Discuss the Path to 1942 Tournament here

[Patrick Ward]

Hey guys,

Really sorry some of you are having a hard time with the tournament. We ARE reading and listening so keep posting about your experiences and ideas. There are plans afoot, which I can't talk about, and we are always open to suggestions and advice.

So I don't want to stifle the conversation but do want you to know we're following the thread, are listening, understand your frustration, and want to improve the situation.

Pat

[Haze0008]

Lets be honest; it appears that very little forethought was put into the scoring system and decisions regarding game procedure ("gosh, who would of thought that some players might not show up or complete the game"?). The administrators need to put the same planning and forethought into tournament administration that they would put into playing the game itself. This is not about discovering unexpected problems, this is about thorough planning. This is other people's time you are wasting......and whoever came up with the 2000 point idea might want to set this one out.

[Shards]

To be somewhat fair, this is the first tournament with this scoring system/ map type for Panzer Corps 2, so I there has to be a little tolerance for the points system (and bye points) being in need of some balancing.

As Pat says, we are looking at how best to make tournaments fun for all (hardcore and more casual alike), but those sorts of changes take a little while to marinade.

For PzC2, what do people think a reasonable score for a player who either does not have an opponent or has an opponent who is unable to play/compete their turns should be?

My guess (with this scoring system) is about 1500

[urbanov4]

To be somewhat fair, this is the first tournament with this scoring system/ map type for Panzer Corps 2, so I there has to be a little tolerance for the points system (and bye points) being in need of some balancing.

As Pat says, we are looking at how best to make tournaments fun for all (hardcore and more casual alike), but those sorts of changes take a little while to marinade.

For PzC2, what do people think a reasonable score for a player who either does not have an opponent or has an opponent who is unable to play/compete their turns should be?

My guess (with this scoring system) is about 1500

Hi, I wrote some times here, but maybe you had no time to read. So, only the classic swiss system is correct, if we wanna take the tournament serious. That way all win would earn 1 point, all draw 1/2. This way the players without opponent would get the same chances as any other winner. With 1500 points (or any other that is less then max) the one without opponent would automatically be deprived the chance of winning the tournament, if there is an as strong (or stronger) player than him, who can win more points by playing. Also, if some goes out of time by its opponents fault (I mean his opponent used more time, and game ends) should also be given max. points cos we must hypothesize that, he could have played the best in the rounds those weren't played. Also: always the one with weak opponent (who lets him kill units and take objectives more easily) will get more points than the one with strong opponent. So points gives a correct picture only between that two players, who play against each other. I think swiss system is also more easier to be used, cos its logic is quite simple and understandable, also has a more than 100 years history and there are softvares to help tournament organizers. Also, it was used in Panzer Corps 1 tournaments, which were not automatized, but was very well organized, and gave a very clear and undoubtful ranking between players. If it means more matches, I think, most player would be happy for that, also with the using some shorter maps (but not only short ones). +PZC1 tournemnt organizer (was named Goose2) also tried to make pairs from tha same tiem zones, and tourn were only 3-4 days (depending on the map), and it was almost always enough.

[Folklore]

How do you think your suggestion is gonna work if the matches are long, there are only 3 rounds and we have, let's say, 100 participants? The top 30 players all have the same 3 points, then the other 20 have 2, and then the rest have 1/0.5/0?

[urbanov4]

How do you think your suggestion is gonna work if the matches are long, there are only 3 rounds and we have, let's say, 100 participants? The top 30 players all have the same 3 points, then the other 20 have 2, and then the rest have 1/0.5/0?

Why only 3 rounds allowed?

[tkrysiak]

To be somewhat fair, this is the first tournament with this scoring system/ map type for Panzer Corps 2, so I there has to be a little tolerance for the points system (and bye points) being in need of some balancing.

As Pat says, we are looking at how best to make tournaments fun for all (hardcore and more casual alike), but those sorts of changes take a little while to marinade.

For PzC2, what do people think a reasonable score for a player who either does not have an opponent or has an opponent who is unable to play/compete their turns should be?

My guess (with this scoring system) is about 1500

It is hard to set a "hard cap" but I think it should be somehow related to an average point value for each round. Using my (pretty lacking) Excel skills, Round 1 average for first 100 players was 1500 points - that is with a BUNCH of people already receiving 2000. If we remove people who received 2000 points the average drops to 950.

For second round which was somehow worth less points, the average is 850 points for the first 100 players - but it drops to 700 when you remove players with "freebie points".

Bottom line is - you gotta give people some points to keep it interesting and keep them in the game but at the same time its a tournament so providing points out of thin air (especially if they are too high) is counter productive. By god, I am happy finding the sweet spot is your job and not mine BUT that is why we should consider coming up with a non point based solution to having inactive players out of the picture. We came up with an idea of a quick qualifier round that people have to play but if you got another ace in your sleeve I am sure people will be even happier

As someone mentioned, it could be a decent idea of having a community manager/rep/small team responsible for keeping an eye on the tournament. Even if such person is not officially affiliated with the developer/publisher (there could be some red tape issues there, I know) it would make a huge difference to overall player experience. In turn, player experience would translate into more social media presence which in the end blooms into a larger player base and more sales.

[tkrysiak]

How do you think your suggestion is gonna work if the matches are long, there are only 3 rounds and we have, let's say, 100 participants? The top 30 players all have the same 3 points, then the other 20 have 2, and then the rest have 1/0.5/0?

Why only 3 rounds allowed?

Because of a 7 day turn limit - as you can see, some players in this thread are even calling for each round to be extended to two weeks. Its just a nature of the turn based game. We could have a "set time" 4/6 hour long tournament played in real time but I would say attendance would end up being pitiful - especially if you take time zones (already being an issue in current format) into account...

[Fudwuppel]

To be somewhat fair, this is the first tournament with this scoring system/ map type for Panzer Corps 2, so I there has to be a little tolerance for the points system (and bye points) being in need of some balancing.

As Pat says, we are looking at how best to make tournaments fun for all (hardcore and more casual alike), but those sorts of changes take a little while to marinade.

For PzC2, what do people think a reasonable score for a player who either does not have an opponent or has an opponent who is unable to play/compete their turns should be?

My guess (with this scoring system) is about 1500

If a player gets consolation points after being stiffed and cannot play at all, He does deserve some redress. But 2000 points is a bit excessive. In the second round, only one player earned more than 2000. That's what torqued me
I think the point award should be the average score of all players who finished turn 20 or won earlier than that.

[urbanov4]

Because of a 7 day turn limit - as you can see, some players in this thread are even calling for each round to be extended to two weeks. Its just a nature of the turn based game. We could have a "set time" 4/6 hour long tournament played in real time but I would say attendance would end up being pitiful - especially if you take time zones (already being an issue in current format) into account...
[/quote]

Maybe there should be used a mechanism where all player can fix 2* 1 hour intervallum in all day when can move at least 2 turn? Who misses more turns, lose if it goes out of time. I think its more correct to lose cos I had no time for play on a tournament (but at least it was my fault), than losing without chance cos of unlucky point calculating. If some wanna play on tournament go take it a bit serious.

[Fudwuppel]

How do you think your suggestion is gonna work if the matches are long, there are only 3 rounds and we have, let's say, 100 participants? The top 30 players all have the same 3 points, then the other 20 have 2, and then the rest have 1/0.5/0?

Why only 3 rounds allowed?

Just an example. 3 rounds was easier for me to do the numbers than five rounds. In a five round tournament with 100 players, there can still be three undefeated players Well, and a fraction of a player. Poor guy.
I think there must be some kind of tie breaker as a back up. It's good defensive code and will prevent a bug.

[Folklore]

Maybe the number of free points should be calculated according to the winning side's average for a particular round? The system calculates what was the average for this particular map and this particular round, then uses this amount as BYE/inactive player reward. The maps/goals are different and the player pool might be different, so it's better to reward points accordingly.

[tkrysiak]

Maybe the number of free points should be calculated according to the winning side's average for a particular round? The system calculates what was the average for this particular map and this particular round, then uses this amount as BYE/inactive player reward? The maps/goals are different and the player pool might be different, so it's better to reward points accordingly.

Yup, that was mentioned above - wait until the end of the round and assign average points. That seems fair but I guess it would be even better to take some steps to lower the amount of people unable to play due to a lack of an opponent. Getting points is a decent reimbursement that should keep the players in the game but it would be best to take steps to allow them to have a player in the first place which provides the most important thing and that is fun.

[Fudwuppel]

Maybe the number of free points should be calculated according to the winning side's average for a particular round? The system calculates what was the average for this particular map and this particular round, then uses this amount as BYE/inactive player reward. The maps/goals are different and the player pool might be different, so it's better to reward points accordingly.

You should include the scores of all players into the average who actually finished their games before the turn limit as well

[darthlocutus11]

Well Slitherine, thanks for reading all of this. Sure the next Tournament regarding the score issues will be better. Meanwhile I'm still having fun !

[Folklore]

To be somewhat fair, this is the first tournament with this scoring system/ map type for Panzer Corps 2, so I there has to be a little tolerance for the points system (and bye points) being in need of some balancing.

This is the second tournament, though. And the same problems were reported after the first one.
No negativity, though. A tournament is always fun and those campaign maps are pretty cool.

[ElLobo]

To be somewhat fair, this is the first tournament with this scoring system/ map type for Panzer Corps 2, so I there has to be a little tolerance for the points system (and bye points) being in need of some balancing.

As Pat says, we are looking at how best to make tournaments fun for all (hardcore and more casual alike), but those sorts of changes take a little while to marinade.

For PzC2, what do people think a reasonable score for a player who either does not have an opponent or has an opponent who is unable to play/compete their turns should be?

My guess (with this scoring system) is about 1500

It is always difficult to set up something new, and it is always impossible to satisfy all,...
the best is expierince, by time it will be all ok!!!

I guess you are doing good, need time and expierence of waht is working well and whats not working,...so you will se more than we do!!

I like a lot those multiplayer maps and the tournament is exciting,....better than playing against a computer!!!!

i enjoyed it very much!!!

When start the next one??

[Shards]

To be somewhat fair, this is the first tournament with this scoring system/ map type for Panzer Corps 2, so I there has to be a little tolerance for the points system (and bye points) being in need of some balancing.

This is the second tournament, though. And the same problems were reported after the first one.
No negativity, though. A tournament is always fun and those campaign maps are pretty cool.

The maps and objectives are quite different between that first tournament and this one, as the team learned more about what works well for Tournament games I think. I'd expect them to take similar learnings from this tournament as well, so that the next one is even better

[urbanov4]

The maps and objectives are quite different between that first tournament and this one, as the team learned more about what works well for Tournament games I think. I'd expect them to take similar learnings from this tournament as well, so that the next one is even better
[/quote]

So, these maps were good really (even if I couldnt play a whole game), cos it seems, they were rather balanced, also, starting units were mostly useful, so they didn't need much change (except if your tactics needs it). And was a rather big liberty in the using/changing of troops, with a good amount of units, prestige and also a big map. I also liked the historic campaigns better than the pure arena-like maps.

[tkrysiak]

To be somewhat fair, this is the first tournament with this scoring system/ map type for Panzer Corps 2, so I there has to be a little tolerance for the points system (and bye points) being in need of some balancing.

This is the second tournament, though. And the same problems were reported after the first one.
No negativity, though. A tournament is always fun and those campaign maps are pretty cool.

The maps and objectives are quite different between that first tournament and this one, as the team learned more about what works well for Tournament games I think. I'd expect them to take similar learnings from this tournament as well, so that the next one is even better

Talking of maps, is there any plans to allow players enjoy campaign/purchased DLC maps in multiplayer? There is honestly no excuse for not letting people play all/any/either map they own in multiplayer even if it is not properly balanced? I mean, even if this requires a bit of code rework - I am sure most people would buy it as a small DLC if it means having hundred+ new maps to enjoy with their friends...