-
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!
- Thread starter Grungebob
- Start date
tokomi
New member
How about this for ties?
All figures are left on the playing field and the cards are flipped onto the basic side and any existing wound/experience markers are ignored.During this time, any figures you control are still in you control. Game play would continue for a round. This will reduce the field to 1 life figures and the winning criteria could be last man standing or most points remaining at the end of the round. Without the master gametext, you may be able to get 2 basic rounds in the same time and declare a winner in the process.
All figures are left on the playing field and the cards are flipped onto the basic side and any existing wound/experience markers are ignored.During this time, any figures you control are still in you control. Game play would continue for a round. This will reduce the field to 1 life figures and the winning criteria could be last man standing or most points remaining at the end of the round. Without the master gametext, you may be able to get 2 basic rounds in the same time and declare a winner in the process.
Vydar
Active member
I just wanted to say that the tournament rules presented on the first post of this thread are excellent. Thank you everyone who contributed! Great job!
The only three modifications I would consider are very minor:
1) I'm a bit confused on the wording for fractional scoring. It is written in terms of "squad members remaining" rather than "squad members killed."
Example: If someone kills 1 of my 4th Mass:
How many points do I get in scoring? 52.5 rounded down to 52. (This example was given.)
My understanding is that this is used for determining the winner of the match and also for RLS scoring, but it begs the question:
How many points does my opponent get for ALS/RLS? 52.5 rounded which way? Up to 53 or down to 52?
I think the answer should be 53, but this should to be spelled out to avoid confusion.
Also, out of curiosity, why was rounding down chosen in the first place? Rounding up seems more standard to me and rounds toward the direction of Whole Card Scoring.
2) Rather than rolling a D20 to break ties, I would first consider if the players had played each other. If so, the winner of that match should be ranked higher. If not, then roll the D20. This probably won't happen much though.
3) It might be good to give a number of rounds that are necessary to make the Swiss format valid. I believe the standard is something like this:
2 players: Play best of 3 matches
3-4 players: Each player plays all of the others.
5-8 players: 3 Rounds are necessary
9-16 players: 4 Rounds are recommended
17-32 players: 5 Rounds are recommended
33-64 players: 5 Rounds and a championship game are recommended
65-128 players: 5 Rounds, a semi-final, and a championship game are recommended
129-256 players: 5 Rounds, a quarter-final, a semi-final, and a championship game are recommended.
(Note: Championship games, semi-final games, and quarter-final games can be replaced by full rounds if you want. Likewise, 4th and 5th rounds can be replaced by championship games and semi-final games.)
The only three modifications I would consider are very minor:
1) I'm a bit confused on the wording for fractional scoring. It is written in terms of "squad members remaining" rather than "squad members killed."
Example: If someone kills 1 of my 4th Mass:
How many points do I get in scoring? 52.5 rounded down to 52. (This example was given.)
My understanding is that this is used for determining the winner of the match and also for RLS scoring, but it begs the question:
How many points does my opponent get for ALS/RLS? 52.5 rounded which way? Up to 53 or down to 52?
I think the answer should be 53, but this should to be spelled out to avoid confusion.
Also, out of curiosity, why was rounding down chosen in the first place? Rounding up seems more standard to me and rounds toward the direction of Whole Card Scoring.
2) Rather than rolling a D20 to break ties, I would first consider if the players had played each other. If so, the winner of that match should be ranked higher. If not, then roll the D20. This probably won't happen much though.
3) It might be good to give a number of rounds that are necessary to make the Swiss format valid. I believe the standard is something like this:
2 players: Play best of 3 matches
3-4 players: Each player plays all of the others.
5-8 players: 3 Rounds are necessary
9-16 players: 4 Rounds are recommended
17-32 players: 5 Rounds are recommended
33-64 players: 5 Rounds and a championship game are recommended
65-128 players: 5 Rounds, a semi-final, and a championship game are recommended
129-256 players: 5 Rounds, a quarter-final, a semi-final, and a championship game are recommended.
(Note: Championship games, semi-final games, and quarter-final games can be replaced by full rounds if you want. Likewise, 4th and 5th rounds can be replaced by championship games and semi-final games.)
Codeman
Well-known member
Vydar said:
I would say anything less than 8 could/should be a round robin format,
8-15 would be at least 3 rounds with maybe a 4th
16 -31 would be at least 4 rounds with maby a 5th
32 - 63 would be at least 5 rounds with maybe a 6th
64 -128 would be at least 6 rounds with maybe a 7th
Rounds to get to one un-defeated player
My personal feeling is 6 or 7 rounds is about the limit for a one day tourney ( keep in mind one hour rounds take longer than an hour as a rule of tumb I would plan atleast 15 / 20 min between rounds - longer as the tourney gets bigger (more people) ).
Vydar
Active member
Codeman said:
I think we're on the same track, but getting different answers. I was shooting for getting down to one undefeated player as well.
If you have 9-16 players, 4 rounds (given the best always win) are necessary to get 1 undefeated player. Let's take the example of 13 players:
1st round: 6 win and 1 gets a win on a bye = 7 winners
2nd round: Winners are matched up and, potentially, 4 of those 7 winners win again (the oddball plays someone that lost.)
3rd round: The top 4 match up against each other leaving 2 undefeated players.
4th round: Necessary to get down to 1 champion.
I understand why now. You are taking in the possibility that the odd winner in round 2 could lose instead of win and then the other odd winner in round 3 could also. Your numbers make sense to me now: 3, possibly 4 rounds. I agree.
It do think it would be tough to do 7 players in round robin (6 rounds?). I'd say anything over 5 should be Swiss to keep the rounds less than 5+. (Note that as I wrote it, 3-4 is actually a round robin.)
Codeman said:
I agree. I would figure that anything over about 5 rounds and a championship round should be a two day affair - and even 6 rounds would be a long day! I was thinking of those massive tournaments where the first day is Swiss and then the top 8 advance to the next day and play a single elimination (or even another Swiss) tournament. On the other hand, if you played very low points (200 points) and only gave 30 minutes per round, you'd be able to get in more.
BTW - I met your son here in St. Augustine and got to play a few times with him about 6 months ago.
Vydar
Active member
A few more comments:
You might want to mention that SoS stands for "Strength of Schedule" (assuming that is what it stands for?). I don't think that is anywhere in the text.
You might note that people should never receive more than 1 bye per tournament.
Why was the number 2 chosen? It seems that a better rule would be either to use your own SoS (just like when you get a bye) or the number of rounds in the tournament divided by 2. I do like the option to use the dropouts win record if it is higher.
You might want to mention that SoS stands for "Strength of Schedule" (assuming that is what it stands for?). I don't think that is anywhere in the text.
You might note that people should never receive more than 1 bye per tournament.
Why was the number 2 chosen? It seems that a better rule would be either to use your own SoS (just like when you get a bye) or the number of rounds in the tournament divided by 2. I do like the option to use the dropouts win record if it is higher.
Using your own record doesn't work for dropouts... Usually a drop out is someone who has a poor record and is losing hope of placing. Having the dropout be caounted as your own record would benefit the person so much that they would be hoping for a dropout to occur. I think that the number 2 is fine as that vast majority of tournaments will play 4-5 rounds. The less fiddly little rules the better, even if it seems superior, it adds complexity that adds time.Vydar said:
Troy Spiral
New member
Neat ideas.
Man Hasbro should SOOOOOOOOOOOOO switch HS from Milton Bradly to Wizards Of the Coast so we can get direct tourney support / prizes / player rankings/ratings.
Wonder who we would have to write letters to and nag into submission to make that happen. *ponders*
Man Hasbro should SOOOOOOOOOOOOO switch HS from Milton Bradly to Wizards Of the Coast so we can get direct tourney support / prizes / player rankings/ratings.
Wonder who we would have to write letters to and nag into submission to make that happen. *ponders*
Vydar said:
Hey Vydar, saw your post today. I see what you mean about the phrasing of the fractional scoring only referring to squad members remaining. That could be clarified as follows:
--
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 unique squads, score the squad proportionally by its figures. Time-Expiration Example: 2 remaining Nakitia Agents would be worth 80 points toward determining the winner. Losing Score Example: In tabulating Losing Score, destroying one Nakita figure is worth 40 pts.
(ii) For a full common squad score full points, and for a partial common squad score the partial squad proportionally as above. Time-Expiration Example: 6 remaining 4TH MASS LINE figures would be worth 70+35 = 105 pts toward determining the winner. Losing Score Example: In tabulating Losing Score, destroying two 4TH MASS LINE figures is worth 35pts.
(iii) For each hero*, score the figure proportionally by its life. Time-Expiration Example: 80 pt / 4 life Thorgrim, if having only 1 life remaining at time-expiration, would be worth 20 points toward determining the winner. Losing Score Example: Inflicting 3 wounds on an enemy Thorgrim is worth 60pts. *Directors may opt to use "Squads-Only Fractional Scoring," awarding full points for heroes regardless of remaining life when determining the winner at time-expiration, and never awarding Losing Score points for merely wounding Heroes, only for destroying them.
(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.
Time-Expiration Example: 2 remaining Krav Maga Agents = 33.33+33.33 = 66.66 = 67 points.
Time- Expiration Example: 3 remaining 4TH MASS = 17.5 + 17.5 + 17.5 = 52.5 = 52 points.
Losing Score Example: 1 destroyed Krav Maga = 33.33 = 33pts.
Losing Score Example: 1 destroyed 4TH MASS = 17.5 = 17pts.
---
Does that clear it up?
As for rounding .5 up or down, something needed to be documented about this minor point, so I made a decision. You're the first person to comment on it. It doesn't matter to me, up or down. I think it is fine like it is, but am not opposed to changing it if that is the consensus - I hereby abstain from that vote/discussion/decision.
If there are no problems with this language, here's the code to edit the first post:
Code:
[b]2. "Fractional Scoring"[/b]
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:
[list](i) For unique squads, score the squad proportionally by its figures. Time-Expiration Example: 2 remaining Nakitia Agents would be worth 80 points toward determining the winner. Losing Score Example: In tabulating Losing Score, destroying one Nakita figure is worth 40 pts.
(ii) For a full common squad score full points, and for a partial common squad score the partial squad proportionally as above. Time-Expiration Example: 6 remaining 4TH MASS LINE figures would be worth 70+35 = 105 pts toward determining the winner. Losing Score Example: In tabulating Losing Score, destroying two 4TH MASS LINE figures is worth 35pts.
(iii) For each hero*, score the figure proportionally by its [b]life[/b]. Time-Expiration Example: 80 pt / 4 life Thorgrim, if having only 1 life remaining at time-expiration, would be worth 20 points toward determining the winner. Losing Score Example: Inflicting 3 wounds on an enemy Thorgrim is worth 60pts. *Directors may opt to use "Squads-Only Fractional Scoring," awarding full points for heroes regardless of remaining life[color=red] when determining the winner at time-expiration, and never awarding Losing Score points for merely wounding Heroes, only for destroying them.
(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.
Time-Expiration Example: 2 remaining Krav Maga Agents = 33.33+33.33 = 66.66 = 67 points.
Time- Expiration Example: 3 remaining 4TH MASS = 17.5 + 17.5 + 17.5 = 52.5 = 52 points.
Losing Score Example: 1 destroyed Krav Maga = 33.33 = 33pts.
Losing Score Example: 1 destroyed 4TH MASS = 17.5 = 17pts.[/list]Score sheets are now available in the downloads secion:
http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?ACT=dl&id=871&symid=881
http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?ACT=dl&id=871&symid=881
FYI, if you like directly to the download, the download software considers you to be stealing from the site. You have to link to the download description.
http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=881
I fixed the link in the first post.
http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=881
I fixed the link in the first post.
Vydar
Active member
Re: Homba's post above
Yes, that covers it very completely. The main one I was concerned about was point (iv), but it is not a bad idea to include all the other examples as well.
If we're going for simplicity, as GB mentioned regarding using a set "2 wins," I think rounding up in all cases for 0.5 would be best since it seems to be the standard (at least that's what I was taught in math class growing up).
(Sorry, for the delayed response. I've been out of town for 2 weeks.)
Yes, that covers it very completely. The main one I was concerned about was point (iv), but it is not a bad idea to include all the other examples as well.
If we're going for simplicity, as GB mentioned regarding using a set "2 wins," I think rounding up in all cases for 0.5 would be best since it seems to be the standard (at least that's what I was taught in math class growing up).
(Sorry, for the delayed response. I've been out of town for 2 weeks.)
Vydar
Active member
For the score sheets, it might be nice to have a section where people write down their army build. NecroBlade posted a sample here:
http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=12475&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=153
http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=12475&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=153
Not that obvious, it is a lot to read. Maybe the form should say "Write army on back"Vydar said:bunjee said:
Heh! Man, if I could only read!
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I hadn't looked at things in almost 2 weeks...maybe I should re-read before posting again.
That's the last thing I want at my tournament.Revdyer said:
I've read the last 5 or so pages of this thread and the first 12 or so.
Anyway, I love the end result that's posted by GB on the first post. The Losing Points concept seems like a perfect "why didn't anyone think of that before" concept. Love it, love it, love it. It makes a great third tier tiebreaker.
I'd like to point out one problem others have mentioned as I see as a major problem -- the find opponents after the tournament and before final tabulations to find their record. That just won't work in many cases -- the bigger the tournament the less likely it will work.
I don't know if TD's usually play in the tournaments that they run or not. But if not, I wouldn't think there would be an issue with taking a census of players during a 50 min. round to tally win-loss records. The larger the tournament, the more likely there will be more "volunteers." I would think that one person could cover 50 people in 50 minutes. If players had their tournament cards on the table, it should take longer than 15 seconds per person.
Just my 2 cents.
Anyway, I love the end result that's posted by GB on the first post. The Losing Points concept seems like a perfect "why didn't anyone think of that before" concept. Love it, love it, love it. It makes a great third tier tiebreaker.
I'd like to point out one problem others have mentioned as I see as a major problem -- the find opponents after the tournament and before final tabulations to find their record. That just won't work in many cases -- the bigger the tournament the less likely it will work.
I don't know if TD's usually play in the tournaments that they run or not. But if not, I wouldn't think there would be an issue with taking a census of players during a 50 min. round to tally win-loss records. The larger the tournament, the more likely there will be more "volunteers." I would think that one person could cover 50 people in 50 minutes. If players had their tournament cards on the table, it should take longer than 15 seconds per person.
Just my 2 cents.
damja
Well-known member
I'm not sure I like the current set up for byes. I think giving yourself the same number of SoS points as wins you have (does this include the bye?) is too much. Getting a win is good enough isn't it?
In the MI tourney I took the bye during the first round making sure that everything was set up and just in case we had some stragglers I could get them started.
Long story short, I did not give any SoS points for byes. I ended up in 5th place (3-1) had I given myself 3 SoS points for the bye I would have been in 3rd. I did not play as well as the two people I would have jumped and one of them is the one that gave me my loss (quite handily).
I suggest that we change this to not give any SoS points for byes - only for actual games you play.
In the MI tourney I took the bye during the first round making sure that everything was set up and just in case we had some stragglers I could get them started.
Long story short, I did not give any SoS points for byes. I ended up in 5th place (3-1) had I given myself 3 SoS points for the bye I would have been in 3rd. I did not play as well as the two people I would have jumped and one of them is the one that gave me my loss (quite handily).
I suggest that we change this to not give any SoS points for byes - only for actual games you play.
This is worth a good discussion. A lot of competitive players feel screwed when they get a bye because they feel as though they have a good chance of winning most games, and would rather play and get the SOS boost. I think giving no SOS score to the bye unfairly punishes a good player. Now here's the deal.... It only really matters on the very first round of the tournament. After that the lowest ranked player will be the one to get the bye. But let's say you have a guy that goes 4-1 and one of his wins is a bye, but he plays the other games aganst some fairly tough players... He could be outranked by another 4-1 player who played weaker competition, but didn't have a bye. There's got to be a better solution.damja said: