Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - metzgerism

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 [2] 3
26
This thread is off-track, so I wanted to repeat my latest recommendation for a format:

- All players organized into ~12-player pools. At the end of the pool phase, the top 1-2 players in each pool get a bracket bye, and wild cards go to play-in games.
- You may play 3p or 4p games against opponents in your pool only. You may play any single opponent repeatedly UNTIL you win a game they lost, or vice versa - effectively 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place are all "ties," and ties should be replayed.
- Because of the open nature of the pools, not every matchup will be represented by a game and there will likely be some holes in the results. Being active early and often will help you find your opponents before you can't organize a game.
- Players are ranked on "wins," which are actually the number of other players beaten. A regular 4p win is worth 3 "wins," a 3p win is worth 2. Shared victory is a tie with the other victorious players. Tiebreakers are given for getting 2nd place in a matchup you lost.
- Not sure how the bracket would work, only that there should be 3p and 4p games if there are 3p and 4p games in the pool phase.

27
If you don't want to be abrasive, try not cursing, not telling people that their OPINIONS are WRONG in all caps (there's a big difference between 'I disagree' and 'You're WRONG'), not trying to argue via reductio ad absurdum, etc. People don't like this.
I put words in caps or italics that I mean to stress. I don't believe I said anyone was flat out wrong, anywhere, especially not in caps...?

This (the analogy to 2p as you make it) is an arbitrary way of looking at it. I can just as easily make the argument that 2p dominion is all about not getting last, and why should that change by adding another player.
But also, why should 2p, 3p, and 4p be anything like the same game? They're totally different in almost every respect.
How is it arbitrary? I didn't pick "2 player" out of a hat - over 99% of my games are played 2-player, and I'm sure the ratio is similar for most people on this board, including you.

That said, you're absolutely right that they are not the same game (and shouldn't be held to the same standard).

I seriously doubt you have the most experience with tournaments of anyone on this forum. Be shocked. You've barely been here, so I wouldn't expect you to know, but...
I've run a plurality of the total online english-language Dominion tournaments/competitions. There have been 33 that I know of. I have operated 13 and was founder of the league that ran another 12. All of those came after years of running other competitions on other boards for other games.

You don't know me very well, but this is my bread & butter.

28
The thing is, I really don't understand how this is getting such vehement responses on both sides. In no way is one system clearly better than the other. They're just two different systems. It's like, the question is: "Is the point of the game to win, or is the point of the game to finish in as good a placement as possible?" Both are reasonable arguments, and there's no way that one is just 'clearly' better than the other, or that either of them are ridiculous. Having a point structure does not make it non-competitive, it just makes it different.
If you look at something like auto-racing, they give points for how well you finish, not just where you place. But there are other sports where all that matters is who win. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any sports where there's a field of participants (i.e., it's not head-to-head), where they don't give more credit to 2nd place than 8th place. That doesn't make such a system 'wrong' or 'unreasonable' though. Which is better than the other, is just based on what people think it should be. That's really what matters here. Which prima facie makes nobody's view ridiculous, though you can of course prefer to NOT have that.
There are a couple things to note:

1) Auto Racing doesn't have traditional playoffs.
2) All sports with traditional playoffs are 1v1 affairs.

These are HUGE differences! If you were to have an entire NASCAR season of 43-car races, then at the end say "we're going to have a 16-car bracket where it's just you against one other driver," fans would revolt!

The thing with dominion is that this makes more significant gameplay changes, probably, than you'd see in other things. Particularly in the endgame. Again, it's not that one way is right or wrong. How can you say that playing for second is wrong? How can you say that going all out for a win is wrong? Strategically, it's all down to how the tournament is set up. Which isn't clear one way or the other.
I am under the assumption that there will be a decisive bracket at Nationals, as well as one in this qualifier. THIS is what drives my argument against a point system. If there's no point system when it's most important, you shouldn't have one at any other time. Changing the parameters of "success" mid-tournament IS metagaming, no matter how many leagues do it. There are many sports leagues that DO fail at this, however (the NHL being an aggravating example) - sometimes it isn't the teams who win the most games that get invited to the tournament.

And that IS wrong.

I personally advocate for a points system, but one which has disproportionate favoring to the winner. Because I think that playing for a win is an important aspect of the game, and I think you should take the risks, particularly strategically. At the same time, I feel like 2nd and 4th shouldn't get treated the same. There's also then the issue of weird endgame behaviour/collusion-y stuff. Having winner-take-all encourages this more than a point system, because where this really comes up is in situations where it's not possible for a player to win - then they can do anything to throw the game to one guy or another, with no negative repurcussions for themselves. If 3rd is better than 4th, then this would only come into play when 4th place can't possibly even get 3rd, which is going to happen a lot less than 4th being unable to grab 1st. So this is another reason I prefer some point system.

The 'it's harder to set up' thing seems to be a weak argument to me, because it's not much harder to set up, and, more importantly, the people who would be doing the setting up seem willing to do this little extra.

So I would advocate something like 6/3/1/0. There's also the issue of the odd 3-player games, which I would probably have as - everyone plays four player games, the odd people out get buys, or probably preferentially, quasi-byes, i.e. 1 person odd gets a full bye, 2 people odd play a 2-player, where (if we assume a 6/3/1/0 point system for the moment), 1st gets 6 and 2nd gets 3, 3 odd people play a 3-player where 1st gets 6, 2nd gets 3, 3rd gets 1. But it's a bit of a thorny issue - someone is getting the better end of a luck stick, no matter how you slice it.
But more than this, I advocating trying to set up whatever point system to match what will actually be at nationals as closely as possible.
Agreed with the bold, far more than any other thing that's been said in this thread.
I disagree. I actually think NASCAR fans would love that. Also, the NBA and particularly NHL specifically do change their formats for the playoffs. In principle, I don't think you should change systems partway through, unless there is some compelling reason to do so, but it's certainly not crazy or clearly WRONG. It's just something different. I find it incredibly amusing that you just label so may people whose opinions are different from yours as flatly wrong. Kind of an arrogant-looking move. I think the big reason you're getting such a bristled response here isn't so much what you're saying, but how you're saying it. It's like you're being abrasive for abrasiveness's sake, or at least that's how it's coming off.
I presumed that the semis and finals would have the same scoring system as you have in the previous stages. This isn't an argument for no point system. It's an argument for the same method throughout the tournament. But what that method is, is what we're debating.
I certainly don't have a problem with meta-gaming per se. Indeed, I tend to like it. Indeed, there are whole games where metagaming is the hugest part of the game. Dominion is not and never will be one, but I don't see why it can't be a part.
Again, I don't intend to be abrasive or offensive, but I flatly disagree with having a point system and I have been running tournaments for years...I'd be shocked if anyone on DS forums has more experience than I do in this regard. I apologize for being arrogant.

I also disagree with you about metagaming being an acceptable part of the gameplay. There's only so much you can control as a tournament organizer, but you don't have to make it worse (which is what I believe a point system would encourage). This is a Dominion tournament, not a Dominion-plus-politics tournament.

---

One big thing I'm looking at here is the relation to 2p Dominion. In two player, a point system as recommended is non-existent, and you play to win (because 2nd place is losing). Why should that spirit change just because we have more players?

29
One good thing about a point system is the following. A major obstacle in Dominion tournaments is lacking enough games to distinguish which player is best. So you want to get at much information from each game as possible.

If you only know the winner of a game, there are only 4 possible outcomes. If you know the finish order (1st-4th) of the players, there are 4! = 24 possible outcomes. So, 2 bits of information from winner-takes-all, and ~4.6 bits of information if you know the finish order, which is more than twice as much.

From a statistical perspective, I totally agree with you.

But I think the game design trumps the statistics.  I think playing to win, all else be damned, is more in the spirit of the rules.

IRL and online, I always aim to maximize my rank in 3/4-player, and don't care that much about whether I win. So I think this is a matter of opinion.
What if a trip to Nationals was on the line?
Would you still not care about winning then? Would you still just try and maximize your rank?

Each game in this tournament has the potential to be worth a fraction of a trip to Nationals.
The conditions are significantly different.

EDIT:
http://www.boardgamers.org/yearbook10/dompge.htm
Read that :)

30
One good thing about a point system is the following. A major obstacle in Dominion tournaments is lacking enough games to distinguish which player is best. So you want to get at much information from each game as possible.

If you only know the winner of a game, there are only 4 possible outcomes. If you know the finish order (1st-4th) of the players, there are 4! = 24 possible outcomes. So, 2 bits of information from winner-takes-all, and ~4.6 bits of information if you know the finish order, which is more than twice as much.

From a statistical perspective, I totally agree with you.

But I think the game design trumps the statistics.  I think playing to win, all else be damned, is more in the spirit of the rules.
I love you man.

The only thing different between you and me is you put "I think" in front of everything - you're so goddamn polite.
Also, this discussion might be useful.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/457599/discussion-on-a-universal-tournament-format-for-do/page/1

Although it might not be, because at least no one here is proposing rewarding players for having a high score.
I don't think it helps the discussion, but it makes me look old and experienced!

31
The thing is, I really don't understand how this is getting such vehement responses on both sides. In no way is one system clearly better than the other. They're just two different systems. It's like, the question is: "Is the point of the game to win, or is the point of the game to finish in as good a placement as possible?" Both are reasonable arguments, and there's no way that one is just 'clearly' better than the other, or that either of them are ridiculous. Having a point structure does not make it non-competitive, it just makes it different.
If you look at something like auto-racing, they give points for how well you finish, not just where you place. But there are other sports where all that matters is who win. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any sports where there's a field of participants (i.e., it's not head-to-head), where they don't give more credit to 2nd place than 8th place. That doesn't make such a system 'wrong' or 'unreasonable' though. Which is better than the other, is just based on what people think it should be. That's really what matters here. Which prima facie makes nobody's view ridiculous, though you can of course prefer to NOT have that.
There are a couple things to note:

1) Auto Racing doesn't have traditional playoffs.
2) All sports with traditional playoffs are 1v1 affairs.

These are HUGE differences! If you were to have an entire NASCAR season of 43-car races, then at the end say "we're going to have a 16-car bracket where it's just you against one other driver," fans would revolt!

The thing with dominion is that this makes more significant gameplay changes, probably, than you'd see in other things. Particularly in the endgame. Again, it's not that one way is right or wrong. How can you say that playing for second is wrong? How can you say that going all out for a win is wrong? Strategically, it's all down to how the tournament is set up. Which isn't clear one way or the other.
I am under the assumption that there will be a decisive bracket at Nationals, as well as one in this qualifier. THIS is what drives my argument against a point system. If there's no point system when it's most important, you shouldn't have one at any other time. Changing the parameters of "success" mid-tournament IS metagaming, no matter how many leagues do it. There are many sports leagues that DO fail at this, however (the NHL being an aggravating example) - sometimes it isn't the teams who win the most games that get invited to the tournament.

And that IS wrong.

I personally advocate for a points system, but one which has disproportionate favoring to the winner. Because I think that playing for a win is an important aspect of the game, and I think you should take the risks, particularly strategically. At the same time, I feel like 2nd and 4th shouldn't get treated the same. There's also then the issue of weird endgame behaviour/collusion-y stuff. Having winner-take-all encourages this more than a point system, because where this really comes up is in situations where it's not possible for a player to win - then they can do anything to throw the game to one guy or another, with no negative repurcussions for themselves. If 3rd is better than 4th, then this would only come into play when 4th place can't possibly even get 3rd, which is going to happen a lot less than 4th being unable to grab 1st. So this is another reason I prefer some point system.

The 'it's harder to set up' thing seems to be a weak argument to me, because it's not much harder to set up, and, more importantly, the people who would be doing the setting up seem willing to do this little extra.

So I would advocate something like 6/3/1/0. There's also the issue of the odd 3-player games, which I would probably have as - everyone plays four player games, the odd people out get buys, or probably preferentially, quasi-byes, i.e. 1 person odd gets a full bye, 2 people odd play a 2-player, where (if we assume a 6/3/1/0 point system for the moment), 1st gets 6 and 2nd gets 3, 3 odd people play a 3-player where 1st gets 6, 2nd gets 3, 3rd gets 1. But it's a bit of a thorny issue - someone is getting the better end of a luck stick, no matter how you slice it.
But more than this, I advocating trying to set up whatever point system to match what will actually be at nationals as closely as possible.
Agreed with the bold, far more than any other thing that's been said in this thread.

32
*probably offensive statement removed*

One good thing about a point system is the following. A major obstacle in Dominion tournaments is lacking enough games to distinguish which player is best. So you want to get at much information from each game as possible.

If you only know the winner of a game, there are only 4 possible outcomes. If you know the finish order (1st-4th) of the players, there are 4! = 24 possible outcomes. So, 2 bits of information from winner-takes-all, and ~4.6 bits of information if you know the finish order, which is more than twice as much.
Agreed on the tournament format issue.

Here's an alternative that keeps winner-take-all and gets you more information:

Play two games.

...

Are you serious? Your solution to "don't have time to play a lot of games" is... play more games?
Ehhh...not exactly the equivalency I was going for. I agree with you that in-person tournaments tend to have that issue, and you want to have a lot more rotation in a short amount of time.

Tournaments and leagues on isotropic are a different beast altogether (I've run online leagues for most of the last 7 years, and BGGDL was the last one I did - and the best). The specific parameters of this tournament actually would be MORE conducive for people to stay in their 4-player groups and play multiple games, because it will be so difficult to get things organized. Hence, more results with like opposition. Simply, we will not have the limitations of time and materials that are seen at many in-person tournaments. Instead, our challenges will be sheer game organization, and data entry.

The point I was really trying to make is this: Winner take all will probably go a little bit faster, but not much. However, since we're on isotropic, playing 2-3 games is similar in length to playing 1 game in person. I believe that's not only a reasonable and fair compromise to avoid the perverse issues of a point system, but also would be preferable for players due to our tradition of not playing one-offs for major competitions.
So your answer to the 'we don't have enough time to do enough games' problem is 'we do have enough time to play enough games, because it's online'? Nobody's saying that it will take as long as IRL tournaments. What they're saying is, even online, we don't have enough time to play as many games as we want.
*sigh*

I'm not really answering the "we don't have enough time" problem. Forget that for a second.
My argument is that the solution proposed (a point system) provides a worse side-effect than the problem it supposedly solves (which it doesn't, we still won't have enough time).
The alternative I proposed was just an incredibly simple way to increase the ~2 results per matchup to ~4.

I don't believe that introducing metagaming via point system is worth the benefit it provides (if any). My argument is about weighing the options. I weigh them on the side of no point system. You might not.

In addition, if we have a pool --> bracket system, the bracket will solve incremental differences between players anyways. I'm NOT saying that a point system doesn't benefit from having a bracket attached...but I'm also not recommending having a point system at all.

33
One good thing about a point system is the following. A major obstacle in Dominion tournaments is lacking enough games to distinguish which player is best. So you want to get at much information from each game as possible.

If you only know the winner of a game, there are only 4 possible outcomes. If you know the finish order (1st-4th) of the players, there are 4! = 24 possible outcomes. So, 2 bits of information from winner-takes-all, and ~4.6 bits of information if you know the finish order, which is more than twice as much.
Agreed on the tournament format issue.

Here's an alternative that keeps winner-take-all and gets you more information:

Play two games.
Here's an alternative that gets even more information. ;)
Play two games and use finish order.
Finish order is fine for tiebreakers, but not for quantitative ranking criteria.
It'd be stupid to play for tiebreakers twice when you can go for broke twice and probably get a win, nullifying any tiebreakers.

---

I'm going to recommend a point system!

Win= 10,000 points
2nd = 100 points
3rd = 1 point
4th = 0 points

Is that a little more palatable?

34
Well... that escalated quickly.
I apologize. As you might be able to see...I'm trying to edit that down.

EDIT: Screw it, just removing it. It's not worth looking like a douche to everyone to make my point.
The wheels in my head sometimes take over the fingers pressing the buttons.

35
*probably offensive statement removed*

One good thing about a point system is the following. A major obstacle in Dominion tournaments is lacking enough games to distinguish which player is best. So you want to get at much information from each game as possible.

If you only know the winner of a game, there are only 4 possible outcomes. If you know the finish order (1st-4th) of the players, there are 4! = 24 possible outcomes. So, 2 bits of information from winner-takes-all, and ~4.6 bits of information if you know the finish order, which is more than twice as much.
Agreed on the tournament format issue.

Here's an alternative that keeps winner-take-all and gets you more information:

Play two games.

...

Are you serious? Your solution to "don't have time to play a lot of games" is... play more games?
Ehhh...not exactly the equivalency I was going for. I agree with you that in-person tournaments tend to have that issue, and you want to have a lot more rotation in a short amount of time.

Tournaments and leagues on isotropic are a different beast altogether (I've run online leagues for most of the last 7 years, and BGGDL was the last one I did - and the best). The specific parameters of this tournament actually would be MORE conducive for people to stay in their 4-player groups and play multiple games, because it will be so difficult to get things organized. Hence, more results with like opposition. Simply, we will not have the limitations of time and materials that are seen at many in-person tournaments. Instead, our challenges will be sheer game organization, and data entry.

The point I was really trying to make is this: Winner take all will probably go a little bit faster, but not much. However, since we're on isotropic, playing 2-3 games is similar in length to playing 1 game in person. I believe that's not only a reasonable and fair compromise to avoid the perverse issues of a point system, but also would be preferable for players due to our tradition of not playing one-offs for major competitions.

36
One good thing about a point system is the following. A major obstacle in Dominion tournaments is lacking enough games to distinguish which player is best. So you want to get at much information from each game as possible.

If you only know the winner of a game, there are only 4 possible outcomes. If you know the finish order (1st-4th) of the players, there are 4! = 24 possible outcomes. So, 2 bits of information from winner-takes-all, and ~4.6 bits of information if you know the finish order, which is more than twice as much.
Agreed on the tournament format issue.

Here's an alternative that keeps winner-take-all and gets you more information:

Play two games.

37

3. This is not a participation tournament - this is a tournament for WINNING.

-> I guess the question is "what does winning mean". My feeling is (and I might be very wrong) is that you feel the player who wins a particular game is the "winner". I think my general philosophy is the player who performs well in a series of games is the "winner".

It goes back to, which of these two players is the "winner" in a series of four-player games:

1st, 1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th
1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd

If no criteria were set out at the start I would vote for the second guy (sounds like you would vote for the first guy).
If the question was: Which of these two players is most likely to win the "9th game", I would bet on my guy every time.

If there was defined criteria beforehand - i.e., only first place matters. Then the first guy may indeed be the best player - playing to the criteria.

But playing so 'first place only matters' leads to some weird incentives - things like opening Treasure Map consistently, or, as fourth player playing just to spoil your competition (since you have better odds of that then you do of winning)
Yeah, we're going to disagree.

* In the two players you mentioned, the criteria they play under is far more important than you assume. Are we playing for fun, or for keeps? With nothing defined beforehand, I would refrain from betting completely. People play different when different things are on the line.

Brush up on your PPR theory here. It may serve you well.

* I did mention that the format needs to allow for high-variance strategies, but not as much as I think you believe.

What if I went for 2 points every time I scored a touchdown, or kicked onside every kickoff, or went for it on 4th down every time? As a coach, I'd be fired. However, those things ARE done situationally, and can be used successfully.

What if, instead of lining up for the play, my entire defense started doing jumping jacks? It probably wouldn't work 99 times out of 100...BUT IT MIGHT WORK ONE TIME!

38
Surely winner takes all just promotes high variance strategies?
Ie treasure map without support.
I don't understand...how is this is a bad thing when winner takes all?

It is not a bad strategy for a player given this structure, but I don't think it is player behaviour that should be rewarded heavily.
Promoting high variance low skill strategies is going to give you a fairly random winner I think.
My definition of "best player" would include a wider range of player skills.
My definition of "best player" would stop at "wins the most." This does not include "appears to be most well-rounded."

The point about having a fairly random winner, that's more about the tournament organization and less about the debate of having a point system or not - there's a reason why we went to best 2/3 and 3/5 in BGGDL, and the DSC was 4/7.

A properly laid-out format will accurately prevent wild play from being successful. A point system will do that, too...but not accurately. Again, metagaming; players will be much more unpredictable when they have an array of results to go for (especially in the final game before a bracket), being conservative in an early game and wacky in a late one. "Winner take all" eliminates that unpredictability.

But if you have no chance at getting first place late in the game and have nothing to play for, then you begin to worry about kingmaking.
Or you could alter your strategy to take advantage of the only possible avenue left to you to win.
The big issue I see here from a theoretical standpoint is another player going non-optimal at the end game, and you're penalized for their derp. In that case, we need a format that allows recovery from that.

By the way, having a point system would make that WORSE.

However, I don't like that three-player and four-player wins are of equal worth. I understand we don't really have a lot of time to debate the merits of each person's idea and stuff, but winning a three-player game is a lot easier than a four-player, IMO.
You're jumping to that conclusion. Don't worry - if there's an inequity, it will be mitigated somehow.

39
Surely winner takes all just promotes high variance strategies?
Ie treasure map without support.
I don't understand...how is this is a bad thing when winner takes all?

EDIT: There's a reason I keep getting +1's from rrenaud, and I'm waiting for him to speak up about it :P

40
I've been playing a few 3- and 4-player games this week.

My vote is definitely for points (vs wins). There are many times when the spread is such that as a third player you have no hope to catch the first player, but you do have a chance to catch the second player. With points you will keep playing in self-interest. Without points you don't care and, your only incentive left is: (1) Help the player you think is your least competition overall, or (2) Just end the game so you stop wasting your time.

This is even more true in 4-player (where there could be a simultaneous batter for 1-2 and 3-4 at the same time). Without points both players 3 and 4 become kingmakers instead of playing for themselves.

The point impacts do not need to be significant (although I think it would be better if they do), but I think then need to be there (i.e., I would prefer 10-2-1-0 to 1-0-0-0, but I think something like 4-3-2-1 or 3-2-1 or 4-2-1 would be more reasonable. I know I would be more worried facing someone who came 2nd in four games than someone who came first in one game and fourth is three others.)

-=-=-
The only case where I think points leads to a debatable decision making vs. wins is when a player is in second place with little hope of making first (but some hope), ends it to guarantee his second place finish.

I personally think this is part of playing the odds in Dominion and shows more skill on "when to end" vs just going balls out to win without any consideration of your chances. But I can see both sides.

I just think the earlier issues trump this debatable one anyway.


Ed
I disagree wholeheartedly :D

This tournament has a couple issues you might be forgetting:

1. We don't have time to contemplate point systems;
2. Organizing with a point system might be a total mess for whoever admininstrates; and,
3. This is not a participation tournament - this is a tournament for WINNING.

As a player, sure you might FEEL better getting in 2nd place in a game instead of 4th place...but in a tournament setting THERE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE. This isn't a "simulate game night" tournament, this is a "find the best 4p Dominion player" tournament, and a point system gets in the way of that while also making it complicated to organize.

*insert old-timey "in my day we didn't get trophies for losing" anecdote*

---

I think a lot of you are misinterpreting what a point system will do. It WON'T let you play in your self-interest - it will make you metagame. You'll be playing the point system, and not Dominion. You'll be "playing for the draw", instead of simply trying to win the damn game. When bracket time comes around, that's not going to work, and we should not be rewarding it at the expense of simplification.

"Playing for 2nd" means nothing when first place is the only thing that's going to get you a trip to Nationals. Why should we have people good at "playing for 2nd" get the best shot at the prize?

41
I still vote wholeheartedly against having a point system at all, and giving only winners any credit.

From a competition standpoint, it prevents odd kingmaking and collusion scenarios.
From an organizational one, the book-keeping is much simpler.
But does this really prevent collusion and Kingmaking?  I would think having the point system encourages people to always play for themselves, which is what you want.   

The point system also rewards consistent play though. 

FYI I can't participate, just throwing pennies.
In a winner-take-all scenario, a player in second place is more likely to stall the game so that they have a chance to win. Because winning a game is usually all that matters in a bracket, this mirrors a bracket decently.

In a point system, a player in second place and a chance to end the game might do so, if they believe that they will lose positioning if the game continues. This is kingmaking for the first player. Because winning a game is usually all that matters in a bracket, this is particularly odd to give an incentive for.

You might get some nice participation points, but later on when you get to the "you must win" part of the tournament, you might have the WRONG type of consistency: more players that were good at rushing the end of the game with a nominal score than those who are actually good at winning a game.

42
Ok, here's a concept:

Remember the rules I had set up for BGGDL for multi-player games, before we went to 2p only?
Do that, but segregate everyone into some moderate sized divisions (probably 10-12 per division).
Restrict play to 4p and 3p games, and advance 3n+1 players from the pools to the knockout stage, with a bye for division champs.

(BGGDL's format was based on wins, assuming 2p games. When you played a 3p/4p game, it was treated as having played 2/3 2p games at the same time. Winning only mattered, so if you shared victory or both lost, you could 'replay' them for a result. Ended up still working like a standard RR table).


43
I still vote wholeheartedly against having a point system at all, and giving only winners any credit.

From a competition standpoint, it prevents odd kingmaking and collusion scenarios.
From an organizational one, the book-keeping is much simpler.

44
Another pretty obvious thing is that they won't all be 4 player to start, correct? That is, if we get 61 people, we'll have 13 four-player games and 3 three-player games. And if so, how do we score these games? If not, are we kicking people out to meet a multiple of four? Or how is that going to work?
It's probably too short of notice to get a good "soft cap" format in. At a certain point, the tournament should be capped.

45
Also, if you're having a dilemma between 4p and 3p, there is a simple fix for this:

---

Organize players into pools of 4.
Each pool plays a 4-player game. The winner advances.
The remaining players then play a 3-player game. The winner of that also advances.
The two players who did not win are either eliminated, or sent to a loser's bracket.
In case of shared victory, play a tiebreaker between those players (2-player is fine here).

---

This scenario would be ideal if you could have two qualifiers at the end.
If you choose a winner's and loser's bracket option AND you need ONE winner, the final should go something like this:

2 players from the winner's bracket and 2 players from the loser's bracket go to the finals.
Do the format above, but if a winner's bracket player wins the 4-player game, the tournament ends and they are champion.
If a loser's bracket player wins, another 3-player game is played with that player and the two winner's bracket players, and the winner of that game is champion.

EDIT: Just read Kirian's idea...remember, I never did institute a point system in BGGDL, and wouldn't advocate for one here either. With such short notice, I think just having a knockout tournament of some form (and the above is technically a pseudo-quadruple elimination) will be much simpler, and capping at a certain number of players as well.

46
If you need this to go fast, I think it's gotta be a single or double elimination.

Theory...seriously, just open signups and I'll handle the format.  ;)

EDIT: Is a 243-player double-elimination tournament going to be too large? Championships were 256...

47
Dominion Isotropic / Re: Game disconnects me during a long turn.
« on: June 13, 2012, 01:48:30 am »
Earlier today, I forced a player to resign (they WERE taking a while, but not long enough).
After I hit the button, they made an action and finished their turn.
On my turn, I went through everything as normal.

At the end of the turn, I got the "You Win!" message, saying they had resigned...I think he also said "gg" after that, weirdness all around...

48
Tournaments and Events / Re: Multiplayer league
« on: June 12, 2012, 01:02:02 am »
The BGGDL scoring system changed after I gave theory and Axxle the reigns. I have tepid interest in seeing it started up again, because the level system on isotropic effectively replaced it. I do very much love having won the league one round, though - it was also my best league to run, based on the sheer number of results each round.

I was never a fan of the point system, but I didn't fight it because I wasn't active in the league at that point (I did try to direct it in a way that made sense for the nature of the league). I would recommend not having a point system in any league you develop, and instead give priority to wins, and second place as tiebreaker.

Anyways, we always had a contingency for multiplayer games, but it only came into effect about a dozen times. It was effectively this:

If you won a 3p game outright, you earned 2 wins against those opponents (1 each), and they earned 1 loss each against you. Their net result against each other was a draw, and drawn games were always replayable. 4p games were the same, except you earned 3 wins (1 against each). If there was a tie for 1st place that wasn't broken by the rules, it was assessed in a similar way - the tied players beat everyone else except each other, and could replay their game as well. Effectively, if you won and someone else didn't win, you beat them; the standings only reflected these 1v1 contests, even though other players had significant impacts on the game.

49
I started the first online Dominion league that I am aware of (ask theory about that), so in addition to most of the concerns I'm seeing here, there are some things to remember:

1) The BGGDL (my league) was tailored to my own personal ability to run it, but there were some critical developments that came from it:
a) People played 2-player games almost exclusively (this actually makes organization significantly easier).
b) One-off games didn't suit most people (we ended up on a best-of-3 system for even the most basic matches). My playoff series ended up best-of-5, which I liked very much. In a live tournament, this might not be the case...who knows :)
c) For the most part, players preferred all-random setups and all the official rules from the game (with some exceptions relating to Alchemy).

2) There was a 256-person single-elimination tournament here not too long ago, and there's some ongoing stuff as well, I believe. Even those had best-of-7's (which I don't prefer over best-of-5's). You may want to look into those for formatting.

3) Online tournaments are very different from face-to-face...and most of us here prefer playing on isotropic, anyways...this is a tricky ground to try and walk, but I'm not saying that it can't be done.

50
Dominion Isotropic / Re: People to avoid on isotropic
« on: March 26, 2012, 12:16:15 am »
Yombonski:

21:07 metzgerism: glhf

[won the game on a final turn]

21:14 Yombonski: gay
21:14 metzgerism: g
21:14 Yombonski: faggot

And then he left.

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Page created in 0.09 seconds with 18 queries.