Slitherine

This has less to do with the actual tournament "mechanics" or rules, but really the attitude or atmosphere. Perhaps many players have never been part of a PBEMail club or whatnot but some basic Primers on etiquette should be posted?

I was somewhat surprised to see two open accusations of cheating on these boards with the accuser basically naming his opponent!

Perhaps even more surprising, no moderator stepped in to censor such accusations. A simple post of "Don't do that, PM an admin or whatnot to review if you have a reasonable suspicion of foul play" would seem to be the minimal response ...

rbodleyscott wrote:

stockwellpete wrote:

Hendricus wrote:Knock Out keeps the winners interested while the losers don't have to be motivated to play. As they are obliviated and out of the tournament.

Yes, half the players are obliviated each round. Life can be cruel sometimes.

It isn't as simple as that.

In a conventional knockout tournament the winner of each battle goes through. But this brings us back to the bad old days of winning a game by one or two points, which encourages desultory skirmishing and corner sitting.

It would probably be better to do the knockout by score, with the top half of the scoring table going through to the next round, and the bottom half being obliviated. (Report to the disintegration chamber!)

Who is knocked out are the ones you think deserve that, but they are out anyway. Lets try to understand what you suggest, even if you loose but have a higher score as a skirmish cornersitting winner you go to next round ! Hoorah for that. What a brilliance by the tournament master to prevent boring gameplay. Hoorah again.

Hendricus wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:In a conventional knockout tournament the winner of each battle goes through. But this brings us back to the bad old days of winning a game by one or two points, which encourages desultory skirmishing and corner sitting.

It would probably be better to do the knockout by score, with the top half of the scoring table going through to the next round, and the bottom half being obliviated. (Report to the disintegration chamber!)

Who is knocked out are the ones you think deserve that, but they are out anyway. Lets try to understand what you suggest, even if you loose but have a higher score as a skirmish cornersitting winner you go to next round ! Hoorah for that. What a brilliance by the tournament master to prevent boring gameplay. Hoorah again.

Yes, if you lose, but have a higher score than a corner-sitting "winner", you go through to the next round, and he probably doesn't.

What happens if your game can't load the turn correctly?? Been trying all day to get it to work.

It is a tournament game as well, don't want the round to time out.

jdouglas1310 wrote:What happens if your game can't load the turn correctly?? Been trying all day to get it to work.

It is a tournament game as well, don't want the round to time out.

Well it is a 10-day round and I think everyone has the same problem. Hopefully the IT boys will sort it out tomorrow. It might entail restarting the round, but we shall see.

The results of a tournament can earn participants tickets for following events.
1-16....17-32....33-48....49-64. Nice names as Centurion, Legate, Governor,Emperor for each of these tickets.
After a bunch of normal tournaments there are tournaments for ticketholders. So armchair generals meet those that had comparable results.

I have been utterly decimated in my last round but I can't get enough! I really hope more tournaments will be organized quickly... let's not make things too "elite" - people have different luck, and its too early for "rank-based" games - for example I have spanked Schmolywar several times (yes you mate) and now he is leading a tournament I which I was obliterated... alright, he is a good player I admin but still

Asterix_von_TWC wrote:I have been utterly decimated in my last round but I can't get enough! I really hope more tournaments will be organized quickly... let's not make things too "elite" - people have different luck, and its too early for "rank-based" games - for example I have spanked Schmolywar several times (yes you mate) and now he is leading a tournament I which I was obliterated... alright, he is a good player I admin but still

Hey I learned from the best what can I say! Third times the charm though

FroBodine wrote:Have the 10 day tournaments always start on a Friday. This will give a full two weekends for each round. Weekends are for the most part the best chance to get in multiple turns a day, especially with opponents in vastly different timezones.

Some people don't have as much time on the weekend given their line of work (me)

My suggestion: A Roman Civil War tournament called "The Ides of March" - gives balanced teams and should be very competitive

I have to ask, why so complicated point scoring systems instead of having knockout games until you get a final match?

I had this idea of team tourneys. It's a bit cheesy, but I will post anyway:
1) Teams has 3 players each
2) Before a match, each team sets each of it's players in a flank (left-center-right)
3) The match consists of 3 fights (side A's left vs side B right, side A right player vs side B left player and side A & B's center players)
4) A team wins if they win the center and any one of the flank battles;
4a) If a team wins the center and lost both flanks then there is a follow up battle which decides the match, where the center player fights against overwhelming odds (maybe a survival type match)

Ktonos wrote:I have to ask, why so complicated point scoring systems instead of having knockout games until you get a final match?

Not everyone likes knockout tournaments - in tabletop Ancients they went out of favour about 30 years or more ago. This was because 50% of the players only got to play 1 game, and so on.

For the majority of players tournaments represent the chance to play a series of hard-fought enjoyable games, with a ranking for everyone at the end, rather than briefly taking part in a "there can be only one" highlander-style affair.

I had this idea of team tourneys. It's a bit cheesy, but I will post anyway:
1) Teams has 3 players each
2) Before a match, each team sets each of it's players in a flank (left-center-right)
3) The match consists of 3 fights (side A's left vs side B right, side A right player vs side B left player and side A & B's center players)
4) A team wins if they win the center and any one of the flank battles;
4a) If a team wins the center and lost both flanks then there is a follow up battle which decides the match, where the center player fights against overwhelming odds (maybe a survival type match)

I like this idea. It would have to be run manually though, like the Digital League.

TheGrayMouser wrote:This has less to do with the actual tournament "mechanics" or rules, but really the attitude or atmosphere. Perhaps many players have never been part of a PBEMail club or whatnot but some basic Primers on etiquette should be posted?

I was somewhat surprised to see two open accusations of cheating on these boards with the accuser basically naming his opponent!

Perhaps even more surprising, no moderator stepped in to censor such accusations. A simple post of "Don't do that, PM an admin or whatnot to review if you have a reasonable suspicion of foul play" would seem to be the minimal response ...

I have had some disappointing Tournament experiences over the last few with opponents letting the game sit, quitting when they are flanked by troops hiding in woods that they didn't scout, etc. I see that with the new download, quitting is no longer allowed, so that an improvident, but the slow or no play issue is a matter of player etiquette that cant be remedied by a coding solution alone.

but coding , perhaps, could help. here is my suggestion: When a player logs in and signs up for a tournament, before the player is added to the list, he or she must first click agree on a "Community Tournament Etiquette" agreement. This lays out expectations such as agreeing to do at least one turn a day, to play games out competitively to their conclusion, etc...

This is a riff of what is commonplace for age signed in to access content. Most people do not lie about their age, and exit. similarly, and in line with the post I chose to quote, there should be some means to communicate standards in such a way that players need to pause to check their level of commitment to the community. I would rather particpate in a tournament of 37 of 64 committed players than in a hodgepodge of 64/64 where luck determines not only my first opponent but also the likelihood of my being able to have 6 full games to try to improve.

Just FYI. In the Legions Triumphant tournament it would have been nice if the Dacians had the option to get a few close order warbands, even superior close order warbands to have a chance at fighting in the open against legions, or maybe another warband faction could have been used in the first round. On many of the random maps there is no woods in the middle of the map, and where there is woods on the map, the Dacians players have every incentive to hide in it and just hope the Roman player blunders into a strategic fail of some sort.

bbogensc wrote:Just FYI. In the Legions Triumphant tournament it would have been nice if the Dacians had the option to get a few close order warbands, even superior close order warbands to have a chance at fighting in the open against legions, or maybe another warband faction could have been used in the first round. On many of the random maps there is no woods in the middle of the map, and where there is woods on the map, the Dacians players have every incentive to hide in it and just hope the Roman player blunders into a strategic fail of some sort.

The tournament consists of paired games, so it does not really matter if a matchup isn't perfectly balanced. What matters is the overall score a player achieves over the match.

Moreover, out of the 8 pairs of games completed so far, in 75% the same player has won with both Romans and Dacians. So whatever degree of imbalance there might be is certainly overcomeable by skilled play.

No, I'm sorry to disagree - the faction does make a difference in the tournament. The scores indicate many of the Dacian players just stayed in the woods against experienced players (see case in point below). For example, my opponent said it would be "suicide" to come out of the woods. Regardless of skill level, the Roman player cannot force the Dacian to come out of the woods, so the game just draws, or you can try to send units in as I did in desperation to try to move the game forward.

Also, I see a lot of very high scores with novice tournament players who were not able to score even 1 point with the Dacians. That kind of game cannot be much fun for either side.

The tournament would have been better with a Romans vs German or Gallatian matchup, in my opinion.

I think if you're playing the Dacian side and you are blessed with a map such as this, then you would be a fool not to take advantage of it, 90% of the time you do not get such a place to play hide and seek in, so in this case you were just unlucky.

Well, there are a lot of 0-0 games now indicating a draw, much more than at this stage in the Alexander Tourney. Also, a lot of really lopsided victories (113-0) where the Dacian player presumably tried to deploy loose order warbands in open ground and then 1 rout disrupted many units, and so on. German or Gallatian would have been better for a tournament match in my view because its easier for novice players to play and at least score a few points.

bbogensc wrote: the Dacians players have every incentive to hide in it and just hope the Roman player blunders into a strategic fail of some sort.

I have begun to experience this type of play from my opponents. To me, this is playing not to lose rather than playing to win. While I understand this decision, it is one I find offers no game fun, especially if it means a game ends with a 0-0 draw.

If a Slitherine tournament game, by luck of the terrain generator, or game play maneuvering, will likely result in a stalemate, where no side wishes to take the initiative, there needs to be a draw option that doesn't penalize the players by awarding no points. Say an agreed upon draw nets 50 points or so. this could be coded so that a player could hit a button that offered a draw and if accepted, the algorithm awards 50 points each.

I don't agree with the views on match-up, I have beaten and been been beaten both times in a paired games; this was due to smart or dumb use of terrain and the initial force disposition, and maybe some guile. However, when terrain makes resolution unlikely, a draw option similar to the digital league (you still get a point) needs to be available.

nyczar wrote:

If a Slitherine tournament game, by luck of the terrain generator, or game play maneuvering, will likely result in a stalemate, where no side wishes to take the initiative, there needs to be a draw option that doesn't penalize the players by awarding no points. Say an agreed upon draw nets 50 points or so. this could be coded so that a player could hit a button that offered a draw and if accepted, the algorithm awards 50 points each.

So something akin to Close Combat cease-fire button? I.e. when both parties hit the button, the battle would end?
That is really a good suggestion.

ZygfrydDeLowe wrote:

nyczar wrote:

If a Slitherine tournament game, by luck of the terrain generator, or game play maneuvering, will likely result in a stalemate, where no side wishes to take the initiative, there needs to be a draw option that doesn't penalize the players by awarding no points. Say an agreed upon draw nets 50 points or so. this could be coded so that a player could hit a button that offered a draw and if accepted, the algorithm awards 50 points each.

So something akin to Close Combat cease-fire button? I.e. when both parties hit the button, the battle would end?
That is really a good suggestion.

Certainly one we should consider.

The only problem is that it is open to manipulation. Essentially any game where the time limit is looming, and neither side has scored more than the Draw score, they could hit the "Agreed Draw" button to up their scores. Do they deserve a better score than players who just keep playing until the time limit?

And the whole point of the current system is to encourage people to "have a go" rather than footle about. So the "Agreed Draw" score would need to be fairly low. Certainly not 50. (In the Digital League scoring system a Draw is worth the equivalent of 25).