Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2]  All

Author Topic: How best to run a 3-player tournament  (Read 19747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ednever

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 602
  • Respect: +660
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2012, 04:02:27 pm »
+1

On Jay not interacting here:
I think we are all spoiled by DX being around. Jay is the founder/owner/CEO of Rio Grand, a company that makes a lot more games than just dominion (even though dominion is his favorite, along with rftg).

I also think people are under the belief that rgg is much bigger than they appear. Jay and his wife are the only employees... That's a lot for a couple of people to do... Not sure where checking forums falls on that list.

Ed
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1095
  • Respect: +1058
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2012, 04:12:55 pm »
+1

Because he's the one who's actually running the tournament... of course his word is the final say... Tournament Organizer always gets the final word...

i think you missed my intended point though.  of course, he is running the show so he makes the rules. but by his own admission he is not interested in tournaments.  that just makes me wonder why he doesn't interact more with the community in establishing formats and rules or even pass on the organization to someone else.

On Jay not interacting here:
I think we are all spoiled by DX being around. Jay is the founder/owner/CEO of Rio Grand, a company that makes a lot more games than just dominion.

right, i don't think any of us expect donald-level interactions. but with his other responsibilities and limited time it seems silly that he would also run the tournament.  i think it would be easier for him to either solicit input or to pass the buck to someone else. 

really, i think the issue is that dominion has seemed (to me) to grow significantly in popularity in the last year or so. about 2800 more users on the isotropic leaderboard right now compared to this time last year, rapid growth of these forums, and the impending release of an app that people can easily play on their phones and tablets.  your standard operating procedures will often need to change a little to accommodate that sort of growth.
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

Tejayes

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
  • Respect: +49
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2012, 04:14:20 pm »
0

i wanted to see discussion on 2p vs 3p vs 4p in response to jay's uncontested assertion that the tournament be 3p. i was not looking for more discussion on 3p, we had some of that already here, here, and in the preparations for the online qualifier.

The thing is, neither thread was/is geared specifically towards the advancement of 3p tournaments in general. They do have very useful information, but it's like telling someone to go to a cheese store instead of a chocolate shop if you want them to find a good dark-coated salted caramel. Maybe the cheese store really does have the best caramel, but it sort of negates the purpose of both stores, don't you think?

Quote
if that wasn't clear from the rest of my post discussing that issue, than that is my fault for not being clear and hey now you know.

I gleaned as much from your long argument with Donald X. over in Rules Questions.

Quote
i'm really not sure what you are getting so worked up over though.  that last post was a direct response to theory, and i stated in it that the poll and discussion could be found elsewhere. if the tangential posts are such a big concern i will gladly delete my other posts.

As I stated a few times already, I didn't create this thread for people to just whine about 3p tournaments but rather suggest ways to make them better. I get very easily frustrated when I have to repeat myself and people still continue what they ought not to. I don't know whether that person just can't get it, I'm not explaining it well enough, or that person is just being a troll. Anyway, no need to remove your prior comments, as it will just make the replies all the more confusing in context.

Quote
but hey if you'd really like my thoughts on 3p well then here they are:

Thank you! That's exactly what I wanted. Now, to address each point.

Quote
- formats, tiebreakers, etc. should to be consistent across all tournaments feeding into the nationals.  this means that the rules need to be able to accommodate a tournament of 8 players as well as 200 players.

Agreed.

Quote
- how do you adjust to odd player totals in tournaments? round robin setups will not always be viable or fair. seeding and byes means either a random draw or some previous input.  and capping tournament sizes seems in contradiction to jay's whole marketing argument.

Yes, odd numbers of players are a problem, and this is a good argument for 2p over 3p since wonky numbers are about 33% more likely in 3p tournaments. One would think that a system that allowed each player to play an equal number of games in an equal number of starting positions would be enough, but perhaps not.

Quote
- the amount of money in the copper/silver/gold piles needs to be specified. these pile sizes become more important as you add more players. to my knowledge there is no rule on this outside of isotropic. your argument that 2p requires more setups is directly dependent on this. 2p and 3p both have the same amount of vp per person, so it is the number of coin cards which limit things.

Usually, there are 40 Silvers and 30 Golds per game, plus whatever Coppers are leftover after forming the starter decks (46 in 2p, 39 in 3p, etc. with just Base). Both Base and Intrigue say you use all basic Treasures after forming the starter decks. The Intrigue rulebook establishes that the number of basic Treasures can be increased to allow for a more seemingly endless pile, so combining the basics from Base and Intrigue is fine. While you are correct that 2p and 3p use the same number of greens per person and would make splits easier in 2p, we'd have to reduce the number of Silvers and Golds from the standard 40 and 30 to allow set splitting (e.g. 26 Silvers and 20 Golds can accomodate three 2p games using two base card sets).

Quote
- games should be formed from fully randomized sets of cards OR pre-designed from a combination of at minimum 2 different sets.  base only tournament sets are luck dependent and flat out boring, both of which will hinder jay's efforts of trying to sell the game to outsiders. look to the DS.com championships for evidence of this. well designed sets with competitive players is a great thing to watch.

The decider at Nationals was Base only, and that was crap. It was also a 4p game, though, so... Otherwise, totally agree. I'm more of a predetermined set guy because that would allow for more early preparation and thus shorter intervals between games, hopefully. Oh, and the whole well-designed thing, too.

Quote
- 2p and 4p games should be avoided in a 3p tournament.  determine seeding or tiebreakers some other way.

VERY much agree!

Quote
- alternating seats in a 3p set so that everyone gets a chance at each seat seems silly to me.  the impact of seating order will vary wildly from game to game. i would just organize people by how they finished the last set.

True. Many boards and certain cards in particular disproportionately screw over Player 3. Only if the sets were all the same would that be more balanced, and who wants to just play the same set over and over and over...? Of course, your "last set" idea could hit snags when you have a wonky number of players and require sit-outs. Requires testing.

Quote
- one of your arguments pro-3p was the increased interaction and social environment.  i completely disagree. i think that there needs to be strict limits on what can and should be said during a game.  speculation on strategy, comments on points remaining, and comments on pile sizes all carry far more weight in 3p games.  it is simply too easy for seemingly offhand comments to influence the other players decisions.  i will freely admit to being a manipulative SOB in competitive gaming.  i pull all sorts of these shenanigans in playing settlers and puerto rico, and i have done the same in IRL dominion.

Professional poker players have to employ these tactics to win, so why not Dominion players? Yes, I know poker and Dominion are vastly different games, but any good game allows players to play other players as much as, if not more than, the game itself. As long as there are no physical shenanigans, playing mindgames with the opponents adds a level of competitiveness that further prove why I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO not right for tournament play.
Logged

Tejayes

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
  • Respect: +49
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2012, 04:18:27 pm »
+1

After competing in three multi player tournaments this year, i gave a lot if thought to these tournaments on the trip home. here are my thoughts (Detroit, DS.com, us nationals)

This is how I would run a 3p in-person tournament if I ran one tomorrow:

Prelims:
If group is divisible by 3, play 3 prelim rounds (or 6 for an "epic" tournament that runs longer). Everyone plays once from each seat.

Each table has two different sets. Cards are randomly determined from those two sets. Every game is different. No two people play each other more than once.

If not evenly divisible by 3, then have four rounds with every player getting a buy in one round to keep it to all 3p games.

Advancement to semi finals:
Players advance based on rank order with a cut off of 9 people (or 27 if there are two rounds)

First: players with the most wins (in practice this means 1-1-3 beats 1-2-2)
On a tie on wins, number of. 2nd place finishes
On a tie on second place finishes, wins in the last game of the match (which helps solve the "I've already locked it issue now I play for fun)
On a still tie: second place finishes in last game
Still tied: wins on second last game, etc

Only ties remaining would be those with absolutely identical records. For them either flip a coin, or wins vs top 9 players or something.

Semi finals:
9 players put into 3 seeded pods:
Pod 1- 1-6-7
Pod 2- 2-5-8
Pod 3- 3-4-9

Top player from each pod advances based on the same criteria as above (wins, 2nds, wins in last game)

In the case where a player comes 3-3 in the first two games, last game is played 2p (this means that every player has a chance to win in every game- there are no spoilers). Top seeded player plays p1 in the last game.

Finals:
Top player from each pod play another set of 3 3p games under the same rules as the semi.


All the semi and final kingdoms are designed kingdoms using all the sets.

Total time to play:
Prelims: ~40m per round x 3-4 rounds= 2h-2h40m
Semi finals: ~30m/round (since not slowed down by slowest game in each round)- 90m
Finals: same, 90m
Total: ~5h

Time can be extended by 2h by adding 3 games to prelims.

I've almost finished the excel model that does the seating for non-divisible by 3 prelims.

Happy to expand on reasoning as requested (particularly why no designed kimgdoms in prelims. I tried but unless you make some serious compromises - ie people playing the same kingdom more than once, or having an absurd number of kimgdoms, it's not possible...)

Ed

One more thing:

I have seen it written in many places that "Jay wants to do 3p for marketing purposes". I have no idea where that came from , but after talking to Jay this past weekend, it is absolutely not true.

Here is my interpretation on what Jay thinks:
1- he does not like tournaments. He sees them as a (potentially) necessary evil
      (he made a point at nationals of having a dinner before the event with all the participants so that we would know and like each other before we started playing. He wanted to do pickup games the evening before, etc)

2- jay doesn't really believe in marketing (at least the traditional kind). He wants to make good games that people want to introduce their friends to - that's his marketing

3- so why 3p? Two reasons:
   1- jay really doesn't like the way the game plays in 2p (call it personal preference)
   2- jay spoke to Donald (he trusts and respects Donald a lot), and together they agreed that 3p would be a great tournament format

That's really it. No conspiracy or big company manipulation. Just a guy trying to make the experience the best he knows how to do.

My personal belief, after a very recent adjustment, is that while Doninion is an amazing 2p Gand (the best in my opinion), and a pretty good 4p game, the full complexity of the game really shines in a 3p format.

I did not believe that until recently after playing a lot of 3p games.

I'm happy to write another post sometimd on why Dominion is at its peak in 3p, but that's for another day.

Ed

Have I mentioned how much I like you, ednever? Thank you so much for all of the info and ideas you posted.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1851
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2012, 04:24:03 pm »
0

I recall a few ideas that the participants (but mostly Ed) shared at the end of the tournament for 3 player games:

- If kingdoms are randomly determined, then implement veto mode. Pick a kingdom of 13 random cards, 2nd player vetoes 1 card, and 3rd player vetoes 2 cards
- Predetermined, predesigned kingdoms (e.g., kingdom design challenge)
- Player 2 has a random opening split; player 3 chooses an opening split and player 1 mirrors player 3's opening split
- Player 3 decides the opening split for all players

Surely some of these have to be good...
Logged

Tejayes

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
  • Respect: +49
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2012, 04:28:06 pm »
0

I recall a few ideas that the participants (but mostly Ed) shared at the end of the tournament for 3 player games:

- If kingdoms are randomly determined, then implement veto mode. Pick a kingdom of 13 random cards, 2nd player vetoes 1 card, and 3rd player vetoes 2 cards
- Predetermined, predesigned kingdoms (e.g., kingdom design challenge)
- Player 2 has a random opening split; player 3 chooses an opening split and player 1 mirrors player 3's opening split
- Player 3 decides the opening split for all players

Surely some of these have to be good...

They may be good, but they are also untested for the most part. If anyone has already played a game using the variants dondon151 mentioned, let us know how they turned out. If you want to play one of these variants, let us know the results then, too. The split ideas will be basically impossible to implement on Iso at the current time, but there are ways to make the escalated veto idea work using randomizers and chat/PM, I should hope.
Logged

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2901
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2388
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2012, 04:30:17 pm »
0

I recall a few ideas that the participants (but mostly Ed) shared at the end of the tournament for 3 player games:

- If kingdoms are randomly determined, then implement veto mode. Pick a kingdom of 13 random cards, 2nd player vetoes 1 card, and 3rd player vetoes 2 cards
- Predetermined, predesigned kingdoms (e.g., kingdom design challenge)
- Player 2 has a random opening split; player 3 chooses an opening split and player 1 mirrors player 3's opening split
- Player 3 decides the opening split for all players

Surely some of these have to be good...

My favorite idea of yours is player 3 deciding opening split for all players. That seems pretty fair. Your veto mode idea is interesting. But, I would change it too player 3 vetoes first, player 2 vetoes second, and player 1 vetoes last.
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1095
  • Respect: +1058
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2012, 04:34:30 pm »
0

Quote
Usually, there are 40 Silvers and 30 Golds per game, plus whatever Coppers are leftover after forming the starter decks (46 in 2p, 39 in 3p, etc. with just Base). Both Base and Intrigue say you use all basic Treasures after forming the starter decks. The Intrigue rulebook establishes that the number of basic Treasures can be increased to allow for a more seemingly endless pile, so combining the basics from Base and Intrigue is fine. While you are correct that 2p and 3p use the same number of greens per person and would make splits easier in 2p, we'd have to reduce the number of Silvers and Golds from the standard 40 and 30 to allow set splitting (e.g. 26 Silvers and 20 Golds can accomodate three 2p games using two base card sets).

intrigue rules actually specify that the money piles are intended to "be in abundant enough supply to not run out".  page 2 of this pdf. now, that is not really reasonable in any early knockout stage, but by the final round you could have ten spare games sitting around.  do you use all of those cards then? or do you stay consistent with the early rounds?  its mostly a fringe question, but it is trouble which can be avoided with an early specification.

Quote
Professional poker players have to employ these tactics to win, so why not Dominion players? Yes, I know poker and Dominion are vastly different games, but any good game allows players to play other players as much as, if not more than, the game itself. As long as there are no physical shenanigans, playing mindgames with the opponents adds a level of competitiveness that further prove why I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO not right for tournament play.

i think this was just listed as an issue at some qualifier.  if i remember right, some comment from an outsider led to a game being restarted, and another comment led to another player ending it before the other player could have a chance to win.  the community at large might not agree, and it will likely lead to another rambling thread on dominion ethics.  either way, i think it is an action which is very likely to generate ill will.
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

Tejayes

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
  • Respect: +49
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2012, 04:53:32 pm »
0

intrigue rules actually specify that the money piles are intended to "be in abundant enough supply to not run out".  page 2 of this pdf. now, that is not really reasonable in any early knockout stage, but by the final round you could have ten spare games sitting around.  do you use all of those cards then? or do you stay consistent with the early rounds?  its mostly a fringe question, but it is trouble which can be avoided with an early specification.

Personally, I would prefer a set number of Golds, Silvers, and even Coppers for each game, up to and including the championship game(s). Honestly, the whole notion of cards that are "in abundant enough supply to not run out" never anticipated Tunnel or Trader or any other shenaniganny cards like them. This is a good issue to discuss further, I think.

Quote
i think this was just listed as an issue at some qualifier.  if i remember right, some comment from an outsider led to a game being restarted, and another comment led to another player ending it before the other player could have a chance to win.  the community at large might not agree, and it will likely lead to another rambling thread on dominion ethics.  either way, i think it is an action which is very likely to generate ill will.
Outside comments should be forbidden, yes. In-game comments, however, are just fine with me. I'm personally not against the idea of mindgaming your opponents into submission, mostly because I'm most likely not going to play in any tournaments again (I'd rather run them). If enough people are against it, we can ban in-game chatter in tournament play. Facial expressions, body language, and telltale coughing might still be allowed, though.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1851
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #34 on: July 16, 2012, 06:53:36 pm »
+1

Outside comments should be forbidden, yes. In-game comments, however, are just fine with me. I'm personally not against the idea of mindgaming your opponents into submission, mostly because I'm most likely not going to play in any tournaments again (I'd rather run them). If enough people are against it, we can ban in-game chatter in tournament play. Facial expressions, body language, and telltale coughing might still be allowed, though.

I believe that disallowing chatter between players is somewhat contradictory to the spirit of RL play. One of the reasons why my big mouth inadvertently caused a game to be thrown out is because I was just so used to making offhand comments in RL games among friends, about half of which is obviously bad advice (4/3 opening, herp derp open Throne Room/Tunnel) or what I think are obvious statements (2 piles gone, cheapest kingdom card left is Watchtower with 3 more copies in the supply).

A good player shouldn't be affected by these sorts of utterances because he should have a plan and the commitment to stick to it. If he has doubts about the soundness of his strategy, then he's probably lost. Now, spectators should keep their mouth shut, but I really don't want to play in a match where any slip of the tongue, no matter how funny nor innocuous I think it, would force the game to restart.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1851
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2012, 07:08:30 pm »
0

On another note, I'm anticipating arguments that measures taken to reduce the effect of shuffle luck and seating position in tournament play (such as those brought up previously) are variants because they are not explicitly allowed by the Dominion rulebook, and should therefore not be implemented.

There is no indication that a variant should not be the default format for tournament play! The tournament formats for many competitive games use an official ruleset that is a variant of the base game. I myself am more familiar with video gaming than boardgaming, but games with large competitive communities such as Super Smash Bros. and Pokemon both employ heavily restricted rulesets in order to promulgate a healthy competitive game that minimizes the influence of luck and explicitly or implicitly removes imbalanced elements from the game.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4347
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #36 on: July 16, 2012, 07:12:20 pm »
+1

More games.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4347
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #37 on: July 16, 2012, 07:22:44 pm »
0

On another note, 'Jay wants it this way' is a good reason when discussing tournaments run by Jay. But it doesn't seem to me that there's much point in discussing such things anyway - it seems doubtful that what we say will influence Jay in how he runs things. Which is not a reason to not discuss how best to run 3p tournaments in general.

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1851
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #38 on: July 16, 2012, 07:48:33 pm »
0

On another note, 'Jay wants it this way' is a good reason when discussing tournaments run by Jay. But it doesn't seem to me that there's much point in discussing such things anyway - it seems doubtful that what we say will influence Jay in how he runs things. Which is not a reason to not discuss how best to run 3p tournaments in general.

No, you're right. But there are certain things that Jay is willing to compromise on; it was he himself who asked the participants after the tiebreak round had concluded about how the tournament format could be done better. I'm guessing that 2 player tournaments officially sponsored by RGG are out of the question, but every other aspect within the tournament format and rules seems to be up to discussion.
Logged

metzgerism

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
  • Respect: +15
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #39 on: July 17, 2012, 03:46:53 pm »
+2

With 3-player, my ideal is a 27-player Double Elimination bracket (with the bye representing a loss).
It takes 5 rounds in length to complete, and everyone is guaranteed to be in at least the first 2.
Also, losing early doesn't hamstring you like 2p DE tournaments - there is only one "bye" in the whole bracket, and everyone in the final needs to have 3 wins. It really is an awesome bracket format (I'm not sure if anyone else has discovered it, either).

For dominion, I'd have each round be a "best-of-4" pod (I have no suggestion on ties).
This guarantees you 4 meaningful games at the very minimum. Additionally, players can continue to play after elimination, for ranking.

This probably cannot be done every single time, obviously. Exact player numbers are not always enforceable.

---

I also very much enjoy 3-player, and honestly believe that it is Dominion's "sweet spot."
However, there are significant balance issues in 3p that prevent it from being seriously considered for high-level play.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 03:51:28 pm by metzgerism »
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2725
  • Respect: +1463
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #40 on: July 17, 2012, 04:18:49 pm »
+1

With 3-player, my ideal is a 27-player Double Elimination bracket (with the bye representing a loss).
+1 for elegance. But this is effectively a 5-round swiss where players get kicked after two losses. Swiss might be preferable so that people can keep playing.
Logged

metzgerism

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
  • Respect: +15
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #41 on: July 17, 2012, 04:25:11 pm »
+1

With 3-player, my ideal is a 27-player Double Elimination bracket (with the bye representing a loss).
+1 for elegance. But this is effectively a 5-round swiss where players get kicked after two losses. Swiss might be preferable so that people can keep playing.

This guarantees you 4 meaningful games at the very minimum. Additionally, players can continue to play after elimination, for ranking.

It wouldn't be exactly the same because of the lost bye round in round 4, and every pathway is scripted - you MUST win to advance.
And Swiss is typically a single-elimination bracket with consolation rounds. Potayto Potahto.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 04:27:59 pm by metzgerism »
Logged

Razzishi

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Shuffle iT Username: Eye Urn
  • Respect: +119
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #42 on: August 14, 2012, 12:04:22 am »
0

Pretty late to the party, but I was going back over this forum now that GenCon is this week.....

The following works with 6 or more players, although it's a bit excessive until you get quite a few more.  I have no advice on how to choose kingdoms, just on 3p tournament setup that recognizes the need to fairly arrange seat order.

Arrange people into pods of 3.  In case of an uneven number of players, have 1 or 2 pods of 2.  Players play a set of 2 games against the same opponents, swapping 3rd and 1st playing positions for the second game irrespective of finishing order in the first game.  After each set players still wishing to play are formed into new pods for another set, with the pods being among similarly ranked players as in Swiss pairings.  No one should face the same opponent more than once; unless you're playing way more sets than you need this shouldn't be an issue but might require some management to ensure.  The number of sets to play will be dependent on the number of players and the time available, taking into account the time needed for future rounds as will be discussed later; the bare minimum number of sets is 2.  Scores per game are 4/2/0 points (4/0 for 2p), spread evenly in case of shared places (assuming equal turns, etc.).  Cut at least half the field to the next lowest power of 3.  That is, cut 17 or less to 3, 18-53 to 9, 54-161 to 27, etc.  First tie breaker is average game points of opponents, second is best performance in a more recent set of games, third is overall wins.  If still tied, coin flip.  Or follow how DCI reporter was programmed at one point to handle exact ties: first player listed on the master player list is listed first in standings, meaning the first player to register among those tied gets the nod.  But definitely do not play another game.

If that cut was to 3^n people, do the following n times:

Determine pods of 3 by Swiss pairing methods and play a set of 3 games, with each player going once in each position.  Players may face the same opponents that they did in previous rounds with no restrictions.  Scores per game are 4+X/2+Y/0 where the previous round was X/Y/0, added to previous scores.  Cut to the top third of the field.  Tiebreakers are the same, counting an opponent's average once for each set in which he was faced.
Logged
Stop reading my signature.

MaartenRobinson

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #43 on: September 06, 2012, 04:12:12 am »
0

Thanks for all these comments and contributions.   I live in the UK and have not seen much about Dominion Tournaments here, and certainly not much in the South-West [perhaps we have been disctracted by the Olympics and Paralympics this year].  However,  on a recent holiday to the Netherlands [where we managed, incidently, to buy Intrigue and SeaSide [both Dutch versions] and Prosperity in German, adding to our French Hinterlands and our English all the other sets] I took a notebook and started working out how a tournament with 9, 10, 11, 12 and so on competitors might work.  I agree with several of you that a good tournament needs a mix of 3, 4 and even 2 player competitions.   One of the nicest is to have a number of players divisible by 9 ... then you get the first three rounds randomly allocated and no-one need play another player twice in those three rounds.   I wasn't sure if 5,3,1 or 6,3,0 should be used.  I like the 6.3.0 then you can use 6.4.2.0 for 4 player games and have the same winning score.  Good for a mix of 3 and 4 in the same round.

 If you are playing with multiples of 9 you can pre-select cross fertilsation across the groups of 9 ... I must admit that it can get very addictive ... working it out ... it's good fun.

After those 3 rounds ... continue with a sort of Swiss round [it helps to balance the results across the board when the randomness didn't quite get it right in the first 3 rounds].  Swiss in this context would play the top 4 [so far] against each other ... then the next 4 and next 4 and so on.   Yes ... moving to 4 player games.   If the numbers don't add up ... then adjust with a subtle mix of 4 and 3 [but concentrate on the 4 at the higher end of the rankings].

For the 5th round ... seed the players ... as mentioned before [by whatever means ... ] but on 4 players per table.

After this round you have a set of results from which to pick your semi-final table and so on down the listings.
The top 4 after this 5th round ... play against each other and the top 2 then play a final for overall 1st and 2nd.  The next 2 play for 3rd and 4th place ... and you may wish to continue to the 5th and 6th play off ... Perhaps you are running a sequence of tournaments and the lower positions matter [cf F1 racing pts].

Then I thought ... but above all, what is important in all this is, that the players enjoy their playing and that it doesn't just get to be a set of tournament rules being enacted [this was part of our sermon at church on Sunday just gone ... Mark 7 vv6-8] ... it sort of rang true.

So I wrote down some ground rules.
- Enjoyment of the players
- the opportunity for  the best overall player on the day to be the winner
- to play Dominion largely as it was designed [ie for 2 - 4 players] ... I know you can play with 5-6 but I'm keeping it simpler for my mind to cope with.
- Enjoyment of the organisers and without too much hassle [not sure of spelling ... or is it hastle].

So 5 rounds then semis and then finals ... or cut it shorter if need be.  With only 12 players ... I would do a round of 3x4p then a round of 4x3p then a Swiss and then seeded ... then into Semis [4p] and Final [2p]

Just a thought ... but above all Enjoy.
Logged

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1007
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +913
    • View Profile
Re: How best to run a 3-player tournament
« Reply #44 on: September 06, 2012, 05:43:45 am »
0

I'd run it as a straight Swiss. All the games in a round - bar possibly one at the bottom of the draw - are 3-player; that one is 2-player, 3-player or 4-player to ensure no byes.

Your opponents are - wherever possible - players on a similar score to you who you haven't already played yet.

Your seating position in any given game is a function of your average seating position so far - the earlier you've been on average, the later in seating position you get in a later game.

Games score 12 for the winner, 6 for the runner-up and 0 for the loser. The odd game at the bottom scores 12-0, 12-6-0 or 12-8-4-0 depending on its size. If there's a tie for position in a game, the players split the points equally.

If there's a cash prize for the tournament and players tie for it, split the money equally between the tied competitors. If there is an indivisible prize, such as a trophy, run a playoff game between all the players who tied for it.
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 0.085 seconds with 20 queries.