Print

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

[Geronimoo]

So we tried organizing a multiplayer tournament and failed. How about a multiplayer league? This could work like the BGGDL of olden days. You play a game (or X games) and register the outcome on the forum. This would take away the burden of trying to match up schedules.
Now we only need someone to set it up.

Discuss!

[yuma]

How would this work. I wasn't around in the glory days of BGGDL. Would I just type "league player" into my status and hope people show up to play some games with?

[Geronimoo]

Yes, the BGGDL players would add something like "[BGGDL]" to their status to indicate they wanted to play league games.

[Axxle]

I may be able to alter the old BGGDL spreadsheet for a multiplayer league if that's something people are interested in.  We'll probably have to have another discussion about how much standings are worth.

One of the old spreadsheets in case anyone is interested: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhFZRiD-k6n7dG9naDVxeGdXS05fZ3pKcm11MHNpanc


Ah, I was so active on iso in those days...

[DG]

The problem with the old BGGL league was that some people were playing lots of games and some people were playing very few games. It seemed difficult to reward players enough so they kept playing more matches and yet not reward them so much that good players with fewer matches were excluded. It also meant that players on GMT- typically had to stay up very late to get matches with the GMT+ players in the US.

[Jorbles]

The problem with the old BGGL league was that some people were playing lots of games and some people were playing very few games. It seemed difficult to reward players enough so they kept playing more matches and yet not reward them so much that good players with fewer matches were excluded. It also meant that players on GMT- typically had to stay up very late to get matches with the GMT+ players in the US.

I like the idea, but I'm not sure how the actual system would work. Here's an attempt at an answer though:

Each player must play at least X games. Those games are scored 0 points for last, 1 point for second last, etc. Once each player has hit X games they can only have further games count if they are playing against someone who has not yet reached their number of X games. Why play more games? Because you can bump out your worst scoring game with a better scoring game. So if you play X games and have some amount of poor finishes you can improve your standing by helping other people finish if you finish in a better place. Yes, this rewards people who play more games, but they can't just go nuts and play everyone constantly, they can only play people who haven't yet hit their quota. If we're worried about people trying to just play the most games so they'll have the best score due to the law of averages, we say players can play at most Y games where Y > X. This rewards players who play more, but not substantially.

[Axxle]

On another note: It will be strange to figure out how to limit people from playing against each other too often, if we're too harsh on limiting it we might create a scenario where one player can't play.  As an extreme example, lets say you can only play against each opponent once.  Axxle, yuma, Geronimoo, and DG all play a game.  Now Jorbles can't play a game since any combination of three opponents have already played each other.  And if we're too lenient, some players may be able to game the system, even unintentionally.

[theory]

Yes, the BGGDL players would add something like "[BGGDL]" to their status to indicate they wanted to play league games.

True story: BGGDL was responsible for several days worth of rrenaud's coding time for councilroom.

[Grujah]

Oh, BGGDL.. Oh, the memories. 

[Axxle]

Yes, the BGGDL players would add something like "[BGGDL]" to their status to indicate they wanted to play league games.

True story: BGGDL was responsible for several days worth of rrenaud's coding time for councilroom.

That was when people added BGGDL to their names, not statuses, to clarify for anyone thinking this was confusing.

[michaeljb]

Somehow I thought I'd posted in here. Anyway, I'm interested in participating in this, or any sort of league structure anyone wants to organize.

[Axxle]

Ok, how about something simple?:

- Games of 3 (or 4) players
- Scoring:
-- A win just means placing higher than the opponent.
-- Each pair of players can play up to 5 ranked matches against the other.
--- Ties don't count.
-- Each win get gets you one point
-- Each loss earns you none
-- Only the first three non-draw games against that player count for scoring.
-- You are allowed to play with that player even after your matches are completed, in order to get a full multiplayer game going for example
-- If you've played against fewer than 4 (or 6) unqualified players you are disqualified
-- If you've played fewer than 5 ranked matches you are disqualified

Does that sound good?  BGGDL had some wonky scoring system that I can try to implement instead: http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/guild:940:Rules   It's hard for new players to understand it though.  It is better about not letting bad, active players place high.

[metzgerism]

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.

[metzgerism]

I recommended an idea for the current Isotropic U.S. qualifier - theory ultimately chose something else, but I think the idea (a minor tweak to what we did with the BGGDL) could serve as the basis for a rotating league or series of tournaments. Here's what I'm thinking:

* Adopt the one-off format of the first couple installments of BGGDL (that is, no best-of-3's or point system), and require all games to be 3p or 4p. Multiplayer never really did well with "best-of-x" series, and with the "replay ties" format you're going to play most opponents multiple times anyways.

* Divide players into approximately X groups of ~Y players. I did this for one tournament in my old chess league about 7 years ago, we got 30 players in 5 groups of 6. We actually started with 3 groups, then at a certain point added a 4th with those players that were waiting, so that we get everyone started on their tournament shortly after they registered, but also allow for similar sized groups and more groups as the tournament got larger. Very subjective to assess, but it was pretty nice in practice.

* The top Z players in each group, plus some wild cards, would advance to a bracket or a second pool stage (which would then be followed by a bracket).

---

The malleable groups idea would also work pretty well, if it can be assessed consistently and smoothly, in a 2p league or tournament as well.

[Snork]

Hello, I'd be interested in playing in a league.  Is the BGG Dominion league no longer in existence?  I have been trying to find a link to it unsuccessfully for about an hour.  That might be why I can't find anything...  Are there any Dominion leagues functioning at present?

[Axxle]

Hello, I'd be interested in playing in a league.  Is the BGG Dominion league no longer in existence?  I have been trying to find a link to it unsuccessfully for about an hour.  That might be why I can't find anything...  Are there any Dominion leagues functioning at present?

The link to the Inactive BGG league is here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/guild/940

There is currently no league active at the moment.  Many of the participants of BGGDL lost interest due to the leaderboard coming into existence and the numbers that were left made the league unsustainable.

There are tournaments that crop up every once in a while. Just keep your eye on this subforum.

I don't think any league will be starting any time soon, at least not until we transition to funsockets.

[Axxle]

Oh, and welcome to the site!

[Snork]

Thanks!  I've been snooping and reading for quite a while now, I just finally registered for an account for the forums

[metzgerism]

Axxle, I've actually been considering firing up a league once more. These are a few considerations I'm having:

1) FunSockets may kill everything - INCLUDING the leaderboard - so any long-running leagues should probably wait.
2) IsoDom is filling the role of ongoing league here, although there's room for something different (and BGGDL was certainly different).
3) Because of IsoDom, the only way a "new BGGDL" would get off the ground is if it offered something different - like 3p games.

4) I lost interest in playing BGGDL games and collating data. I loved running the thing, but the busy work sucked. Now I have a job that takes more of my time, and while I don't necessarily think my free time is any less than it was then, I understand better now that you just can't have a massive glut of games and expect everyone to want to dive in. Moderation is probably key here.

I've REALLY got a chronologically-incorrect craving to run some BGGDL right now, so it's definitely something I'm looking into.

[Axxle]

Actually if we get a league running again, even a 2 player one, I think Isodom would be able to transition away from swiss and be a double or single elimination tournament again.  I think the whole reason it moved to swiss in the first place was so people could compete the entire time, and a league fills that role.  It would definitely be worth talking to Kirian about this.

[Qvist]

I considered organizing a league, but I wanted to wait until 1) my lists are over and 2) the DA previews are over.
But more important:
I didn't want to start that on isotropic anymore because of the problems that may occur if it has to shut down in the middle of a league and not everybody wants to transition to funsockets.
But funsockets isn't yet "solid" enough to start this yet there. So, I think I'll wait.