• Welcome to the Heroscapers 2.0 site! We've still got some dust to clear and adjustments to make, including launching a new front page, but we hope you enjoy the improvements to the site. Please post your feedback and any issues you encounter in this thread.

Simple PNP Tourney System 1st page updated INPUT!

Grungebob

Mighty Mouse!
Site Supporter
Super Simple System (SSS) for tourney management

The following is a proposed system for running a fair and simple Heroscape tourney without the need for a computer or other expensive supplies. The mechanics of this system are the result of an extraordinary discussion which was brought on by our need as a community to have a standard that is fair and easy.

It is my hope that folks adopt or barrow from these ideas and that more homegrown tourneys pop up around the globe because folks no longer feel intimidated by the details of running a fair tourney.

This system is based upon a Swiss style format which just basically states that players play a certain pre-determined set of rounds (games). As much as possible, players of comparable strength are paired up with no player playing the same opponent twice.

After the required number of rounds (Usually 5 rounds) There will be enough criteria formed to allow for winners to be announced in a friendly setting, or to advance a set of top players (usually 8 ) to a single elimination final.

How to Conduct a SSS tourney.

First off print as many copies of the SSS tourney cards (coming soon) as needed for the event. There are 2 cards per sheet so these will need to be cut in half. Make sure to have a good supply of pencils handy

Each player fills out his personal info on the top of the card , writes his army details on the back, and turns the card back in to the person conducting the tourney (we will call him the tourney director or TD)

The cards are shuffled and then used to randomly assign 2 players to each map. The clock is started and the players play a game.

Filling in your results

Once seated at a table with an opponent players will need to fill in the name of the opponent in the space marked with the number of the current round. Once a game is over players place a check mark in the box marked Win if they won and Loss if they lost. If a player loses a game he must also write in the number of points of his opponent’s army that he destroyed in that game in the spot titled Losing Points. If this is not the players first loss he will add his Losing points to the previous losing points total so that his sum of losing points is obvious.

Each time a player is paired with another and a game is played repeat the above process, so that at the end of the tourney you should have a clear understanding of:

Your W/L ratio
Your total of Losing Points
A list of all the players you played

After The last game of the tourney, locate the players whom you played and add up all of their wins. Place these wins in your SoS box and turn your card in to the TD

So at this point you have established three sets of values: Your W/L ratio, your SoS, and a number representing your Losing Points.

A New Round

After the first game in the tourney there will only be 2 ranks: Winners and Losers. All winners are shuffled together and all losers are also shuffled together. Place the winning stack on top of the losing stack and go from map to map drawing the top two cards off of the stack and assigning those players to those maps until all players have been assigned an opponent and a map. Players conduct the round as noted above

The next round all the cards will be sorted into piles of equal W/L rankings and shuffled within the pile. The best W/L records on top, then the next all the way to the bottom which are the lowest rank records. Again go around the room pulling the top two records and assigning them to a map and so on.

Each round keep repeating the above until all rounds have been played.

If two players ae randomly placed and yet have already played each other previously, then simply switch one player with the next card on the stack so that players are able to play new opponents each round.


Final Tabulations

The TD organizes the cards first by W/L. Any players with the same W/L are then ranked by SoS points with the higher SoS points getting ranked higher. If there are still any ties, then the player with the higher amount of Losing Points will be ranked higher. If by some random freak occurance there are still any ties to be broken, roll a D20 with the higher roller being ranked higher.

Byes

If there are an uneven number of players then one player will be chosen and awarded a bye each round. The first round, this player will be randomly chosen, the second and subsequent rounds, the player with the lowest ranking (judged by W/L and Losing Points) will be awarded the bye

Instead of an opponent, write the word Bye in the space provided and a check mark in the win box

When calculating SoS points at the end of the tourney, the Win points of your Bye opponent, is your own win number, as if you had played against yourself and won.

Game Ties

If a game goes to time, and both players have the same amount of points left, the game ends in a draw. Neither player is considered a losing player so no losing points are scored. Place a check in the tie column. Ties count as .5 points when figuring SoS. So at the end of the tourney when figuring your SoS, if you played a game against an opponent who had 3 wins, 1 tie, and 1 loss, you would add 3.5 to your SoS score.

Drop outs

If you are going to figure your SoS and you discover an opponent you won against has dropped out, consider his win number to be the greater of either "2" or the actual number of wins that player obtained prior to dropping out

Losing Score Notes

Undropped Airborne Elite / Unsummoned Rechets of Bogdan
If you lose the game and your opponent has undropped AE, points for the AE are NOT added to your Losing Score since you did not destroy them. Same treatment for unsummoned Rechets.

Mindshackle
A.) If you Mindshackle an opposing unit but you lose the game, the Mindshackled unit (whether finally destroyed or still alive at time expiration) DOES count toward your Losing Score, since you "effectively destroyed" your opponent's unit by turning it against him.

B.) If your own unit is Mindshackled by the opponent and you lose the game, you do NOT get credit to your Losing Score if during the game you destroy your own Mindshackled unit. It was not your opponent's to begin with, so your destroying it does not count as damage to your opponent's army.

Soul Devour (Shades of Bleakewoode)
A.) Units whose Souls are Devoured are treated like Mindshackled units, above.

B.) A Shade itself is destroyed when it succeeds with Soul Devour. If you lose the game, but a unit of enemy Shades was destroyed, you DO count the Shades toward your Losing Score (regardless of HOW they were destroyed).


Additional Options for Tourney Directors

1. "Relative Losing Score"

The tournament rules above utilize "Absolute Losing Score," (ALS) meaning that a defeated player's Losing Score is tabulated only using the points earned for destroying enemy units. ALS = Enemy Units Destroyed. If time expires and the defeated player has units left on the board, these survivors are irrelevant to ALS. It is thought that this will encourage faster and more aggressive play in a close game.

"Relative Losing Score" (RLS) is an alternative method of tabulating Losing Score, to be used instead of ALS throughout the tournament, if the Director desires. RLS = Enemy Units Destroyed + Your Remaining Units. RLS will therefore yield a different total than ALS if time expires on an unfinished game. RLS is thought to be scrupulously fair to all playstyles and playspeeds, but at the cost of ALS's supposed motivation to play fast and aggressive.

RLS Note on Mindshackle / Soul Devour / Airborne Elite / Rechets: If you Mindshackle or Soul Devour an opponent's unit, and when time expires you lose the game, then if the Mindshackled or Soul Devoured unit is still alive and on your side, you only score RLS points for the unit ONCE, not TWICE. You do not receive RLS credit for both having effectively destroyed the enemy unit AND having it as "part of your army" at time expiration. If you lose a game in which your AE or Rechets never arrived on the battlefield, you DO NOT get RLS credit for them as a "remaining unit" in your army.


2. "Fractional Scoring"

The tournament rules above utilize Hasbro's official scoring method (commonly referred to as "All-or-Nothing" or "Whole Card" scoring) for two purposes: (1) to determine the winner of a game cut short by time expiration, and (2) to tabulate Losing Score.

"Fractional Scoring" is an alternative method for scoring units. It can be used throughout the tourney for both above-listed purposes instead of the official scoring method, if the Director desires. "Fractional Scoring" is defined as follows:
  • (i) For each unique squad left on the field, score the squad in proportion to its remaining figures. Example: 2 remaining Nakitia Agents would be worth 80 points.

    (ii) For each full common squad remaining score full points, and for a remaining partial common squad, score the partial squad proportionally as above. Example: 6 remaining 4TH MASS LINE figures would be worth 70+35 = 105 pts.

    (iii) For each hero* left on the battlefield, score him in proportion to his remaining life. Example: 80 pt / 4 life Thorgrim, if having only 1 life remaining at time-expiration, would be worth 20 points. *Directors may opt to use "Squads-Only Fractional Scoring," awarding full points for heroes regardless of remaining life.

    (iv) Any time a fraction is encountered in a partial squad's (or wounded hero's) unit value, round to the nearest whole number (round .5 down). Never use decimals in a final unit value. Example: 2 remaining Krav Maga Agents = 33.33+33.33 = 66.66 = 67 points. Example: 3 remaining 4TH MASS = 17.5 + 17.5 + 17.5 = 52.5 = 52 points.


Score sheets are now available in the downloads secion:

http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=881
 
Well I wasn't there and wasn't a volunteer, but regarding the secure storage box, I've seen them at Lowes and Home Depot. Some of them are meant to fit behind the cabs of pickup trucks, while some are more of the basic box shape. They usually have a keyed lock for the lid/s. Depending on the model, they may have a handle or something that you can run a chain through to chain it to somethingl. I don't know the prices of them, but next time I'm at one of thoses stores, I can check on it. I don't know how big of a box you need or the $$$ willing to spend, but I'll try to get some ideas anyway.

While I couldn't attend GB, I greatly appreciate the work you and the others put into the Heroscape stuff at GenCon. Great job, everyone seemed to have a good time. Also, sorry to hear about your laptop, that really sux.
 
Post Con storage. We used left over cardboard boxes.... Should we look for something better?
 
I will definitely help next year. Happyjosiah and I will make sure we can make it next year. I hope so much it will work out as we plan. I will be able to help at anything that needs it. I have some experience running heroscape tournaments swiss style and with pt differentials. In fact I will be running one this weekend! Anyway it sounded like it went real well and I look forward to helping next year!
 
I do not have time to respond right now GB but I wanted to tag this thread so I remember to when I get a chance....BTW great job on putting together all of the events this year. You really did a fine job Sir :wink: I will definitely be volunteering next year and like I said I will give some more feedback and ideas hopefully today and or tommorow.
 
These are all great issues of which I will address the ones that I had the most thoughts on:

2. Rules (Schedule) I totally agree that we need to schedule time gaps in between tournament rounds for 2 main reasons:
1. to give the tournament organizers time to figure out rankings and assign players to tables for the next round.
2. to give all players a full 60 min game, to the last second. People need time to find their seat, pull out figures, set up their playing area, use the restroom, and stay hydrated and energized by getting food and water. Then start the 60 min clock.
I think all we need is a scheduled 5 min gap in between each round, except after the third round give a slightly longer time (10-15 min). At tourney start time (say 10AM) post a schedule with very specific times for each round to start and begin (i.e 10:05-11:05, 11:10-12:10, 12:15-1:15, 1:25-2:25, 2:30-3:30.) Then the next event begins at 3:45, so we have 15 min to officially present awards, clean up, clear out, and the next group can set up for the next event. I think this gap schedule would make everything run smoother for both organizers and players.

Point Differential I strongly disagree that we should ever use this format again. Several reasons, in no particular order:
1. In the first round some players ended up with +500 points because they got a random draw against a very weak army or player, and the loser starts out with -500. These extremes severaly tip the balance of who plays who for at least the next few rounds. Swiss doesn't start allow for such extremes.
2. If your army isn't 500 points exactly, you and everyone who beats you doesn't get as many points as they should.
3. If the Airborne don't drop, the winner of the game doesn't get to count their points. That's 110 points the winner should have had, and that makes a significant difference in this format.
4. For sure the sheets to write down the results were extremely confusing. The whole time I wondered how many people either had too many or too few points because they weren't scoring correctly. I know for a fact that not all games were consistently scored following my #2 point.
5. Point differential places too much emphasis on cummulative points and I think future tournies with this format will see changed armies and game strategies, meaning changed for the worse. In this format the AE aren't worth the point loss risk and you don't want to go gung-ho attacking with all your figures and end up winning with only 1 rat left on the board. 2 really good players are more likely to fight down to the last rat for a grand total of +40 points, whereas a +500 win was most likely against a newbie. Thus the point system can be inversely representative of the quality of the player you beat, whereas Swiss style rewards your point rank for winning against a good player.
 
GB you asked so here are my thoughts.....


1. Security - First of all let me use this emoticon.... :( I still can't believe you got ripped off. That is the single lamest thing to happen at Gen Con. It's beyond belief. Next year I suggest we actually assign one volunteer to be the security detail. The computer will simply be chained to them for the event until the next security person comes in.

2. Rules - Time was certainly a factor. People need to understand that it's not our fault if they don't know about time changes. It's not our fault if they are late. People expected us (the volunteers) to be there early to have everything set up and ready and we were. We should have the same expectations of players. If participating in an event is important enough to players that they get upset about not being allowed in then why can't they be on time? There were several instances of people being super lame and sorry about our rulings regarding time. Next year we need to spell it out VERY VERY clearly. And you are absolutely right about scheduling break times too. I think a simple rule of 50 minutes per round with 10 minutes of down time between is the best and easiest.

Sportsmanship - I hate to say it but I saw several instances of piss poor sportsmanship. I hope the offending parties know who they are and either get a pacifier or some p-sychological help before next year. This is supposed to be fun, but a few people acted like their lives depended on it. And in case anyone didn't know it....petulance is lame. :roll:

Point Differential - The cards that the Tree Town lads provided were awesome. I love that system and hope everyone adopts it. It makes things very clear and very cut and dry. I never want to use another system.

3. Agreed.

4. Double agreed. Why we didn't do this this year is beyond me. The Hilton even asked me when I arrived where I wanted to be. Since I didn't know where anyone else was I said "where ever". Next year we simply must be altogether.

5. Social - I nominate Mr. Gen Con.


Maps - Every map should at least let every unit have the ability to move across it. Spring Thaw slipped through the cracks on that.

Also I personally encountered two maps that were missing tiles. We need to have a volunteer verify all of the maps before each competitive event.
 
How does the point system work in what you're talking about? I personally find that point differential is the best way to go. Now of course there are problems when a really good player faces a newb, but that can't be helped. Someone needs to play that person, and the only way around it is to have separate tournaments, one for experienced players, and one for new players. Another problem that can rise is that the winner of a tournament can sometimes have the same record as teh 4 people below him/her, meaning that the winner is decided by pt differential, and then whoever got to play agaisnt a new player early on probably will win overall. I do like pt differential as the tie breaker because it adds a lot of strategy to the tournament. You can't just throw away units, you have to be careful.

I am curious as to how you'd score your version though. Please explain :)
 
On the subject of time, you simply must be strict at a big event. The show must go on. It's not that there's no sympathy for late-comers, it's that there is no remedy. What is most fair for everyone? Starting on time.

Being late is a forfeit, period. There is no argument. If a player disagrees, the nice answer is you're late, sorry, I cannot change a tournament to accomodate one player.

But yeah, you need time in between games. I'd say 10 minutes not 5, with 50-minute games.

I'm sure all y'all already know this, but here's two things that are very helpful:

1. A loud voice.

2. A clearly-visible "official clock". It's kind of hard to lug a big clock along with all the other gear, but even a small one, like a chess clock for example, is better than nothing. Anyone can see what time it is and not have to pester the organizers, who are plenty busy.
 
markwars said:
GB you asked so here are my thoughts.....


1. Security - First of all let me use this emoticon.... :( I still can't believe you got ripped off. That is the single lamest thing to happen at Gen Con. It's beyond belief. Next year I suggest we actually assign one volunteer to be the security detail. The computer will simply be chained to them for the event until the next security person comes in.
Yup. Although I only saw it in use for the Heat of Battle, it seemed things were more organized with it. People suck, aside from 'Scapers that is.

markwars said:
2. Rules - Time was certainly a factor. People need to understand that it's not our fault if they don't know about time changes. It's not our fault if they are late. People expected us (the volunteers) to be there early to have everything set up and ready and we were. We should have the same expectations of players. If participating in an event is important enough to players that they get upset about not being allowed in then why can't they be on time? There were several instances of people being super lame and sorry about our rulings regarding time. Next year we need to spell it out VERY VERY clearly. And you are absolutely right about scheduling break times too. I think a simple rule of 50 minutes per round with 10 minutes of down time between is the best and easiest.
That is exactly what I do in the Michigan Tournaments with time. We have only had an issue once with someone showing up right when we were getting started, but that was ok as it gave us an even number so no byes were needed.

markwars said:
Sportsmanship - I hate to say it but I saw several instances of piss poor sportsmanship. I hope the offending parties know who they are and either get a pacifier or some p-sychological help before next year. This is supposed to be fun, but a few people acted like their lives depended on it. And in case anyone didn't know it....petulance is lame. :roll:
I didn't see anyone like this, but then again, I didn't play in the championship and only stayed to watch the first round. Was that where you saw this happen?

markwars said:
Point Differential - The cards that the Tree Town lads provided were awesome. I love that system and hope everyone adopts it. It makes things very clear and very cut and dry. I never want to use another system.
I have to agree with funrun on this one. There were way too many +500 games and even more questions about how to score. This was compounded even more (in every tournament) with the use of the Hasbo point system. As a squad gets eliminated they become less effective, therefore, in my opinion, should not recieve full points. Conversely, heroes do not become less effective and Krug actually becomes more effective as he is wounded. I like to play with partial points for squads and full points for heroes because of this. It also does not require a player to hunt down speciffic units to earn points and does not allow for turtling a single squaddie like an AE like I saw a few people do.

Again, I was only at the Championship for the first round. I was curious how PD was used to determine rankings though. One problem with it is that some armies are not built for high PD. They are built just to win. Did players with similar PD get paired or was the second round paired so that the +500 winners played the +10 winners?

markwars said:
3. Agreed.

4. Double agreed. Why we didn't do this this year is beyond me. The Hilton even asked me when I arrived where I wanted to be. Since I didn't know where anyone else was I said "where ever". Next year we simply must be altogether.

5. Social - I nominate Mr. Gen Con.
I would have love to have hung out with everyone and played more, but it seemed like most people had pre-arranged plans. By the way, most nights the Sagamore ballroom where the Warmachine/Hordes games were taking place was half empty. That seemed like a good place to play.

markwars said:
Maps - Every map should at least let every unit have the ability to move across it. Spring Thaw slipped through the cracks on that.

Also I personally encountered two maps that were missing tiles. We need to have a volunteer verify all of the maps before each competitive event.
Spring thaw was a very difficult map even with the "normal" snow and ice, which I didn't expect. I would also like to see some changes with glyphs. In some cases the glyphs helped me, in some they hurt me, in others it made little difference. Never the less, I would like to see glyphs erased from the tournaments. It adds an element of randomness to a game that is already got it. At minimum I would like to see the attack glyph removed and the other glyphs be static for each round, map, tournament, etc.
 
funrun said:
These are all great issues of which I will address the ones that I had the most thoughts on:

2. Rules (Schedule) I totally agree that we need to schedule time gaps in between tournament rounds for 2 main reasons:
1. to give the tournament organizers time to figure out rankings and assign players to tables for the next round.
2. to give all players a full 60 min game, to the last second. People need time to find their seat, pull out figures, set up their playing area, use the restroom, and stay hydrated and energized by getting food and water. Then start the 60 min clock.
I think all we need is a scheduled 5 min gap in between each round, except after the third round give a slightly longer time (10-15 min). At tourney start time (say 10AM) post a schedule with very specific times for each round to start and begin (i.e 10:05-11:05, 11:10-12:10, 12:15-1:15, 1:25-2:25, 2:30-3:30.) Then the next event begins at 3:45, so we have 15 min to officially present awards, clean up, clear out, and the next group can set up for the next event. I think this gap schedule would make everything run smoother for both organizers and players.
Something like this may help but it won't fix everything. There are a few players that take way too long playing their turns and unjustly eat up the time. Some players repeatedly played all the way to the time and had to fall back on VP's to determine the winner. Constantly running out the clock is very much frowned upon in other tourneys and can get a person disqualified. Point differential helps deter the slow players who make marginal wins their goal. In a normal tournament setting you should have very few if any players going all the way to the clock. Last year we didn't have as much of this. The things I won't do to fix this is extend the rounds. Throughout the whole convention, it was always the same individuals who were causing the slowdown. Terms like stalling and turtling were mentioned to me so many times by disgruntled players that I have to believe that some of the problem lies in the fault of just a few folks who are spending way too much time unjustly indulging themselves each turn analysing their moves.

I want to mention the negative effects of stalling in the tournament guidelines long before next Gencon and have them posted and available at the tourney. The actual running behind of the tournment is secondary to the fairness here. The sole reason to entertain ideas is to aleviate the negativity associated with folks showing up late and players causing slowdowns.

The sheets used for point differential were great. Claiming that they were excessively confusing is just an exaggeration. Most players, even little kids picked it right up. There are just some simple minor tweaks I would make to them.
 
Obviously, I was not there, but I would like to weigh in on the suggestion of point differentials being used in tournament ranking.

I totally agree with FunRun. Using point differential can completely change/limit a style of play within the tournament. As has been mentioned there are Armies that are built around sacrificing units for the common good (tactical movement, suckering the enemy, spreading out the enemy, etc.). To penalize someone for the style in which they play or the army which they choose (unless, of course, they choose a lousy army :twisted: ) via a ranking system, is completely unfair. If the biggest concern is people taking too long during their turn, I certainly wish there was a way to incorporate one of those "Chess" time keepers to limit each player to only a certain amount of time per game for "thinking".

gamjuven said:
...I do like pt differential as the tie breaker because it adds a lot of strategy to the tournament. You can't just throw away units, you have to be careful.

I don't understand that view at all unless you are only talking about the style in which you play the game. I think this proves that playing with Point Differential narrows the scope of strategic possibilities.
 
First of all, I just have to say thanks to all the volunteers, you guys did a great job! :up: I might be able to help out a bit next year. :) Second, I have to agree with funrun and UPC on the use of point differentials, swiss seems to work just fine to me. I also think that spring thaw is quite difficult to move on compared to some of the other tournament maps.

Anyways, thats just my :2cents: .
 
UranusPChicago said:
Obviously, I was not there, but I would like to weigh in on the suggestion of point differentials being used in tournament ranking.

I totally agree with FunRun. Using point differential can completely change/limit a style of play within the tournament. As has been mentioned there are Armies that are built around sacrificing units for the common good (tactical movement, suckering the enemy, spreading out the enemy, etc.). To penalize someone for the style in which they play or the army which they choose (unless, of course, they choose a lousy army :twisted: ) via a ranking system, is completely unfair. If the biggest concern is people taking too long during their turn, I certainly wish there was a way to incorporate one of those "Chess" time keepers to limit each player to only a certain amount of time per game for "thinking".

gamjuven said:
...I do like pt differential as the tie breaker because it adds a lot of strategy to the tournament. You can't just throw away units, you have to be careful.

I don't understand that view at all unless you are only talking about the style in which you play the game. I think this proves that playing with Point Differential narrows the scope of strategic possibilities.
Obviously chess clocks won't work and neither will the honor system. To debate your position, I don't want to support a style of play that has detrimental effects on the way players view tourneys. In other words, if stalling and turtling for vp base wins is the style we are referring to, I would like to use a system that doesn't reward that style. As a tourney director, this is the first year I have had to deal with so many complaints about stalling. D&D miniatures has a system where the actual tournament director can disqulify somebody for repeatedly stalling. I don't want to get to the point where our beloved scape is all of a sudden twisted into a competitive win at all cost environment. I will take the steps to block that from happening. Point differential while not perfect at least encourages/rewards going for an aggressive win..... And requires less equipment such as laptop etc. I woulkd like to look at other non electronic systems as well, but simplicity is key. It has to be able to be taken back home by a 13 year old and used to run a school tourney etc.. Getting access to DCI software is also really tough and it is not compatable with Vista.
 
What about making a win by total victory 3 points, a point win 2 points and a tie one point?
 
<just home>

It was, over all, a great event, GB; so the first dominant comment I have is (other than security), "It ain't broken."

Now, events need to strictly start on time and end on time, with the start being any explanations for that event. Breaks should be built into the schedule. It may mean reducing the number of rounds in an event, but I think that would be worth it in the long run.

There were some instances of poor sportsmanship and some instances of play style differences that were perceived as being poor sportsmanship. Those are difficult to sort out, unless obvious. I'm not at all sure an official sanction against certain behaviors (other than obvious cheating) is worth the huge hassle that it would cause...I certainly would not want to be the judge in such cases!

I have no problem with the point differential method. It may well have the weaknesses that others have argued for, but it is swift and efficient, and if everyone knows in advance that that is the way things are going to be, they can practice and adjust their style of play accordingly. The only legitimate complaint was that circumstances this year did not allow people to know ahead of time. I'd say, use this method next year.

Okay, that's enough of my verbage. I had a great time, and it was the people that made it great.
 
I see UPC's point. If you use Finn, Thorgrim, and Eldgrim as meatshield/glyphs then the point differential isn't that fair. But I also see GB's point - that there needs to be some impetus to play the game rather than to sit paralyzed by permutations.

And damja's points idea may be the best idea as a bridge between both school's of thought.
 
I have been known to time out at a fairly frequent pace and I have played players that also time out frequently. In all 21 games I played this weekend, none of the players I played were purposely stalling. I think it is wrong to say that a slower, methodical player is purposely stalling to protect their point advantage. I ask that we look at the same situation with the same players when they are behind or even on points. I think we will find that their style of play was consistent regardless of whether they were winning or losing. Knowing most of the players very well and participating in most of the events, I have to say that the assumption and assertion that a player was exploiting a loophole in the tourney by knowingly stalling when the have the point advantage is a bit of a reach. This is not what I have seen. Those players played at the same pace regardless of whether they were winning or losing; that is proof positive that they were not imploring stalling tactics. Now if a player plays fast when behind and slow when ahead, then I think we have a case. I did not see that at any point and I doubt any player who complained could honestly say that any player in question sped up or slowed down.

There is an element that needs to be considered here and that is the emotional state of a player who has lost because they couldn't make up the points. One's perception of the situation is clouded by the frustration or emotion of losing. I have been on both sides of this issue and I can say with the utmost confidence I have never encountered a player that was speeding up or slowing down based on their spot in the game.

We are scapers; we are better than that.
 
It is not about your perceptions of things as much as others. When folks start to complain about something that previously brought no complaints then it is worth exploring. Somebody who runs the clock out every single game will get complaints and many folks will perceive them as stallers. Especially if they have eaten up much more time than the other player. If you sit down to the table, and you only get 20 minutes of playtime, because your opponent used much more time and got 40 minutes, then he has an unfair and excessively indulgent advantage. We do not want to then make matters worse by rewarding that player on top of his excesses.
 
The other side of this coin is that point differential creates incentive to not concede a game thus making it take longer to finish it or taking it to time.

In a straight up Swiss tournament, a player with 6 rats versus a full health Charos may well concede or at least attack Charos. In a point differential tournament, a player might feel the need to protect those 80 points even though they are going to lose. They run those rats away to hide so that the point differential isn't as large. This actually creates a situation where a game that probably would have been called or ended quicker doesn’t because they are protecting points for the overall tournament. Now that player is playing to an element that has nothing to do with the game they are in yet the game is being prolonged because of it. The player has clearly lost, and in no way can win, yet they are still playing a game and turtling their last few cards to protect 80 points because they may feel they need later in the tournament to make the cut off.

Is that a good thing? I think not
 
Rychean said:
The other side of this coin is that point differential creates incentive to not concede a game thus making it take longer to finish it or taking it to time.

In a straight up Swiss tournament, a player with 6 rats versus a full health Charos may well concede or at least attack Charos. In a point differential tournament, a player might feel the need to protect those 80 points even though they are going to lose. They run those rats away to hide so that the point differential isn't as large. This actually creates a situation where a game that probably would have been called or ended quicker doesn’t because they are protecting points for the overall tournament. Now that player is playing to an element that has nothing to do with the game they are in yet the game is being prolonged because of it. The player has clearly lost, and in no way can win, yet they are still playing a game and turtling their last few cards to protect 80 points because they may feel they need later in the tournament to make the cut off.

Is that a good thing? I think not
Yes but would the rat guy be considered a poor sport? Remember point differential does nothing but break ties....JUST TIES.
 
Revdyer said:
... if everyone knows in advance that that is the way things are going to be, they can practice and adjust their style of play accordingly. The only legitimate complaint was that circumstances this year did not allow people to know ahead of time.

This completely supports my stance. If it was a specialized tournament, (Big 'Ol Monster, Heat of Battle, etc.) then, yes, people would need to know the "adjusted" rules beforehand. But to limit a style of play for a regular Classic Heroscape tournament via scoring system, or any other means, is absurd. Why should someone have to adjust their style if they are in fact playing within the rules of the game, much less the Gentleman's rules of the game?

I do completely understand the irritation of playing against someone employing stalling tactics. Heck, I get irritated sometimes playing people who are just plan slow, but that is my own Pet Peeve to deal with :lol: ) I agree that if turtling/stalling is a problem that has been brought to light, it certainly needs to be addressed, but I completely disagree with the means of limiting it (Point Differential). I also agree that the notion of Keep It Simple, Stupid should be applied whenever and wherever possible, but I think that there has got to be a better way to limit stalling than to punish other people's playing styles.

I definitely see the quandry, but I don't know how to fix it. I just think the answer is being searched for in the wrong direction...
 
Grungebob said:
Rychean said:
The other side of this coin is that point differential creates incentive to not concede a game thus making it take longer to finish it or taking it to time.

In a straight up Swiss tournament, a player with 6 rats versus a full health Charos may well concede or at least attack Charos. In a point differential tournament, a player might feel the need to protect those 80 points even though they are going to lose. They run those rats away to hide so that the point differential isn't as large. This actually creates a situation where a game that probably would have been called or ended quicker doesn’t because they are protecting points for the overall tournament. Now that player is playing to an element that has nothing to do with the game they are in yet the game is being prolonged because of it. The player has clearly lost, and in no way can win, yet they are still playing a game and turtling their last few cards to protect 80 points because they may feel they need later in the tournament to make the cut off.

Is that a good thing? I think not
Yes but would the rat guy be considered a poor sport? Remember point differential does nothing but break ties....JUST TIES.
I think my point is being missed. It breaks ties in the game it also breaks ranking ties in the tournament. From what I saw, some points were very close.

Protecting those points might be in poor form and that player would probably be considered a bad sport; I agree. My point is that using the point differential creates an incentive for a person who can not possibly win to keep a game alive to protect some points in the overall tournament. Those points could create quite a difference in their ranking. I certainly could not fault a player who has only one loss coming in the last game for running his stuff off to hide so that his points don't fall as much. Bad form? Sure, but the tourney is set up that way. Swiss does not create that incentive.
 
Rychean said:
Grungebob said:
Rychean said:
The other side of this coin is that point differential creates incentive to not concede a game thus making it take longer to finish it or taking it to time.

In a straight up Swiss tournament, a player with 6 rats versus a full health Charos may well concede or at least attack Charos. In a point differential tournament, a player might feel the need to protect those 80 points even though they are going to lose. They run those rats away to hide so that the point differential isn't as large. This actually creates a situation where a game that probably would have been called or ended quicker doesn’t because they are protecting points for the overall tournament. Now that player is playing to an element that has nothing to do with the game they are in yet the game is being prolonged because of it. The player has clearly lost, and in no way can win, yet they are still playing a game and turtling their last few cards to protect 80 points because they may feel they need later in the tournament to make the cut off.

Is that a good thing? I think not
Yes but would the rat guy be considered a poor sport? Remember point differential does nothing but break ties....JUST TIES.
I think my point is being missed. It breaks ties in the game and it does affect the players rank in the tournament. From what I saw, some points were very close.

Protecting those points might be in poor form and that player would probably be considered a bad sport; I agree. My point is that using the point differential creates an incentive for a person who can not possibly win to keep a game alive to protect some points in the overall tournament; Swiss does not create that incentive.
Let's just make sure we are understanding PD here. PD rewards more decisive victories. It doesn't punish anybody. Two players who are equally ranked will be compared to each other by how decisive their games were. The player who defeated his opponents more thoroughly each time ranks higher than the player who only manages to beat his opponent by a tiny margin.... Correct?
 
Grungebob said:
Let's just make sure we are understanding PD here. PD rewards more decisive victories. It doesn't punish anybody. Two players who are equally ranked will be compared to each other by how decisive their games were. The player who defeated his opponents more thoroughly each time ranks higher than the player who only manages to beat his opponent by a tiny margin.... Correct?

FunRun said:
1. In the first round some players ended up with +500 points because they got a random draw against a very weak army or player, and the loser starts out with -500. These extremes severaly tip the balance of who plays who for at least the next few rounds. Swiss doesn't start allow for such extremes.

It may not happen that often, but it certainly will happen. What it you end up with an identical record of someone who you never got to play during the tournament and they spent the first one or two rounds or the tournament playing much weaker opponents? The first few round's Strength of Schedule is not taken into affect.

[comical aside]Does this remind anyone else of College Football Rankings? :lol: [/comical aside]
 
Back
Top