Dominion Strategy Forum
Archive => Archive => GokoDom => Topic started by: Mean Mr Mustard on March 21, 2012, 07:34:49 pm
-
Weekly Matches
The IsoDom: Challenge threads will be updated every week with match-ups, current point totals and the weekly theme. Each match will consist of seven games under the following restrictions:
1) Point counter encouraged
2) Exactly 6 cards, chosen at random, in each game must belong to the current week's expansion, using the excellent option to filter cards in Isotropic
3) First player position in first game shall be chosen randomly, losing player plays first afterward. In event of a tie, random. We will use the honor system to enforce this; to ensure a random placement make sure to exit and restart Isotropic before the first game and after subsequent ties.
4)The tournament will be scored as follows: each win will be worth 2 Tournament Points, each tie 1, each loss 0.
5) Players report the outcomes of each match, including scores of each game and optional commentary to the weekly tournament thread.
6) After seven weeks, the player in each group with the most Tournament Points will advance to the Bracket Championship. In the case of a tie between two players, a First to Four Wins match will be held to determine who advances. In the unlikely event that more than two players have a share in the lead, a Multiplayer First to Three Wins match will be held to determine who advances.
Bracket Championship:
The top four finishers, one from each group, will play a five game match to determine the winner of each bracket. These will be four player games scored 3-2-1-0. In the case of a tie in Match Points between two players who have the lead after five games, those two players will hold a two player match (first player to win four games), to determine the winner. In the unlikely case of a tie in Match Points between more than two players who have the lead after five games, those players will hold a multiplayer match (first player to win three games), to determine the winner.
IsoDom: Challenge Championship Final:
The winner of both brackets will play a first to five match to determine who is named IsoDom: Challenge Champion.
Drop-Outs:
Any Drop-outs will be treated as <i>unpersons</i>: none of their games will count, and any unplayed games will be replaced with a bye.
-
So just to clarify: This is not a best of seven against an opponent, but seven games played against an opponent trying to amass the most wins possible, correct?
-
Correct.
-
Another clarification, are we playing with exactly 6 base cards, or at least 6 base cards? I imagine some people would definitely prefer one to the other, and I can read your rule on it both ways.
-
Are we allowed to play veto mode(unallowed to veto the 6 chosen cards)? Idk if that's possible when you require cards
-
@Fabian: <i>exactly 6</i>
@CoheedandCambria: Veto is not allowed.
-
So just to clarify: This is not a best of seven against an opponent, but seven games played against an opponent trying to amass the most wins possible, correct?
1. You said this was correct, but I guess I'm not seeing the implications of this question. Would somebody explain what this means and why it's an issue?
2. What happens if the best-of-seven in any given match-up results in 3 to one person, 3 to the other, and a tied game?
3. Assuming that ties in the best of seven just force an eighth game -- which would be fine by me -- or more games, won't that to favor people who play multiple tied games by giving them lots of tournament points? Also, does the tournament point system mean that we need to play seven games, even if the first four games are decisive, just so later ties can be determined?
Thanks for setting this up, I just want to know what to expect going in...especially if I have to play all seven games regardless of the early outcomes.
-
Best of seven means you could play 4 games, win all of them, and the match is done. This tournament is not played best of seven; you play seven games no matter what, and win X points based on how you do in those 7 games. If the score after 7 games is 3-3-1, both players would get 7 points for the match (2 * 3 + 1 * 1 + 0 * 3 for 3 wins, 1 draw, 3 losses). There's no need for an 8th game since it's no problem if the 7 games end in a tie overall.
-
@Fabian: <i>exactly 6</i>
@CoheedandCambria: Veto is not allowed.
Thanks, I didn't realize either of these things. Since veto is forbidden, I assume it's also forbidden to decline the random selection of 10 cards? (Assuming there wasn't any mistake with the game settings.)
-
@blueblimp: That is correct. Keep it clean, guys.
-
2) Exactly 6 cards, chosen at random, in each game must belong to the current week's expansion, using the excellent option to filter cards in Isotropic
Maybe a stupid question, but how exactly do I set up a game with exactly 6 random cards from a given expansion? Is this how the "bias selection towards..." boxes work, so I choose "bias selection towards Base" in the 1st week? Up until now I usually used to play random games from all cards, so I am not so familiar with the filter options of Isotropic.
-
Below the list of players in the lobby there is a card selection constraints option. Add a row and make it from 6 to 6 cards with tag set=base.
-
I'm confused. With the top four finishers in each group, that gives 32 total players and 8 players left for the final. Are there two different finals, one for each bracket, or am I missing something here?
-
When there's 8 players left that's when the two Regionals are played.
-
Now I'm completely confused about the tournament structure.
The way I thought it worked: in each of the two brackets, there would be one winner from each of the four groups, decided by tournament points and possibly a best-of-7 tiebreaker series. There would be two 4-player series to decide the advancers from the two brackets, and among those two players, somehow one would be crowned the winner of the tournament. (Obviously this doesn't make sense, since the final is supposed to be 4-player.) The progression of player counts would be 64 -> 8 -> 2 -> 1.
Re-reading, it sounds more like: in each of the two brackets, and in each of the four groups in that bracket, the top four players from that group play a 4-player series, from which one player advances. Then in each bracket, the surviving players play a 4-player series, from which one player advances. But then how is the winner of the tournament selected from the surviving two players? The progression of player counts would be 64 -> 32 -> 8 -> 2.
-
I think the confusion comes from the fact that MMM stated that only the winners of the Regional match would go to Finals, but I think he means the top 2 from each regional match because otherwise the final would only have 2 players, but he clearly states its four player. If that's the case I'm pretty sure it goes 64 -> 8 -> 4.
-
To Clarify: The top four finishers in each group will play a five game match to determine a group winner. This will be a four player game scored 3-2-1-0. In the case of a tie in Match Points between two players who have the lead after five games, those two players will hold a two player match (first player to win two games), to determine who will advance. In the unlikely case of a tie in Match Points between more than two players who have the lead after five games, those players will hold a multiplayer match (first player to win two games), to determine who will advance.
Clear now?
-
To check, this means that there are eight of these four-player matches held, one for each group?
OK so far, but where do those players advance to?
-
Do the top players from Kirian's Bracket play the top players from MMM's Bracket?
-
Okay, guys. Let me first say that I have no other experience in organizing tournaments outside of these forums, and each IsoDom has been a learning experience. I started doing these because no else was, so bear with me. I realize I am a little bush league.
So, I hope this is the final tweak on format.
-
I thought I understood the rules and format perfectly well, but now I'm getting confused/scared.. the winner of each group will be determined by total number of match points between the group stage AND regionals, right? Not just from the 5 game multiplayer match. Right?
-
Hmmmm, interesting proposition. Are you saying that points earned during 2P should apply along with group stage points to determine the bracket champ?
-
No problem, I wouldn't worry about it now except for the simulation. :)
My impression is that the match points from the 4-player games are counted separately from the earlier tournament points. (Otherwise it'd be a real mess to weight the different portions of the tournament appropriately.)
-
That was the original intention, blimp, but now I see how an argument could be made for considering all tourney points scored in determining the bracket winner.
-
I wish you would reconsider that MMM, it ruins the tournament completely and I might as well drop out. Spending 7 weeks on playing games that are ultimately entirely pointless (call me arrogant but I don't need a simulator to know I'm 98+% to end in the top 4 of 7 players over 42 games) just so I can play five 4-player games? If there's no incentive to actually do well in the group stage, then where's the fun in playing?
Edit: To expand a bit on my thoughts, at first I thought we were playing 42 games to determine the winner (top 1) out of 7 players, and the winners of each group would play a multiplayer final. That, to me, was a perfect format, 42 games is plenty to determine the winner out of 7 players, and (obviously) the games actually matter. 42 games to determine the top 4 of 7 players with the results ultimately being pointless, though? Just ugh. The possibility didn't even enter my mind until just now. The challenge (to me, anyway, but I would have thought nearly everyone would have agreed before realizing the current tournament format) is fighting for the top spot of the group, not fighting for, you know, the 4th spot out of 7.
-
I'm not familiar with a way to enforce starting position in isotropic. Is there one?
-
Basically, everyone in the lobbies in isotropic are marked as new, just won, or just lost. Players who just lost are given first priority when the site determines turn order, and players who just won are given last priority. (In the Dominion rulebook it states that when playing multiple games, the player seated to the left of the previous game's winner goes first--in other words, you win a game, you go last in the next one.)
I don't recall if new players (who just entered) are matched up randomly with everyone, or the other rules still apply. That is, I think if someone new plays someone who just won, the new player will always be first player. But I'm not sure.
Also, if people are in the same group (new/just won/lost), the ordering is random.
-
SO would it be better for the group stage to end without a multiplayer game? Or is it okay to include a multiplayer match in each group that contributes tournament points towards the total already earned?
-
They both seem fine to me. I'd slightly prefer no multiplayer in the group stage personally, but yeah they're both good imo.
-
Okay, again, I appreciate feedback from all reasonable people. Again, I apologize for being an amateur, but I can assure you that I am willing to recognize shortcomings and address them with fairness.
-
In that case, I will point out another big downside of the current format. When I'm playing my friend (Lekkit) in round 5 or 6 and can easily lose 14-0 and still be safe for 3rd/4th place, not having an incentive to do well in the last couple rounds means I might as well concede 14-0 to make sure he gets to Regionals, hypothetically. Obviously I wouldn't do this, but any tournament format that promotes collusion (even on a smaller scale than the above example) might need some tweaking. It was one of the big downsides with the highest total score tie-breaker, too.
Edit: Or actually, never mind softplaying against friends specifically. Nice 14-0 win against me in round 6, mr lowest rated opponent, now I'll have a much easier time in Regionals since that win knocked out one of the strongest players in the group!
Edit2: Though just to be clear, this concern is like 2% of what I don't like, and my first post would be the other 98% :)
-
I can only hope that the players in this tournament have the decency and honor to play their best game no matter the standings. The only way I can enforce that is to preclude offending players from future IsoDoms. Strategic drop-outs are also an issue, and I will not look kindly on these kinds of shananagans. Not that I am worried that this will be an issue.
Also, I dropped the group multiplayer round, which seemed like a good idea but is not really in line with the spirit of what folks signed up for.
-
The big problem for me with a multiplayer game will be scheduling. Getting 4 people to agree on a time can be really hard. Especially if they are in different timezones. I think you've probably played enough games by that point to determine who should advance.
-
I agree. This is I hope the final form of the tournament, one that matches up pretty closely to the one described in the sign-up thread. Sorry about the confusion.
-
Don't worry about it MMM :) Launching something and then revising it later is infinitely preferable to not launching at all until every bug is ironed out.
-
This revised format is quite nice. One thought that shouldn't change things too much: in addition to the bracket championship (which decides 1st through 4th place in the bracket), maybe there could be a similar multiplayer game for the 2nd place players in the groups (which would decide 5th through 8th place in the bracket).
The reason I ask is that I have a decent chance of getting 2nd in my group, but little hope to get 1st. :)
-
I think that is a fine idea, blueblimp. We'll leave it up to the second place finishers to decide if they want to hold a match.
-
"3) First player position in first game shall be chosen randomly, losing player plays first afterward. In event of a tie, random. We will use the honor system to enforce this; to ensure a random placement make sure to exit and restart Isotropic before the first game and after subsequent ties."
Is the logging off and on after ties a good idea?
I might be wrong but I think if you don't then the player that went 2nd in the draw game gets to go first in the next game. (which I think is a good thing as it helps to balance 1st player advantage very slightly.)
Or is there an upside to the rule that I am missing?
-
I might be wrong but I think if you don't then the player that went 2nd in the draw game gets to go first in the next game.
I don't think that's true, in my game against Yuma today I went second in a tie game and in the game after that went second again. We didn't bother enforcing random placement by logging out though so I assume the placement looks for the last outcome in a non-tied game.
-
I think you lose your "Lost Last" status after a tie. Not 100% sure.
-
I think you lose your "Lost Last" status after a tie. Not 100% sure.
Well if this is true then no need to log off and on. As you both have the same status it will be random anyway.
-
In my match (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2026.msg32322#msg32322) with ugasoft we had a tie in game 2 and forgot to log off and on afterwards.
Course of the match was:
Game 1: Tonks77 starting, Tonks77 winning
Game 2: ugasoft starting, tie
Game 3: Tonks77 starting.
...
So yes, it seems that ugasoft's status "Lost Last" was lost for him after the tie.
-
2) Exactly 6 cards, chosen at random, in each game must belong to the current week's expansion, using the excellent option to filter cards in Isotropic
What about for the small expansions like Alchemy? I think 6 would cause a lot of similar games.
-
Yeah, I think we all want a ruling on Alchemy/Cornucopia before the next round starts.
Mustard, I'd suggest going with 4 Alchemy cards (which is what the manual recommends IIRC). What think you?
-
I also think going with 4 cards for the small expansions will work better.
-
I also chip in for 4. to be the same proportion of the set in each kingdom, you'd want only 3, but I think to still have that dominated-by-this-week's-set feel, 4 is the better number. 6 would be half the set every game, which is gonna be both ridiculous and sorta boring.
-
even 2 cards from alchemy might be enough to dominate a kingdom, but 4 cards might be best. alternately, you could set a range, such as 3-5 cards.
-
One way to think about it is the % of matches that will include a given card (since many of the cards in alchemy are so "game defining" - especially when there is more than one reason to open potion.
With 3 cards: 25% of matches will have a familiar
With 4 cards: 33%...
6 cards: 50%
Odds of any particular 2-card combo appearing:
W 3 cards: ~4%
W 4 cards: ~8%
W 6 cards: ~16%
6 seems like you play the same game every time. 3 seems reasonable. 4 could work too.
Ed
-
I think I was the first person to bring up this concern in another thread... I mentioned that the first game I played with 6 Alchemy cards was really fun and different. Blew my mind compared to other sets I had played... But that every game after that was just a slight variation on the same theme. One game with 6 Alchemy cards could be good. But 3-4 after that would be best in my opinion. Or just 3-4 for all 7 games if we want to keep things simple...
-
If I don't have word from Mustard in the next day or so, and don't have serious objections from the field, my bracket at least will use 4 Alchemy cards. I'm going to hold off on posting it though.
-
I'd support the 4card rule for Alchemy as well.
-
Has anyone heard from Mustard recently? He's sort of just dropped off the map. I hope he's OK.
I too would support a 4 card requirement for alchemy. I would also like to start scheduling my games for the week. Can we just make a communal decision to say that if both you and your opponent agree to it, you can use the 4 card requirement?
-
I'm not entirely in the loop as to how this tournament is structured, but how about combining Cornucopia and Alchemy and doing 6 total cards from both expansions?
-
Jonts, that sounds like a great idea, and is what I'll put in my thread for round 4.
Mustard, are you out there? Let us know, man.
-
Hi can someone refresh me on what occurs after the round robin is complete? I kind of scanned the messages and was left kinda confused still.
My interpretation/memory says that for each bracket (MMM's and Kirian), the group's winners will face off in a 4P multiplayer series. The winner of both will go play in the finals to determine the winner.
-
Hi can someone refresh me on what occurs after the round robin is complete? I kind of scanned the messages and was left kinda confused still.
My interpretation/memory says that for each bracket (MMM's and Kirian), the group's winners will face off in a 4P multiplayer series. The winner of both will go play in the finals to determine the winner.
That's correct. It's not how I'd have done it if I were running things, but at the time, I wasn't running things. :) It does mean that the final matches shouldn't take that long.