I have one more question I have to answer before I change the rules finally.
Say hypothetically I arrange a match between to players, or two players report that they are going to play each other. If one player is a no-show, then we can safely assume they forfeited and act accordingly. If both players disappear, or don't respond to contact, it's easy enough to wash them away. If I hear from one, and not the other, I can deal with that as well.
But what if both players are claiming that the other is the no-show? What if two players are honestly just not able to coordinate with each other to play their match? We can't have the tournament go on forever, so I would like to set deadlines by which games must be played. We do have more rounds in this grand prix after all. But it would be unfair to penalize both players for missing a deadline if none were at fault, or I am unable to determine fault. At a real world tournament we can clearly see when a person is not physically present, but what do you do in an online tournament?
Also, I'm still of the mind that the first-to-X style of match is a better choice.
Yeah, I think I'm going to go with that. I'm thinking X=6.
From what I've seen so far, it seems odd numbers are almost always used; I assume there's a reason for it. Also, the Crawford rule should be used.
Hmm. I'm also considering that while surprises are fun, it might be more expedient to reveal the games I have selected for all future rounds, have these discussions, and then play all the rounds simultaneously. Instead we can get some excitement from constant updates as games are scored and sent in.
I'm digging the one game at a time approach. Even if a few days discussion follows each announcement, I think it's worth it.
As a way to monitor two players who claim no show, I'd say make all official Grand Prix correspondence be through the messaging system of the forum. This way it's all easily traceable.
Legit not being able to coordinate means a draw.
I'm not feeling the elimination style tournaments. If participation is a concern, it seems to me that telling a person who lost a match that they are out is not a way to foster continued involvement. If Game Master Scott has to coordinate anyway, the reduction of players isn't worthy he trade off, IMO.
That said, assuming a Swiss tournament, people unable to coordinate should get a draw. In also in favor of a tie breaker system emphasizing winning first, quality if opponent second and double dice points third.
The reason I was leaning away from the swiss tournament is because we might need many more rounds to really see who wins if we take away the zero-sum scoring element and make every match a win/lose/draw. How long do we want this Grand Prix to go on? All year?
What's wrong with all year? Besides, the Wikipedia article I linked earlier says that the number of rounds needed is roughly the same for a swiss tournament as for a single elimination tournament - that is, roughly 7.
What's wrong with all year? Besides, the Wikipedia article I linked earlier says that the number of rounds needed is roughly the same for a swiss tournament as for a double elimination tournament - that is, roughly 7.
Yes, that is true. But administering 7 swiss rounds will actually take much longer since each round still has every player in it. Each round would have to take up an equal length of time to allow everyone to coordinate. The late elimination rounds would just have a handful of players, and would be much easier logistically.
Why not all year? I don't have time for this shit all year!
True, especially given that anyone who lasts late into the tournament is likely to be easier to set up a match for.
The problem is that second place, third place, fourth place, and so on are not really well-determined by a knockout format.
First and second place are super easy to determine. That's why there is also score. Someone who got third place in a bunch of close matches will be lower ranked than someone who got third place by blowing opponents out of the water.
There is readily available software for running Swiss style tournaments. All that is required is to input match results and then post the matchups. It even determines tie breakers for you.
The above is a very strong step in the right direction. The cube is still present but not overpowered. Even if the go bananas, that is a one game match. Boom.
Yeah, I think it would work. I'll just quote the linked rules here in this thread for convenience:
The rules are as follows: 1. General. No elimination. Everybody plays the same number of matches, usually 4. Unlimited doubles. Crawford rule. No byes. No defaults. No automatic doubles. 2. Matches. Four rounds of 5-point matches unless otherwise announced. 3. Movement. First match opponents are determined by blind draw. Subsequent opponents determined by availability. Usually winners play winners, losers play losers, but not the same player twice. 4. Scoring. Losers score actual points. Winners score 5 points plus the spread. Examples: 5–0 = 10, 5–1 = 9, 5–4 = 6. 5. Posting. After each match, scores are posted on the master score sheet. Next, enter name or number in the appropriate "Next Match" columns. Play the next available player. Opponents are not necessarily in the same round. 6. Timing. Slow matches will be called by the director. Delayed or late starting matches can be started with the cube at 2. Director will settle conflicts.
I think this scoring idea sounds pretty good, because I'd rather avoid the arbitrary feel of having scores only matter at the very end in tiebreaking. By mattering the entire time they also have an appropriate effect on which match-ups occur.
That said, you do have to account for the issue of repeated doubling we discussed earlier, so I think the scoring would be better expressed as something like this: Winner gets X + min(delta, X) Loser gets X - min(delta, X) where delta is the amount that the winner beat the loser by. Since the points add up to 2X no matter what, many perverse incentives are avoided.
I think I like lackofcheese's posted system a little more then the 100 point system.
With scheduling is there some way we could all post our time availability in a easy to read format so it makes finding a match easier (assuming matches are not seeded)? I work nights so only have afternoons free. I also don't have a lot of spare time on weekends (I don't have a completely open weekend until April 16th). If I got paired with someone who worked days it would make it really hard to get games in.
So, it's one thing to not regularly play backgammon. But seriously? It's hard to imagine someone who is at all interested in tabletop games not already knowing the rules to chess, checkers, backgammon, simple poker, othello, hearts, blackjack, and Chinese checkers by the time they're a teenager.
How did backgammon fall off your collective radar? It's a basic, standard, classic, widely known game.
No one ever taught me backgammon, nor did I EVER in my life see anyone playing it. Despite knowing it's a common game I just had no interest in learning because no one else cared to learn to play with me. Out of that list backgammon and othello (what the fuck is othello?) are the only two I don't know how to play.
EDIT: I looked up othello, yeah I've never played that and have maybe seen it once in my life.
Comments
Say hypothetically I arrange a match between to players, or two players report that they are going to play each other. If one player is a no-show, then we can safely assume they forfeited and act accordingly. If both players disappear, or don't respond to contact, it's easy enough to wash them away. If I hear from one, and not the other, I can deal with that as well.
But what if both players are claiming that the other is the no-show? What if two players are honestly just not able to coordinate with each other to play their match? We can't have the tournament go on forever, so I would like to set deadlines by which games must be played. We do have more rounds in this grand prix after all. But it would be unfair to penalize both players for missing a deadline if none were at fault, or I am unable to determine fault. At a real world tournament we can clearly see when a person is not physically present, but what do you do in an online tournament?
I say they keep their 100 points each and proceed on to the next bracket?
Edit: So yes, a draw
As a way to monitor two players who claim no show, I'd say make all official Grand Prix correspondence be through the messaging system of the forum. This way it's all easily traceable.
Legit not being able to coordinate means a draw.
I'm not feeling the elimination style tournaments. If participation is a concern, it seems to me that telling a person who lost a match that they are out is not a way to foster continued involvement. If Game Master Scott has to coordinate anyway, the reduction of players isn't worthy he trade off, IMO.
That said, assuming a Swiss tournament, people unable to coordinate should get a draw. In also in favor of a tie breaker system emphasizing winning first, quality if opponent second and double dice points third.
Why not all year? I don't have time for this shit all year!
The problem is that second place, third place, fourth place, and so on are not really well-determined by a knockout format.
http://www.bkgm.com/articles/Meese/ModifiedSwissMovement/
That said, you do have to account for the issue of repeated doubling we discussed earlier, so I think the scoring would be better expressed as something like this:
Winner gets X + min(delta, X)Loser gets X - min(delta, X)
where delta is the amount that the winner beat the loser by.
Since the points add up to 2X no matter what, many perverse incentives are avoided.
With scheduling is there some way we could all post our time availability in a easy to read format so it makes finding a match easier (assuming matches are not seeded)? I work nights so only have afternoons free. I also don't have a lot of spare time on weekends (I don't have a completely open weekend until April 16th). If I got paired with someone who worked days it would make it really hard to get games in.
Also, the longer the delay, the more time I have to get good at this game.
How did backgammon fall off your collective radar? It's a basic, standard, classic, widely known game.
EDIT: I looked up othello, yeah I've never played that and have maybe seen it once in my life.