Print

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

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Also, I can see that seeding groups by rank <i>and</i> time zone is the way to go when possible.  When the time comes (soon, I imagine) for sign-ups that will be some added info that will be used to populate the groups.

[RisingJaguar]

Two things I'd like to point out.

1. With the whole timezone thing, it's possible to have people enter into a specific time slot (the 4 groups) or enter into multiple time slots.  That way scheduling will be a lot easier within the groups and if its unbalanced, those that entered into multiple time slots people can move around to fill in those spots. 

2. If I understood correctly, each pairing will have to play X games regardless (lets say 10).  How do we deal with 1st turn advantage? I personally think it should be set up that each player gets X/2 games as first and X/2 as second no matter what.  It makes a bit more sense since its a round robin, it should be equal ground for everyone.  I don't think it makes a huge difference overall, but I think it's worth looking at. 

[Mean Mr Mustard]

But is there a way to manipulate Isotropic to set player seats before the match? How would it work?

[RisingJaguar]

But is there a way to manipulate Isotropic to set player seats before the match? How would it work?

I'm referring only to the 2P matches (so they would just create a phony game and have them resign). 

I'm guessing 4P would work similarly in that if you create a game with 4P and have them resign in the proper order, you would get your desired starting order? I haven't tried this but I assume Iso takes account multi-player losses the same.

[Insomniac]

What about openings hands? Force to be the same or random? and how about Point tracker always on? always off? decided by players in the match? if one wants it all have it?

[RisingJaguar]

What about openings hands? Force to be the same or random? and how about Point tracker always on? always off? decided by players in the match? if one wants it all have it?

All of this is usually decided by the players themselves, as in the previous Isodom and Dominion Strategy Tournament. 

[Insomniac]

What about openings hands? Force to be the same or random? and how about Point tracker always on? always off? decided by players in the match? if one wants it all have it?

All of this is usually decided by the players themselves, as in the previous Isodom and Dominion Strategy Tournament.

Thanks I played in the dominion strategy tournament but havent been in one of the Isodom's yet

[O]

I'd like to sign up. However many games the final round is, it should probably be a multiple of four so position can be equally distributed. Also, the politics get interesting here when scoring is taken into account in a 4player game (break PPR so player X has no chance of winning..etc)

[Forge!!!]

I'd love a multiplayer tournament as well, it's something I think we could all get better at. There's nothing quite like real Dominion tournaments, and those are always more than 2p games.

[yuma]

I am very interested in this... One idea that I thought of during IsoDom 3 was that using preset matches was fun--but often led to a who can simulate best.  I wonder if there is a way to have this feature--but to only make the preset match known right before the players are about to begin.  Either having someone in Isotropic when they start to play, or finding a website that requires two passwords (or however many people are playing) to reveal the kingdom to everyone. I know I have used a website for similar purposes but I can't remember if off the top of my head.

Using the filters would also work, as was mentioned above I think, but that way everyone would be playing different sets within the filters.

[lespeutere]

I'm not sure anymore whether I expressed myself clearly:
I don't have anything against a multiplayer tournament; it's just that I'd prefer consistency (since the best '4 player style' players might not make it to the final table if it's only 2 player matches to qualify for that) in terms of either
a) have 2 player matches all tournament long or
b) have multiplayer matches all tournament long or
c) have both mixed but from the beginning (and involving same pairings of players in both 'styles', too).

A suggestion for case c) would be to start with 8, 16(?) groups of 4 players. They have 2 player matches against each other (6 matches in total; boX (X=5, 7?)) and a series of 4 player matches (4, to insure everybody started in every position once). Add some points to be given for 1., 2., 3., 4. place so that 2 player and 4 player matches are equally important and you'll have a table for each of the 8 groups. The top 1 or 2 players of each group move on to the next round etc.
It could result in a rather long tournament, I guess, and it's not necessarily a suggestion for the coming IsoDom Challenge, but I think it's pretty interesting and something one might like to keep in mind.

[CoheedandCambria]

I'd love to participate in a tournament like this but isn't 28 people a little low? Idk how many people are normally willing to commit to this since I'm kind of new here but I feel like people would be left out.
 
Love the idea of the multiplayer final, it's such a different game and would like to see how the top players approach it.

[PerdHapley]

I think this is a great idea, and I love that these tournaments keep evolving and changing. Having a multiplayer final would be really fun, and it would force the top players from each group to adapt. I mean, how many really excellent 4-person players are out there anyway? Those games would be super interesting to analyze.

And I like the idea of biasing the card selections toward certain sets throughout. Last tournament's format was really cool, but there's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned shake-up.

[Mergus]

What happened to this idea? I think it would be a good one that's worth a try too!

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Stay tuned.

[Smartie]

Thanks for your great effort! Thumbs up