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?
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 2p and 4p games should be avoided in a 3p tournament. determine seeding or tiebreakers some other way.
VERY much agree!
- 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.
- 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.