament, imo.

[ZaBeast]

Everybody is tied at 0, so the 1st tie-breaker gets into play and players are ranked by overall number of wins throughout the tournament. For players with the same number of wins, the 3rd tie-breakers is applied, and they are sorted by join order. So for that first elimination wave, players ranked 1-24 (>=6/18 wins, and a few 5/18 wins) are assured to make the cut. Not the way I would have structured the tournament, but it gets the job done.

[Symmetry]

What does the X stand for?

[CivProBlows]

What does the X stand for?

Roman numeral 10 (I think).

[CivProBlows]

Everybody is tied at 0, so the 1st tie-breaker gets into play and players are ranked by overall number of wins throughout the tournament. For players with the same number of wins, the 3rd tie-breakers is applied, and they are sorted by join order. So for that first elimination wave, players ranked 1-24 (>=6/18 wins, and a few 5/18 wins) are assured to make the cut. Not the way I would have structured the tournament, but it gets the job done.

Yeah, that is the point where it seems it could be structured better. The third tie-breaker is completely arbitrary, so I don't know why the system would be designed to definitely have that rule kick in. A simple (maybe?) fix would be to change the second tiebreaker rule to not be based on wins since the last reset, but instead look at the wins throughout the entire tournament (which would be consistent with the other two tie-breakers). Having it based on games since the last reset basically nullifies that rule when it is needed most and allows the arbitrary rule 3 to control.