Simple PNP Tourney System 1st page updated INPUT!

[bunjee]

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.

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.

In our tournament there were two of us that were willing to "take" the byes so that the other players could get in more games. Because of this, I didn't count the wins in the same way.

I think it often depends on the event intensity. We had a wide variety of experience in our game, including one very inexperienced player. For rules like the Simple tourney system to work, you either need to have very forgiving participants, or everyone has to understand that the tournament also means an expected skill level.

The bye thing is really tough for the first round. If you are playing with a group of people that have been in previous tournaments, you could put the bye on which ever of them ranked lowest before. I would still suggest having an extra map for the bye player to possibly play on with a non-participant or the Tourney director if that person isn't playing.

 

[Riggler]

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.

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.

Does the lowest ranked player always having a bye ever result in the same player sitting out. Say one person and only one person lost their first two games. More likely the smaller the tournament. Since that person would be ranked last for the next round (the 3rd) that person would get a bye. But that person would also get a bye in the 4th and 5th rounds because no one could drop down to a winning percentage of .000 and be lower ranking -- effectively eliminating the person from the tournament after only playing two rounds?
OR would the person who got the first bye have to be matched up in a game during round 4 because he had already played "bye"?


As for an alternative way to calculate what a "bye" is worth on SOS. SOS is calculated by adding together the number of wins all your opponents had. All you have to do is simply divide the number of wins of all your opponents by the number of your opponents.

If you have five opponents, whose wins are 3, 3, 2, 2, 1 then your SOS would be 11/5 == 2.2

If you had a bye and had four opponents whose wins were 3, 3, 2, 1 ,then your SOS would be 9/4 == 2.25

Another example 5 opponetns at 4, 3, 3, 1, 1 would be 12/5 == 2.4
With a bye and four opponents at 4, 2, 2, 1, would be 9/4 == 2.25

 

[damja]

However we are trying to keep things simple. I still like not giving points for a bye, but if we have to give them to appease "good players" what about giving them SoS points equal to the number of rounds played divided by two (rounding .5 down). This is basically the "average" number of wins each person in the tournament has.

 

[Grungebob]

However we are trying to keep things simple. I still like not giving points for a bye, but if we have to give them to appease "good players" what about giving them SoS points equal to the number of rounds played divided by two (rounding .5 down). This is basically the "average" number of wins each person in the tournament has.

Too complex. What if it just was a SOS of 2?

 

[damja]

However we are trying to keep things simple. I still like not giving points for a bye, but if we have to give them to appease "good players" what about giving them SoS points equal to the number of rounds played divided by two (rounding .5 down). This is basically the "average" number of wins each person in the tournament has.

Too complex. What if it just was a SOS of 2?

I don't have a problem with that. Most tourneys don't have more than 5 rounds anyways.

Seems like a good compromise (sp?).

 

[TheMainMan]

What if instead of where the people who got bye's recieved a win, you instead had everyone that had a bye play one final game against each other at the end.
If it was an even number of people, it is easy. If it is an odd number , you would need one person extra that had already completed their tourney to play one extra game.


Just a thought.

-TMM

 

[nyys]

I couldn't find the score sheet in the downloads section. Was it a casualty of the changeover? Wanted to use them for our tourney this weekend.

 

[Shades fan]

I couldn't find the score sheet in the downloads section. Was it a casualty of the changeover? Wanted to use them for our tourney this weekend.

Thats what I am guessing.I am going to need these for my next tournament in July and I am guessing you will nedd these very soon.

 

[Onacara]

I think I have the sheets downloaded on my computer


YES I do have it..nyys I can email it over to you. (PM me you email addy)

FYI-The old links to the download section obviously do not work even if the file is there.

 

[RobertDD]

On fractional scoring:
After playing the Battle at the Border, I realized that just scoring what you have left on the board is not a fair way of scorig the event, unless every table plays the sameamount of rounds. The system heavily favors the slower players, asthey will be less far in the match, and will have more units on the table. Actually, going for an all out win (wiping Ur opponents 500 pts worth of units of the table) is probably a mistake. Your tactic should be: take a unit that is tough (Jandar's Sentinel or something). Fly in. Kill Ur opponents weakest fig, don't get killed Urself. Take 50 minutes thinking about what to do next. You win with 500 points!

I suggest that each player counts what they have on the board, then substracts what their opponent has on the board. That is their score. This goes for theloser, as well as for the winner. Note that the loser will score negative points, but the closer he is in points to his opponent, the less negative it is.

You can then use wins and losses first, and then use points as tie-breakers, or you can just score by points. I think the second option might be even more fair than the first.

 

[Revdyer]

One additional feature we used at the Central Arkansas Tournament was that we provided that the three married couples who were playing and the two sets of brothers who were playing were exempt from having to play each other in the first round. No one objected to this provision and everyone was happy with it, I think.

(Some wanted to be exempt from having to play those whom they considered to be the stronger players, but that dog didn't hunt. <grin>)

 

[Codeman]

One additional feature we used at the Central Arkansas Tournament was that we provided that the three married couples who were playing and the two sets of brothers who were playing were exempt from having to play each other in the first round. No one objected to this provision and everyone was happy with it, I think.

(Some wanted to be exempt from having to play those whom they considered to be the stronger players, but that dog didn't hunt. <grin>)

That is a good feature that people appreciate. We do something similar at the Tree Town Open. We color code the score cards by state or even city/area. The pairings are still random in the first round however if two of the same color card comes up all the TD has to do is grab the next different color to pair up that match.

Most come to tourneys to meet and play new players, and the worst thing that can happen is play someone in the first round that you rode up with or somebody that is in you regular play group.

 

[nyys]

This happened at our tourney (BatB) and I wish I had though of something like that. A couple folks from the Connecticut group that came got paired in the 1st round, which was made worse (though it was out of our hands at that point) by another two from that group getting paired up in the 2nd round.
​

 

[Revdyer]

We color code the score cards by state or even city/area.

Now, here I use your great cards (thanks, again!), but you don't tell me the secret of the color coding! No fair! <grin>

 

[Grungebob]

One additional feature we used at the Central Arkansas Tournament was that we provided that the three married couples who were playing and the two sets of brothers who were playing were exempt from having to play each other in the first round. No one objected to this provision and everyone was happy with it, I think.

(Some wanted to be exempt from having to play those whom they considered to be the stronger players, but that dog didn't hunt. <grin>)

That is a good feature that people appreciate. We do something similar at the Tree Town Open. We color code the score cards by state or even city/area. The pairings are still random in the first round however if two of the same color card comes up all the TD has to do is grab the next different color to pair up that match.

Most come to tourneys to meet and play new players, and the worst thing that can happen is play someone in the first round that you rode up with or somebody that is in you regular play group.

Just another reason why I love your system Codeman!

 

[himsati]

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.

I do apologize if this has been covered already I didn't notice it perusing the 500+ posts in the thread .

I'm wondering about the issue with AE and RB units. Having done some tournament organizing for the hobby industry with CCG's for a while, I'm seeing a potential for a future issue depending on what comes out over time for units from WOTC. Granted I understand that all players should understand the potential risk from taking a "droppable" unit, but at the same time I've got a few things I've been mulling over and wanted to see if this was addressed, not addressed or there were any thoughts on it. Please note that I also understand that these kind of situations are most likely not too common...

Say you have a tourney with 500 point armies. Player A has Airborne Elite (110 pts.) in his army and Player B has Iskra (50 pts.) with the Retchets of Bogdan (50 pts.).

Say in the last round before finals (or just the last round if no finals are being held) Player C (who is a friend of Player A) has the exact same W/L, SOS and Lose Points as Player B. Let's say Player A is a *very* good player, so he decides to simply not use his Airborne Elite and still handily beats poor Player B. Now Player B has been denied the opportunity to even try and get those Losing Points for the AE, which means that Player C may stand quite a chance of getting a higher final standing than Player B (which can affect prizes, chances of being in a final, etc.). Now granted this means that Player A defeated B with a much inferior army but it could be that Player A is just far more experienced than B and based on scoring in the preceding rounds they happened to wind up facing each other. Is this fair to the losing player since it means he is effectively limited on his potential Losing Score. Even if there werent' collusion between A and C, it still limits potential totals for a player.

Flipping that around. Say Player A in the first turn of the first round drops his AE and obliterates Iskra (not an easy feat to accomplish and again is probably an awfully rare event but...). So now Player B is effectively playing a 450-point army (now down a 50-point figure that started on the board) against Player A's 500-point army. So Player A wins because he had a superior army, but that is not reflected anywhere in the tourney system either in ALS or RLS. Again, the loser effectively played the entire tourney round with an inferior army (and again that is a risk that is taken by using the unit and the example here is a bit extreme). Player A has won against a clearly inferior army, but the totals don't really show that at all.

I can see when someone forgets to put a normal figure on the board, their loss. But with the potential for other drop-effects and even for the ability to resurrect characters (figures from a Marro Hive aren't resurrected, they just use destroyed figures to represent newly born ones ... so do you get the points for all the destroyed figures or just the ones on the card when the game ends...), should there not be some kind of tournament mechanic to better handle these kind of units rather than just wholesale dismissing them? I can see where this can really bog down calculations but I'd like to see that players are never encouraged to hold back units or defeated players to get penalized potentially further regardless of whether they or the winning player had the unused unit. Especially if a common droppable squad is ever released.

Okay now that I've written paragraphs of this and my hand hurts I'll shut-up now and eagerly hear what others have to say...

 

[ollie]

Sorry that you've been eagerly awaiting an answer for three months, Himsati! I came by this thread for other reasons (see below) but I'll have a crack at answering your question first.

In many recent tournaments in the North East, "points killed" has been the point-based criterion for both deciding unfinished games and distinguishing between players with the same record. However, points killed is not really a good name for it. Any shortfall of your opponent gets automatically credited to you (so if you play someone that brings a 495pt army to 500pt tournament, you get 5pts for free) and if the Airborne/Rechets don't show up then you get the points for killing them too.

Does that help at all?

I actually came to see if I could find any information on the tournament format guidelines under the proposed DCI system. I know that there are some ongoing negotiations, but I'm curious as to what to expect and how it will affect tournament play. Anyone have any information that they can share?

 

[RobertDD]

Ollie, see this thread here for what I think is the latest news on official tournament guidelines.

 

[ollie]

Ollie, see this thread here for what I think is the latest news on official tournament guidelines.

Thanks RobertDD. I guess I just have to sit back and wait to see what comes out.

 

[Onacara]

FYI...I posted the SSS tournament sheets back in the download section since I have gotten a bunch of requests for them since saying I had them saved to my hard drive.

http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=899

 

[Grungebob]

Ollie, see this thread here for what I think is the latest news on official tournament guidelines.

Thanks RobertDD. I guess I just have to sit back and wait to see what comes out.

If WOTC does follow through with OP support you will see a web published set of rules guidelines that will shape how we run tournaments. These rules will be rather boring to read and mostly list, in black and white, the rules we already mostly adhere to. If anybody has any questions, I am more than happy to answer them right here.

 

[ollie]

Ollie, see this thread here for what I think is the latest news on official tournament guidelines.

Thanks RobertDD. I guess I just have to sit back and wait to see what comes out.

If WOTC does follow through with OP support you will see a web published set of rules guidelines that will shape how we run tournaments. These rules will be rather boring to read and mostly list, in black and white, the rules we already mostly adhere to. If anybody has any questions, I am more than happy to answer them right here.

Thanks GB, that's great. I was initially keen to know how the rating part was going to work. I found the Magic rating system and, assuming ours will be more-or-less the same, it looks good.

A couple of the Magic guidelines for tournaments that I came across are ones that we don't adhere to generally (at least not in the north east recently). The first is TD participation. This is not allowed under the magic rules but is common at tournaments I've played in. The second is sanctioned venues. Our tournaments have tended to be in random private spaces rather than game stores, and I couldn't find out what was involved in sanctioning.

Are we likely to see either of these as conditions for DCIing heroscape tournaments?

I also have a more general query about the boundaries of valid games. Are games like Jumpstart going to count? Sidebars? Marvel? Fractional Scoring? Team play?

I realise you want to keep some things under wraps and might not answer all (or any) of these, but thanks for looking at them, and for all the work your doing getting this in place.

 

[Grungebob]

Ollie, see this thread here for what I think is the latest news on official tournament guidelines.

Thanks RobertDD. I guess I just have to sit back and wait to see what comes out.

If WOTC does follow through with OP support you will see a web published set of rules guidelines that will shape how we run tournaments. These rules will be rather boring to read and mostly list, in black and white, the rules we already mostly adhere to. If anybody has any questions, I am more than happy to answer them right here.

Thanks GB, that's great. I was initially keen to know how the rating part was going to work. I found the Magic rating system and, assuming ours will be more-or-less the same, it looks good.

A couple of the Magic guidelines for tournaments that I came across are ones that we don't adhere to generally (at least not in the north east recently). The first is TD participation. This is not allowed under the magic rules but is common at tournaments I've played in. The second is sanctioned venues. Our tournaments have tended to be in random private spaces rather than game stores, and I couldn't find out what was involved in sanctioning.

Are we likely to see either of these as conditions for DCIing heroscape tournaments?

I also have a more general query about the boundaries of valid games. Are games like Jumpstart going to count? Sidebars? Marvel? Fractional Scoring? Team play?

I realise you want to keep some things under wraps and might not answer all (or any) of these, but thanks for looking at them, and for all the work your doing getting this in place.

Fractional scoring is not covered in the Heroscape rulebook and will not be sanctioned. Sanctioned events either need to be at a location that is sanctioned or conducted by an official with a sanctioned number from what I gather. Marvel is covered, as well as team events and guidelines for some game variants are included. Suggested map parameters will be included as well.

 

[ollie]

The lack of a fractional scoring option is going to be a blow in the north east. I think there is a pretty broad consensus in the area that it's our prefered method. I don't suppose there's any chance of sneaking it in under a victory-conditions-for-a-scenario variant? With that approach it's no more outside the rules than, say, the kill-your-opponent's-highest-points-dragon victory condition of Dragon Wars.

That the TD can be sanctioned rather than the venue sounds good---this appears to address that potential problem entirely, as long as the sanctioning procedure is not too arduous. Any word on whether the TD can compete?

 

[Grungebob]

The lack of a fractional scoring option is going to be a blow in the north east. I think there is a pretty broad consensus in the area that it's our prefered method. I don't suppose there's any chance of sneaking it in under a victory-conditions-for-a-scenario variant? With that approach it's no more outside the rules than, say, the kill-your-opponent's-highest-points-dragon victory condition of Dragon Wars.

That the TD can be sanctioned rather than the venue sounds good---this appears to address that potential problem entirely, as long as the sanctioning procedure is not too arduous. Any word on whether the TD can compete?

At some point I think we would need to disallow TD from competing, but not now while working on building attendance.

Fractional scoring will not likely ever be a part of sanctioned events. The reason is that there are folks who we want to attend events. These folks only know the rules as written in the rulebook. It is unfair to surprise them with all new victory point systems at the time of the event.