Shared victories in tournaments.

I don't know whether this topic has already been debated. In mounthly tournaments (and championships I am not sure), when the first place is shared by some players, they all qualify for the next round. I feel that this is unfair, since in that round they will meet "true winners" who succeded to eliminate all their opponents. Furthermore, as a consequence of this policy the number of enemies that the the "true winners" must defeat is incrased. Isn't there a more fair mechanism to deal with these situations? I know it is not perfect as well, but I'd rather eliminate all non-"true winners".

I think the method used is best. At least in preliminary rounds. If you should have knock out matches after a tie the tournaments would drag on forever.

If you share first place you should look at it as if noone kicked them out of the tournament.

In final round I would welcome a playoff if two or more end at the same score.

I am not very convinced. It can happen easily then, than a player must face other 6 enemies, instead of two, because none of them was able to eliminate the others. It does not sound fair to me. I feel that eliminating the players in shared victory would encourage them to try to fight for victory harder, like the 3points per victory and 1per draw in football.

Shared victories happen in games where no draw is possible too, like in Hex. I very much appreciate the current system. In my view, a victory is a victory, wether it is shared or not...

Marius

Ok:-) I thought that maybe most players would agree with me, but I see it is not that way, so I don't see the point of pushing the discussion further. But I can't help feeling that, if you have a group of say 4 players, and 3 of them share the victory, none of them deserves to qualify together with players that won all their games.

Interesting idea (new ideas are always welkcome to discuss!:), but I like it the way it is.

Imagen two groups: Group 1 consists of 1 top player and 3 weaker players, Group 2 consists of 2 top players and 2 weaker. With your new idea, a draw of the top players in group 2 would make the top player in group 1 the winner of the cup/tournament! The top player of group 1 hasn't even faced a top player and wins the cup! This scenario doesn't appeal me at all!

In StreetSoccer the scored goals minus the the goals of your opponents should determine the winner in case of equal points. But that would be extra work for Richard to program the StreetSoccer-site different to the other sites. I already fear resulting bugs of such a change. :-)

In StreetSoccer the scored goals minus the the goals of your opponents should determine the winner in case of equal points.

That would mean that someone might get punished because his opponent resigned before the end of the match, not allowing the winner to score an extra goal or two.

It would and would not work under current rules. In my opininion there should be no resign button in Soccer. I never saw a team leaving the field before the whistle goes even if they where 6 goals under

Moreover it could be that some player trailing a point at minute 40 (let's say 2-1 behind) decide to go full for the equalizer and then a number of high rolls of the opponent could make it a 5-1, while a better player only wins 3-1.

I also think the current system is way better then any tie-breaker, because good meant rules often lead to abuse as well.

In my opininion there should be no resign button in Soccer. I never saw a team leaving the field before the whistle goes even if they where 6 goals under

Yes, and? I never saw a soccer match where only one man on the field moves at the same time, the goal-keeper kicks off after a goal, where players start play on the half of their opponent, or where movement is determined by a die roll.

Actually there was a game in a world championship I think 94 or 90 where a national team (Of Saoudi Arabia, I think to remember) actually left the field after a whistle of a important guy in the grandstand...

bump