|
HeroScape General Discussion General discussions of packaging, terrain, components, etc. If it doesn't fit in any other official category, put it here. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#133
|
||||
|
||||
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: The Rolling Rumble
So Spidysox asked us to comment on what we thought of the rolling rumble format that we used in Eastern PA's NHSD. Since it was my first tournament I can't really compare it to other styles but I can say that I enjoyed being able to finish my games. When Mecherath and I played the game went very, very slowly. We were both noobs and were very calculating before we moved. That combined with my rats vs his orc horde made for some slow play especially when all I had was Cyprien to defeat his 18 orcs and isamu. Finishing these slow games limited the total amount of games that I got to play.
What is good about finishing out games is that the end game is the most exciting part (My games came down to the wire 4 out of 5 times). I might have lost those games if it was timed and we calculated points and then I would not have won the even. However, when it got towards the end of the tournament I ended up playing the 2-3 sleeper instead of the 4-1 Tom which would have been the "championship game". Basically the rolling rumble allowed me to slip past the second place Tom into first by sheer coincidence that we never played. So rolling rumble Pro's Finish your games No long wait for players who finish early Allow late arrivals to pick-up and play Con's Slow players play less games than fast players Lucky players can avoid the "big dogs" I really enjoyed this tournament and this format but I think it needs some sort of rule so that players like me who take a 4-0 record into the last round of games aren't playing people who are 2-3. |
#134
|
||||
|
||||
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: The Rolling Rumble
Ohio NHSD thew out the idea of using rolling rumble. My questions, is what is the the most fair way to rank people? For instance, how would you rank the following people?
In normal tourneys, I really like SOS as the 2nd factor after wins, but in rolling rumble, the more games you play, the more your SOS will be because you will have more opponents who in turn will have more opponents themselves. Two ways to compensate is to factor in either the total W-L of all your opponents as SOS or to average your opponent's winning % as SOS. Either way, random/arbitrary match-ups will determine standings because you could play a bunch of crappy players and do will or some really good players and do bad. Then again, I have never participated in one so I might not have a clue what I am talking about. So what is the fairest way to rank people? C3V/SoV cards @ 3/page PDF / LeftOn4ya's Customs (including Jurassic World) / Competitive Unit Alters / New? Start Here! Unit Debates REVIVED - #76 Tandros Kreel vs Torin "Today is a good day to die... but the day is not yet over"
Last edited by lefton4ya; August 23rd, 2011 at 01:00 AM. |
#135
|
||||
|
||||
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: The Rolling Rumble
Instinctively, I would rank those people 5-0, 4-0, 5-1, 5-2. I agree that SoS% is better than pure SoS in these situations, if it's your first tiebreaker.
Our method has been win difference, followed by winning percentage, followed by SoS-Dif. If win difference and win percentage are both the same, then you're usually looking at identical records, unless you're comparing a 3-3 to a 2-2 or something like that. In those cases, I actually like rewarding the person who got more games in by giving them a small advantage in win dif calculations. |
#136
|
||||
|
||||
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: The Rolling Rumble
Thanks Dok. So it looks like the best ordering is:
In Rolling Rumble, are you allowed to forfeit halfway though a game (when you are pretty sure you are going to loose) so you can get more games in? Since you are ranked by the number of wins-losses, if you know you are going to loose a game (but still have more than a 50% record), it is better to try and get more games in, so I could imagine many people forfeiting almost all the games they think they are going to loose. I would imagine someone can only forfeit if the other player is Ok with it too, but I would still do something like make a maximum amount of games you can play in an event or a minimum game play time of 1/2 hour, unless you destroy your opponent completely in less than that time. Does anyone have rules for/against forfeiting or have a maximum game limit or minimum time per game limit? C3V/SoV cards @ 3/page PDF / LeftOn4ya's Customs (including Jurassic World) / Competitive Unit Alters / New? Start Here! Unit Debates REVIVED - #76 Tandros Kreel vs Torin "Today is a good day to die... but the day is not yet over"
|
#137
|
||||
|
||||
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: The Rolling Rumble
If you are confident you're going to lose, I don't see the point in making someone play it out. If you think you have a chance of winning, there's not any incentive to give up.
I've been pushing for a 75 minute time limit at our NHSD event. A 1v1 game on a BoV-style map really shouldn't take any longer than that. In the past I've had some really long games in rolling rumble formats, which can be frustrating. |
#138
|
||||
|
||||
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: The Rolling Rumble
Quote:
It's more a question of etiquette, and I don't know of any universal standard in 'scape. In chess, it can be considered impolite not to resign a lost position; in other games "quitting early" can be seen as petulant and unsporting. In tournaments, if I'm losing and would resign (I take the chess view) I ask my opponent whether or not he/she wants to play it out or take the win then. It's gone both ways (it doesn't happen often; it has to be a completely lost cause). Most importantly, "lose" and "loose" are very different words. You mean lose. Last edited by ollie; August 26th, 2011 at 05:21 PM. |
#139
|
||||
|
||||
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: The Rolling Rumble
I remember attending the Columbus NHSD in 2012 with this format. Now, I'm thinking about doing this with small 300-400pt armies to make the games really fly by for our C2P Tournament in August.
Any recommendations for hosting a tourney in this format? |
#140
|
||||
|
||||
Re: An Alternative Tournament Structure: The Rolling Rumble
I don't think I have any suggestions other than what's in the OP. A chalk board is pretty handy for tracking who's waiting.
My only note might be to have a soft time limit; I've seen players who had lost the game keep playing against ridiculous odds. It can be nice to be able to give their opponent an out to start a more competitive game. "It's been over an hour, why don't you guys count points after the next set of OMs; we've got people waiting for an opponent" etc. Formerly known as capsocrates -- Remixed Master Sets - challenge yourself with new terrain combinations! -- Colorado Fall 2023 Multiplayer Madness -- caps's Customs Redux - caps's multiplayer maps - caps's maps - Seagate -- Continuing Classic Heroscape: C3V SoV |
|
|
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 |