This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

GeekNights Tuesday - Tournaments

edited August 2012 in GeekNights

Tonight on GeekNights, Rym is back from Brazil, and we consider tournaments in a general sense in light of the 2012 Olympic Badminton scandal. Rym also has some thoughts on Guns of Icarus Online after playing a bunch of it this past weekend. In the news, we consider EA's patently ludicrous copyright lawsuit against (an admittedly deserving) Zynga. Also, don't forget that we'll be at PAX Prime and PAX Dev, talking about ethics of game design (among other things)!

Download MP3
Source Link

Comments

  • edited August 2012
    Even in Scott's example high score competition the strategy is not as simple as "get the highest score you can".

    For example, knowing other players' scores can change the extent to which you take risks to get higher scores.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Yeap. The scores have to be hidden until the end. Or, players have to have access to unlimited attempts.
  • Even in Scott's example high score competition the strategy is not as simple as "get the highest score you can".

    For example, knowing other players' scores can change the extent to which you take risks to get higher scores.
    Ooooh! So true! It depends on if the game itself having high risk:reward ratio decisions available.

    One thing I wanted to bring up is that professional tennis majors are probably the fairest and best tournament there is. Tennis has one official and well kept world ranking. If you go play tennis at your local tennis club, you will get a ranking after so many matches. You will be on the same ranking ladder as Nadal, Federer, Murray, and Djokovic (if you're a dude). If you're not, you'll be ranked with the Williams sisters and Sharapova. That's pretty awesome.

    They seed the tournaments based upon these world rankings, so you can't really game the system for seeding since any individual match has only a small effect on your ranking. Then when you actually play a match, it's separated into multiple sets, and games which averages out any luck factor. It's single elimination, so you have no incentive to ever lose. Also, once a match is over, you stop playing immediately. There is never a case where a person is playing who can not possibly win, so you can't do anything to spoil things for anyone.

    Most other sports have a lot to learn from Tennis.
  • Yeap. The scores have to be hidden until the end. Or, players have to have access to unlimited attempts.
    The former would disallow any kind of live viewing while the latter has obvious issues.

    Knowledge of scores influencing strategy isn't a problem in and of itself. The issue is designing a system in which no player has a non-negligible advantage over the others because of this type of information.
    They seed the tournaments based upon these world rankings, so you can't really game the system for seeding since any individual match has only a small effect on your ranking. Then when you actually play a match, it's separated into multiple sets, and games which averages out any luck factor. It's single elimination, so you have no incentive to ever lose. Also, once a match is over, you stop playing immediately. There is never a case where a person is playing who can not possibly win, so you can't do anything to spoil things for anyone.

    Most other sports have a lot to learn from Tennis.
    Sometimes having these rankings beforehand isn't so much an option, especially if it's a team sport.
  • It's also important for tournaments to not change the end goal of the game. First place is the winner, everyone else lost. Many tournaments will reward you for first, second, and third place, but if somebody starts playing for second place, it can completely throw off the balance of a game. Very similar to the kingmaking of an eliminated player.

    Even the mighty PAX used to do this (they've since changed to only reward first place). In the 2010 PAX Prime Small World tournament I was clearly in second place, and first place was starting to run away with the game. I could have thrown my units at the first place player, hoped everyone else did the same, and been left with a wide-open field and few turns to go. Instead, I kicked the third place player in the teeth and made sure I got one of those shiny pieces of metal.
  • It's also important for tournaments to not change the end goal of the game. First place is the winner, everyone else lost. Many tournaments will reward you for first, second, and third place, but if somebody starts playing for second place, it can completely throw off the balance of a game. Very similar to the kingmaking of an eliminated player.

    Even the mighty PAX used to do this (they've since changed to only reward first place). In the 2010 PAX Prime Small World tournament I was clearly in second place, and first place was starting to run away with the game. I could have thrown my units at the first place player, hoped everyone else did the same, and been left with a wide-open field and few turns to go. Instead, I kicked the third place player in the teeth and made sure I got one of those shiny pieces of metal.
    The rewards for second or third place can only cause a problem in a game where harming other players is possible, which is true of so many board games that we like I am having a hard time thinking of an example that does not.
  • edited August 2012
    The rewards for second or third place can only cause a problem in a game where harming other players is possible
    This is plainly false.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • The rewards for second or third place can only cause a problem in a game where harming other players is possible, which is true of so many board games that we like I am having a hard time thinking of an example that does not.
    Depending on what you mean by "problem", this is plainly not true.
    Imagine you are playing a game where you can attack other players. You normally want to take out the person in first place while boosting yourself. Hurting other players is merely a bonus side effect. First place i all that matters, everyone else loses.

    Now imagine a situation where you have a very low percentage chance of first place. You can increase that percentage slightly by attacking the first place player, and that is your best option because they are way ahead of you. Normally, you do this move.

    Now take the same scenario with an F1 style tournament where second place still gets some points. You are going to make a different decision. Rather than slightly increase your chance of first place, you will be smarter to make an alternative move that vastly increases your percentage chance of second place even at the expense of first place.

    Ideally you want people to play each individual game as they would play that game if it were a stand-alone match. If the tournament modifies the incentive structure for decisions made within an individual game instance, then that is a flaw.
  • The rewards for second or third place can only cause a problem in a game where harming other players is possible
    This is plainly false.
    I disagree with your statement.
  • The rewards for second or third place can only cause a problem in a game where harming other players is possible
    Only if the sole goal of a tournament is to assess what player is the best.

    If the goal is to make a fun tournament for the players, then rewards for further places can encourage additional players to participate.

    You can use additional prizes to influence player behavior. For example; In a Warhammer tournament it's not uncommon to have a "best sportsman" prize to discourage crappy behavior.

    To take it a step further, many tournaments will have a "best generalship" prize as well. This acknowledges that being the best player may not all-ways equate to winning first place.





  • edited August 2012
    The rewards for second or third place can only cause a problem in a game where harming other players is possible
    This is plainly false.
    I disagree with your statement.
    Okay, let's clarify terms.

    1) What is meant by "problem"?
    I would guess that it would be any divergence from what Scott puts forth:
    Ideally you want people to play each individual game as they would play that game if it were a stand-alone match.
    Consequently, if having second place rewards induces different play as compared to not having any, this is a problem, right?

    2) What is meant by "harming others"?
    This one needs clarification.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Harming others means that you have the ability to make a decision that hinders another player in some way. In Yahtzee, no decision you make has any effect on the performance of the other players. In Small World, I may have a choice to make. One choice gives me 10 points. Another gives me 7, but takes 5 away from the first place player. That second move is a move that harms others.
  • Harming others means that you have the ability to make a decision that hinders another player in some way. In Yahtzee, no decision you make has any effect on the performance of the other players.
    Ah, but it does - it affects their chances of winning.

    Still, I guess you mean specifically with respect to the in-game score - i.e. harming other players = having a detrimental effect on their score, yes? A slightly loose and arbitrary definition, but workable.
  • Harming others means that you have the ability to make a decision that hinders another player in some way. In Yahtzee, no decision you make has any effect on the performance of the other players.
    Ah, but it does - it affects their chances of winning.

    Still, I guess you mean specifically with respect to the in-game score - i.e. harming other players = having a detrimental effect on their score, yes? A slightly loose and arbitrary definition, but workable.
    I think we can break it down to "racing" games and "real" games. A racing game is a game where players perform a task independently of each other, and the winner is whoever has performed that task faster/better/stronger than the other players. What other players do has no effect on the performance of the other players.

    A real game is one in which the decisions of one player must be changed due to the decisions of another player. I say real game, because that's what qualifies you as a game in game theory.

    Amongst the real games are subsets of games in which players can hurt each other.

    In poker you have to change your decision based on my decision. But there is no way I can change the card in your hand, or attack you directly or indirectly.

    In Puerto Rico I can indirectly hurt other players. I may choose captain when I know it will cause another player to dump many barrels of goods into the ocean.

    In Dominion I can play Witch and directly give curse cards to the other players.

    In Battletech I can choose which opponent at which to aim and fire my gauss rifle.

    Hard to draw really specific lines between those.
  • edited August 2012
    Harming others means that you have the ability to make a decision that hinders another player in some way. In Yahtzee, no decision you make has any effect on the performance of the other players.
    Ah, but it does - it affects their chances of winning.

    Still, I guess you mean specifically with respect to the in-game score - i.e. harming other players = having a detrimental effect on their score, yes? A slightly loose and arbitrary definition, but workable.
    I think we can break it down to "racing" games and "real" games. A racing game is a game where players perform a task independently of each other, and the winner is whoever has performed that task faster/better/stronger than the other players. What other players do has no effect on the performance of the other players.
    By this definition, most racing games are not "racing" games, so this seems like a bad choice of term. For example, if the person ahead of you takes a dangerous shortcut, that clearly affects your decision of whether or not to take that dangerous shortcut.
    A real game is one in which the decisions of one player must be changed due to the decisions of another player. I say real game, because that's what qualifies you as a game in game theory.
    I can see what you're getting at, but I don't think that's actually true of the game-theoretic definition of a game.
    In poker you have to change your decision based on my decision. But there is no way I can change the card in your hand, or attack you directly or indirectly.
    Even this is poorly defined and subject to exceptions. After all, good play on your part costs your opponents money; how is this different from an "attack"?


    Regardless, consider the following hypothetical:
    VP standings:
    A: 110
    B: 105
    You: 100

    It's your turn, and it's the last turn of the game. You have a choice between two moves:
    1) Roll two dice. +12 points if you roll two 6s; no points otherwise.
    2) +7 points.
    After this move, the player with the most VPs will win, the player with the second most is second, etc.

    Normally you would pick move 1), but in the presence of rewards for second place, you might well pick move 2). Furthermore, by your criteria this is a game where you cannot harm others.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • No mention of Herman Edwards? I remember him getting some GeekNight's respect because he stood against gaming a tournament situation.
  • No mention of Herman Edwards? I remember him getting some GeekNight's respect because he stood against gaming a tournament situation.
    You win bonus points! But actually he didn't stand against gaming a tournament directly. It was a situation involving one tournament affecting the NEXT tournament! If he lost games in the current tournament, in which he already had no chance to win, he could have gained a higher draft pick to help in the next tournament in the following year. He chose to try to win every game, which is admirable.
  • A real game is one in which the decisions of one player must be changed due to the decisions of another player. I say real game, because that's what qualifies you as a game in game theory.
    I now want a tournament in Prisoner's Dilemma. With real bankheists and real prison.

  • I just went to the European Juggling Convention, and there are number of different tournaments which run in similar ways each year:

    Team Combat: group stages where each team plays every other twice, top two in each group go into a single elimination tournament. With just 8 teams, the entire tournament takes about 2 hours, and is entirely for those taking part (no audience).

    Fight Night (solo combat): round-robin where each of the 30 entries plays at least half the others (though not in groups), top 4 go direct to quarter finals, next 8 play single elimination matches to fill out other quarter final spots, then single elimination to the final. With Fight Night, the qualification rounds are for anyone to enter, and there's no audience, it's just a fun event. The finals are on a stage as a full show, lasts about an hour, and has an audience of maybe 700 people. I ran this competition this year, and I fudged the seedings between the qualification and the finals to make it a more interesting and fair event.

    Volleyclub: double elimination tournament, which lasts FUCKING HOURS but is probably the most fair. It has many issues in terms of audience enjoyment too, because the eight games before the final didn't have the not-lost-yet team playing, and the eventual other finalist team had to play 4 games in a row, so were very tired. The final match had already been played once before, and there was no change in result the second time these two teams met each other. Boring!

    Funnily enough, the finalists in both Team Combat and Volleyclub were the same, with the same winner and the same team in second place.

    There's also a form of combat where any number of people can join in, and the last person juggling wins. At the EJC literally hundreds of people can be fighting at once in the same arena. It might seem chaotic and random, but in the usual four rounds, Berlin jugglers (ei. the best combat players in the world) have made up three of the four the last two years, and two of the four the three years previously.

    However, after four rounds, the winner is decided between just the four round winners. Four players instead of 200 tests totally different skills, of course, so the strengths of players changes comparatively throughout the competition. Thankfully it's more about audience and participant enjoyment than deciding who is really the best (because we all know Jochen is the best, as he wins everything he enters, and I win when he doesn't enter).

    Anyway, I can't remember my point in talking about these things, except that when the aim is a fun show (Fight Night and open Combat), fairness is compromised. When it's all about seeing who is best, and treating it like a proper sporting event, almost no thought is given to the audience, if there even is an audience.

    Or, to put it another way, when the event is organized by German jugglers, it's super strict and fair, and when it's organized by non-Germans, it's far more entertaining for non-hardcore fans.
  • He chose to try to win every game, which is admirable.
    Tanking is the worst. The NBA's lottery that's supposed to fix it, but it doesn't really work. Two possible fixes:
    • The number one pick goes to the team that wins the highest percentage of their games after being eliminated from playoff contention. That way teams play hard to the end of the season.
    • The number one pick goes to the team that wins the most games after being eliminated. That way the really bad teams have more time to rack up draft-eligible wins. This would still encourage winning after you're eliminated, but is closer to the current scenario.
    The second one maybe has the side effect of teams tanking until they're mathematically eliminated instead of trying to hang on with a magic number in the single digits. The first is more drastic, but I like it more.
Sign In or Register to comment.