Dominion Strategy Forum
Archive => Archive => GokoDom => Topic started by: Mean Mr Mustard on September 20, 2011, 08:08:30 am
-
Format:
16 players.
Players will be ranked 1-4 according to ladder ranking.
Players will be divided into four divisions consisting of one player from each ranking, seeded randomly.
One match-ups are announced players have one week to play each round.
Each round the first player to win three matches will move on, loser is eliminated.
Tourney Rules:
1. First 16 to sign up will win seats, but <b>please do not sign up if there is any chance whatsoever that you will not be able to complete your matches within a week</b>.
2. Games will be played, by default: Identical hands, point counter on, veto mode. Players in any match may agree to play each game however they like, so long as the kingdom is random and both players agree.
3. After each match the game logs will be posted in the tourney results thread.
4. Prize: $25 Walmart gift card, non-negotiable. If you are too proud to shop at Walmart I'll use it for diapers or something.
Players:
Mean Mr Mustard
Davio
Jimmmmm
Brando Commando
boloni
barsooma
shark_bait
ehunt
theParty
[MAD] Max
mith
greatexpectations
Pooka
Michaeljb
merga
Cminer
Alternates:
Buggz
rspeer
-
Can I use the Walmart coupon from Europe...???
-
I was interested until I saw your default match rules. No thanks.
-
That's only 2 Euros probably so I wouldn't worry about it :p
-
The fact that someone is actually willing to organize this is enough for me.
I'm with you, Col. Mustard.
Players:
Mean Mr Mustard
Davio
-
I'm in.
Players:
Mean Mr Mustard
Davio
Jimmmmm
-
I'll in.
Players:
Mean Mr Mustard
Davio
Jimmmmm
Brando Commando
-
I'm in
-
I'm in.
Players:
Mean Mr Mustard
Davio
Jimmmmm
Brando Commando
boloni
barsooma
-
I'll play!
Players:
Mean Mr Mustard
Davio
Jimmmmm
Brando Commando
boloni
barsooma
shark_bait
-
I'd like to play.
-
I'll play!
Players:
Mean Mr Mustard
Davio
Jimmmmm
Brando Commando
boloni
barsooma
shark_bait
ehunt
Buggz
-
I'm game.
Players:
Mean Mr Mustard
Davio
Jimmmmm
Brando Commando
boloni
barsooma
shark_bait
ehunt
Buggz
[MAD] Max
-
/in
Players:
Mean Mr Mustard
Davio
Jimmmmm
Brando Commando
boloni
barsooma
shark_bait
ehunt
Buggz
[MAD] Max
mith
-
Four spots left
-
I can be lower level cannon fodder if you need someone. :)
-
I'm in! (just made it :) )
-
I'm also in!
-
I'll join in if there's still room
Player name: begins a solitaire game
-
I'll join if I still can....seems like not enough spots.
Is Mean Mr. Mustard in charge? Is space closed??
-
We could use a couple of alternates in case of first round drops
-
maybe move me to alternate and let a more focused player in.
-
are you in or out pooka? setting seeds now
-
I'd like to join if possible.
-
This filled up right quick.
-
Let in the next alternate. I'm just level 0.
Oh, the bracket is set. Leave it be.
-
This filled up right quick.
Yep, why so small tourney?
(Didn't read about it until just now.)
-
This filled up right quick.
Yep, why so small tourney?
(Didn't read about it until just now.)
I doubt MMM expected so much interest. I've only ever seen 2 or 3 of the participants actually contribute to this forum before. Most of the people I expected to enter haven't even posted here yet, either because they are not interested because of *something*, or because it filled up too quick and they missed out.
-
Tourneys sounds fun, I'll join next one if I am quick enough, hf
-
I wanted to keep it small, hoping to ensure that all the participants actually play their games.
-
I would like to play, if there is room?
-
I have a rules question.
On Isotropic, going first can be manipulated by losing the previous match I think.
And surely if players play multiple times against each other, this is awkward.
If there would be some way to fairly decide who goes first (like a non weighted coin toss) and just alternate each game.
The rules dictate that players can decide however they want, but maybe there's an easy fix.
-
To my knowledge there is no way to choose player position on Isotropic, so is this not moot?
-
If you have just lost a game and your opponent has either just won a game, or has just entered the lobby, you will go first. Otherwise it is random.
-
Sounds like an edge case to me. If you're playing your opponent in a tournament you'll most probably do all the games concurrently, and over a best of 5 it'll even out. So what if your opponent happens to start the first game?
-
Sounds like an edge case to me. If you're playing your opponent in a tournament you'll most probably do all the games concurrently, and over a best of 5 it'll even out. So what if your opponent happens to start the first game?
As 5 is not even, it will not even out. Especially if it ends 3:2 or 2:3, you will have started 3 times when you start the first game. If you don't just 2 times.
-
So, the only case where it won't even out is when you're actually playing all 5 games (if you're done after 3 games, you've lost at least two games you've started). Over that many hands shuffle luck has more to say than who gets first turn.
-
No, it will only even out if the games alternate in order of who wins them. If I start second and win the first game, I'll be second the next game as well, and second the next game after that if I lose again, and so on and so on. The only way it will switch is if I win. So just playing 5 games in a row is unfairly disadvantageous to the player who won the first games as well as the guy who goes second in game 1.
-
If you win the first game then yes, you'll go second the next time around. That's how I understand Isotropic works (now) and playing best of five games should make the better player win. I've played more 3-way games than headsup (in Dominion that is) but surely the first player advantage and shuffle luck is a minor issue after five games of play. We kind of agree on the issue, but disagree on it being a good enough reason to make a change for tournaments sake.
That being said, I even like going last to react to the first players first buys.
-
That being said, I even like going last to react to the first players first buys.
You are welcome to go last against me every time if you like! ;D
-
In poker too? ::)
-
In poker too? ::)
I don't think I said anything about poker ???
-
Joking. Position is everything in poker, if you're first every turn it (almost) doesn't matter how good you are.
-
I am aware of positional advantage in poker!
FYI: it is a fact that positional advantage goes the other direction in Dominion ;)
-
I am aware of positional advantage in poker!
FYI: it is a fact that positional advantage goes the other direction in Dominion ;)
On most boards, but the amount is highly board dependent, from a small second-player advantage to a huge first-player advantage.
-
I am skeptical about the 2nd player advantage. I'd be happy to see a bunch a top level posts that classifies the largest subsets of second player advantage boards. I might even be tempted to do some analysis ;).
-
On most boards, but the amount is highly board dependent, from a small second-player advantage to a huge first-player advantage.
I'm speaking generally. In fact, I would pretty confidently say 2nd player advantage appears in Dominion less often than being out of position in poker ends up helping you (e.g. allowing you to raise before limpers can improve subsequent players' pot odds).
If you gave me a choice between random seating order for Dominion vs. letting me go first every time, I'll happily take the choice to go first every time! Maybe you could find a board where I'd prefer to go second (though I'm not sure I've seen such a board), but if those are my only two choices...
If you gave me a choice between the usual rules of poker vs. always being last to act before the blinds, absolutely I'd prefer to be last to act every time, even if being under the gun occasionally turns out to be an advantage.
-
I'd agree with you guys. I expect that a second-player advantage shows up maybe 1 in 1000 boards. Likely not more, possibly less. Maybe new cards that get printed will change that.
-
I am skeptical about the 2nd player advantage. I'd be happy to see a bunch a top level posts that classifies the largest subsets of second player advantage boards. I might even be tempted to do some analysis ;).
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110920-124137-37adf28e.html
Technically, I was first, but his 4-cost buy came before mine making it relevant to a "2nd player advantage" discussion. When he decided to open Bishop, I went ahead with the Treasure Maps. On this board, I would not have opened Treasure Map if I hadn't seen him open Bishop first.
-
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110920-124137-37adf28e.html
Technically, I was first, but his 4-cost buy came before mine making it relevant to a "2nd player advantage" discussion. When he decided to open Bishop, I went ahead with the Treasure Maps. On this board, I would not have opened Treasure Map if I hadn't seen him open Bishop first.
To be honest, his opening $4 buy conned you into making a poor opening, and then you won anyway ;)
-
Technically, I was first, but his 4-cost buy came before mine making it relevant to a "2nd player advantage" discussion.
I find this unconvincing. A very healthy chunk of the first player advantage on some of the strongest boards is in effect having an extra turn and has nothing to do with informational advantages at the beginning. edit: That's phrased poorly. What I mean is that in essence you have the informational advantage and potentially the extra turn advantage, and so trying to compare this to true 2nd player status seems way off to me. This is so even if the extra turn aspect didn't come into play (I'm not in the mood to comb the log at the moment.)
-
Well, he won by 9 points, which is a province and a half. He did have the extra turn. They were playing different strategies; by my estimate, the bishopping player could have gotten at best 6 points next turn.
It would have been a lot closer of a game if the number of turns had been equal, but the result would have stayed the same, I think.
-
If my memory serves me correctly, someone once set a challenge to design a kingdom where the second player had a clear advantage. It was never fully answered.
The first logical consideration is that the first player can possibly either (1) buy nothing or (2) buy a silver just to pass any "first player penalty" onto the next player. Any solution kingdom needs to prevent this by making every available supply card a game losing purchase but still not as bad as buying nothing at all. While this might seem like a minor point, it may restrict the solution kingdoms to such a degree that any second player advantage has negligable effect.
-
The second player can do the exact same move to pass the hypothetical "first player penalty" back to the first player.
-
The first logical consideration is that the first player can possibly either (1) buy nothing or (2) buy a silver just to pass any "first player penalty" onto the next player. Any solution kingdom needs to prevent this by making every available supply card a game losing purchase but still not as bad as buying nothing at all. While this might seem like a minor point, it may restrict the solution kingdoms to such a degree that any second player advantage has negligable effect.
I don't think it's a minor point, it greatly limits the search space...
Assume for simplicity that we would reshuffle after each turn and the winning condition would be symmetric (i.e. not differntiate if you where first or second player), which are I think the only things that prefend this from being a proof.
Then buying nothing at all would just swap the positions. By buying nothing the second player is in exactly the same position as you where before. By assumption every move he can make is a winning move for you (including, by assumption, doing nothing), which contradicts the assumption.
So under the simplifications such a board can not exist, that means that, if such a board exists the second player advantage must either involve the shuffling or is limited by the "second player compensation".
-
The first logical consideration is that the first player can possibly either (1) buy nothing or (2) buy a silver just to pass any "first player penalty" onto the next player. Any solution kingdom needs to prevent this by making every available supply card a game losing purchase but still not as bad as buying nothing at all. While this might seem like a minor point, it may restrict the solution kingdoms to such a degree that any second player advantage has negligable effect.
I don't think it's a minor point, it greatly limits the search space...
Assume for simplicity that we would reshuffle after each turn and the winning condition would be symmetric (i.e. not differntiate if you where first or second player), which are I think the only things that prefend this from being a proof.
Then buying nothing at all would just swap the positions. By buying nothing the second player is in exactly the same position as you where before. By assumption every move he can make is a winning move for you (including, by assumption, doing nothing), which contradicts the assumption.
So under the simplifications such a board can not exist, that means that, if such a board exists the second player advantage must either involve the shuffling or is limited by the "second player compensation".
Yes, except that those are two big exceptions, particularly on the shuffling aspect. Throwing away a 5 in a 5/2 split is big tempo loss. Then you need an RPS of 5s that's so bad that one missing tempo on any end is killing. I actually think this is out there, given that 2nd player wins ties where 1st turn is important, which comes up more importantly in a situation where making a move gives something like a 51% chance to tie and a 49% chance to lose. 1st player moving loses 49% of the time, ties 51%, 2nd player moving first wins 51%, loses 49%. Obviously these numbers are ridiculous, but in principle this is possible.