Slitherine

AlessandroD wrote:

AlessandroD wrote:I don't see any tournament game on going in the "My Turn" and "Enemy Turn" tabs, is it normal?
Thanks

Sorry guys to bother you but with 6 days left I still don't see any game started...my opponent is xIGuNDoCIx.

I have other MP games ongoing therefore I think is not my computer.

Thanks

If neither player has yet played the first turn, you should have a tournament game in your "My Games" > "My Turn" tab in the MP lobby, and one in the "Enemy Turn" tab. If not, please email support@slitherine.co.uk.

Please also tell them if you have not received a notification email that the tournament has started. (But check your junk folder).

I have looked in the list of active games and it shows that your games do exist but neither player has played the first turn.

Thanks for the support Richard, e-mail sent.

Oh my word who is that dodgy developer at the top of the table......is it riggged .... of course not he's just bloody good

And thanks for a wonderful game Richard and whoever developed the live scoring system on the tourney table just brilliant to be able to see progress in games from both an event managers and players perspective.

Regards Rex

How many points will be needed to win this competition, do we think? 500? More?

Tournament mode is great! Really enjoyed the first battle I was crushed by my opponent, but learned a lot.
I made a comeback in the match playing the opposite site.

Can't wait for the next round!

As someone used to making multiple turns a day (recently retired helps a lot☺) I would just like my tournament game to be on more than turn 8 (4 turns each) since Friday ! .......yes I know I am impatient

devoncop wrote: I would just like my tournament game to be on more than turn 8 (4 turns each) since Friday ! .......yes I know I am impatient

Good things come to those who wait ..
.. 'till this evening
When I'll have news of your slingers, at the bottom of a hill, facing two groups of armoured cavalry

Are there any rules for conceding/surrendering? I don't plan on doing that of course, but my opponent did in both my games. Besides being poor form (there's no risk of getting injured like in a physical sport for continuing, and the opponent general deserves to witness his plans come to fruition - or not), it can be very disadvantaging in this tournament format (for the winner).

For example, one of my games was going 5% (my casualties) - 3% (enemy), at which point the enemy general surrendered even though had been inflicting more casualties and it was early in a battle in which he didn't have very good prospects. For that I received 60 points, the minimum win reward (as you get 60 + the difference between you and your opponent). If you take the current top player after first round, he has 209 points, for an average of more than 100 per game. That is what you get for a 40%-0% victory. But you never have that chance if the opponent concedes say when you are up 10%-0%, you lose a potential 30 points instantly. That doesn't seem very fair in a point based tournament...

Sharkall wrote:Are there any rules for conceding/surrendering? I don't plan on doing that of course, but my opponent did in both my games. Besides being poor form (there's no risk of getting injured like in a physical sport for continuing, and the opponent general deserves to witness his plans come to fruition - or not), it can be very disadvantaging in this tournament format (for the winner).

For example, one of my games was going 5% (my casualties) - 3% (enemy), at which point the enemy general surrendered even though had been inflicting more casualties and it was early in a battle in which he didn't have very good prospects. For that I received 60 points, the minimum win reward (as you get 60 + the difference between you and your opponent). If you take the current top player after first round, he has 209 points, for an average of more than 100 per game. That is what you get for a 40%-0% victory. But you never have that chance if the opponent concedes say when you are up 10%-0%, you lose a potential 30 points instantly. That doesn't seem very fair in a point based tournament...

I agree with this and I have raised it before. At the very least the winning player in these circumstances should get the 60pts for the win plus a default 25pts for the minimum winning margin on games ending around the 40% losses mark. So in this case where a player has resigned both games the winner should be getting 170pts at the very least.

I also think there is a case for saying that if a player resigns a game before the end then their default score should be zero. I actually think that players should be free to resign without rancour as long as they know that there may be penalties for doing so.

[quote="Sharkall"]Are there any rules for conceding/surrendering? I don't plan on doing that of course, but my opponent did in both my games. Besides being poor form (there's no risk of getting injured like in a physical sport for continuing, and the opponent general deserves to witness his plans come to fruition - or not), it can be very disadvantaging in this tournament format (for the winner).
I agree fully with your points here. Especially that players who resign score zero.

Ahhh Brenmusik......you say "slingers"...I say "expendable chaff" prepared to lay down their lives for the greater glory (of me)......I await news of your Armoured Cav charge with interest

stockwellpete wrote:

Sharkall wrote:Are there any rules for conceding/surrendering? I don't plan on doing that of course, but my opponent did in both my games. Besides being poor form (there's no risk of getting injured like in a physical sport for continuing, and the opponent general deserves to witness his plans come to fruition - or not), it can be very disadvantaging in this tournament format (for the winner).

For example, one of my games was going 5% (my casualties) - 3% (enemy), at which point the enemy general surrendered even though had been inflicting more casualties and it was early in a battle in which he didn't have very good prospects. For that I received 60 points, the minimum win reward (as you get 60 + the difference between you and your opponent). If you take the current top player after first round, he has 209 points, for an average of more than 100 per game. That is what you get for a 40%-0% victory. But you never have that chance if the opponent concedes say when you are up 10%-0%, you lose a potential 30 points instantly. That doesn't seem very fair in a point based tournament...

I agree with this and I have raised it before. At the very least the winning player in these circumstances should get the 60pts for the win plus a default 25pts for the minimum winning margin on games ending around the 40% losses mark.

It isn't quite as simple as that, because the winner in hard-fought games could score as little as 61%. I think some of the other players in the tournament might justifiably be miffed if someone who won because of a concession - which is sometimes because a player cannot be bothered to continue, rather than because he would have lost if he did - should get that much higher a score. It isn't their fault that the player's opponent conceded, and therefore it is important that they aren't effectively penalised by giving the "victor" of a conceded game too high a score.

I agree that they should probably get more than 60, but possibly not as high as 85.

I guess what we need to look at is the average score for completed games, which we will be able to do when this tournament is complete, discounting the ones that were concessions. Then perhaps the "winner" of a conceded game should get something based on that - whatever it turns out to be.

rbodleyscott wrote:I guess what we need to look at is the average score for completed games, which we will be able to do when this tournament is complete. Then perhaps the "winner" of a conceded game should get something based on that - whatever it turns out to be.

I still think a random score generator is the best answer. A random result somewhere between lowest and highest winning score is better than just giving an average because who knows what the final score could have been if both players had played to the end? This would leave the result in the lap of the gods and all players involved would just have to celebrate/blame their luck on what chance provides.

rbodleyscott wrote: It isn't quite as simple as that, because the winner in hard-fought games could score as little as 61%. I think some of the other players in the tournament might justifiably be miffed if someone who won because of a concession - which is sometimes because a player cannot be bothered to continue, rather than because he would have lost if he did - should get that much higher a score. It isn't their fault that the player's opponent conceded, and therefore it is important that they aren't effectively penalised by giving the "victor" of a conceded game too high a score.

I think in these sort of timed events we should assume that players who resign are doing so because they are getting beaten and that their resignation should really be regarded as their army routing due to a superior enemy performance. And we should also assume that the players who are timed out are the ones who "can't be bothered". I know these assumptions are not 100% correct, but they are certainly 95%+ correct. So I think if these "resigned" games were awarded 85-0 then most players would think that was fair. Giving the resigning player zero points might encourage some players who are losing heavily to fight it out to the bitter end.

The timed out games are awkward as well, particularly in the first round when a weaker player may not want to play against one of the top players if they get an unlucky draw. So the better player gets 2x60pts, but they may have got 2x100pts, so they are down 80pts through no fault of their own. Maybe the timed out games should be scored 75-0 when they have not started and 85-0 if they have (effectively treating it like a resignation). I think it is quite complicated; and some players will care about it while others are not too bothered as long as they can have some enjoyable games.

I agree that they should probably get more than 60, but possibly not as high as 85.

I guess what we need to look at is the average score for completed games, which we will be able to do when this tournament is complete, discounting the ones that were concessions. Then perhaps the "winner" of a conceded game should get something based on that - whatever it turns out to be.

Yes, that will be interesting to see. But you can roughly work it out already. If we say that the maximum a player can get from a game is 105pts (winning 45-0) and the smallest win you can get is 61pts; the half-way point between 61 and 105 is 83. So I think 85 which equals 60pts for the win and 25pts representing the default winning margin is about right.

We shall see. Nothing can be changed before the second patch anyway. (The first patch is already with production). So we can at least wait for the first tournament to finish.

rbodleyscott wrote:We shall see. Nothing can be changed before the second patch anyway. (The first patch is already with production). So we can at least wait for the first tournament to finish.

Yes, OK, Richard.

Another point, there are a number of matches showing as 0*- 0* in both games. Some of these may have started, some may not. I did ask before if it was possible to distinguish between the two types of games by showing games that have not started as 0-0, or just blank perhaps? Was there an answer on that please? The other thing is, can the system be set up to send reminder PM's to players who have not started a game, say, after 3 days? I do know from the FOGDL that some players will have forgotten that they have entered a tournament!

What if you removed the option to surrender from the future tournament games and disqualify players who are stalling their turns, unless they contact you and let you know that they had some technical difficulties etc. You could also specify in the rules that if a person does not intend to play their games till the end they are politely asked not to sign up. I know that is super draconian approach and that one of the purpose of the tournaments is to encourage new people to play and get familiar with the system. However, you need to also take into account that those who quit spoil the fun and chances for winning for other players. That also includes potentail new players who just joined and were able to gain an upper hand in battle...but then their opponent quit or stopped responding

EDIT: I am perfectly aware that RL happens. However, if for some reason I could not participate or continue the tournament I would probably write to the organisers and asked to be excluded from the remaining games.

stockwellpete wrote:Another point, there are a number of matches showing as 0*- 0* in both games. Some of these may have started, some may not. I did ask before if it was possible to distinguish between the two types of games by showing games that have not started as 0-0, or just blank perhaps? Was there an answer on that please?

As far as I know that is still on the wish list.

The other thing is, can the system be set up to send reminder PM's to players who have not started a game, say, after 3 days? I do know from the FOGDL that some players will have forgotten that they have entered a tournament!

I will pass that on.

stockwellpete wrote: Yes, that will be interesting to see. But you can roughly work it out already. If we say that the maximum a player can get from a game is 105pts (winning 45-0) and the smallest win you can get is 61pts; the half-way point between 61 and 105 is 83. So I think 85 which equals 60pts for the win and 25pts representing the default winning margin is about right.

I also think 85pts would be a decent substitute. Not perfect, as we will never know what would have happened, and scaling this bonus based on player ranking (eg. ELO score or some other metric) may be too convoluted. The only other idea I have is that the conceding player could be substituted by the AI, which might solve both issues. The probably winning player would have the satisfaction of seeing the battle to its conclusion, and we would also have a good estimation of the likely final score. Thanks to both Richard and Pete for the suggestions!

One of my games were a flank march. I can't see it mentioned in the rules so I wonder if the battles can be of any type?
I can be wrong but I can't remember seeing any kind of notification during my deployment about the flank march.
I noticed that some of my fixed units didn't show on the map, that was it.
Furthermore, I kind of wish it was an option to have a flank march or not. I would rather have one more cataphract and a superior warband from the start!

hidde wrote:One of my games were a flank march. I can't see it mentioned in the rules so I wonder if the battles can be of any type?

No but the AI may set up side B to send a flank march in open battles (as there is no side B flank march scenario type), and it does so for MP battles too.

I can be wrong but I can't remember seeing any kind of notification during my deployment about the flank march.

I will look into that.

Furthermore, I kind of wish it was an option to have a flank march or not. I would rather have one more cataphract and a superior warband from the start!

I will look into that too. We could disable side B flank marches for MP, but then again they add a bit of fun. They could perhaps be disabled for tournament games, but currently the game has no way of knowing if an MP game is a tournament game.