Heroscapers
Go Back   Heroscapers > Official Valhalla HeroScape > HeroScape General Discussion
HeroScape General Discussion General discussions of packaging, terrain, components, etc. If it doesn't fit in any other official category, put it here.

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 15th, 2009, 04:04 PM
ollie's Avatar
ollie ollie is offline
Is a Quadradical
 
Join Date: March 19, 2007
Location: VT
Posts: 9,544
Images: 43
Blog Entries: 22
ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth
An Alternative Tournament Structure: The Rolling Rumble

Two things that would make a tournament better:

a) More games,
b) Playing more of the games to their conclusion.

Here's a proposal for a tournament structure that would achieve this and, I think, be pretty fun. It's still rough around the edges and needs some work. I'd appreciate any feedback.

The idea is based on the NESA Rumble used at TempleCon, but rather than having two teams it is everyone for themselves. Essentially as soon as you finish a game you (usually) start another. Here's how it works...

EDIT. After a bunch of good discussion in the thread, here is a slightly more polished set of rules. Feel free to copy and paste them and use for an event! (You'll need to edit the stuff in angle brackets to customise for your prefered options.)

Rolling Rumble

<Insert army and game conditions here. For example: Everyone brings a 450pt army (Marvel allowed). The start zones are 24 hexes. No glyphs. We'll be using these maps...>

The maps will be numbered (ideally, there will be more maps built than are required to have everyone playing). To start, make random pairings and fill up the first however-many maps. If there is an odd number of people, the nonplaying person puts their name and record (0-0 at this stage) on the prominently displayed whiteboard.

There is no game time limit; play each game to completion.

The pool of waiting players will be listed on a whiteboard. When you finish your game, check the board for opponents. The winner plays the person on the board with the best record that he has not previously played. If there is more than one such player with equal records, the winner plays the one who has been waiting longer. The loser plays the player who has been waiting longest that she has not already played. In each case, if there is no suitable opponent in the pool, then add your name and record to the bottom of the whiteboard.

Now that the players are paired, remove the player's name and record from the whiteboard and play. Choose the lowest numbered free map that neither of you have played on before. If there are no such maps, play on the lowest numbered free map.

Continue for <some length of time---four and a half hours, say>. Call a half-hour warning after which no more games are started; at the end of the half-hour any unfinished games finish their current round, play two more rounds and, if still not completed, decide the game on points, calculated <fractionally/wholecardicitly>.

Rankings are determined according to the following criteria:

A) Best win difference (number of wins minus number of losses),
B) Win percentage,
C) D20 roll.

That is, the win difference is the primary method of ranking. Within equal differences, win percentage decides the placing. If the records are identical, roll the D20 (any splits made by the D20 are for prize table purposes only).

Alternative and additional options

The previous section describes the core rules to run a rolling rumble event. Here are some variations and possible additions. I don't think we'll know what works best and what is necessary until we start using the format. For now, I'll list the alternatives here; use them if you think they're better! (I'm currently inclined to add a maximum length to waiting list, have the extreme time limit, and use the frantic finish with a 40 minute warning.)

Alternative ranking algorithms. Should win difference be higher priority than win percentage? (Is 5-1 better than 3-0?) When using win difference, is win percentage or number of wins the appropriate secondary criterion? (Is 6-2 better than 5-1?) Should points remaining be collated to add another criterion? (Is 5-1 with a points differential of 530 sufficiently different to 5-1 with a points differential of 450 to be worth everyone collecting that information?) Any and all of the criteria can be put into the order of your choosing to determine placings. If using win percentage, you will probably also want a minimum number of games, say three, to qualify. Anyone with fewer than this number of games adds losses to reach the total.

Strength of Schedule. Calculate the average of your opponents' win percentages. This is your strength of schedule. This can be added into the list of criteria for determining placings.

Extreme time limit. Any one game cannot go on longer than 100 minutes. If you reach this time limit then complete the current round and then count points to determine a winner.

Repeat players allowed. To reduce the number of people waiting, drop the condition that players cannot play against those they've already played and replace it with the weaker condition that they cannot immediately replay the opponent against whom they just played. Alternatively, cap the size of the pool. That is, if there are more than X names on the board (X=5? 8?) then rather than adding your name when there are no new opponents, play someone you've already played once (selected according to the usual other criteria).

Army options. Players may bring two (or more? non-overlapping?) armies that are compliant with the army building requirements and choose which army to use in each game (after seeing map and opposing army? according to some pre-determined schedule or coin toss?).

Spreading map use. The above system means that lower numbered maps see more games. To spread it around more you can either have a pair of players roll a die to choose a random starting point from which they look for a map neither has played. Alternatively, have the players from the just-finished game write the map number they just used on the board (removing the existing map number). The next game is on the first open map after this that neither have played (or just the first one if they've played all of them). Wrap round back to 1 if you reach the limit of the number of maps.

Frantic finish. When the half-hour time limit is called, all players in the waiting pool are paired Swiss-style (best record vs. second best; third vs fourth;...) regardless of whether they've played before and start a final game. If doing this, a forty-minute limit might be advisable.

Swissish pairings. You can't be matched up with anyone who is more than two wins above or beneath you in win difference, unless nobody is within 2 wins of you by that measure.[/u]

Deturtler. If no attacks are made for three consecutive rounds then the game is over and the winner is decided on points.

Rolling Rumble Events

Bay Area Brawl, October 2009, CA.
Rocky Mountain Rumble, October 2009, CO.
Scape-a-Palooza II, October 2009, CT.
Green Mountain Montage, June 2010, VT.
Rhode Island Rampage, August 2010, RI.
Rocky Mountain Rumble, October 2010, CO.
Eastern PA NHSD, October 2010, PA.

Last edited by ollie; August 16th, 2010 at 04:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old April 15th, 2009, 05:41 PM
tech boy's Avatar
tech boy tech boy is offline
 
Join Date: October 1, 2008
Location: USA-MN-Alexandria
Posts: 164
tech boy is surprisingly tart
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: A Recipe for Chaos?

Ya, I think that that could work entirely. I like you idea were the player with the best record wins. But my faveroite would be the win percentage the most.
Good job!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old April 15th, 2009, 05:52 PM
Kobu's Avatar
Kobu Kobu is offline
 
Join Date: July 11, 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 716
Kobu knows what's in an order marker Kobu knows what's in an order marker
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: A Recipe for Chaos?

I think your title says it all.

Actually, I could see it working for a casual tournament. It would be quite easy to game the win percentages through delay tactics, but it should work for people looking to have fun.

I'd have to run through some scenarios, but I think the wait times for starting games will get longer the farther into it you get.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old April 15th, 2009, 06:21 PM
ollie's Avatar
ollie ollie is offline
Is a Quadradical
 
Join Date: March 19, 2007
Location: VT
Posts: 9,544
Images: 43
Blog Entries: 22
ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: A Recipe for Chaos?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobu View Post
Actually, I could see it working for a casual tournament. It would be quite easy to game the win percentages through delay tactics, but it should work for people looking to have fun.
Exactly. I'm certainly not trying to propose an alternative for the GenCon grand championship or anything. 20 or so people wanting to play some tournament Heroscape for fun is the audience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobu
I'd have to run through some scenarios, but I think the wait times for starting games will get longer the farther into it you get.
That's a good point. Maybe an additional rule:

If there are more than X people waiting to play, all of which you have played before, do not sit at an empty map. Instead, repeat the opponent-choosing procedure among those players you have only played once.

As a general procedure it might make sense to have X as a percentage of the attendees. Alternatively, it could kick in when there are no free maps to sit at (I was sort-of imagining as many maps as were ever needed which is a little unrealistic).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old April 15th, 2009, 06:30 PM
Onacara Onacara is offline
has been BANNED
 
Join Date: December 31, 2006
Location: Pony Street
Posts: 16,992
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 27
Onacara is a puppet of Ne-Gok-Sa
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: A Recipe for Chaos?

I think you play the next available player whether you played them before or not with the 1 exception that you do not play the guy you just played.

With the Rumble format their was an extra guy on 1 team which almost always assured you faced a different player each time.

Perhaps using this format with only with an odd number of players would work best.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old April 15th, 2009, 06:35 PM
dok's Avatar
dok dok is offline
GenCon Main Event Champion - 2010, 2011, & 2017
 
Join Date: October 9, 2008
Location: USA - CO - Denver
Posts: 23,737
Images: 112
Blog Entries: 17
dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth dok is a man of the cloth
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: A Recipe for Chaos?

I was actually just having a PM discussion about a better strength-of-schedule metric. I am a big ranking algorithm nerd, and I went into a long description of how a good ranking algorithm could work and could be used for determining place.

It occurred to me that if the algorithm is good enough, you really don't need to match people up too carefully (e.g. in a Swiss format) in order to get good results. You just need a fairly well-connected set of games between all the players. But a random scramble of games will achieve that the majority of the time.

So, I like the format, particularly for a more casual atmosphere, but if you care about determining a winner fairly, I would sharpen up those scoring metrics.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old April 16th, 2009, 07:27 AM
ollie's Avatar
ollie ollie is offline
Is a Quadradical
 
Join Date: March 19, 2007
Location: VT
Posts: 9,544
Images: 43
Blog Entries: 22
ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: A Recipe for Chaos?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onacara View Post
I think you play the next available player whether you played them before or not with the 1 exception that you do not play the guy you just played.

With the Rumble format their was an extra guy on 1 team which almost always assured you faced a different player each time.

Perhaps using this format with only with an odd number of players would work best.
I think I still prefer the idea that you wait for a new player wherever possible for a couple of reasons. First, as Dok says, more mixing is good when determining ranking (pretty much however you do it). Secondly, as a player, I'd rather play lots of different people. This system will give, I think, more 'scaping time for (almost) every player than a regular tournament anyway. I don't think the odd number of players is noticeably different. The standard to compare to is not continuous playing for everyone; it's how much 'scape gets played at a regular event. There is always a game, and usually several, that are over in 20mins or so. Those players are getting their waiting time cut from 40mins to under 10.

Thinking more about it, I think I prefer the second option I gave in my answer to Kobu regarding repeat plays: only when there are no free maps do you consider playing someone you've played before. I have a 20 person tournament as my mental model. My guess is that fifteen maps (so ten active and five empty to begin) is about right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dok
I was actually just having a PM discussion about a better strength-of-schedule metric. I am a big ranking algorithm nerd, and I went into a long description of how a good ranking algorithm could work and could be used for determining place.

It occurred to me that if the algorithm is good enough, you really don't need to match people up too carefully (e.g. in a Swiss format) in order to get good results. You just need a fairly well-connected set of games between all the players. But a random scramble of games will achieve that the majority of the time.

So, I like the format, particularly for a more casual atmosphere, but if you care about determining a winner fairly, I would sharpen up those scoring metrics.
More details? I want something that people can immediately calculate themselves on their index card. That's why I mentioned dropping SoS altogether.

Rather than win percentage, how about number of wins minus number of losses? (Win difference? Does this have a name?) This means that someone who goes 6-1 beats someone that goes 4-0, which I think is how it should be. Number of wins (or, equivalently, number of games) would still be the second splitter (So 7-2 beats 6-1). D20 to split equal records at the prize table.

When thinking about this system, I think the trade-off between an obvious winner and more 'scape is the central point. The more I go to tournaments, the less I care about the actual standings and more I care about the games themselves. The extra 'scape and still getting a pretty good ranking out seems like an improvement to me over our regular structure, but I can see that others might not agree.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old April 16th, 2009, 08:09 AM
Onacara Onacara is offline
has been BANNED
 
Join Date: December 31, 2006
Location: Pony Street
Posts: 16,992
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 27
Onacara is a puppet of Ne-Gok-Sa
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: A Recipe for Chaos?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ollie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onacara View Post
I think you play the next available player whether you played them before or not with the 1 exception that you do not play the guy you just played.

With the Rumble format their was an extra guy on 1 team which almost always assured you faced a different player each time.

Perhaps using this format with only with an odd number of players would work best.
I think I still prefer the idea that you wait for a new player wherever possible for a couple of reasons. First, as Dok says, more mixing is good when determining ranking (pretty much however you do it). Secondly, as a player, I'd rather play lots of different people. This system will give, I think, more 'scaping time for (almost) every player than a regular tournament anyway. I don't think the odd number of players is noticeably different. The standard to compare to is not continuous playing for everyone; it's how much 'scape gets played at a regular event. There is always a game, and usually several, that are over in 20mins or so. Those players are getting their waiting time cut from 40mins to under 10.

Thinking more about it, I think I prefer the second option I gave in my answer to Kobu regarding repeat plays: only when there are no free maps do you consider playing someone you've played before. I have a 20 person tournament as my mental model. My guess is that fifteen maps (so ten active and five empty to begin) is about right.
Which is also why an odd number fo players works better as the likelihood of you facing the same opponent again is knocked down. The odd man out waits for the first game to end and then faces the winner or loser (predetermined) in the mean time the second game (first round) will end and so on.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old April 16th, 2009, 08:31 AM
ollie's Avatar
ollie ollie is offline
Is a Quadradical
 
Join Date: March 19, 2007
Location: VT
Posts: 9,544
Images: 43
Blog Entries: 22
ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth ollie is a man of the cloth
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: A Recipe for Chaos?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onacara View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ollie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onacara View Post
I think you play the next available player whether you played them before or not with the 1 exception that you do not play the guy you just played.

With the Rumble format their was an extra guy on 1 team which almost always assured you faced a different player each time.

Perhaps using this format with only with an odd number of players would work best.
I think I still prefer the idea that you wait for a new player wherever possible for a couple of reasons. First, as Dok says, more mixing is good when determining ranking (pretty much however you do it). Secondly, as a player, I'd rather play lots of different people. This system will give, I think, more 'scaping time for (almost) every player than a regular tournament anyway. I don't think the odd number of players is noticeably different. The standard to compare to is not continuous playing for everyone; it's how much 'scape gets played at a regular event. There is always a game, and usually several, that are over in 20mins or so. Those players are getting their waiting time cut from 40mins to under 10.

Thinking more about it, I think I prefer the second option I gave in my answer to Kobu regarding repeat plays: only when there are no free maps do you consider playing someone you've played before. I have a 20 person tournament as my mental model. My guess is that fifteen maps (so ten active and five empty to begin) is about right.
Which is also why an odd number fo players works better as the likelihood of you facing the same opponent again is knocked down. The odd man out waits for the first game to end and then faces the winner or loser (predetermined) in the mean time the second game (first round) will end and so on.
To be a success the method needs to work for both even and odd. I think it should. If anything I think even is better: with an odd number the first queue member has to probably wait twenty minutes without playing.

It's going to be pretty unlikely that the queue will get very long I think. Once things get going (which I don't expect will take long) there'll be a game finishing every five or ten minutes and with a theoretical maximum queue length of about seven no-one is going to be waiting very long however the new match-ups are decided. My version means that there will almost certainly be no repeat match-ups and that winners get to play slightly more frequently. I like both of those characteristics.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old April 16th, 2009, 09:01 AM
Onacara Onacara is offline
has been BANNED
 
Join Date: December 31, 2006
Location: Pony Street
Posts: 16,992
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 27
Onacara is a puppet of Ne-Gok-Sa
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: A Recipe for Chaos?

If you are doing no repeats then everyone needs to be there for the entire day from start to finish right?


This format is alot like the Warmachine Championship set-up they had at TempleCon which was basically you just found someone to play and you played them...and the overall winner was the person with the best winning percentage based on a minimum number of games played for the weekend. So someone who only made it for 2 of the 3 days had a chance to win it as the guy who played all 3 days.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old April 16th, 2009, 09:40 AM
pegasus's Avatar
pegasus pegasus is offline
 
Join Date: August 22, 2008
Location: Netherlands - Rotterdam
Posts: 307
Images: 44
pegasus rolls all skulls baby! pegasus rolls all skulls baby! pegasus rolls all skulls baby! pegasus rolls all skulls baby! pegasus rolls all skulls baby!
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: A Recipe for Chaos?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ollie View Post
.....
When a game finishes the winner starts a game with someone he has not yet played who is sitting at an empty map according to the following order of priority:
.....
The loser starts a game with the person who has been waiting longest that she has not yet played.
.......
This part might get you into trouble. So much for equal opportunities.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old April 16th, 2009, 09:50 AM
Junge Roman's Avatar
Junge Roman Junge Roman is offline
 
Join Date: October 11, 2006
Location: TX - Houston
Posts: 1,018
Junge Roman has disabled reputation
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: A Recipe for Chaos?

I like the concept. I think scoring is the biggest problem. Why not combine number of games and winning percentage into 1 metric, counting it 40/60 or something? That way, a guy is not rewarded for playing slowly.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Heroscapers > Official Valhalla HeroScape > HeroScape General Discussion
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dallas Area "Official" Tournament structure wisinger Events 594 March 15th, 2024 01:00 PM
Sentence structure fails... scottishlad5 General 8 April 1st, 2009 05:49 PM
Alternative Bent Figure Fix Vette71 HeroScape General Discussion 19 May 20th, 2008 06:35 PM
Alternative to order markers aielman Other Customization & HS Additions 2 August 30th, 2007 09:25 PM
Gidians Customs - Update 07-08-22: New Cards and structure Gidian Custom Units & Army Cards 1 August 23rd, 2007 07:30 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:54 AM.

Heroscape background footer

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.