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, 06:35 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
  #6  
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
  #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, 10:36 AM
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ollie View Post
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.
Well, the full-blown system I suggested would not be workable on an index card. It really requires someone with a laptop continuously updating the rankings by re-running an MMSE algorithm that looks at every game played.

However, a reasonable first-order approximation of your updated ranking can be done using partial scoring and a cellphone calculator - it's one division and two additions:

Code:
New ranking = old ranking + (opponent's ranking + game point diff)/(games played - 1)
(Your initial ranking being the point differential of your fist game. When I say point diff, I mean a number that is positive for the winner and negative with equal magnitude for the loser.)

So, players could update their ranking that way, and then give their game result to the TD. They would get their next game based on their approximate ranking, and the TD could drop by and give them their updated ranking at any point during their next game.

EDIT: I should add that if I were the person sitting at the laptop, and I had a good system programmed, I could do the update in 10 seconds. So making people do it themselves wouldn't be necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ollie View Post
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.
Yes, this has the nice effect of punishing stalling while still rewarding good play. You could just as easily do overall point differential.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ollie View Post
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.
Frankly, I think the "obvious winner" can be a bit of a mirage in a lot of tournaments, based on who got the right breaks/matchups to land in the finals. If you played the tournament as a scramble until the final round, and then had finals, I don't think this would really be significantly less decisive than most tournaments.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old April 16th, 2009, 10:49 AM
RobertDD RobertDD is offline
Seeker of the Last Word
 
Join Date: April 3, 2008
Location: NH - Lebanon
Posts: 1,864
Images: 11
RobertDD wears ripped pants of awesomeness RobertDD wears ripped pants of awesomeness RobertDD wears ripped pants of awesomeness RobertDD wears ripped pants of awesomeness RobertDD wears ripped pants of awesomeness RobertDD wears ripped pants of awesomeness RobertDD wears ripped pants of awesomeness RobertDD wears ripped pants of awesomeness
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: A Recipe for Chaos?

It occured to me that you might even calculate one's score as I outlined above, and then divide it by the number of games played. That way, the entire speed of playing is taken out of it, and no quick or slow armies are rewarded or punished, nor is anyone who plays against one of those armies punished. There probably should be a minimum of 4 full, played to the end, games to qualify for a standing, and the more I think about it, the better it seems to me to discard any unfinished game results.
Also, I dont think people should actually be ssitting at a map. Match-ups can and sshould be done by the coordinator. Just hand in your card when you are ready for the next game.

They are done! Version 1.00 is out: Books of HeroScape in pdf format
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old April 16th, 2009, 10:51 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 dok View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ollie View Post
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.
Well, the full-blown system I suggested would not be workable on an index card. It really requires someone with a laptop continuously updating the rankings by re-running an MMSE algorithm that looks at every game played.

However, a reasonable first-order approximation of your updated ranking can be done using partial scoring and a cellphone calculator - it's one division and two additions:

Code:
New ranking = old ranking + (opponent's ranking + game point diff)/(games played - 1)
Interesting stuff. It could work very well in this system, though I see a couple of issues:

a) It won't be intuitively clear to everyone how the outcome of a game changes the rankings, and so you lose the clear "win is this good, loss is this bad" feeling of an objectively less good system.

b) It requires that the TD does not play. If I'm going to the trouble of organising a tournament, I want to play some Heroscape!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dok
Quote:
Originally Posted by ollie View Post
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.
Frankly, I think the "obvious winner" can be a bit of a mirage in a lot of tournaments, based on who got the right breaks/matchups to land in the finals. If you played the tournament as a scramble until the final round, and then had finals, I don't think this would really be significantly less decisive than most tournaments.
[/quote]

I agree and I'd go further and argue that finals are bad things to add on to Swiss systems (or variants such as this one). I've ranted on these boards at least a couple of times on the foolishness of play-offs, so I'll spare you now.
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 07:19 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.