Season 1: 'Official' Tourney Pyramid

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: Rannug61

Ok, but I rather not see a lot of uberdiplo... you can beat me anyway. I think there shouldn't be any diplo on majors nations or max one chit per nation to be used. I'll start the game tomorrow.

Don't worry, I have a strat in mind but its not diplo based. [:'(]

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: nnason

All,
What does everyone think of the Elo Rating System?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

For our next tournament.

That's a good idea. For the players its not as restrictive as the whole pyramid floor business. Would you have to do the math yourself or are there elo calculator out there? [:)]

[MrLongleg]

ORIGINAL: nnason

All,
What does everyone think of the Elo Rating System?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

For our next tournament.

What is the status of the next tournament? Is this one still active?

[nnason]

All,
I will post draft rules tomorrow for everyone to comment on.
We have two games going right now.
I plan on using the Elo Rating System. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
I plan on allowing more than one game at a time
I plan on some system that rewards players that play both sides against each other.
I Plan on allowing house rules as long as both players agree.

What does everyone think if I apply the Elo system to our last tournament? Or should we start fresh?

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: nnason

All,
I will post draft rules tomorrow for everyone to comment on.
We have two games going right now.
I plan on using the Elo Rating System. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
I plan on allowing more than one game at a time
I plan on some system that rewards players that play both sides against each other.
I Plan on allowing house rules as long as both players agree.

What does everyone think if I apply the Elo system to our last tournament? Or should we start fresh?

Oh, I would love to see what the elo score would have been by the end of first tourney! [:)]

[nnason]

KorutZelva,
If you could send me the complete results in the order of play, I will calculate.

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: nnason

KorutZelva,
If you could send me the complete results in the order of play, I will calculate.

It's all in the first post of the Thread. Game 1 to 30. I think all of them are completed but two.

[LLv34Mika]

ORIGINAL: pjg100

One idea I had is that a challenge has to be two games at same time with each player playing both sides.

That might be a problem for those of us who don't have time for more than one game at a time.
[/quote]

As the one who had the idea of such a ladder system/tournament I'd love to add my thoughts here. Thanx again to KZ and now to you for hosting these things. I just don't have the time... this evening the local lottery could change that

In my first idea of that tournament I thought about the way we used to play in our tennis club. You have that "ladder" (or pyramid... whatever you want) and if the challenger wins the player takes the position of the person who lost. All others (including the loser) move back one position. That way being passive will let you fall back if others challenge players in front of you. I really like that system.

What I like even more is something like an ELO based system. But I think that would be a horrible thing to do. At least I don't have the knowledge to give any input.

The "light" version of that Elo System would be something with points.
EG

Axis wins before 1943 = 10 points (Loser 0)
Axis wins before 1944 = 6 points (Loser 1)
Axis wins at any time = 3 point (Loser 2)
Allies win before 1944 = 10 points (0)
Allies win before 1945 = 6 points (1)
Allies win at any time = 3 point (2)

You might have noticed that there are different years. That's simply because of the starting advantage of the Axis. If someone has a better idea that's fine for me. It was only my first thought.

The big advantage of that system would be that everyone would still like to fight to the last man and last bullet since you can get some points for your score even if you lost. And it would honor player with an aggressive style. If you win faster you get more points. Of course that means more risk. And more [:D]

That system works in normal play and mirror games.

The more I write about that the more I like it

What do you think?

[nnason]

All,
Tentative Rules update:
We have two games going right now.
I plan on using the Elo Rating System. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system. I found a simple system to use here: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/98469/elo-generator. Trying to update this with the results of the last tournament. Would appreciate any comments whether we should start with the ELO results of the last tournament in this tournament.
I plan on allowing more than one game at a time. However, you don't have to play more than one game at a time.
I plan on some system that rewards players that play both sides against each other. The two games can be simultaneous, sequential, skipped after another opponent, or not at all.
I Plan on allowing house rules as long as both players agree.
I like Mika's suggestion of rewarding quick defeats and possibly rewarding longer games (players who stick with it to the bitter end.)

Note the ELO system is continious. So it shows who is at top all the time. So we could keep this going after mods and/or say the additon of the Pacific Theater. We the community just have to agree.

Comments are very much appreciated.

[Sugar]

I don't like the idea of rewarding faster victories, I'm not playing turnbased games for having more stress. There are enough different victory conditions imho, like decisive, major, minor or draw. It also makes no sense forcing players to continue when the decision is already clear.

[Taxman66]

I disagree. The 'lesser' victories can only be achieved by hitting the campaign end date.
I doubt any game that has been played would actually end in anything other than a decisive victory, one way or the other.

I'm not sure how Mika came up with those values, perhaps they could be tweaked a bit.

[MrLongleg]

I think an ELO based system would make a lot of sense. I could also live with the simple Tennis tournament system...

[nnason]

Does having different win/loss values for the different levels of victory make sense.
Example:
Draw is a tie no points or .....
Minor/Tactical worth .50
Major worth .75
Decisive worth 1????


Thoughts?

[Sugar]

Perhaps it would be the easiest way to create a world championship like tourney, with a group stage and folowing k.o. system. The ranking of the first tourney could be used to setup the groups. This way the numbers of games could be limited to 6 (3 during group stage, 3 k.o.), and no difficult calculations had to be made. The sides of each game could be decided by a dice roll. A victory of any kind would be worth 3 points, a loss 0, and a draw 1; the eight best players would proceed to the quarter finale, the best 4 to semi-, and the 2 best to the finale.

[LLv34Mika]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Perhaps it would be the easiest way to create a world championship like tourney, with a group stage and folowing k.o. system. The ranking of the first tourney could be used to setup the groups. This way the numbers of games could be limited to 6 (3 during group stage, 3 k.o.), and no difficult calculations had to be made. The sides of each game could be decided by a dice roll. A victory of any kind would be worth 3 points, a loss 0, and a draw 1; the eight best players would proceed to the quarter finale, the best 4 to semi-, and the 2 best to the finale.

That would require to have all players in our tournament again. I think it will be very unlikely.

To your concerns about "stress". You still play a turn based game and a "fast" victory doesn't mean that you have to do more turns a day/week. That would be stressful. My suggestion only means that ending the game at an earlier point with a victory rewards that player. Just see it as some alternate way of deceisive/tactical/minor victory. Seeing how long someone can surive suits me more I think.

And the values/end dates are just a random shot. I know different systems that reward players/teams for higher victories or for keeping the battle up to score at least a few points. If different values and dates are better for any reason that is ok for me as well. It was just a suggestion.

[Sugar]

Requires a number of players divisable by 4, if there won't be enough for a quarter finale, skip it.

[nnason]

All,
I have calculated the ELO results for the first tournament. There are two games to finish. johanssb vs. Giovann1705 and KZ vs. Rannung61.

I can do second tournament anew or continue with these results. VOTES?????

Sugar 1087.82
KZ 1059.09
Rannung61 1029.55
pig100 1014.89
Sillyflower 1014.89
Hberg 1014.89
roon 1014.44
IrishGuards 1000.11
MrLongLeg 999.66
HamburgerMeat 999.66
Taxman66 999.66
LLv34Mika 985.00
Ironclad 985.00
BPINisBack 984.66
Amadeus 970.00
bullet912 969.89
PJL1973 969.89
Ktonos 969.89
nnason 969.88
YohanTM 969.11

I can see one anomie as Yohan has beaten me. I am 0 to 2 he is 2 to 4.

[BPINisBACK]

YohanTM and me are playing a tournament Game too!!!

[nnason]

BPINisBACK,
You all are in the next round. The one I will run.
Any comments about the tentative rules?

[BPINisBACK]

ORIGINAL: nnason

BPINisBACK,
You all are in the next round. The one I will run.
Any comments about the tentative rules?

Great! Thank you for your quick answer!

Regarding the rules. I like the way you are going (both of you).

I think that the most important thing is to have fun. The game is fun, the players are usually funny guys.

So, the rules must be clear. Then, the ladder, tournament, and such thigs are "interesting" but not the main point.

Of course i want to thank you for your work. The game is more interesting with this system and your work.

Keep going on i think you are goint in the right direction!