Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ddubois]

I'm in.

[kulap]

in

[glengarry]

count me in!  i'm on iso every day, why not?

[Stringer Bell]

I'd love to play, but I'm not all that good. Is this a tournament for more experienced players who are higher on the leaderboard or is it open for anyone? Here is my Council Room profile link: http://councilroom.com/player?player=Stringer+Bell

[jsh357]

I'd love to play, but I'm not all that good. Is this a tournament for more experienced players who are higher on the leaderboard or is it open for anyone? Here is my Council Room profile link: http://councilroom.com/player?player=Stringer+Bell

People of all skill ranks play, but naturally, the people on top of the leaderboard tend to perform better.

[Stringer Bell]

I'd love to play, but I'm not all that good. Is this a tournament for more experienced players who are higher on the leaderboard or is it open for anyone? Here is my Council Room profile link: http://councilroom.com/player?player=Stringer+Bell

People of all skill ranks play, but naturally, the people on top of the leaderboard tend to perform better.

Thanks. I'll \in and just do the best I can.

[Caractacus2]

Can I please play?

[O]

Can I please play?

Yes.

[zxcvbn2]

Can I please play?

Yes.

Though, by my count, Caractacus is the 65th person so perhaps he/she can't...

[O]

Can I please play?

Yes.

Though, by my count, Caractacus is the 65th person so perhaps he/she can't...

Swiss has no need for a specific number of people per bracket, the 32 person for first bracket was just arbitrarily chosen by Kirian.

[bedlam]

Please sign me up.

[zxcvbn2]

Can I please play?

Yes.

Though, by my count, Caractacus is the 65th person so perhaps he/she can't...

Swiss has no need for a specific number of people per bracket, the 32 person for first bracket was just arbitrarily chosen by Kirian.

This isn't true, is it? If we're only playing five rounds of swiss, the maximum # of players you can have and trust the results is 32, and challonge won't support a swiss unless you make the # of rounds == # of rounds necessary in single elimination (not that you would need to use challonge, I'm just noting it).

Also, he did specifically say this: " positions will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis," implying that there are a limited # of positions in the tournament. I assumed that # would be 64 players. I'm all for lots of players and all, but in the lower bracket it leads to a good deal of uncertainty that the players who played best get into the top 8. I won't complain too much if Kirian lets everyone in, of course. I actually like letting as many in as possible, I would just rather either add a round of swiss or split into three if that's what we are going to do.

[O]

Can I please play?

Yes.

Though, by my count, Caractacus is the 65th person so perhaps he/she can't...

Swiss has no need for a specific number of people per bracket, the 32 person for first bracket was just arbitrarily chosen by Kirian.

This isn't true, is it? If we're only playing five rounds of swiss, the maximum # of players you can have and trust the results is 32, and challonge won't support a swiss unless you make the # of rounds == # of rounds necessary in single elimination (not that you would need to use challonge, I'm just noting it).

Also, he did specifically say this: " positions will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis," implying that there are a limited # of positions in the tournament. I assumed that # would be 64 players. I'm all for lots of players and all, but in the lower bracket it leads to a good deal of uncertainty that the players who played best get into the top 8. I won't complain too much if Kirian lets everyone in, of course. I actually like letting as many in as possible, I would just rather either add a round of swiss or split into three if that's what we are going to do.

Erm, i've been in chess tournaments with several hundred people and 5-6 rounds under the swiss system

Tiebreaker points and/or playoff rounds are your friends, especially if we're going into a finals with like 8 people or something.

If for some insane reason Kirian doesn't want to take over 32 people in each bracket, I will gladly give up my spot for someone else. This type of exclusionary crap really bugs me when it isn't required by the limits of the tournament system.

[zxcvbn2]

Can I please play?

Yes.

Though, by my count, Caractacus is the 65th person so perhaps he/she can't...

Swiss has no need for a specific number of people per bracket, the 32 person for first bracket was just arbitrarily chosen by Kirian.

This isn't true, is it? If we're only playing five rounds of swiss, the maximum # of players you can have and trust the results is 32, and challonge won't support a swiss unless you make the # of rounds == # of rounds necessary in single elimination (not that you would need to use challonge, I'm just noting it).

Also, he did specifically say this: " positions will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis," implying that there are a limited # of positions in the tournament. I assumed that # would be 64 players. I'm all for lots of players and all, but in the lower bracket it leads to a good deal of uncertainty that the players who played best get into the top 8. I won't complain too much if Kirian lets everyone in, of course. I actually like letting as many in as possible, I would just rather either add a round of swiss or split into three if that's what we are going to do.

Erm, i've been in chess tournaments with several hundred people and 5-6 rounds under the swiss system

Tiebreaker points and/or playoff rounds are your friends, especially if we're going into a finals with like 8 people or something.

If for some insane reason Kirian doesn't want to take over 32 people in each bracket, I will gladly give up my spot for someone else. This type of exclusionary crap really bugs me when it isn't required by the limits of the tournament system.

Fair enough. Yeah, the last IsoDom was one of the biggest reasons I started following this forum so closely. I definitely am for including more people, I think it's a lot more fun to play with the same person several times in a row, and it brings more people into the forum. I'm sorry if I came off as dickish, I was just explaining myself. An eight-person playoff should offset any uncertainty about who's at the top.

[Kirian]

I was actually planning to split into three brackets if we got enough players.  However, I would prefer to have no fewer than 24 players in any of the brackets.  But I have to agree with O here--these cutoffs (24 and 32) are arbitrary.  So we'll skip 'em.

Challonge may not support having fewer than log2(N) rounds but, thankfully, you don't have to use every round on Challonge.

Those of you who have had experience with Swiss tournaments:  would you rather play in a bracket of 22 or a bracket of 34 with a lower-than-"proper" number of rounds?  As O says, with a Swiss system it's not really a big deal to have a weird number.  I lean toward having a larger pool.

I'd love to play, but I'm not all that good. Is this a tournament for more experienced players who are higher on the leaderboard or is it open for anyone? Here is my Council Room profile link: http://councilroom.com/player?player=Stringer+Bell

People of all skill ranks play, but naturally, the people on top of the leaderboard tend to perform better.

Thanks. I'll \in and just do the best I can.

The separate brackets will be divided by skill level (common in chess tournaments), so you'll face lower-level players anyway.  Granted, there's a bit more prestige to winning the top bracket than the lower ones.

[O]

Clearly I support a larger pool

and Zxcvbn2q4lr23k4.... 8, you weren't being dickish, I just have a strong opinion about the issue.

[Fabian]

The cutoffs are far from arbitrary if we're doing a set number of swiss runs and want the results to be meaningful. In magic tournaments (which cuts to quarterfinals single elimination play after x rounds of swiss, just like this tournament), you play 5 rounds up to 32 players, 6 rounds up to 64 players, etc. This typically ensures that a record of X-1-1 (so 4 wins 1 loss 1 draw in a 6 round tournament) will be enough for t8. Saying "whatevs it's just arbitrary, let's do 5 rounds with 49 players!" means the system collapses. If we're doing 49 players, we do 6 rounds of swiss imo.

A swiss tournament with "several hundred players" and 5-6 rounds of swiss maybe works in a chess tournament where there's no cut to top8, but in a structure like this it would be straight up ridiculous. Plus, saying "playoff rounds" is good in such situations if necessary is also silly; those are called "more swiss rounds".

Now, I'm all for a big tournament, but add the necessary number of rounds. Otherwise, split it up to fewer than 33 players per bracket.

[O]

The cutoffs are far from arbitrary if we're doing a set number of swiss runs and want the results to be meaningful. In magic tournaments (which cuts to quarterfinals single elimination play after x rounds of swiss, just like this tournament), you play 5 rounds up to 32 players, 6 rounds up to 64 players, etc. This typically ensures that a record of X-1-1 (so 4 wins 1 loss 1 draw in a 6 round tournament) will be enough for t8. Saying "whatevs it's just arbitrary, let's do 5 rounds with 49 players!" means the system collapses. If we're doing 49 players, we do 6 rounds of swiss imo.

A swiss tournament with "several hundred players" and 5-6 rounds of swiss maybe works in a chess tournament where there's no cut to top8, but in a structure like this it would be straight up ridiculous. Plus, saying "playoff rounds" is good in such situations if necessary is also silly; those are called "more swiss rounds".

Now, I'm all for a big tournament, but add the necessary number of rounds. Otherwise, split it up to fewer than 33 players per bracket.

no... "more swiss rounds" still require the entire bracket to continue playing, and can have significant changes in the leaderboard. "Playoff rounds" require 8 people or whatever to remain active

Also your system doesn't really ensure anything, since it assumes a closer to normal distribution of game results then dominion yields. A clear top ~8 will emerge pretty quickly (5-6 rounds) out of even large playgroups because of the (comparatively) low variance of dominion matches.

[Fabian]

It doesn't ensure anything, and I didn't say it did. I did say it typically ensures something, in magic tournaments.

That said, the possible results in a Magic tournament and a Dominion tournament are the same; win/draw/loss. There are fewer draws in Dominion, but other than that I don't understand your point. Low variance? Take 32 players and play one round; you will have 16 winners no matter what the variance. Take 32 players and play two rounds; you will have 8 winners no matter what the variance. etc etc. The variance in individual games/matches is meaningless, you're ending up with a normal distribution no matter what in swiss (draws complicate this, but like I said, they're more rare in Dominion anyway).

It's very easy to predict what the distribution will look like in swiss tournaments, especially when discounting draws and discounting dropouts. With 32 players and 5 rounds, you'll have exactly one 5-0, exactly five 4-1, exactly ten 3-2, etc. In real life it's not quite so easy because of dropouts/draws, but "variance" isn't an issue at all. And like I said, there's fewer draws in Dominion than (for example) real life Magic anyway, so the distribution is closer to normal than what I would be used to from my swiss tournament playing.

[O]

Variance in individual games/matches is not meaningless.. With low variance, 5-0 match scores and the like are much more likely to occur.

[zxcvbn2]

It doesn't ensure anything, and I didn't say it did. I did say it typically ensures something, in magic tournaments.

That said, the possible results in a Magic tournament and a Dominion tournament are the same; win/draw/loss. There are fewer draws in Dominion, but other than that I don't understand your point. Low variance? Take 32 players and play one round; you will have 16 winners no matter what the variance. Take 32 players and play two rounds; you will have 8 winners no matter what the variance. etc etc. The variance in individual games/matches is meaningless, you're ending up with a normal distribution no matter what in swiss (draws complicate this, but like I said, they're more rare in Dominion anyway).

It's very easy to predict what the distribution will look like in swiss tournaments, especially when discounting draws and discounting dropouts. With 32 players and 5 rounds, you'll have exactly one 5-0, exactly five 4-1, exactly ten 3-2, etc. In real life it's not quite so easy because of dropouts/draws, but "variance" isn't an issue at all. And like I said, there's fewer draws in Dominion than (for example) real life Magic anyway, so the distribution is closer to normal than what I would be used to from my swiss tournament playing.

Will draws be possible in this tournament, by the way? That is to say, if we play five games and end up 2-2-1, should we be playing a sixth game?

[Fabian]

I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think you understand the swiss system. Each round, players face other players with the same number of match points (=wins). In a 32 player tournament with 5 swiss rounds, it's impossible for two players to end up with a 5-0 record, as they will face each other in round 5 with a 4-0 record (if they haven't been randomly paired in an earlier round of course), and only one of them can win. This is true even if these two players' winrates are 100.0% against all the other 30 players in the tournament (ie, they're Stef and Obi Wan on steroids). Only one of them is finishing with a 5-0 record anyway, every single time.

zxc, that's up to Kirian I guess. If we did play a sixth game, it would be even easier to predict what the final standings would look like of course, since we'd only have dropouts to worry about "ruining" a perfect normal distribution*.

* Well, and the inherent randomness from an uneven amount of players if we're not doing exactly 32.

[O]

I understand the swiss, I was referring to A) The odds that *one* player finishes 5-0 in a 32 player, 5 round system and B) The odds of finishing 5-0 in the vast majority of swiss system tournaments that don't follow rounds = log2(players)

[O]

Addendum: Lol, forgot. Even in 32-player 5 round chess there's still Black-White switches which can transcend point count and the like.

Yes, someone has to go 5-0 in basic 32 player 5 rounds with no ties

[CoheedandCambria]

Can you please take me off the list? I'm going to be taking a long break from dominion.

Sorry for the inconvenience