Community Tournament (Congratulations Alvendor on 1st Place!)

[GreatGonzales]

(07-28-2012 01:54 AM)Harti Wrote:  Also - no offense intended - I'm not entering a tournament with a "weak ruleset" (that hasn't been tested yet). If Player 1 wasn't allowed to act during the first turn, not only Player 2 will get the original FTA positioning, there could also occur imbalances we haven't seen yet, like a turn 5 (3rd P1 turn) special (turn 3 doesn't work really often as you have to get your wit spaces) or something.
The best balance is still having two games on the same map because both players get to enjoy the FTA and both players have to suffer the conditions of going second. If there's a clearly better player in the matchup, they will usually win both matches, and if it's two equally skilled players, the tiebreakers will often decide. And, @ArtNJ, I do think that base health is more important than the turns it took.

None taken, I think I agree with you. You explained well the problem with Alvendor's proposal that I felt but could not articulate. However, I do have some problems with your proposal, too.

For one, I'm not sure that base health is always going to be the best indicator of skill. In my case, for example, I will allow my base to take some damage if I have calculated that I will be able to win before my base is destroyed.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by "Who won earlier", but it sounds like you are saying that you are giving advantage to either the person who won more quickly (temporally), or, more likely, who won in fewer rounds. But I think this gives an unfair advantage to fast players/rushing players (depending on which interpretation is correct).

The player with the greatest total unit value...I guess I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that you are going to take a sum of the wit value of all units remaining on the board when victory is achieved by someone? Can you explain why this is necessarily an indicator of skill? So, let's say that a different player wins each of the two games, and the total value of units between the two games is 14 for one, 16 for the other. I guess it's reasonable to guess that the 16 player is probably better...but I am reluctant to use this sort of interpretation when someone may be using a unit formation that allows him to do more with less.

I feel that if there is a tie between 2 games, a third game should be played. I generally prefer that, or somehow mitigate FTA in a single game, to your proposal. Let me know what you think.

[Alvendor]

(07-28-2012 02:21 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 01:54 AM)Harti Wrote:  Also - no offense intended - I'm not entering a tournament with a "weak ruleset" (that hasn't been tested yet). If Player 1 wasn't allowed to act during the first turn, not only Player 2 will get the original FTA positioning, there could also occur imbalances we haven't seen yet, like a turn 5 (3rd P1 turn) special (turn 3 doesn't work really often as you have to get your wit spaces) or something.
The best balance is still having two games on the same map because both players get to enjoy the FTA and both players have to suffer the conditions of going second. If there's a clearly better player in the matchup, they will usually win both matches, and if it's two equally skilled players, the tiebreakers will often decide. And, @ArtNJ, I do think that base health is more important than the turns it took.

None taken, I think I agree with you. You explained well the problem with Alvendor's proposal that I felt but could not articulate. However, I do have some problems with your proposal, too.

For one, I'm not sure that base health is always going to be the best indicator of skill. In my case, for example, I will allow my base to take some damage if I have calculated that I will be able to win before my base is destroyed.
..
I feel that if there is a tie between 2 games, a third game should be played. I generally prefer that, or somehow mitigate FTA in a single game, to your proposal. Let me know what you think.

Ok, yeah I'm cool with the standard format if that's what ppl want. Just want to explain my thinking of how my suggestion affects balance. In the normal game the movement initiative and the wits advantage is given to p1. But if p1 is not allowed to move, p2 gets the movement advantage while p1 keeps the wits advantage. To give one advantage to each player should reduce the imbalances compared to give both advantages to one player.

It is also possible to prove that there won't be any new overpowered strategies because of this. If there existed such a strategy for p1, p1 could just as easily execute that strategy today by just skipping the first turn.

Playing as p2 in the new format is worse than playing as p1 in original format (you are first to move, but in the new format the opponent has more wits). Therefore there are no new overpowered strategies for p2 either.

If we go for the "play 2 games simultaneously" I also prefer a third game if its a tie. I don't think there is any good way of determining the relative skill if the players won one game each.

[Harti]

Tiebreakers almost never represent skill as they're quite arbitrary.

I never played or watched tennis in a dedicated way but I think tiebreakers go like whoever gets to hit twice in a row.
In soccer you get a penalty shootout which doesn't represent the teams' skill levels either.


So I don't see why Outwitters tourneys (which aren't even a sport) shouldn't be allowed to use arbitrary tiebreakers too. It should begin with the most obvious things I would say. The most obvious thing is the "base health" indicator on the game over screen.
I get your point - I don't know how many games I still won because I accepted it to go down to 2 or even 1 and get a strategical advantage from that. I think that's probably about 30% of all my high-level games.

Still you need to start somewhere, and I do think that any idea is better than a random number generator.

[Alvendor]

(not so) crazy idea: play 3 games simultaneously?

[CombatEX]

Though I find Alvendor's proposal interesting, I'd rather not have the tournament based around a completely untested mechanic. I would prefer Harti's solution for the most part with perhaps some minor modifications.

I think the first two games should be played on the same map like Harti suggested with each player getting to have FTA for one of the games. However, I'm not so sure about everyone playing on the same map in the whole tournament. If the two players in any specific match-up agree on a map from the start that's great, however if there is a disagreement we could do the following: Each player can alternate vetoing maps until 1 map is left. The higher seeded player can have the first veto (that player will get 3 vetoes while the other player will get 2). This way both players will be guaranteed a map they're okay with.

As for the whole tie-breaker issue, it is unfortunate that none of the suggestions Harti listed are necessarily indications of skill. However Harti already explained how often times tiebreakers in sports are like this.

I think we should use Harti's tiebreakers to decide who gets to choose between FTA or map preference in a third tiebreaker game. This way no one feels cheated because they tied 1-1 but their base had 2 hp in their win instead of 4 hp. At the same time we don't just throw a straight advantage to the higher seeded player in a match-up (they already have higher seeding as it is...). I also like the idea of the player who doesn't have FTA getting to choose the map in this third game so that at least if you're at a slight disadvantage from the start you can pick the map on which this bothers you the least.

[GreatGonzales]

(07-28-2012 03:25 AM)Alvendor Wrote:  (not so) crazy idea: play 3 games simultaneously?

I have seen this done in a Hero Academy tournament. It works fine, though it still has the drawback that one person will get FTA twice, and who that is is decided from the outset. The other problem is that 3 games is a pretty significant chunk of games to devote to this tournament. But, this would mean that we could go through a whole match in the time it takes to complete a single game, which is good. This would cut the length of this tournament in half. So yes, this should be on the table.

---

(07-28-2012 03:31 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  I think the first two games should be played on the same map like Harti suggested with each player getting to have FTA for one of the games. However, I'm not so sure about everyone playing on the same map in the whole tournament. If the two players in any specific match-up agree on a map from the start that's great, however if there is a disagreement we could do the following: Each player can alternate vetoing maps until 1 map is left. The higher seeded player can have the first veto (that player will get 3 vetoes while the other player will get 2). This way both players will be guaranteed a map they're okay with.

As for the whole tie-breaker issue, it is unfortunate that none of the suggestions Harti listed are necessarily indications of skill. However Harti already explained how often times tiebreakers in sports are like this.

I think we should use Harti's tiebreakers to decide who gets to choose between FTA or map preference in a third tiebreaker game. This way no one feels cheated because they tied 1-1 but their base had 2 hp in their win instead of 4 hp. At the same time we don't just throw a straight advantage to the higher seeded player in a match-up (they already have higher seeding as it is...). I also like the idea of the player who doesn't have FTA getting to choose the map in this third game so that at least if you're at a slight disadvantage from the start you can pick the map on which this bothers you the least.

My overarching concern about this discussion is that I don't want this system to be overly complicated. I'd like it to be simple. I think it'd be nice to let both people in a matchup start a game with their opponent, choose their own map, and play a third game if necessary with FTA going to one person or the other based on seed. I don't really think any further analysis is necessary; we have already established that we have to make an arbitrary decision at some point. This can be that arbitrary decision.

As for 1 map for the whole tournament...eh, sounds boring to me. Right? And if the third game has one player choosing the map, the other going first, there should be no imbalance with regard to map selection.

Also CombatEX, would you like to enter the tournament?

---

(07-27-2012 06:34 PM)Eijolend Wrote:  I guess you could play all 3 games at once, but that doesn't allow you to use what you found out about your opponent's playstyle in the earlier games to your advantage - so I'm not sure what's better.

Do you plan on having a time limit other than the 4 days/move?

Eijolend - would you like to sign up?

---

[Eijolend]

(07-28-2012 04:24 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  Eijolend - would you like to sign up?

---

I won't be able to play during the next 2 weekends and I don't want to slow down the whole tournament - maybe the next one.

[GreatGonzales]

It seems like signups are slowing down, and we are currently at 13 players. I'm thinking I will cut off signups when we reach 16, so as to avoid a massive number of byes. Please let me know if you have an objection to this.

[The RawkHawk]

Greetings. I want to play too!

1) The Rawkhawk
2) Gifted
3) 557
4) 3rd

[Syvan]

Sign me up.

1. Syvan
2. ST
3. 555
4. 7