Discuss the Path to 1942 Tournament here

[tkrysiak]

OK, I'll risk sounding like a SORE LOSER but think this needs to be said because at this stage its a joke! Slitherine, get your point rules in order - 2000 points for not playing a game is a fecking joke and a half. I have fallen to 10th position (which his fine) as there are 5 guys with 2000 point bonus ahead of me. What is NOT fine is that the person who is third, has 4000 points - by getting 2000 points in each round.
And the best thing is that Shards could have probably gotten there himself judging from his previous tourney performance so I am not having a go at the person but rather the pure absurd of current rule set up...
What's the point?

[urbanov4]

Also would needed good tournament rules as I wrote earlier Just counting win and lose would be much more meaningful than this system, and also more simple Also would give the similar compensation for those, who had a quitter opponent, than those, who won a match.

It's just my opinion, but the win/loss method of scoring in a tournament like this wouldn't be feasible without performing a sort of the results. I don't know what the sort would use as criteria - it could be units killed, number of turns to achieve victory... or points.
Consider: If a tournament started with 120 players, it is possible that 1/8 of them could tie for first place. If the pairing put winners against winners and losers against losers, similar to this tournament (in the 2nd round my opponent had finished his first round just behind me in points; that seems to be true with all the pairings I looked at - Slitherine wanted fair match ups) we would see 60 players at 1-0 on round 1. After round 2, 30 players could be 2-0. At the end of round 3, 15 players could be tied for first place at 3-0. Who won? Too many tournaments with 10-15 1st place finishers would kill participation.
The win/loss format of scoring seems to be a bit clunky in practice because at least one sort would have to be made on the results. If not, then, of course, a LOT of players will weep and wail, 'I won 2 out of 3 games! Why am I tied with 44 other players at 2nd place?'
Just another random thought rattling around inside my head...

I think a long tournament would have been more interesting anyway. Till you can feel some chance for winning it, or to be on a good place, it would reman interesting. On the lower fields, some (like me) could enjoy to play a more or less as strong player as me for a better place. It is yet more exciting than playeng agame without any stake. They could also vary small and fastly playable maps with bigger ones, to make things quicker. Anyway, this form is not atournament at all but a jazard game, so any correct counting would be better than this. Points means nothing here, if some not pleyed a minute and his opponent quitted, gets much better rank then the one who triturated his opponent. I must ask: why is it called tournament at all?

[urbanov4]

Also would needed good tournament rules as I wrote earlier Just counting win and lose would be much more meaningful than this system, and also more simple Also would give the similar compensation for those, who had a quitter opponent, than those, who won a match.

It's just my opinion, but the win/loss method of scoring in a tournament like this wouldn't be feasible without performing a sort of the results. I don't know what the sort would use as criteria - it could be units killed, number of turns to achieve victory... or points.
Consider: If a tournament started with 120 players, it is possible that 1/8 of them could tie for first place. If the pairing put winners against winners and losers against losers, similar to this tournament (in the 2nd round my opponent had finished his first round just behind me in points; that seems to be true with all the pairings I looked at - Slitherine wanted fair match ups) we would see 60 players at 1-0 on round 1. After round 2, 30 players could be 2-0. At the end of round 3, 15 players could be tied for first place at 3-0. Who won? Too many tournaments with 10-15 1st place finishers would kill participation.
The win/loss format of scoring seems to be a bit clunky in practice because at least one sort would have to be made on the results. If not, then, of course, a LOT of players will weep and wail, 'I won 2 out of 3 games! Why am I tied with 44 other players at 2nd place?'
Just another random thought rattling around inside my head...

I think a long tournament would be more interesting anyway. Till you can feel some chance for winning it, or to be on a good place, it would reman interesting. On the lower fields, some (like me) could enjoy to play a more or less as strong player as me for a better place. It is yet more exciting than playeng agame without any stake. They could also vary small and fastly playable maps with bigger ones, to make things quicker. Anyway, this form is not atournament at all but a jazard game, so any correct counting would be better than this. Points means nothing here, if some not pleyed a minute and his opponent quitted, gets much better rank then the one who triturated his opponent. I must ask: why is it called tournament at all?

[urbanov4]

It's just my opinion, but the win/loss method of scoring in a tournament like this wouldn't be feasible without performing a sort of the results. I don't know what the sort would use as criteria - it could be units killed, number of turns to achieve victory... or points.
Consider: If a tournament started with 120 players, it is possible that 1/8 of them could tie for first place. If the pairing put winners against winners and losers against losers, similar to this tournament (in the 2nd round my opponent had finished his first round just behind me in points; that seems to be true with all the pairings I looked at - Slitherine wanted fair match ups) we would see 60 players at 1-0 on round 1. After round 2, 30 players could be 2-0. At the end of round 3, 15 players could be tied for first place at 3-0. Who won? Too many tournaments with 10-15 1st place finishers would kill participation.
The win/loss format of scoring seems to be a bit clunky in practice because at least one sort would have to be made on the results. If not, then, of course, a LOT of players will weep and wail, 'I won 2 out of 3 games! Why am I tied with 44 other players at 2nd place?'
Just another random thought rattling around inside my head...

I think a long tournament would be more interesting anyway. Till you can feel some chance for winning it, or to be on a good place, it would reman interesting. On the lower fields, some (like me) could enjoy to play against a more or less as strong player as him for a better place. It is yet more exciting than playeng agame without any stake. They could also vary small and fastly playable maps with bigger ones, to make things quicker. Anyway, this form is not atournament at all but a jazard game, so any correct counting would be better than this. Points means nothing here, if some not pleyed a minute and his opponent quitted, gets much better rank then the one who triturated his opponent. I must ask: why is it called tournament at all?

[Fudwuppel]

OK, I'll risk sounding like a SORE LOSER but think this needs to be said because at this stage its a joke! Slitherine, get your point rules in order - 2000 points for not playing a game is a fecking joke and a half. I have fallen to 10th position (which his fine) as there are 5 guys with 2000 point bonus ahead of me. What is NOT fine is that the person who is third, has 4000 points - by getting 2000 points in each round.
And the best thing is that Shards could have probably gotten there himself judging from his previous tourney performance so I am not having a go at the person but rather the pure absurd of current rule set up...
What's the point?

You barely beat me to the rant. What the hell? Third place and didn't play a game. I lost four positions because of gift points.
Not his fault, but as I said in a previous post, 2000 points is a LOT of adjustment!

[urbanov4]

I think a long tournament would be more interesting anyway. Till you can feel some chance for winning it, or to be on a good place, it would reman interesting. On the lower fields, some (like me) could enjoy to play against a more or less as strong player as him for a better place. It is yet more exciting than playeng a game without any stake. They could also vary small and fastly playable maps with bigger ones, to make things quicker. Anyway, this form is not atournament at all but a hazard game, so any correct counting would be better than this. Points means nothing here, if some not pleyed a minute and his opponent quitted, gets much better rank then the one who triturated his opponent. I must ask: why is it called tournament at all?

[urbanov4]

OK, I'll risk sounding like a SORE LOSER but think this needs to be said because at this stage its a joke! Slitherine, get your point rules in order - 2000 points for not playing a game is a fecking joke and a half. I have fallen to 10th position (which his fine) as there are 5 guys with 2000 point bonus ahead of me. What is NOT fine is that the person who is third, has 4000 points - by getting 2000 points in each round.
And the best thing is that Shards could have probably gotten there himself judging from his previous tourney performance so I am not having a go at the person but rather the pure absurd of current rule set up...
What's the point?

You barely beat me to the rant. What the hell? Third place and didn't play a game. I lost four positions because of gift points.
Not his fault, but as I said in a previous post, 2000 points is a LOT of adjustment!

Yeah-and me, who won all 4 games almost perfectly, on the 37th place just cos I won "too" early Only win/lose/draw mwthod is correct!

[tkrysiak]

OK, I'll risk sounding like a SORE LOSER but think this needs to be said because at this stage its a joke! Slitherine, get your point rules in order - 2000 points for not playing a game is a fecking joke and a half. I have fallen to 10th position (which his fine) as there are 5 guys with 2000 point bonus ahead of me. What is NOT fine is that the person who is third, has 4000 points - by getting 2000 points in each round.
And the best thing is that Shards could have probably gotten there himself judging from his previous tourney performance so I am not having a go at the person but rather the pure absurd of current rule set up...
What's the point?

You barely beat me to the rant. What the hell? Third place and didn't play a game. I lost four positions because of gift points.
Not his fault, but as I said in a previous post, 2000 points is a LOT of adjustment!

Yeah-and me, who won all 4 games almost perfectly, on the 37th place just cos I won "too" early Only win/lose/draw mwthod is correct!

Nah current scoring is good BUT with adjustment of a bug where points are not assigned correctly for early win AND 2000 point bonus for not playing lowered to maybe 500...
If they can't fix the "early win" bonus then they will not spend time on redesigning the point system either. Anyways - this tournament helped me understand why are there so little players interested in participating in Panzer Corps 2 tourneys...

[urbanov4]

You barely beat me to the rant. What the hell? Third place and didn't play a game. I lost four positions because of gift points.
Not his fault, but as I said in a previous post, 2000 points is a LOT of adjustment!

Yeah-and me, who won all 4 games almost perfectly, on the 37th place just cos I won "too" early Only win/lose/draw mwthod is correct!

Nah current scoring is good BUT with adjustment of a bug where points are not assigned correctly for early win AND 2000 point bonus for not playing lowered to maybe 500...
If they can't fix the "early win" bonus then they will not spend time on redesigning the point system either. Anyways - this tournament helped me understand why are there so little players interested in participating in Panzer Corps 2 tourneys...

And why sould I get only 500 points, that deprives me the chance of winning only for that reason, my opponent quitted? Also if the system werent buggy, it gives more points the ones who fought a weaker opponent, so at last not the best player will win the tournament, but the one, who had the weakest oppoents.

[tkrysiak]

Yeah-and me, who won all 4 games almost perfectly, on the 37th place just cos I won "too" early Only win/lose/draw mwthod is correct!

Nah current scoring is good BUT with adjustment of a bug where points are not assigned correctly for early win AND 2000 point bonus for not playing lowered to maybe 500...
If they can't fix the "early win" bonus then they will not spend time on redesigning the point system either. Anyways - this tournament helped me understand why are there so little players interested in participating in Panzer Corps 2 tourneys...

And why sould I get only 500 points, that deprives me the chance of winning only for that reason, my opponent quitted? Also if the system werent buggy, it gives more points the ones who fought a weaker opponent, so at last not the best player will win the tournament, but the one, who had the weakest oppoents.

Well 500 points was just an example but something that would be closer to an average of what I can see people earned in a round. It can't be close to maximum points you could earn because then we end up in absurd situations like this one. Instead there should be a way of getting rid/lowering the amount of players that do not play in an early elimination round.

Binary scoring system will not work in game like Panzer Corps that's always been about achieving certain set of goals (be it capture/defense) You could maybe have a system with scoring for achieved goals with a list of goals per map but that would require redesign of everything and a lot of manhours which will just not happen...

[urbanov4]

Nah current scoring is good BUT with adjustment of a bug where points are not assigned correctly for early win AND 2000 point bonus for not playing lowered to maybe 500...
If they can't fix the "early win" bonus then they will not spend time on redesigning the point system either. Anyways - this tournament helped me understand why are there so little players interested in participating in Panzer Corps 2 tourneys...

And why sould I get only 500 points, that deprives me the chance of winning only for that reason, my opponent quitted? Also if the system werent buggy, it gives more points the ones who fought a weaker opponent, so at last not the best player will win the tournament, but the one, who had the weakest oppoents.

Well 500 points was just an example but something that would be closer to an average of what I can see people earned in a round. It can't be close to maximum points you could earn because then we end up in absurd situations like this one. Instead there should be a way of getting rid/lowering the amount of players that do not play in an early elimination round.

Binary scoring system will not work in game like Panzer Corps that's always been about achieving certain set of goals (be it capture/defense) You could maybe have a system with scoring for achieved goals with a list of goals per map but that would require redesign of everything and a lot of manhours which will just not happen...

Achieving goals can be useful between opponents, and ONLY BETWEEN OPPONENTS gives a correct points. But the result cant'be counted this way for the reasons I wrote earlier. Also totally incorrect to give players who reamained without opponents less then the max points. In fact, if your opponent quitted you are deserved the maximum of the achi
avable points cos it means, he gave it up and you achieved a total victory. You cant suppose anybody who couldn't play by other's fault that he could have played weaker than any other players.

[urbanov4]

Binary scoring system will not work in game like Panzer Corps that's always been about achieving certain set of goals (be it capture/defense) You could maybe have a system with scoring for achieved goals with a list of goals per map but that would require redesign of everything and a lot of manhours which will just not happen...
[/quote]

Also, in all game where it is used since more than 100 years ago, there are special goals. I know chess only, where your goal is to chekmate the opponent's kings. You can achieve that goal with much or minimal material, also, there are 5 ways to make game draw-but the main goal is to win. The same is here, mailny in these multy sceanrios there are no big and small victories, only victories, so the sístem would be well useable.

[tkrysiak]

Binary scoring system will not work in game like Panzer Corps that's always been about achieving certain set of goals (be it capture/defense) You could maybe have a system with scoring for achieved goals with a list of goals per map but that would require redesign of everything and a lot of manhours which will just not happen...

Also, in all game where it is used since more than 100 years ago, there are special goals. I know chess only, where your goal is to chekmate the opponent's kings. You can achieve that goal with much or minimal material, also, there are 5 ways to make game draw-but the main goal is to win. The same is here, mailny in these multy sceanrios there are no big and small victories, only victories, so the sístem would be well useable.
[/quote]

Well, we are arguing over something that is out of our hands and way beyond the capacity of developers to implement
I mean, they are currently using a 27 year old Panzer General scoring formula and still can't get it right so yeah...
I do wish them best but I've learnt not to have you expectations set too high if you want to avoid disappointment.

[urbanov4]

Binary scoring system will not work in game like Panzer Corps that's always been about achieving certain set of goals (be it capture/defense) You could maybe have a system with scoring for achieved goals with a list of goals per map but that would require redesign of everything and a lot of manhours which will just not happen...

Also, in all game where it is used since more than 100 years ago, there are special goals. I know chess only, where your goal is to chekmate the opponent's kings. You can achieve that goal with much or minimal material, also, there are 5 ways to make game draw-but the main goal is to win. The same is here, mailny in these multy sceanrios there are no big and small victories, only victories, so the sístem would be well useable.

Well, we are arguing over something that is out of our hands and way beyond the capacity of developers to implement
I mean, they are currently using a 27 year old Panzer General scoring formula and still can't get it right so yeah...
I do wish them best but I've learnt not to have you expectations set too high if you want to avoid disappointment.
[/quote]

I discussing this with the hope, devs will read it maybe...at least, this topic was opened by devs (if Slitherine logo means anything). Just makes me some way sad, this could be a good game with a little work by devs.,, but without tournaments and more maps, multy will die fast.

[rickrook]

Question on Scoring: It appears I was penalized for winning a game early (~15 of 20) in round 2 as Germany. As such the score score for that game was unusual low. The score was 484 to 487, with me as the 484 even though I won the game. Is that the way it is meant to work?

[darthlocutus11]

Well this scoring method is disappointing...but still have some fun playing WHEN the opponent IS playing.

[darthlocutus11]

WHO is that player BYE who gave up 2000 points already in round 3 to spicca99 ??????????????

[Fudwuppel]

I like this map. It's kind of a combination of the first two. Wide open maneuvering room with a little siege thrown in for leavening. Best (and worst) of both worlds.

[tkrysiak]

WHO is that player BYE who gave up 2000 points already in round 3 to spicca99 ??????????????

Good question, same thing happened on day 1 of round 2 to another player but I couldn't find player BYE. Maybe I am just going blind though...

[Fudwuppel]

WHO is that player BYE who gave up 2000 points already in round 3 to spicca99 ??????????????

Good question, same thing happened on day 1 of round 2 to another player but I couldn't find player BYE. Maybe I am just going blind though...

I'm pretty sure BYE wouldn't pass through a qualifying tournament. He never plays.