Beta tournament Round 3

[IainMcNeil]

The idea was to open up the interface to you guys at some point so you can host your own tournaments, but that is further down the line.

The BYE scores are an issue. Dropout in virtual tournaments is much higher so we need a better way to deal with it.

A 3/1/0 scoring system is not good as we need a system that differentiates players far more clearly or you need to have a huge number of games to get a winner. We want to get a winner from 4 games ideally.

Knockout tournaments are something we want to add but take a long time to resolve. YOu need 4 rounds for just 16 players. You need 7 rounds for 128 players. I'm hoping we will have tournaments this size & bigger and they take too long to finish.

[pantherboy]

I would like to see points only used as tie breakers and a simple point system based on wins & losses. I don't feel it truly reflects a players ability if scoring by earned points from casualties inflicted. There are too many variables that play into a battle to truly compare. The best player should simply be the undefeated player. If you have a 3/1/0 system with averages based upon the current system to break ties then that would be more robust. Also you need to set-up matches based upon ranking. It isn't necessary to do it for round one but on the second and subsequent rounds the top player by your scoring system should play the bottom player who has equal overall points. So after round 1 all the 3pt people will play off with 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 etc. In this way the strongest players can still be knocked out but are less likely to match-up until later rounds. You mentioned something being more capable of differentiating between a large pool of players but I feel if the winner can be announced without that player matching wits with other undefeated players then you can't truly say that they won. The winner will simply be the player that had the easiest match-ups to the finish. If you have 16 players only 2 players will remain undefeated by end unless large numbers of draws occur (which I find unlikely) and they will naturally sort themselves out in the final game. If they draw then look at the overall performance based upon casualties. In this regard you can ignore awarding extra points for wins as that is taken into regard with the 3/1/0 system. Lastly a player that earns a win by a bye should get their 3 points but ignores the game for performance calculations. For example when calculating the division of the 25pts total all games finished and then divide by number of rounds. If you won from a bye then divide by 1 less. In this way no one is advantaged or penalized. Your tie breaker score will be based solely on game performance. If you played 4 games for 80pts then you average 20pts while the player who played 3 (but also got another win from a bye) for 60pts would average 20pts too.

If in the future if you want their to be 64 players over 4 rounds then I don't see any point as by a non 3/1/0 scoring system the high scoring players are just the ones who got lucky, easy draws etc. rather than being the player who made it to the end winning all. I'd prefer to see 64 entrants with pooling into smaller groups and then the winners from each group advancing to the next stage.

As for the timer I'm fine with a pre-set duration but feel it should be total time. Rather than give both players 3 days set the game to six days but have an internal clock record how much time you used. If the game runs out of time after six days then the player with the lower time used wins.

Also I just moved into my new home today and the internet won't be back until next week Tuesday. I'm using my work PC but I don't think I'm allowed t o install FOG on it so I'll probably have to give a bye next round. I'll let you know what my boss says by Friday.

[IainMcNeil]

I think the issue here is that you're coming from a different point of view. The aim is not that every tournament ends with the best player at the top. For a start this is really dull and only the best players woudl be interested in taking part. The aim is that we have a system that adds value and everyone enjoys their games.

In tabletop gaming we use this systemand it works very well. The best players always end up at the top or near the top. But it also gives a chance for new blood to win a tournament or get placed. If you look at results over a year you will have the best player at the top but not in every tournament. This is good for the hobby in general.

We saw a huge surge in interest in awrgaming when we moved away from WRG 7th Edition tabletop rules to DBM. In WRG 7th Edition it was possible for a good player to win every time and tournaments as a result were dull and small. When we moved to DBM there was more of a random element added and on a bad day the best player coudl lose if everythign went against him. This was hgely popular as everyone always felt they had a chance. Over the course of a tournament a good player would always boucne back and over the course of a year you'd always get the best player at the top but it was hugely important in the success and spread of tabletop wargaming.

I hope this helps you understand why we want it to work as we do.

[Triarii]

The idea was to open up the interface to you guys at some point so you can host your own tournaments, but that is further down the line.

The BYE scores are an issue. Dropout in virtual tournaments is much higher so we need a better way to deal with it.

A 3/1/0 scoring system is not good as we need a system that differentiates players far more clearly or you need to have a huge number of games to get a winner. We want to get a winner from 4 games ideally.

Knockout tournaments are something we want to add but take a long time to resolve. YOu need 4 rounds for just 16 players. You need 7 rounds for 128 players. I'm hoping we will have tournaments this size & bigger and they take too long to finish.

Ian
I suggested 3/1/0 as the base score and the score for byes - adding the bonus/penalty system to those base scores changes the basic mathematical dynamic and will give you differentiation and a winner over 3 to 4 rounds unless everyone's battles finish with remarkably similar scores. From the evidence of LoEG and your tourney this does not seem likely.
This premis breaks down if the games are not mirror games but it would also brak down with the current scoring system.

[IainMcNeil]

Currently we're only supporting mirrored historical games. We do want to support DAG games at some point but thats a lot more complex. It also requires a number of design decisions. Do you choose an army for the competition? Do you choose a specific list. If so how do you submit either of these things. Then we need some way for the game to force you to use these armies/lists.

A 3/1/0 system might work with BG % lost as a tie breaker, like goal difference, but I still fear it will end up with lots of players at the same score line. We could run a manual test on the results of this tournament when its done and see what the 3/1/0 system with goal difference would have output.

[cothyso]

there went away my chance to crush pantherboy, make a name and win the first tournament

now the overall situation is even worse. let's have a look at the pairs, shall we, please?!

1) 111 pts
2) bye 101 pts (wining 50 bye pts, twice his previous average which was 25, 20 more points than the average good result on round 3 which was 30 points)

3) 97 pts
4) 94 pts

5) 93 pts
6) bye 89 pts (wining 50 bye pts, twice and a half his previous average which was 20, 20 more points than the average good result on round 3 which was 30 points)

7) 86 pts
8 ) bye 81 pts (won 50 bye pts the second round, three times and a third his previous average which was 15)

the anticipated result?
1) will obliterate bye, 5) and 7) will also badly crush their byes while 3) and 4) will have a close hard game, most probably ending up on the 4th and 5th places.

awesome!

[hidde]

there went away my chance to crush pantherboy, make a name and win the first tournament

now the overall situation is even worse. let's have a look at the pairs, shall we, please?!

1) 111 pts
2) bye 101 pts (wining 50 bye pts, twice his previous average which was 25, 20 more points than the average good result on round 3 which was 30 points)

3) 97 pts
4) 94 pts

5) 93 pts
6) bye 89 pts (wining 50 bye pts, twice and a half his previous average which was 20, 20 more points than the average good result on round 3 which was 30 points)

7) 86 pts
8 ) bye 81 pts (won 50 bye pts the second round, three times and a third his previous average which was 15)

the anticipated result?
1) will obliterate bye, 5) and 7) will also badly crush their byes while 3) and 4) will have a close hard game, most probably ending up on the 4th and 5th places.

awesome!

I don't want you to blow a fuse or something but pantherboy don't have access to internet at the moment and will probably not be able to play the last round...

[cothyso]

I know, I've read his post, and it would be a shame if it would really happen (though he didn't knew for sure).

and yet, it won't change the nature of the flawed tournament system at all, most probably I won't (if at all) beat keith as decisive as davouthojo will beat archie, or you jimcdaw

[hidde]

No, it wont and that was my point. If pantherboy cannot play the winner will have 51pts from play and 100pts from bye.
Hardly satisfactory for anyone.

[deeter]

It's only a beta tournament. Doesn't mean much beyond tweaking the rules.

Deeter

[tofman04]

there went away my chance to crush pantherboy, make a name and win the first tournament

now the overall situation is even worse. let's have a look at the pairs, shall we, please?!

1) 111 pts
2) bye 101 pts (wining 50 bye pts, twice his previous average which was 25, 20 more points than the average good result on round 3 which was 30 points)

3) 97 pts
4) 94 pts

5) 93 pts
6) bye 89 pts (wining 50 bye pts, twice and a half his previous average which was 20, 20 more points than the average good result on round 3 which was 30 points)

7) 86 pts
8 ) bye 81 pts (won 50 bye pts the second round, three times and a third his previous average which was 15)

the anticipated result?
1) will obliterate bye, 5) and 7) will also badly crush their byes while 3) and 4) will have a close hard game, most probably ending up on the 4th and 5th places.

awesome!

Yes, I'm the second place with 101 pts. But from the 50 pts acquired in the last turn only 25 are bye points, probably deadtorius running out of time.
the status of the game in that moment was:
tofman04 (Burgundian) 19/23 vs deadtorius(Swiss) 1/21

In the other game I won with the following result:
tofman04(Swiss) 0/21 vs deadtorius(Burgundian) 23/23

Then please don't do quick judgments based on nothing, without any evidence of your thoughts.

Cheers

[CheerfullyInsane]

It's only a beta tournament. Doesn't mean much beyond tweaking the rules.

Deeter

Hear, hear.
The whole point of a beta is finding out what works, and what doesn't.
Besides, it's not as if there's prize-money at stake

Lars

[cothyso]

Yes, I'm the second place with 101 pts. But from the 50 pts acquired in the last turn only 25 are bye points, probably deadtorius running out of time.
the status of the game in that moment was:
tofman04 (Burgundian) 19/23 vs deadtorius(Swiss) 1/21

In the other game I won with the following result:
tofman04(Swiss) 0/21 vs deadtorius(Burgundian) 23/23

Then please don't do quick judgments based on nothing, without any evidence of your thoughts.

Cheers

I'm sorry, but I stand by what I've said, there's nothing wrong in there (and please note the fact that I've specially avoided to put names on the table situation exactly to prevent this misinterpretation and taking it personal thing). the results were 25+25, which is looking exactly as a total bye score. and even if 25 of them are rightly earned, that doesn't make my statement saying that you've got 20 (actually 25) more than the average of the 3rd round (as you would have scored only 25, which is less than the 30 best average) wrong or malicious, or change the fact that your place shouldn't be there on the second place. it is the pure truth, the facts as they are. as well as the fact that pantherboy would have obliterated you (a statement based on observing your previous scores against the other players you was paired). in case you haven't noticed, pantherboy seems to beat everyone around here.

and even more, I have nothing against you, or the other bye'rs, I'm not that stupid to find guilty someone who doesn't have any fault in his opponent leaving the tournament.

the same as a system not newbie friendly would push newcomers away from a steep learning curve game, the same a system not rewarding the merits rightfuly earned by hard play of better players will push these off instead. it's a nasty thing to decide, yet, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs..

PS: de altfel, este exact genul de parvenitism si de sarit de'aiurea de cur in sus tipic romanesc.. nu stiu de ce oare ma mai mira..

[andersm73]

I was pretty dissapointed to find I'd only scored 0 pts from a winning position with the Swiss due to time running out, felt I played my turns promptly just didn't have the time to get my Pikes across the battlefield and get to grips with the Burgundians defending the corner hill. Perhaps double moves enabled would help out here.... Got rightly spanked with the Burgundians though, left my retreat too late and got caught in a very bad situation... The scenario seems a very hard one for the Burgundians to win, did anyone manage it and if so how??!!

cheers
Matt

[ianiow]

I was pretty dissapointed to find I'd only scored 0 pts from a winning position with the Swiss due to time running out, felt I played my turns promptly just didn't have the time to get my Pikes across the battlefield and get to grips with the Burgundians defending the corner hill. Perhaps double moves enabled would help out here.... Got rightly spanked with the Burgundians though, left my retreat too late and got caught in a very bad situation... The scenario seems a very hard one for the Burgundians to win, did anyone manage it and if so how??!!

cheers
Matt

I feel like a criminal, getting those 25 point from you. Your Swiss were 9:3 up and in a good postion for kill many more of my Burgundians. I'm not sure why the game ended. We were both playing approx one turn per day or more (we reached turn 13 of 20).

[andersm73]

Thanks ianiow, it was no fault of yours the time ran out and making use of the hill was a sensible option. My dealing with the isolated Knight units on my right flank just meant I was well out of position to realign across to the hill behind the woods, so the time ran out before the conclusion of the game. Double moves would have meant I could have possibly gotten back across the battlefield in less turns or a longer time limit may be an option for future tourneys... Many thanks for the games.

cheers
Matt

[davouthojo]

pantherboy managed to beat my swiss.

He played very unfairly, using guerilla tactics and refusing to meet my pikes head-on as any gentleman would have.

His longbowmen hid out in the forest, his knights raced around avoiding contact, I ended up surrounded.

I made the mistake of chasing his troops in separated groups of 3-4 pikemen....they didn't catch them, and they weren't enough to cover rears and support each other when contact and anarchy charges pull you out of position....he sacrificed a few units to catch mine....all it took was a bad contact and disruption and the pikes were toast....

Fortunately he only latched on to these tactics halfway through the game, or I would have lost more badly.....

[hidde]

there went away my chance to crush pantherboy, make a name and win the first tournament

now the overall situation is even worse. let's have a look at the pairs, shall we, please?!

1) 111 pts
2) bye 101 pts (wining 50 bye pts, twice his previous average which was 25, 20 more points than the average good result on round 3 which was 30 points)

3) 97 pts
4) 94 pts

5) 93 pts
6) bye 89 pts (wining 50 bye pts, twice and a half his previous average which was 20, 20 more points than the average good result on round 3 which was 30 points)

7) 86 pts
8 ) bye 81 pts (won 50 bye pts the second round, three times and a third his previous average which was 15)

the anticipated result?
1) will obliterate bye, 5) and 7) will also badly crush their byes while 3) and 4) will have a close hard game, most probably ending up on the 4th and 5th places.

awesome!

Yes, I'm the second place with 101 pts. But from the 50 pts acquired in the last turn only 25 are bye points, probably deadtorius running out of time.
the status of the game in that moment was:
tofman04 (Burgundian) 19/23 vs deadtorius(Swiss) 1/21

In the other game I won with the following result:
tofman04(Swiss) 0/21 vs deadtorius(Burgundian) 23/23

Then please don't do quick judgments based on nothing, without any evidence of your thoughts.

Cheers

Oops, I was jumping to conclusions too and sorry for that if you took offence. The scoring is problematic was all I wanted to point out. Especially when it comes to byes I think. One point with the swiss system as I understand it is that players of similar skill should meet after the first round. It only takes quite few byes for that to go out the window.

It's only a beta tournament. Doesn't mean much beyond tweaking the rules.

Yes, and I hope the coming tournaments will not mean much either
Feel I'm on touchy ground here but...tournament=competition after all, no? On some level all want to do as good as possible. I don't think anyone is overly competitive but we could still be interested in having a scoring system as good as possible .

[IainMcNeil]

The BYES are an issue. Some potential fixes
* If a player misses a round they should be retired from the compeition so they do not effect future rounds.
* If a player runs out of time their opponent shoudl get 100% on the enemy army as kills, but retain their own losses. So if you time out with an almost draw, the winning player will nto get 25/0 score, but more like 13/12 taking in to account the losses the winner had recived up to that point.
* If someone knows they will miss a round they should retire in advance so the draw can drop them out.

There is nothing we can do about someone who just stop playing. All we can do is decide how many points to give their opponent. Anything short of a max win could penalise that player so its a tricky one to resolve. What we could do is give the highest non BYE score achieved by any player that round. Not sure if that is technically possible but does it help? At least it should not disadvantage them doing it this way.

Thanks for all feedback but bear in mind this is a first beta! This is the whole point of it, to find these issues and resolve them

[Archie]

On a Bye is it not possible to give the remaining player an average win... (total players win score divided by players)?

Then it would be easy to giver the missing player a loosers score as well... minus 5 as a penlty.