|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 13, 2008 4:19:09 GMT -5
Schedule Draft
August 13th - August 19th
Discussion.
August 19th - September 8th
Registration.
You may register only one Warlock account.
If you have multiple accounts, you must register account with the highest ELO.
September 9th - September 27th
Group Tournament. All players are randomly divided into groups of 5-6 players. Groups are handled in Round Robin manner (everybody plays versus each player from the same group), i.e. everybody plays 4 or 5 games. All group matches are best of one game. Win is 2 points, draw is one point, lose is 0 points. Win\Kill (Lose\Surrender) does not matter.
Two best players from each group advance to play-off. If number of advanced participants is not a power of 2, some of 3rd places may advance as well (to be clarified on September 9th, when number of participants will be fixed). Ties are break based on match results (i.e. if two players have the same amount of points, but in their game one of players won, then the tie is broken in favor of winner). If tie still persists and there are no free slots in play off, one additional match is to be played and finished in 5 days.
September 27th - October 1st
Reserved for tie-breaker matches.
Play-off is single elimination tournament. Seeding is based on group stage performance (i.e. Winner of group A player VS Runner-up of Group D and so forth). All play-off matches are best of 3 games (i.e. you need to win two games).
October 2nd - October 22th
Play-Off round 1
October 23nd - November 12th
Play-Off round 2
November 13th - December 4th
Play-Off round 3
December 4th - December 24th
Play-Off round 4 (needed if we somehow manage to have more then 24 participants, i.e. more then 4 groups)
Rules draft
All tournament games should be friendly fast paraFC maladroit. All players in all tournament games should clearly indicate what type of game is it (f.e. say "Tournament match, group 5." or "Tournament match, play-off round 2, second game" in the beginning of the game). Winner of the game is responsible for reporting the result to a judge. If there is no winner in the game, last player to enter moves is responsible.
All players of the tournament agree to play in fast pace. Judge will monitor slow play and may issue warnings for the slow play. Multiple warnings may lead to game loss.
If a match is not finished in time, judge determines the match outcome based on game position AND players activity. Judge may announce a winner OR add some time to the match. All participants of the tournament are to completely agree with any judge decision.
===
Please post your opinions and suggestions!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Aug 13, 2008 7:51:48 GMT -5
Who's da Judge?  |
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 13, 2008 8:23:25 GMT -5
 you ... :shrug: Oh well, I can run the brackets and do all routine stuff, no problems. For brackets generation and for resolution of possible conflicts\slow play (i.e. for everything that can possibly favor any of participating players), it would be better if some respected and non-participating Master would agree to help. Or we will have to select one respected participant (I'd say awall or Toyo) if none of Masters volunteers to help.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Aug 13, 2008 9:25:26 GMT -5
I don't think I'll have time to help. I suggest asking ExDeath, he was very good about consulting with me on a last-minute basis in the previous tournament. I suggest not choosing Awall or Toyo as they are (based on past performance) the most likely to end up in situations requiring judgment (1-1-1).
The last tourney was a huge headache for me when it came to having to make judgment calls. Although I am satisfied that everything was done fairly, it did leave some hurt feelings in its wake. I suggest making a decision about whether to favor being tender with people or being on time. If the latter, don't even include the possibility of extending time, and DO include the possibility of DQing both players if the winner is unclear. If the former, just give really long time limits to begin with.
Things you need to specify:
Are best of 3 games played simultaneously? This may actually be a good idea, as distasteful as it would be to me as a player
What happens when the score is 1-1-1? (Or 0-0-3...) Do you play a whole extra game (no! It can go 1-1-2, etc), do you start an extra game in whatever time remains, or do you go to subjective judgment immediately?
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 13, 2008 9:43:57 GMT -5
Slartucker Thank you very much for you input. I suggest asking ExDeath, he was very good about consulting with me on a last-minute basis in the previous tournament. I suggest not choosing Awall or Toyo as they are (based on past performance) the most likely to end up in situations requiring judgment (1-1-1). Point well taken. Should ExDeath agree to help us, this would be great (although I haven't gave up on the idea to lure him into playing this tourney; we need at least one "guest star" people would want to fight VS; if one of Masters still cares about Warlocks, playing in this tourney will be the best way to encourage others to play in it.). Otherwise we have a contradiction: we need a player skilled in analysis, yet he most not be likely to engage in double death lock-ups. I have no solution for this right now. I suggest making a decision about whether to favor being tender with people or being on time. If the latter, don't even include the possibility of extending time, and DO include the possibility of DQing both players if the winner is unclear. If the former, just give really long time limits to begin with. I'm suggesting that being on time is our priority in annual tournament. We have a whole league where we are tender and stuff =) I, however, don't think that DQing both players serves anything (save the third player who would fight VS the winner of this pair). In worst case scenario, if Judge fails to give a preference to any player, I suggest we just flip a coin. Things you need to specify: Are best of 3 games played simultaneously? This may actually be a good idea, as distasteful as it would be to me as a player What happens when the score is 1-1-1? (Or 0-0-3...) Do you play a whole extra game (no! It can go 1-1-2, etc), do you start an extra game in whatever time remains, or do you go to subjective judgment immediately? Nope, simultaneous playing is definitely bad idea IMHO, since it encourages stalling. Imagine one game was finished somehow, and in two remaining one game position slightly favors player A, and the second favors to player B. Now each player is interested in playing one game in fast pace, and is NOT interested in playing the other one fast. Not to mention third game is entirely optional and may not be needed at all, but yet it will consume players attention. So I'd say we should have 1st game, THEN the 2nd, THEN (if needed) the 3rd. If after the end of 3rd game the winner is not determined, Judge may opt to give players a chance to play an additional game (if there is time left before scheduled round end); or he could determine match outcome by himself basing on his sound judgment, as you did last year. |
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Aug 13, 2008 12:50:53 GMT -5
;D Things you need to specify: Are best of 3 games played simultaneously? This may actually be a good idea, as distasteful as it would be to me as a player What happens when the score is 1-1-1? (Or 0-0-3...) Do you play a whole extra game (no! It can go 1-1-2, etc), do you start an extra game in whatever time remains, or do you go to subjective judgment immediately? Nope, simultaneous playing is definitely bad idea IMHO, since it encourages stalling. Imagine one game was finished somehow, and in two remaining one game position slightly favors player A, and the second favors to player B. Now each player is interested in playing one game in fast pace, and is NOT interested in playing the other one fast. Not to mention third game is entirely optional and may not be needed at all, but yet it will consume players attention. So I'd say we should have 1st game, THEN the 2nd, THEN (if needed) the 3rd. If after the end of 3rd game the winner is not determined, Judge may opt to give players a chance to play an additional game (if there is time left before scheduled round end); or he could determine match outcome by himself basing on his sound judgment, as you did last year. I would suggest that we play game 1 & 2 at the same time. and game three as the tie break after 1&2 are completed. I would also prefer to stagger the starts of game 1&2... by a week or something. That way you won't have two games very similar games going at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Aug 13, 2008 13:59:42 GMT -5
I would absolutely be willing to judge the competition, except for the fact that it might require me to monitor how fast every player is getting in their moves. I'm not sure how Slartucker did it, exactly, or if it was even an issue. We could go the path of a player notifying me when his/her opponent is playing slowly, and then I can pay attention, I just don't want to be tracking how many moves each of 20 players is making daily.
As far as ties go, I would probably put them all to my objective analysis, which should still be sharp enough to make an accurate decision. Maybe allow a game 4 if there is a week or more remaining.
Just let me know what to do, and when, and I'll be there.
P.S. If you don't want judges deciding match results, I think the best way to unbiasedly judge a tie is to go by the most convincing margin of victory, and if that's a tie then the win should go to the lower-rated Elo player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Aug 13, 2008 15:13:02 GMT -5
In the early rounds, I only paid attention to playing speed if a player notified me of slow play, which was pretty rare aside from dropouts. In the later rounds (down to 8 or less competitors) I checked all the games -- all four -- every couple of days. If they had very low round counts for the number of days that had elapsed, I sent both players a warning.
Man, I just reread the "Round 2-5 results" thread and had deja vu of all those @#$@ headache decisions.
Perhaps a better way to handle speed of play would be as follows: "The expectation is that each player enters two moves at least twice per day. This will result in a minimum of 4 turns elapsing in each battle, per day. If you cannot meet this standard, notify the Judge immediately. If your games do not finish before the end of the round, the Judge will determine if the problem was a time zone/schedule conflict (no fault), one player playing slowly (disqualification), or both players playing slowly (double disqualification)."
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 13, 2008 15:18:49 GMT -5
Another thing is that Fantasy team contest you guys had last year. To tell the truth I didn't quite understand how it worked or what was it for )) So unless someone else wants to deal with it, we will skip it this year )
|
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Aug 13, 2008 17:20:40 GMT -5
I could keep track of the fantasy teams if needed. 8) Was fun participating in it last time. Not sure if I want to have a value assigned to everybody. Would be interesting to just pick 5 and go with that, not worrying if I have enough points to spend. Could do both if someone wants to assign points and come up with the max point value is going to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Aug 14, 2008 4:28:35 GMT -5
Eh, fantasy is too hard. You really need the point values, or else none of the real longshots get a seat. And rooting for longshots is part of what makes fantasy fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Aug 14, 2008 4:39:25 GMT -5
Now that I think about this more, I'd like to propose a format change. I've never liked this "one pod" idea as the pairings are too much of a factor. If a low turnout is expected, take advantage of it and go round-robin, everybody plays everybody. Put them in pods of 4 or 5, they only have to play one game so the rounds will go quickly. Do this for 3 or 4 rounds, however many it takes, and then the top 4 play single elimination 2-of-3 matches. This would be at most 6 rounds of play, and the timeline would be pretty close to what you have now. 2 weeks per round for the pods = 8, and 3 weeks for the semifinals and finals for 14 weeks total. Otherwise you get really random results, no offense to previous tournament winners, but history has shown it to favor players who get weak pods and bye their way into top 4 contention.
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 14, 2008 4:52:58 GMT -5
exdeath Hmm. Not quite sure I do get what you are talking about. Are you talking about swiss system? Swiss system means: - All players are in one 'group' - First round parings are assigned randomly - During next rounds system tries to pair people with the same score - After 4-5-6 rounds top4\top8 advance to single elimination. If you are talking about this, I think it is good idea =) |
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Aug 14, 2008 5:17:44 GMT -5
No, round-robin means everybody plays everybody else. It's like swiss, but magnified. So, let's say we have 17 players. Round 1 you will pair everybody 4 times, scores are tallied. Round 2 you will pair everybody 4 more times, against players they have not yet played against. Scores carry over, so if you've won all 8 games you'll now have a score of 16. Then round 3 and 4 are the same thing, and eventually everybody's played everybody.
I realized you can't actually use pods for this style of tournament, but the method I outlined should work fine. It's also easy because pairings don't need to be randomized at all. So, at the end of playing all other 16 players, the top 4 scores will advance to a best 2-of-3 semifinal, followed by (of course) the final. The only issue I could see is if players grow disinterested towards the end and drop out or stop trying, but if the games are kept as friendlies then at least they'll have some incentive to do their best.
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 14, 2008 6:24:57 GMT -5
Thanks, now I understand. My experience tell me that there are two drawbacks in these scheme:
1) It is hard to maintain concentration during 2+ months of tournament playing 4 games simultaneously all the time.
2) Should we somehow get more then 20 people, this will take 6 rounds only to finish round robin... 6*2 weeks=3 months... Hella long.
Of course, this system is the most representative one (since everyone plays versus everyone), but does is worth invested time?
IMHO swiss system I mentioned in my previous post is better balance between being representative and being convenient for players. Although if everyone will prefer what ExDeath suggests (common round robin), or if we end up with 16 or something players, we might as well try it this year. Please post your opinions on this.
|
|
you 