|
| Thread: Tournament Format - First Draft | |
|
startune
Promising
Adventuring Hero
|
posted September 08, 2005 11:59 PM |
|
|
|
doc8466
Known Hero
Event Coordinator Annapolis MD
|
posted September 09, 2005 02:25 AM |
|
|
Cool! After going over them a few more times, I'll have some feed back for you.
Thanks Jonathan!
|
|
Darkash
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted September 09, 2005 03:41 AM |
|
|
So far, I like what I see. Time limits = thumbs up. Advanced rule useage = thumbs up. More later.
____________
|
|
thefoehammer
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2005 05:49 AM |
|
|
2 questions and/or thoughts.
I am assuming that you do not get the time bonus unless you eliminate your opponent before time runs out. Is that correct?
Running a 2 round, 2.5 hour local event will be tough at some venues. When you account for setup time between rounds and tallying of points you are probably talking about 5 1/2 to 6 hours of total time. Most weeknight events will be limited to having 3 to 3.5 hours to play and even weekend players will be hard-pressed to devote that much time. So since you are tallying points and not playing "elimination" or swiss format you may want to keep intro and local events at one round.
But if it is two rounds, should we be grouping players that did better in round 1 into the same game or use some other method to match people up?
|
|
taraba
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2005 06:05 PM |
|
|
Well, as far as the local rules go, I'd like to see distance penalties and potions of immortality before the native terrain. (I'm sure some day I'll memorize that chart, but right now I that's the rule I like the least.) The reason potions of immortality seem more important is because you can win based on strength and empire, so high lvl heroes become a target to take out the lvl and treasure artifact points.
____________
|
|
taraba
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2005 06:09 PM |
|
|
Oh also, I don't see if there's anything to adjust if one person plays against weak players and scores high vs someone who plays against strong players and wins by a little. Did I miss it?
____________
|
|
doc8466
Known Hero
Event Coordinator Annapolis MD
|
|
posted September 09, 2005 06:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh also, I don't see if there's anything to adjust if one person plays against weak players and scores high vs someone who plays against strong players and wins by a little. Did I miss it?
Are you suggesting that a lower ranking player who beats a higher ranking player gains more than the stated points? If so, that's not a good idea. Too tempting for inappropriate activity with higher ranking players tanking so someone else (a friend) out scores other players in the same tourney.
|
|
TheFoeHammer
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2005 06:42 PM |
|
|
I think he is referring to an ELO system. We use that in LOTR Minis.
More about it can be read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating
Personally I like one just as good as another. In a multiplayer game with no clear victor it gets a little harder to implement ELO since you can't really always say who beat who.
And it doesn't matter what you implement, there is always room for dishonesty. All you can hope to do is minimize it with validation and communication.
|
|
taraba
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2005 12:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you suggesting that a lower ranking player who beats a higher ranking player gains more than the stated points? If so, that's not a good idea. Too tempting for inappropriate activity with higher ranking players tanking so someone else (a friend) out scores other players in the same tourney.
Let's say Players A is the player that plays the first and second round against weak players and scores high. These players are just sitting there and let themselves get killed. Lets say that Player B is the player that plays the first and second round and scores low (but "wins") against strong players. These players end up mixing it up so that after the heated battle everyone is hurting and in a weakened position.
I'm figuring that the two rounds of play won't let Player A and Player B in the same fight due to time and player numbers. How do you compare the two? Sure, Player A has more points than Player B, but is he a better player or just played weak players?
If Player B wins with a few points against Player C and that player goes on to win with 50 points against other players, then doesn't that mean Player B would probably do just as well? Lets say player B then plays against Player D who won with 50 points in his previous round and then Player B wins with a few points again. Now lets assume that Player A played against the opponents of Player C and D (When they won with 50 points) and won with 40 points both times. Just totaling up points it looks like Player A is the winner, but when you look at relative standings of who beat who and by how much, then Player B (with the least amount of points) looks like he's actually the best.
____________
|
|
doc8466
Known Hero
Event Coordinator Annapolis MD
|
|
posted September 11, 2005 02:58 PM |
|
|
Taraba, I see what you're saying, and I agree. This is actually in the same vein as what's become my #1 concern with this style of point system: Is 7 points for being last man standing enough to entice combat and prevent turtling to see who can aquire the most in 30 turns?
My suggestion is award points of combat.
This will be more dificult to track certainly, but if a player is awarded 2 points for each 5 levels of enemies killed, we now have more incentive to play the game as it's meant to be played instead of trying to manipulate the scoring system to simply end up with the most points.
Thoughts?
|
|
doc8466
Known Hero
Event Coordinator Annapolis MD
|
posted September 11, 2005 03:23 PM |
|
|
Can TCs play in their own tournaments?
And what's the minimum number of players that will constitute a "sanctionable" tournament?
|
|
mariners95
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2005 05:43 PM |
|
|
I am thinking
no..
and
2.
But what do I know, I am one of the poor slobs with no cards yet. 
|
|
doc8466
Known Hero
Event Coordinator Annapolis MD
|
|
posted September 14, 2005 06:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
my #1 concern with this style of point system: Is 7 points for being last man standing enough to entice combat and prevent turtling to see who can aquire the most in 30 turns?
My suggestion is award points of combat.
This will be more dificult to track certainly, but if a player is awarded 2 points for each 5 levels of enemies killed, we now have more incentive to play the game as it's meant to be played instead of trying to manipulate the scoring system to simply end up with the most points.
Thoughts?
Jonathan,
Any thought on my idea?
|
|
startune
Promising
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 15, 2005 11:11 PM |
|
|
I really don't want to ask so much accounting from the players or the TC. I am absoarbing all of these suggestions however, and will be posting the second draft soon.
____________
Jonathan Bjork
Director of Games Development
DGA Games
http://www.dgagames.com
|
|
doc8466
Known Hero
Event Coordinator Annapolis MD
|
|
posted September 15, 2005 11:16 PM |
|
|
Good'nuff Jonathan.
What results have you had for point totals for games that get called on turns? Have you tested a "worst case scenario" turtle match? Just curious.
Thanks for taking our suggestions into consideration. I think it shows a lot about what kind of company is producing this game and about the people behind it.
Kudos!
|
|
startune
Promising
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2005 06:37 PM |
|
|
Tornament Format - second draft
Ok, here is the new tournament format. Everything is the same, but you keep track of points by the Starting Alignment of each player. So, a player could be ranked in several of the 6 alignments by the end of the year. This matters for the purposes of National Rankings and Enshrinement (see the PDF).
http://www.dgagames.com/HMM/Art/Heroes_IV.pdf
Jonathan
____________
Jonathan Bjork
Director of Games Development
DGA Games
http://www.dgagames.com
|
|
mandar
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 08, 2005 12:41 AM |
|
|
Only one thing bothers me.
If a champion can start with his own card (higher than level 1), any player facing him, will fail miserably.
In this case, you loose the basic concept of a good CCG game: balance. If that scenario occurs, novice players and other players will stop playing and buying the game.
If a champion has his own card, fine. However, let your opponent have an equal hero when your begin play.
Best,
Mandar.
|
|
startune
Promising
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2005 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Only one thing bothers me.
If a champion can start with his own card (higher than level 1), any player facing him, will fail miserably.
It is true that when faced with a champion, the unranked player is at a disadvantage. This is not an unworkable situation however, since Heroes are relatively fragile in the game. Also, you may purchase such a Hero at a tavern or rescue one from a prison cell...perhaps even one more powerful than the one that the opponent starts with once you get the card. So, if you know that you are playing against a ranked player, it might be wise to make every attempt to include a Hero card from a higher ranked player in your deck to rescue from a prison cell.
A CCG is by nature an unbalanced game, in that one deck may have been made with a better pool of cards altogether than another. The reward of a strategic advantage for the player who has earned such a right through excellence of play can also easily be offset by the tendancy of his opponents to recognize him as the greatest threat and therefore "gang up on him". This is one reason why the tournament games are reccommended to be 3-4 player games, rather than 2 player games so that negotiations can occur.
In short, the combination of making one player easily identifiable as the "greatest threat in the game" and the fragility of Heroes in the system altogether makes this a good addition to the line and actually adds intrigue to the tournament process. Besides, you won't have to worry about it until next year, and with lots of practice, perhaps you yourself will be one of the ranked players!
____________
Jonathan Bjork
Director of Games Development
DGA Games
http://www.dgagames.com
|
|
|
|
