Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Tournaments and Events => Topic started by: Qvist on November 03, 2013, 02:07:57 pm
-
Teams:
1.) When signups are closed, every player gets seeded based on the Full Isotropish Leaderboard (http://gokologs.drunkensailor.org/leaderboard/?full=True&sortkey=level).
2.) The best seeded player of a country will be the team leader and has to form his team of 4 players in total. Players with no games on Goko won't be seeded (aren't eligible as team leaders), but are still eligible as team members.
3.) Players who aren't part of the main team are substitutes if anyone cannot play in a week for some reason.
4.) Countries with less then 4 players aren't eligible.
5.) If the team is formed every player in the team gets also a seed within the team, also based on the Isotropish Leaderboard, so the strongest player will be Player 1 and so on.
Tournament Structure:
Seeding the group
1.) The goal is to reach 16 countries which will get seeded in 4 groups à 4 teams.
2.) The average player rating on the Isotropish Leaderboard will determine the seeds of each group.
3.) If we only get 13-15 teams, countries are allowed to send in a secondary team. This will be also determined by average player ratings of the players who aren't already in a team yet.
4.) If we reach 12 teams, we'll get 4 groups à 3 teams. For 9-11 teams secondary teams can also be formed to fill the gap.
Group phase
1.) In each group every team play against every other team.
2.) Each round lasts one week.
3.) In a match every player plays a game against the player of the opposing country with the same seed, so player 1 of team A against player 1 of team B, and so on.
Match structure and points
1.) Each match will involve exactly 6 games.
2.) Every player has to get first seat in exactly 3 games.
3.) Because Goko randomly assigns starting players, you may be required to reset games to get the correct start order. It is recommended that you play unrated games after one player went first 3 times for this reason.
4.) The player who owns more cards has to host the games.
5.) Winning a game awards 1 game point; drawing a game awards 0.5 game points to both players. A player wins if he has more points after 6 matches than his opponent. If both players have the same amount of points, it's a tie.
6.) A win counts 1 match point for the team and a draw counts as 0.5 match point for each team. The sum of all 4 matches will determine the winner.
Playoffs
1.) After each team has played against each other team from the same group, the round phase is over.
2.) The team with the most match points advances to the playoffs.
3.) In case of a tie, the difference between the sum of all game points and the sum of all opposing teams' game points count as tiebreaker.
4.) If there's still a tie (hopefully not), there will be a coin flip.
5.) The winner of group A will play against the winner of group D, and the winner of group B will play against the winner of group C.
6.) The playoffs have the same rules except there are no ties.
7.) In case of a tie, the team with more game points advances.
8.) Is this still a tie, the team leaders have to play another match to determine the winner. The match follows the starting player pattern A-B-B-A-A, but there's no 6th game possible, it's a best of 5 match.
9.) Both winning countries advance to the finals which has the same rules as the semi-finals.
Organizing Matches
1.) Each match last one week, from Monday to Sunday.
2.) Paired opponents have to schedule their match in this time frame. If a player has no time to play in this week, he must inform the team leader and me via PM in advance. The team leader has to to determine a replacement and inform me about it. If a team can't find a replacement it counts as loss for this team. If both players have time, but still can't find a schedule to play it counts as a 0-0 draw.
3.) Point Counter should be enabled by default, but can be turned off by mutual consent.
Schedule (planned)
Group Phase Match 1: 11th - 17th November
Group Phase Match 2: 18th - 24th November
Group Phase Match 3: 25th - 1st December
Semi-Finals: 2nd - 8th December
Finals: 9th - 15th December
Feel free to ask questions. (If some feedback makes it appropriate, the rules could be adjusted)
-
Question: What happens if the players own the same number of cards, but different cards? Also, I assume that only kingdom cards count, am I mistaken?
-
Question: What happens if the players own the same number of cards, but different cards? Also, I assume that only kingdom cards count, am I mistaken?
I doubt that this could happen, but if it happens it is left to the players to find an agreement. If they don't find an agreement, the first player hosts the game.
-
Winning a game awards 1 game point; drawing a game awards 0.5 game points to both players. A player wins the match if after 3 or 4 games, s/he has 3 game points; or after 5 or 6 games s/he has 3.5 game points. A 3-3 tie on game points is a tie for the match.
I'm really not a fan of this rule. If after 3 games it's 3-0 or after 4 games 3-1, it's still possible to become a tie, so I would like the match to continue until a tie is completely ruled out.
-
Winning a game awards 1 game point; drawing a game awards 0.5 game points to both players. A player wins the match if after 3 or 4 games, s/he has 3 game points; or after 5 or 6 games s/he has 3.5 game points. A 3-3 tie on game points is a tie for the match.
I'm really not a fan of this rule. If after 3 games it's 3-0 or after 4 games 3-1, it's still possible to become a tie, so I would like the match to continue until a tie is completely ruled out.
Since game score is used as a tie break, would it make sense to always play out all 6 games?
-
Winning a game awards 1 game point; drawing a game awards 0.5 game points to both players. A player wins the match if after 3 or 4 games, s/he has 3 game points; or after 5 or 6 games s/he has 3.5 game points. A 3-3 tie on game points is a tie for the match.
I'm really not a fan of this rule. If after 3 games it's 3-0 or after 4 games 3-1, it's still possible to become a tie, so I would like the match to continue until a tie is completely ruled out.
Not sure if I understand what you mean here. So, you're proposing basically "Best of 7" with a limit of 6 games, right? As I haven't seen any complaints about the GokoDom II rules I just adapted them because they seemed fair. I really don't know much about the advantages or disadvantages of both systems, but I think the idea is basically to keep tournament matches in a decent time frame while still being fair to everyone. I guess the basic idea is a "Best of 5" rather a "Best of 7", but with the possibility of one player to tie after the games stands close 3-2. Maybe Kirian can contribute to that!?
Edit:
Winning a game awards 1 game point; drawing a game awards 0.5 game points to both players. A player wins the match if after 3 or 4 games, s/he has 3 game points; or after 5 or 6 games s/he has 3.5 game points. A 3-3 tie on game points is a tie for the match.
I'm really not a fan of this rule. If after 3 games it's 3-0 or after 4 games 3-1, it's still possible to become a tie, so I would like the match to continue until a tie is completely ruled out.
Since game score is used as a tie break, would it make sense to always play out all 6 games?
This is also a valid argument.
-
I guess the basic idea is a "Best of 5" rather a "Best of 7", but with the possibility of one player to tie after the games stands close 3-2. Maybe Kirian can contribute to that!?
If I remember correctly, that was the idea. Best of 5 with the 6th game correcting partially for first player advantage. Kirian can probably link to the relevant discussion thread.
-
It sounds like the clearest way to state it is:
- If at any point a player has at least 3 points and is winning the match by at least 2 points, that player wins.
- If 6 games have been played, then the player with the most points wins. If they are tied, it is a tie.
-
Winning a game awards 1 game point; drawing a game awards 0.5 game points to both players. A player wins the match if after 3 or 4 games, s/he has 3 game points; or after 5 or 6 games s/he has 3.5 game points. A 3-3 tie on game points is a tie for the match.
I'm really not a fan of this rule. If after 3 games it's 3-0 or after 4 games 3-1, it's still possible to become a tie, so I would like the match to continue until a tie is completely ruled out.
Not sure if I understand what you mean here. So, you're proposing basically "Best of 7" with a limit of 6 games, right?
That's a strange way of putting it, I'd just call it "best of 6" :) I'm fine with best of 5, 6, 7, 8 or any higher number (within reason, and preferably an even number), I just don't like that the match is over when there's still a chance to tie, so with a max of 6 games the minimum winning conditions would need to be 3.5 - 0.5 or 3.5 - 1.5, not 3-0 or 3-1, or, more succinctly: the first player to obtain 3.5 points or more wins.
And if the score is going to be used as a tie-breaker, then everyone really should just play the agreed upon number of games, regardless of who's winning by how much.
-
4.) Countries with less then 4 players aren't eligible.
Maybe you can contact players from countries with 2-3 players before kicking them out, I guess in many cases they know a IRL friend which could also play to complete the team. This may help reaching the 12 (or 16) teams barrier.
-
Winning a game awards 1 game point; drawing a game awards 0.5 game points to both players. A player wins the match if after 3 or 4 games, s/he has 3 game points; or after 5 or 6 games s/he has 3.5 game points. A 3-3 tie on game points is a tie for the match.
I'm really not a fan of this rule. If after 3 games it's 3-0 or after 4 games 3-1, it's still possible to become a tie, so I would like the match to continue until a tie is completely ruled out.
Not sure if I understand what you mean here. So, you're proposing basically "Best of 7" with a limit of 6 games, right?
That's a strange way of putting it, I'd just call it "best of 6" :) I'm fine with best of 5, 6, 7, 8 or any higher number (within reason, and preferably an even number), I just don't like that the match is over when there's still a chance to tie, so with a max of 6 games the minimum winning conditions would need to be 3.5 - 0.5 or 3.5 - 1.5, not 3-0 or 3-1, or, more succinctly: the first player to obtain 3.5 points or more wins.
And if the score is going to be used as a tie-breaker, then everyone really should just play the agreed upon number of games, regardless of who's winning by how much.
Sure, I understand this concern. I thought about it a little and didn't came to a conclusion. Would anyone have any problems or counterarguments with this change?
4.) Countries with less then 4 players aren't eligible.
Maybe you can contact players from countries with 2-3 players before kicking them out, I guess in many cases they know a IRL friend which could also play to complete the team. This may help reaching the 12 (or 16) teams barrier.
Of course, I'm already concerned that we don't get enough players after there was so much interest. Maybe we can group some countries together to form a team. But I'm not sure yet.
Edit: I like to emphasize that every IRL friend still already can signup. They don't have to wait if the 4-player threshold will be reached.
-
Winning a game awards 1 game point; drawing a game awards 0.5 game points to both players. A player wins the match if after 3 or 4 games, s/he has 3 game points; or after 5 or 6 games s/he has 3.5 game points. A 3-3 tie on game points is a tie for the match.
I'm really not a fan of this rule. If after 3 games it's 3-0 or after 4 games 3-1, it's still possible to become a tie, so I would like the match to continue until a tie is completely ruled out.
Not sure if I understand what you mean here. So, you're proposing basically "Best of 7" with a limit of 6 games, right?
That's a strange way of putting it, I'd just call it "best of 6" :) I'm fine with best of 5, 6, 7, 8 or any higher number (within reason, and preferably an even number), I just don't like that the match is over when there's still a chance to tie, so with a max of 6 games the minimum winning conditions would need to be 3.5 - 0.5 or 3.5 - 1.5, not 3-0 or 3-1, or, more succinctly: the first player to obtain 3.5 points or more wins.
And if the score is going to be used as a tie-breaker, then everyone really should just play the agreed upon number of games, regardless of who's winning by how much.
Sure, I understand this concern. I thought about it a little and didn't came to a conclusion. Would anyone have any problems or counterarguments with this change?
A concern could be, that it may lead to long games. Maybe we could make best of 5, which is nearly the same (you win with 3 points). But I think best of 6 is ok too, if we say you win with 3,5 points and don't have to play the other games which are left.
-
Winning a game awards 1 game point; drawing a game awards 0.5 game points to both players. A player wins the match if after 3 or 4 games, s/he has 3 game points; or after 5 or 6 games s/he has 3.5 game points. A 3-3 tie on game points is a tie for the match.
I'm really not a fan of this rule. If after 3 games it's 3-0 or after 4 games 3-1, it's still possible to become a tie, so I would like the match to continue until a tie is completely ruled out.
Not sure if I understand what you mean here. So, you're proposing basically "Best of 7" with a limit of 6 games, right?
That's a strange way of putting it, I'd just call it "best of 6" :) I'm fine with best of 5, 6, 7, 8 or any higher number (within reason, and preferably an even number), I just don't like that the match is over when there's still a chance to tie, so with a max of 6 games the minimum winning conditions would need to be 3.5 - 0.5 or 3.5 - 1.5, not 3-0 or 3-1, or, more succinctly: the first player to obtain 3.5 points or more wins.
The original intent of this system in GokoDom was to balance out a first-to-three match by accounting for first player advantage, using a tennis match as a model. That's why the 3-0 and 3-1 are considered wins; in both cases you have won at least two more games than your opponent, and you have won from the second seat at least once. This is true for any win condition other than 3.5-2.5, in fact. The reason for the A-B-B-A-A-B order is that it ends up giving no advantage in terms of games played to the current first player, unless the current first player has already won from the second seat.
However:
And if the score is going to be used as a tie-breaker, then everyone really should just play the agreed upon number of games, regardless of who's winning by how much.
This. If game points will be a tie-breaker, you need each pairing to play a full series. I might suggest, as a compromise, making a series four games instead of six?
-
Considering the amount of signups from the USA, I wonder if it would make sense to allow multiple regional teams if we don't get enough teams from other countries? Obv if we have plenty of signups, it's not necessary...
-
I am a US citizen but live in Switzerland. Can I compete for Switzerland?
-
I am a US citizen but live in Switzerland. Can I compete for Switzerland?
I doubt there are some more Swiss people here around. (I'm one of them :), but unfortunately another tournament aside from the German one is a bit too much for me)
-
I am a US citizen but live in Switzerland. Can I compete for Switzerland?
From the sign up thread
"(Your nationality should be your native country, not the country you live in)"
-
I am a US citizen but live in Switzerland. Can I compete for Switzerland?
No, sorry. You have to signup for the US. But if 1 guy for Switzerland is missing, maybe you could fill in the gap, same goes with ashersky. I mean, this is the first try to do this. I just want that this will a blast.
I doubt there are some more Swiss people here around. (I'm one of them :), but unfortunately another tournament aside from the German one is a bit too much for me)
It's only 3-5 games, not really a tournament. I hope you could join.
-
Considering the amount of signups from the USA, I wonder if it would make sense to allow multiple regional teams if we don't get enough teams from other countries? Obv if we have plenty of signups, it's not necessary...
3.) If we only get 13-15 teams, countries are allowed to send in a secondary team. This will be also determined by average player ratings of the players who aren't already in a team yet.
This. If game points will be a tie-breaker, you need each pairing to play a full series. I might suggest, as a compromise, making a series four games instead of six?
4 games is really no option I think, too much variance.
The problem is that we need a tie-breaker in a short league like this and I don't see a better option than using match points. If no-one has a better option for tie-breaking, I guess every match should go over the full series of 6 games.
-
Talked a little bit with RTT and GwinnR and Mr Anderson. They said they would be fine if I for myself would join the tournament. I'm not sure about that as I'm the organizer. So, I leave you do the final call.
-
Talked a little bit with RTT and GwinnR and Mr Anderson. They said they would be fine if I for myself would join the tournament. I'm not sure about that as I'm the organizer. So, I leave you do the final call.
Set up the way it is, I do not see an advantage of being organizer over participant when it comes to playing. I definitely agree that you should be able to play.
-
4 games is really no option I think, too much variance.
The problem is that we need a tie-breaker in a short league like this and I don't see a better option than using match points. If no-one has a better option for tie-breaking, I guess every match should go over the full series of 6 games.
6 games isn't a whole lot so that shouldn't be a problem :)
Speaking about variance, if you really want to reduce it as much as possible and want to make the matches more like team efforts where each individual game matters, you could just let the overall score be what determines the outcome. E.g. if the 4 match-ups constituting Belgium - Germany end 2.5-3.5, 2.5-3.5, 2.5-3.5 and 6 - 0, Belgium has won with 13.5 - 10.5.
-
4 games is really no option I think, too much variance.
The problem is that we need a tie-breaker in a short league like this and I don't see a better option than using match points. If no-one has a better option for tie-breaking, I guess every match should go over the full series of 6 games.
6 games isn't a whole lot so that shouldn't be a problem :)
Speaking about variance, if you really want to reduce it as much as possible and want to make the matches more like team efforts where each individual game matters, you could just let the overall score be what determines the outcome. E.g. if the 4 match-ups constituting Belgium - Germany end 2.5-3.5, 2.5-3.5, 2.5-3.5 and 6 - 0, Belgium has won with 13.5 - 10.5.
I think that rather focusses more on individual play rather than team play as the star player (in this example) won for the whole team.
Edit: Also, it disadvantages teams that already have troubles to get a full 4 member team. If the 4th player (that only joined to get a full team) loses 0-6 every time, this team will have big troubles to get a good end result.
-
Is it expected that the UK will enter as a whole or as its constituent countries?
I must admit to having a vested interest in this. The way I've been playing lately I'm unlikely to make a UK team but I might get into a Welsh one!
-
I know of no modern international competitions in which the UK dies not compete as a united team. Maybe some sort of intra-commonwealth games might do that?
-
in which the UK dies
???
Is it expected that the UK will enter as a whole or as its constituent countries?
I must admit to having a vested interest in this. The way I've been playing lately I'm unlikely to make a UK team but I might get into a Welsh one!
No, we already have troubles to get enough teams. But, I have looked at your rating, and I'm not as confident as you that you won't make the cut. Just signup and maybe you can play (or be a substitute). Just try it out.
-
No, we already have troubles to get enough teams. But, I have looked at your rating, and I'm not as confident as you that you won't make the cut. Just signup and maybe you can play (or be a substitute). Just try it out.
Thanks. I'm still deciding whether I will have time to play but I'll have a think about it and hopefully sign up before the 10 November deadline.
-
4 games is really no option I think, too much variance.
The problem is that we need a tie-breaker in a short league like this and I don't see a better option than using match points. If no-one has a better option for tie-breaking, I guess every match should go over the full series of 6 games.
6 games isn't a whole lot so that shouldn't be a problem :)
Speaking about variance, if you really want to reduce it as much as possible and want to make the matches more like team efforts where each individual game matters, you could just let the overall score be what determines the outcome. E.g. if the 4 match-ups constituting Belgium - Germany end 2.5-3.5, 2.5-3.5, 2.5-3.5 and 6 - 0, Belgium has won with 13.5 - 10.5.
I think that rather focusses more on individual play rather than team play as the star player (in this example) won for the whole team.
That's one way to look at it, another would be that Belgium was only able to win because the three other players were able to keep their games close, and ultimately their combined efforts of 7.5 points ended up contributing more to the win than the star player's 6 points. There's also the possibility of the "star player"'s opponent just having messed up. This is precisely the point: with this system each individual performance contributes more to the end result because there's a larger reward for a great performance and a larger cost associated with a poor performance, and thus also a decent reward for preventing a poor performance by "only" losing 4-2 instead of 6-0. And isn't that what you're looking for in a team sport? To make your individual actions matter to the group? To be able to compensate for a team mate's bad luck, or to have someone else make up for your poor showing?
The main idea behind my proposal, though, is just to reduce variance: by distributing it across matches, decent chunks are expected to cancel out between them, so by using the total score, luck has a much smaller impact on which country wins the match.
Edit: Also, it disadvantages teams that already have troubles to get a full 4 member team. If the 4th player (that only joined to get a full team) loses 0-6 every time, this team will have big troubles to get a good end result.
Yes, the consequence of reducing variance is that weaker teams have a lower chance of winning, but I contend that that's a good thing. A country with 4 strong players should crush a country with 3 strong players and a total drooler, you don't want such a match-up to be close due to unnecessary systemic variance.
-
I know of no modern international competitions in which the UK dies not compete as a united team. Maybe some sort of intra-commonwealth games might do that?
Apart from the Football World Cup....
-
I know of no modern international competitions in which the UK dies not compete as a united team. Maybe some sort of intra-commonwealth games might do that?
Apart from the Football World Cup....
Oh an the Rugby Union World Cup
An the Rugby League World Cup
Oh and the Cricket World Cup
And even the World Cup of Darts
Oh found another
Scotland are current Curling world champs
-
It should be allowed to agree on a different team leader.
If there's too few teams (9-11 or 13-15), and there's teams with less than 4 players, then the contries that are placed close to each other should be put together to create the missing team(s) instead of contries sending more than 1 team.
-
I know of no modern international competitions in which the UK dies not compete as a united team. Maybe some sort of intra-commonwealth games might do that?
Apart from the Football World Cup....
Oh an the Rugby Union World Cup
An the Rugby League World Cup
Oh and the Cricket World Cup
And even the World Cup of Darts
Oh found another
Scotland are current Curling world champs
Also in snooker, but team competitions are rare in that sport.
-
I know of no modern international competitions in which the UK dies not compete as a united team. Maybe some sort of intra-commonwealth games might do that?
Funny, the only one I can think of where this is not the case are the Olympics (I'm sure there are others, but not in major sports AFAIK).
-
I know of no modern international competitions in which the UK dies not compete as a united team. Maybe some sort of intra-commonwealth games might do that?
Funny, the only one I can think of where this is not the case are the Olympics (I'm sure there are others, but not in major sports AFAIK).
Basketball is the only one I can think of, and that's not major over here.
-
I know of no modern international competitions in which the UK dies not compete as a united team. Maybe some sort of intra-commonwealth games might do that?
Apart from the Football World Cup....
Oh an the Rugby Union World Cup
An the Rugby League World Cup
Oh and the Cricket World Cup
And even the World Cup of Darts
Oh found another
Scotland are current Curling world champs
I did not know that about the World Cup. That said, aren't rugby and cricket basically only played in Commonwealth countries? And snooker, for that matter?
My knowledge of sports is very, very low.
-
Rugby is very big in France (n°2, way behind football though) and fairly played in Italy and Argentina as well. Then it's South Africa, Australia and Pacific islands (Tonga, Samoa, Fidji).
Cricket is Commonwealth only I'm pretty sure. Snooker is not (I mean, I don't know much about competitive snooker, but I can't think of a reason it should'nt have French/German/East Asian/Latin-American players).
-
Rugby is very big in France (n°2, way behind football though) and fairly played in Italy and Argentina as well. Then it's South Africa, Australia and Pacific islands (Tonga, Samoa, Fidji).
Cricket is Commonwealth only I'm pretty sure. Snooker is not (I mean, I don't know much about competitive snooker, but I can't think of a reason it should'nt have French/German/East Asian/Latin-American players).
Competitive snooker is mostly UK, Ireland and China, but several other countries has a single top player.
-
I know of no modern international competitions in which the UK dies not compete as a united team. Maybe some sort of intra-commonwealth games might do that?
Funny, the only one I can think of where this is not the case are the Olympics (I'm sure there are others, but not in major sports AFAIK).
Even the Olympics is a bit strange in that the team is always referred to as Great Britain despite being really the UK (or more accurately the UK together with the Crown dependencies)!
Maybe this thread should get back to Dominion matters before we risk confusing the Americans too much. :P
-
I know of no modern international competitions in which the UK dies not compete as a united team. Maybe some sort of intra-commonwealth games might do that?
Funny, the only one I can think of where this is not the case are the Olympics (I'm sure there are others, but not in major sports AFAIK).
Even the Olympics is a bit strange in that the team is always referred to as Great Britain despite being really the UK (or more accurately the UK together with the Crown dependencies)!
Maybe this thread should get back to Dominion matters before we risk confusing the Americans too much. :P
Agreed (possibly split it off?)
-
4 games is really no option I think, too much variance.
The problem is that we need a tie-breaker in a short league like this and I don't see a better option than using match points. If no-one has a better option for tie-breaking, I guess every match should go over the full series of 6 games.
6 games isn't a whole lot so that shouldn't be a problem :)
Speaking about variance, if you really want to reduce it as much as possible and want to make the matches more like team efforts where each individual game matters, you could just let the overall score be what determines the outcome. E.g. if the 4 match-ups constituting Belgium - Germany end 2.5-3.5, 2.5-3.5, 2.5-3.5 and 6 - 0, Belgium has won with 13.5 - 10.5.
I think that rather focusses more on individual play rather than team play as the star player (in this example) won for the whole team.
That's one way to look at it, another would be that Belgium was only able to win because the three other players were able to keep their games close, and ultimately their combined efforts of 7.5 points ended up contributing more to the win than the star player's 6 points. There's also the possibility of the "star player"'s opponent just having messed up. This is precisely the point: with this system each individual performance contributes more to the end result because there's a larger reward for a great performance and a larger cost associated with a poor performance, and thus also a decent reward for preventing a poor performance by "only" losing 4-2 instead of 6-0. And isn't that what you're looking for in a team sport? To make your individual actions matter to the group? To be able to compensate for a team mate's bad luck, or to have someone else make up for your poor showing?
The main idea behind my proposal, though, is just to reduce variance: by distributing it across matches, decent chunks are expected to cancel out between them, so by using the total score, luck has a much smaller impact on which country wins the match.
Edit: Also, it disadvantages teams that already have troubles to get a full 4 member team. If the 4th player (that only joined to get a full team) loses 0-6 every time, this team will have big troubles to get a good end result.
Yes, the consequence of reducing variance is that weaker teams have a lower chance of winning, but I contend that that's a good thing. A country with 4 strong players should crush a country with 3 strong players and a total drooler, you don't want such a match-up to be close due to unnecessary systemic variance.
I get what you mean, thanks for the idea, but I just won't do this. Especially I don't like this:
with this system each individual performance contributes more to the end result because there's a larger reward for a great performance and a larger cost associated with a poor performance
This implicitly means that the focus is on individual play rather on team play. If one player has a really bad day he ruins the match for the whole team and is basically a "loser". This would lead to frustration and isn't too different to just a single-player tournament. One game shouldn't be worth more than any other match, that's what makes this tournament unique. Every player (no matter if he is a good one or not, no matter if he has a good day or not) contributes the same amount to the success (or failure) of a team.
In my opinion, when a team with 4 strong players plays against a team with 3 strong players and bad one and the top 3 seeded players of team A all mess up and lose against the other team, they are indeed the worse team - no matter how the 4th match ends.
That's just my opinion. Also, on a side note, I don't know of any sports team tournament where the score is accumulated. I know that in tennis (Davis Cup) and table tennis, it's exactly this system and it makes sense to me.
-
2.) The average player rating on the Isotropish Leaderboard will determine the seeds of each group.
I like to add something here. I tried around a little to get a valid seeding of the groups. I will do the following:
I assume all teams get formed solely based on the rank on the leaderboard which means I take the best 4 players of team and list them all in a mixed group (If someone will choose a lower ranked player for their team, he likely has a good reason and shouldn't affect the strength of the team). Then each player gets a seed based on his rank. The team seed will be determined by the median seed of the 4 players.
-
For those with the salvager mod, is the VP counter strictly on or off? Or should the salvager mod simply be disabled for all competition games?
I don't think this has been addressed, but if it has can someone kindly link me to the answer?
-
I'd also like to take this opportunity to ask what is the best way to make sure player starting order rules are adhered to while keeping the board truly random.
On Goko, unranked matches don't hide the cards before the game. Only Pro mode has that. If players have to keep leaving games until they get the correct seating order, then the board randomness issue is present when playing in unranked mode. Otherwise, someone has to lose Pro points to ensure the board can't be analyzed before the game.
I personally don't mind losing Pro points, or being sure not to peek when hosting/playing unranked matches. It just sucks that Goko doesn't provide an elegant solution to this.
-
I'd also like to take this opportunity to ask what is the best way to make sure player starting order rules are adhered to while keeping the board truly random.
On Goko, unranked matches don't hide the cards before the game. Only Pro mode has that. If players have to keep leaving games until they get the correct seating order, then the board randomness issue is present when playing in unranked mode. Otherwise, someone has to lose Pro points to ensure the board can't be analyzed before the game.
I personally don't mind losing Pro points, or being sure not to peek when hosting/playing unranked matches. It just sucks that Goko doesn't provide an elegant solution to this.
Add it to the wishlist:
All I want for Christmas is for Goko to die.
Although I dislike Goko, I feel like this is a little harsh and against the spirit of Christmas. Rather, in the spirit of the 12 days of Christmas here is a reasonable list of things for Goko to do.
1.) Fix management
2.) Interact and respond to issues with the playerbase (e.g. cheaters)
3.) Remove server instability
4.) Allow all promos to be bought
5.) Implement automatch
6.) Provide a more cohesive lobby structure
7.) Revamp game interface
8.) Cards like Hamlet, JoaT, Urchin, Storeroom etc. need looking at for inconvenience
9.) Devise a long-term business plan (they need money if they're going to stay afloat and it won't continue to come from Dominion)
10.) Make gamelog easier to follow (tab stuff, colorize it, anything would be better than their current efforts)
11.) Allow users to have a friends list
12.) Allow users to propose games to certain players
-
For those with the salvager mod, is the VP counter strictly on or off? Or should the salvager mod simply be disabled for all competition games?
I don't think this has been addressed, but if it has can someone kindly link me to the answer?
It wasn't addressed because I haven't thought of it. I think it's best to imitate Salvager's standard behavior. If anyone doesn't want to play with the point counter, the game is played without, otherwise feel free to play with it enabled.
-
I'd also like to take this opportunity to ask what is the best way to make sure player starting order rules are adhered to while keeping the board truly random.
On Goko, unranked matches don't hide the cards before the game. Only Pro mode has that. If players have to keep leaving games until they get the correct seating order, then the board randomness issue is present when playing in unranked mode. Otherwise, someone has to lose Pro points to ensure the board can't be analyzed before the game.
I personally don't mind losing Pro points, or being sure not to peek when hosting/playing unranked matches. It just sucks that Goko doesn't provide an elegant solution to this.
Yeah, it's unfortunate Goko hasn't a good way of handling it. But it's just best to not play in Pro mode. I doubt that anyone would set the kingdom up in his advantage.
-
So if I am reading the rules correctly, if warrior beats RTT 4-2 in the last US-Germany match, it comes down to a coin flip for the winner?
-
No, that was only for advancing to the playoffs. What you search for is this:
9.) Is this still a tie, the team leaders have to play another match to determine the winner. The match follows the same pattern (A-B-B-A-A), but there's no 6th game possible, it's a best of 5 match.
-
Do you play with #vpon ? Any other rules and stipulations?
-
Do you play with #vpon ? Any other rules and stipulations?
Thanks for asking. There were no rules yet. I've added this rule:
3.) Point Counter should be enabled by default, but can be turned off by mutual consent.
-
Do you play with #vpon ? Any other rules and stipulations?
Thanks for asking. There were no rules yet. I've added this rule:
3.) Point Counter should be enabled by default, but can be turned off by mutual consent.
this is a stupid rule :)
-
For what it's worth, this is the standard rule for most tournaments.
The Dominion League also has the same rule:
By default, we play with #vpon and without identical starting hands. You can change these settings on mutual consent.
-
I know. let's all play a variant.
-
I personally do not like the VP counter, it seems to be against the spirit of the game, in my opinion.
-
In my opinion, when a team with 4 strong players plays against a team with 3 strong players and bad one and the top 3 seeded players of team A all mess up and lose against the other team, they are indeed the worse team - no matter how the 4th match ends.
The problem is the last player plays the serie with very few impact on the team result. And if the same player can play only the sunday, we can imagine situations he wouldnt have any impact on the team result during all the competition !
Why not doing a mix between your rule and the league's rule : not giving points for a team victory, but taking the number of victories between two players, to score
eg : if France 4 Netherlands 0 (just fiction to explain...) instead of 2 points France/ Netherlands 0 points why not putting France 4 points, Netherlands 0 point
(i think this rule can also help France team, because we would have two more points ;))
Other thing : with groups of 3 teams, if you loose the first match that's most of time "game over" or luck dependant... why not making groups with more teams wich can allows a team to have a bad week and still have possiblity to go on semi-finals.
If we have 10 teams, we can make 2 groups of 5? 12 teams, 2 groups of 6?
-
I think this is a good suggestion and if no-one objects, I'll change the rules accordingly.
-
Assuming the rules being discussed are those in the OP:
Is there any reason to specify ABBAAB rather than that we start 3 times each?
-
Not that I remember. I think this was copied from another tournament. I will change this as well.
-
Our glorious leader is unhappy with the decision not to include the North Korean people's Dominion champion. On the bright side, I recently got an awesome haircut.
-
I think you should update the OP
-
Yes. Qvist maybe you can modify the first message to avoid confusions in the rules?
-
I played a match when Goko went down for maintenance. My opponent was far ahead (he had 4 prizes, 4 provinces to my 0 etc.), so should we rematch that game or can I mark it a win for him/her?
-
I played a match when Goko went down for maintenance. My opponent was far ahead (he had 4 prizes, 4 provinces to my 0 etc.), so should we rematch that game or can I mark it a win for him/her?
The rule I go by is that either player is free to concede a game that ends for Goko reasons, which works well in such a small and pleasant community as ours. Yours sounds like a clear cut lost game (unless you're leaving out a lot of relevant context), so I would concede, but would not force my opponent to if the situation was reversed. This approach has the advantage of not requiring any special rules from tournament organisers.
I follow a similar rule when it comes to restarting due to obvious misclicks (there's a slight potential for abuse if people "misclick" when they get a bad opening split, but I like to think that we're better than that).
-
For Qvist,
Thanks for your holding the Goko Wcup. But...
If you change rules or schedule, Please announce it (e.g. top of result sheet).
I did not notice a change so far.
-
The last match japan a and b have will be started Friday March 6.
Please wait a little longer.