Has there been any thought to changing the way a winner in knockout is determined when two players tie? Having the winner just be the person who was on the top half of the bracket is completely random. And it annoying when it happens, especially when this happens in the final round.

May I suggest changing this so the maybe if two people tie, the winner is determined by whoever had a higher score the previous round? Or which ever player has a higher score in mixed game. Something random, but any method of determining a winner would be better than the current system in my opinion. It's just luck who advances and who doesn't. Knockout ties aren't very common, but losing a round due to chance, even though you tied, is kinda stinks.

I respectfully disagree with the idea that it needs changing, Coach. This is a way to essentially randomize who wins in a tie which is really the fairest way to go about it. Each of us will be the first player approximately 50% of the time.

Going by the previous round isn't any fairer since one person may have had an easier question set. Also, how do you handle Tuesday ties, especially if one player hasn't played in awhile.

I also don't like the idea of making it based on another game such as the Mixed Game. Right now, I'm chasing upgrades on the Hourly Player badge. That means I'm playing the Mixed Game upwards of 16 times a day. If my highest score is taken, I would have a decided advantage over others. If instead, my first score is taken, I would be at a disadvantage since I'm frequently rushing to get it and Who's the Expert done before the hour expires just after I wake up.

Finally, you didn't suggest it, but another idea I wouldn't like would be the player who played first wins. The problem with this is that it favors people based on where they live. People who are awake when the FT day flips over could play right away whereas those of us who are normally asleep then would now lose any ties to those people rather than basing it randomly like happens now.

My question would be how often does a draw take place in KO over the twenty questions.

I doubt not enough to require a change of the rules.

So you want to change a method that is "completely random" to "something random"? Hmm...

A better idea than "something random" is to expand the precision of KO results. I'm sure they have or can get data that shows who was faster to the hundredth of a second, and use that as a tiebreaker.

Just because a draw does not happen a lot, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

Adding hundredth's or even tenth's of seconds I think would be good for knockout, that would do away with probably almost any tie. I think a lot of the games on the site should use tenth's of seconds to make everything a little more accurate.

Using the timing down a few more places makes way more sense than anything else.

The Mixed game, really?

I just said mixed game as a random suggestion that would be used instead of the current format. Wasn’t really meant to be taken seriously

I'm assuming the Mixed Game was chosen as the example because it is most similar to the questions in the knock out.

I know, but it's completely unrelated to the Knockout game.

It's like saying let's decide Duel ties with tiddlywinks.

I think going to hundredths sounds like a great idea. Terry? When’s it happening? :-)

I’d like to see that on a game like who’s the expert too.

What does the Easy Game go down to?

Tenths or hundredths.

I play too fast to pay attention to such things. No time to rest, must play the GC, Duels and other team games.

Hmm I'm about to add tier upgrades for Knockout ties. If we change to more granular time you wont be getting many of those upgrades!

I'm not sure which people here enjoy more, the upgrades or complaining about ties.

Pick your poison.


Knockout ties Terry or for the Duels?

Terry, I don't know of any awards for knockout ties. Perhaps you are thinking about Duel ties, which are a common complaint? (I'd personally love to see greater precision for KO, Mixed, Expert, and GC.)

I would too if it's possible.

Seems like were trying to take the FUN out FUNTRIVIA and get to serious about it all Oh well then how about upgrades in the Obscurity and Gold Madness games?

Obscurity has three upgrades available. Gold Madness also has three upgrades available.

Somebody is having a lot of fun around here....look at this mess.

Looks like a herd of buffalo came through here...smells like it too.

I got a tied score in the final and lost because I was in the bottom half. The following week a team mate got a tie in the final, but he won.

I would suggest that the finalist that played first should be the winner, as in many other games.

Replacing the "listed first" with "played first" would be rather unbalanced and change a random advantage to a systematic one due to time zones. Europeans can usually play earlier than Americans for example.

The tie-break in favor of the earlier play makes sense in a game where you know what score you have to beat (such as most hourlies and dailies) - the second player has an inherent advantage here (they know what time they need to shoot for), so giving ties to the first to play reduces that advantage. Knockout does not give any strategic advantage to the second to play, so a "first to play wins" would just favor certain geographic areas.

I agree with the first part of this but not with part of the second. In the hourly games you see the scores before yours but in the daily games, you don't know which set you'll be playing in until after you've played so you don't know which scores you are actually competing against. That being said, there probably isn't a really good way to break a tie in games with multiple players so the only real alternative to what is being done now is to share the points (i.e. if there is a tie for first in the Daily Game with first getting 100 Daily points and second getting 96, just give each 98).

I do agree that in the KO, the current method is much fairer than who plays first.

Respectfully, Andymuenz, there is a very good way to drastically reduce the number of tied scores in any hourly/daily. It was suggested by eyhung further up... add hundredths of a second to the timer.

And when that was mentioned, I didn't not not agree with it.

Twice even.

That is true that going with more precision will lead to fewer ties, but it still doesn't mean there will be no ties so some method of tiebreaking is necessary, especially in KO's.

If the tie break isn't absolutely fair 100% across the board in every scenario then it's going to be craziness.

Even more than usual.