Topic: IsoDom: Challenge Rules (Read 19576 times)

elahrairah13 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 23, 2012, 12:17:40 am »

I'm not familiar with a way to enforce starting position in isotropic. Is there one?

michaeljb · « **Reply #26 on:** March 23, 2012, 12:24:33 am »

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.

Mean Mr Mustard · « **Reply #27 on:** March 23, 2012, 12:43:08 am »

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?

Fabian · « **Reply #28 on:** March 23, 2012, 01:01:59 am »

They both seem fine to me. I'd slightly prefer no multiplayer in the group stage personally, but yeah they're both good imo.

Mean Mr Mustard · « **Reply #29 on:** March 23, 2012, 01:06:25 am »

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.

Fabian · « **Reply #30 on:** March 23, 2012, 01:10:59 am »

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%

Mean Mr Mustard · « **Reply #31 on:** March 23, 2012, 01:31:05 am »

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.

gorgonstar · « **Reply #32 on:** March 23, 2012, 01:33:28 am »

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.

Mean Mr Mustard · « **Reply #33 on:** March 23, 2012, 01:35:10 am »

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.

theory · « **Reply #34 on:** March 23, 2012, 05:05:14 am »

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.

blueblimp · « **Reply #35 on:** March 23, 2012, 12:56:00 pm »

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.

Mean Mr Mustard · « **Reply #36 on:** March 23, 2012, 04:20:13 pm »

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.

Rabid · « **Reply #37 on:** March 23, 2012, 08:22:09 pm »

"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?

Mergus · « **Reply #38 on:** March 23, 2012, 09:48:14 pm »

Quote from: Rabid on March 23, 2012, 08:22:09 pm

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.

Mean Mr Mustard · « **Reply #39 on:** March 24, 2012, 02:47:33 am »

I think you lose your "Lost Last" status after a tie. Not 100% sure.

Rabid · « **Reply #40 on:** March 25, 2012, 08:10:57 am »

Quote from: Mean Mr Mustard on March 24, 2012, 02:47:33 am

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.

Tonks77 · « **Reply #41 on:** March 25, 2012, 06:05:48 pm »

In my match 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.

Axxle · « **Reply #42 on:** April 10, 2012, 11:46:35 pm »

Quote from: Mean Mr Mustard on March 21, 2012, 07:34:49 pm

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.

Kirian · « **Reply #43 on:** April 11, 2012, 01:29:40 pm »

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?

andwilk · « **Reply #44 on:** April 12, 2012, 07:36:10 am »

I also think going with 4 cards for the small expansions will work better.

WanderingWinder · « **Reply #45 on:** April 12, 2012, 07:41:15 am »

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.

greatexpectations · « **Reply #46 on:** April 12, 2012, 03:56:57 pm »

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.

ednever · « **Reply #47 on:** April 12, 2012, 04:29:16 pm »

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

yuma · « **Reply #48 on:** April 12, 2012, 10:36:38 pm »

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...

Kirian · « **Reply #49 on:** April 12, 2012, 10:46:39 pm »

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.

Dominion Strategy Forum

News:

Author Topic: IsoDom: Challenge Rules (Read 19576 times)