On Tournaments or A Humble Suggestion for GG2017

[LunarSol]

The issue with differential is that it only measures the disparity in player skill, which isn't a great metric for comparing players who didn't face one another directly (which is what a tie breaker is essentially about).  

Ultimately, you're trying to judge power levels of Goku and Frieza by comparing how badly Goku beat Piccolo to how badly Frieza beat Krillin.  Goku just barely won while Frieza exploded Krillin without a fight.  Clearly that means Frieza is stronger than Goku, right?

[Yipikayey]

 

My thinking is that is isn't undermining the competitiveness. You still win if you win 8-2 instead. By being a little friendlier you are more likely to grow the community though and even help another player improve.

First, i am all for growing the community and help each other.

Maybe we see things differently, but i don't find handicapping one self, to be an increase of competitivity, but the oppossite, since you would be downplaying your own skill to alleviate the skill gap. And competition in these kind of games is all about getting a fairest result according to each other's skill. If you downplay your skill, the end result will be skewed, and hence where people who want to measure skill (something completely expected on a tournament imo) may have a problem with it.

This is to say, that how the tournaments are handled is not an easy one, since there are many different things about what different players may expect from a tournament. I had played enough games to know that if i am a newbye on a game, i will go to a tournament with little expectations on how i end up in the rankings, but i expect the swiss system to offer me one or a couple of decent games, while i also get to meet people and a lot of feedback about how to play.

 

[Paddywhack]

 

Do you mean capping the differential, so that (for example) a 10-0 victory and an 8-3 victory would both result in a +5 diff? It's an interesting thought.

I was thinking something similar, though I really don't think there is really a 'good' answer to this. 

What if we were to weight the Strategy first? So that the DIFF in Strategy points is used first (so up to +4) and then use scheme points as a first tie breaker and then down the line as we have it now?

So say a veteran players gets lucky on the first round and smashes a new player 10-0. That would only give him a DIFF of +4. Another player who say won their game 6-5, but scored 3 points more than their opponent on the strategy, would get DIFF +3 and only be down 1 DIFF instead of 9 as in the current system. The Schemes would come in to still break a tie in Strategy points (so another player also scored 4 on strategy, but only scored 3 on schemes would still fall behind the veteran that won 10-0).

This is just a random thought and obviously might affect how the game is played as Strategies become more important for ranking. The Win is still the most important, so you can't completely forget your schemes I think. This might help with those people that manage to get a good pairing on the first turn jumping way ahead of everyone else, but I'm sure someone here will point out a flaw I've missed 

As a note, I'm not saying the system has to be changed at all, but it never hurts to think about new ways to improve the experience for everyone. 

[Kadeton]

 

This is to say, that how the tournaments are handled is not an easy one, since there are many different things about what different players may expect from a tournament.

Yes, I think that's the fundamental point here. If the tournament is to determine who is "the best" (at something like the NOVA or Adepticon with a deep pool of highly competitive players) then you really need (at least) a full set of Swiss pairs where one player emerges unambiguously the winner. If you want your tournament to be a community-building activity (like most small local tournaments) then you need a system that encourages friendly games. That's probably a bit too broad a scope for Gaining Grounds, though it would be nice to include some alternative "softer" formats.

[tomjoad]

 

Yes, I think that's the fundamental point here. If the tournament is to determine who is "the best" (at something like the NOVA or Adepticon with a deep pool of highly competitive players) then you really need (at least) a full set of Swiss pairs where one player emerges unambiguously the winner. If you want your tournament to be a community-building activity (like most small local tournaments) then you need a system that encourages friendly games. That's probably a bit too broad a scope for Gaining Grounds, though it would be nice to include some alternative "softer" formats.

Well this starts getting into how poorly Malifaux (and most minis games) translate into a tournament in the first place, but since we've all decided that tournaments are A Thing, I've opted not to address that here.

[santaclaws01]

 

Well this starts getting into how poorly Malifaux (and most minis games) translate into a tournament in the first place, but since we've all decided that tournaments are A Thing, I've opted not to address that here.

It's the format more than the type of game that is causing the issues. It's harder to get a definitive winner when your tournament is basically an incomplete round robin.

[solkan]

 

Yes, I think that's the fundamental point here. If the tournament is to determine who is "the best" (at something like the NOVA or Adepticon with a deep pool of highly competitive players) then you really need (at least) a full set of Swiss pairs where one player emerges unambiguously the winner. If you want your tournament to be a community-building activity (like most small local tournaments) then you need a system that encourages friendly games. That's probably a bit too broad a scope for Gaining Grounds, though it would be nice to include some alternative "softer" formats.

That's a really strange way to conflate things, especially since the mark of success for a game system at something like Adepticon is when the events get too big to be actual full Swiss pairs.  I don't even want to think how many three round 40k events there are with more than eight players.

But I'm just trying to avoid counting the number of problems with the idea that a single tournament is enough to determine who the best player in attendance was.  When is "Player A and B play a single game against each other, and the sample size of one is enough to determine who the better player is" supposed to be convincing?   

 

[Math Mathonwy]

 

Touche, but the the 20-0 system (same spread as Malifaux's -10 -> 10 VP system, just no negative values) was popular in the Midwest for WHFB for as long as I remember, and I can not think think of a single tourney where that occurred.

 

Obviously they are different game systems, maybe it is more likely to happen in this one. So no worries

Infinity uses VP difference as the main decider (or at least did a while ago, not sure of the current system) and I was in a tournament where the winner of the tournament lost to the guy who came second but the loss was a small one and the winner had completely decimated his two other opponents while the second had won but not with as big a difference. I'm not a fan of that system!

[LunarSol]

 

But I'm just trying to avoid counting the number of problems with the idea that a single tournament is enough to determine who the best player in attendance was.  When is "Player A and B play a single game against each other, and the sample size of one is enough to determine who the better player is" supposed to be convincing?   

 

Best has always meant "that day".  Any given Sunday and all.

[Squirrelich]

 

Infinity uses VP difference as the main decider (or at least did a while ago, not sure of the current system) and I was in a tournament where the winner of the tournament lost to the guy who came second but the loss was a small one and the winner had completely decimated his two other opponents while the second had won but not with as big a difference. I'm not a fan of that system!

This is a scenario that I have also seen. It just doesn't bother me as much, but I certainly understand how it would be upsetting to some (especially the second place player who probably felt robbed)

At this point I cannot think of a argument to put forward that would not be preference based, i.e. not worth all that much to the conversation

*mutters some things while using vague hand wavy movements. Something about luck can decide a game but multiple games show a trend. Or they may have lost the battle, but did better during the war. If I wanted a 'who would beat everyone' tourney I would enter an elimination tourney rather than Swiss
(please note: I don't think any of these comments are valid enough to take seriously. If you disagree, you're probably right to do so)

[Math Mathonwy]

 

At this point I cannot think of a argument to put forward that would not be preference based, i.e. not worth all that much to the conversation

No no, it naturally is preference-based. It's not crazy to like the VP differential system and certainly the Infinity tournament system had its proponents and a lot of tournaments were played under it. Nothing wrong with preferring it! And as long as the system is known in advance the players are free to vote with their feet if they really dislike a certain way of doing things.

[Squirrelich]

 

And as long as the system is known in advance the players are free to vote with their feet if they really dislike a certain way of doing things.

But what if I will/would attend all of these options anyway since I like the game and community?

 

 

[Bengt]

Dropzone Commander's official tournament rules does Swiss based on tournament points (scored on a 0-20 scale derived from VP and killing stuff) rather than win/loss. I've not kept up (and was never super involved in the first place) but as far as I can recall it was common to use a similar system on Swedish 40k tournaments a couple a years ago. I do remember that what kind of composition score to use (or at all) was a much hotter topic than the tournament points themselves on the Swedish 40k related interwebz.  

---

I wouldn't mind attending a Malifaux tournament using either win/loss or diff as the main factor. As long as it's known before the first game it's just another part of the puzzle as far as I'm concerned.

[Math Mathonwy]

 

But what if I will/would attend all of these options anyway since I like the game and community?

 

 

I'm guessing that my "really dislike" should've been something along the lines of "really, really, really dislike"  

[Kadeton]

 

That's a really strange way to conflate things, especially since the mark of success for a game system at something like Adepticon is when the events get too big to be actual full Swiss pairs.  I don't even want to think how many three round 40k events there are with more than eight players.

But I'm just trying to avoid counting the number of problems with the idea that a single tournament is enough to determine who the best player in attendance was.  When is "Player A and B play a single game against each other, and the sample size of one is enough to determine who the better player is" supposed to be convincing? 

Hence my quotation marks around "the best". However ridiculous it might be, a lot of people really do attach that kind of significance to tournament results. That said, I think the outcome of a single game between two people is viscerally more convincing than comparing the scores of two people who never played each other.

[trikk]

 

Infinity uses VP difference as the main decider (or at least did a while ago, not sure of the current system) and I was in a tournament where the winner of the tournament lost to the guy who came second but the loss was a small one and the winner had completely decimated his two other opponents while the second had won but not with as big a difference. I'm not a fan of that system!

I believe Infinity didn`t have Match Points for a long while (3 for win, 1 for draw, 0 for loss) which meant sometimes in a 3 game tournament you could lose round 1 or 2 slightly, get paired with a weaker oponent and jump to 1st. Now I believe they introduces some sort of match points, so it should work.

[MVBrandt]

It's pretty appropriate to have enough rounds in a wld game system to determine a clear winner. At least one person conflated winner with best player. Tournaments establish the best for the weekend, not the best period. Sufficient rounds for attendance improves the fairness grade of the event. 

 

That said, not all local events can do this time wise, and bigger con style events should offer simultaneous alternate formats for people who don't care as much for tourneys. Which generally is how things are handled. 

 

As an aside, vp differential and margin of victory are hobby destroying metrics. They add a requirement to not just win, but also seek to both win big and actively try to crush any opportunity your opponent has to do anything. If I'm sure I'm going to get ten, and i know my opponent can only get 9 at most, we can enjoy the rest of the game. If it's in a tournament where margin matters, I'm going to keep getting ten but also try to crush the life and every single point out of him. This is bad. Don't do this. 

[Squirrelich]

 

As an aside, vp differential and margin of victory are hobby destroying metrics. They add a requirement to not just win, but also seek to both win big and actively try to crush any opportunity your opponent has to do anything. If I'm sure I'm going to get ten, and i know my opponent can only get 9 at most, we can enjoy the rest of the game. If it's in a tournament where margin matters, I'm going to keep getting ten but also try to crush the life and every single point out of him. This is bad. Don't do this. 

So this is a point of view issue, and I just want to make sure both sides are acknowledged.

I play because the constant challenge of puzzle solving that is the game is the largest enjoyment I can get out of a play session. Whether that puzzle is how to 10-5 someone instead of 10-9 them or how to drop their margin of victory from 5 to 1 against me doesn't matter. I would be frustrated and enjoy the game less if an opponent held back on me, if they can crush me I want them to prove it so I have a chance to prove them wrong. Even should Fate (that fun, fickle and frisky lady) decide to give me a bad game there is still an opportunity for me to show how well I can do without her, but only if my opponent stays in the game.

The obvious thing you have to be sure of is your opponent's intent when playing. If the player is new or just looking to chat and drink while playing a game on the side this would lead to a bad experience for them. And I'd rather have an OK game for me and a good game for them then 'try hard' and have a good game for me and a terrible one for them. But I attend tourneys for the often assumed competitive environment so more of the people should be expecting my preferred play style rather than the casual play style we do in one off games.

[MVBrandt]

 

So this is a point of view issue, and I just want to make sure both sides are acknowledged.

I play because the constant challenge of puzzle solving that is the game is the largest enjoyment I can get out of a play session. Whether that puzzle is how to 10-5 someone instead of 10-9 them or how to drop their margin of victory from 5 to 1 against me doesn't matter. I would be frustrated and enjoy the game less if an opponent held back on me, if they can crush me I want them to prove it so I have a chance to prove them wrong. Even should Fate (that fun, fickle and frisky lady) decide to give me a bad game there is still an opportunity for me to show how well I can do without her, but only if my opponent stays in the game.

The obvious thing you have to be sure of is your opponent's intent when playing. If the player is new or just looking to chat and drink while playing a game on the side this would lead to a bad experience for them. And I'd rather have an OK game for me and a good game for them then 'try hard' and have a good game for me and a terrible one for them. But I attend tourneys for the often assumed competitive environment so more of the people should be expecting my preferred play style rather than the casual play style we do in one off games.

The problem is not whether some people will try to solve a problem as perfectly as possible. The problem is when a format mandates you solve it at maximum cost to your opponent. It is antithetical to the fundamental method by which you foster sportsmanship. By limiting the margin of victory to binary and ensuring sufficient rounds, balanced terrain, etc, you maximize the sportsmanship potential in any one game, even though you can't literally force people to be sporting. 

 

A TO should generally seek the optimal environment for his broadest target audience to enjoy their experience, while remembering that optimal doesn't mean perfect. 

[Squirrelich]

 

The problem is not whether some people will try to solve a problem as perfectly as possible. The problem is when a format mandates you solve it at maximum cost to your opponent. It is antithetical to the fundamental method by which you foster sportsmanship. By limiting the margin of victory to binary and ensuring sufficient rounds, balanced terrain, etc, you maximize the sportsmanship potential in any one game, even though you can't literally force people to be sporting.

I would be fine with the binary victory if it would stay undecided until the end of the game session. But as you pointed out earlier there are times where you both know who is going to win well before the game is set to end. I have seen too many people pick up and walk away halfway through a game because it was already decided and there is literally no in game reason to keep playing to feel like binary victory in Malifaux is the best way to create positive sports. I've seen too many people stay engaged in the game (and thus their opponent) in order to lose by one less VP because it still matters to feel that it is the end of sportsmanship. You cannot have sportsmanship without interaction.

But, as always, just an opinion from a single person.
 

 

A TO should generally seek the optimal environment for his broadest target audience to enjoy their experience, while remembering that optimal doesn't mean perfect. 

Yes

[solkan]

As I understand it, the reason why the differential exists is because of the practical situation that scores don't vary widely enough without it.  And multi-way ties don't look nice in the final results.

Differential has the problem that it's essentially a function of the random variable 'How ineffective was your opponent?' which ends up being 'Who did you have for an opponent?'  Strength of Schedule has the same problem of depending entirely on 'Who did you have for an opponent?'  If you reward or penalize the player based on the results of the pairing system, you're rewarding or penalizing them for something they had no control over.  At worst, you've just randomly rigged the results of the tournament instead of influencing player behavior.

It would make a lot more sense, and remove the random pairing bias, if the tie breaker was replaced by a score for something indirectly associated with concentrating on the schemes.  Something like "Number of scheme markers placed during the first five turns of the game (or while the other player still has models in play)", probably capped at some maximum value per turn.  The choice of details pretty much comes down to how strong the desire to penalize one player for wiping out the other player's crew (or otherwise crushing them) is.

If the player actually has the ability to determine their tie breaker score then it becomes effective to say "If you do one of these things which are negative to overall experience, this score is going to be terrible."  That's what a secondary score needs to do in order to influence player behavior.

 

[chryspainthemum]

 

The problem is when a format mandates you solve it at maximum cost to your opponent.

 

Why? If you are playing in a tournament, for any game, then it is understood that the game is WAAC (obviously within the rules of the game). In fact, I would say that if you go to a tournament and are upset about losing by a large differential, it is your fault for not understanding the stakes of the game. And this isn't just Malifaux... if you are playing a game where score is decided by match wins, you want to go 3-0, not 2-1. If you are playing soccer, you don't want to let your opponent score a few points because 'it'll make them feel good'.

 

At the end of the day, it is a game you play with others. If you are playing casually, keep that in mind. If you are playing in a tournament, keep that in mind. If in either case you are getting upset, then imo (as this is all opinion), you need to step back and rethink your hobbies.

[Gnomezilla]

 

. If in either case you are getting upset, then imo (as this is all opinion), you need to step back and rethink your hobbies.

How do you rethink the fact that someone else showed up and did, or didn't, get paired against you?

[Morgs]

Why not settle ties with who has the best painted models?

[LunarSol]

 

As I understand it, the reason why the differential exists is because of the practical situation that scores don't vary widely enough without it.  And multi-way ties don't look nice in the final results.

Differential has the problem that it's essentially a function of the random variable 'How ineffective was your opponent?' which ends up being 'Who did you have for an opponent?'  Strength of Schedule has the same problem of depending entirely on 'Who did you have for an opponent?'  If you reward or penalize the player based on the results of the pairing system, you're rewarding or penalizing them for something they had no control over.  At worst, you've just randomly rigged the results of the tournament instead of influencing player behavior.

It would make a lot more sense, and remove the random pairing bias, if the tie breaker was replaced by a score for something indirectly associated with concentrating on the schemes.  Something like "Number of scheme markers placed during the first five turns of the game (or while the other player still has models in play)", probably capped at some maximum value per turn.  The choice of details pretty much comes down to how strong the desire to penalize one player for wiping out the other player's crew (or otherwise crushing them) is.

If the player actually has the ability to determine their tie breaker score then it becomes effective to say "If you do one of these things which are negative to overall experience, this score is going to be terrible."  That's what a secondary score needs to do in order to influence player behavior.

 

The worst thing a tie breaker or really any tournament rule can do is influence player behavior.  Tournament games shouldn't really be any different than non-tournament games in any regard or they become a poor representation of the ideal of a competition of the game is it primarily exists.  Time is the one almost inescapable caveat there, but even then, timing rules should do their best to ensure the game is played to completion without affecting how the game is played.  (which is why I have a huge issue with the book version of Bodyguard or any "bad in tournaments" scheme).  If nothing else, having significantly different behavior between tournament and non-tournament games can create weird balance problems where models are considered ineffective because of the way they work under the unique tournament rules.

I've always considered tournaments to be the ultimate example of what a casual game can be.  I show up in some random store, get paired against some random opponent, and we play a good, clean, non-contentious game to the best of our ability.  The last thing I want is for the extra rules of the tournament to change my experience with the game so substantially that I have to play pick up games differently to get the right experience.