Organising MP Tournaments

[notyoueither]

Right, guys and gals. Our guiding light has gotten busy, and the first few tourneys have hit a couple of snags. I would be glad to pitch in and help get further tourneys going, but I think we need to agree on a few things.

Big questions.

How long should rounds last? ie, how long do the players have to get things organised and a game played? 1 week? 2 weeks? 10 days?

What happens when a game is not completed on time? Are short extentions desirable if the game has begun? What happens when no contact is established, or one or the other competitors disappears?

If time runs out, and extentions have been pushed to the limit, how should a winner be decided? Who judges that if it is in dispute?

Should the organiser(s) be able to play, and if a dispute emerges in a game that an organiser is playing, who should decide the conflict?

How many people should we have in each tournament? 8, 16, 32? Is the 12 of the 2nd tournament a good way to go?

Any other questions?

These are 'big' questions. Default match rules can be decided in another thread, like one that is going already over here. This is a thread for deciding how we want to organise tourneys, not the specifics of the matches.

What say you?

[BigFree]

I say we let the "Organizer" say what is so.

Let's give people at least 10 days to get a game together. Then we give them 2 weeks to finish it.

If a match cannot be started or come to a completion, then the person who should move on in the match is the one with the "least" problems arranging a time to play and the one that has the "least" amount of trouble setting up to play the next guy. The "organizer" makes this determination through contacting both parties and then making a judgment. If contact cannot be made with both parties, then a sub can be found from an earlier round or from the same round if it is a defeated contestant.

If the game makes it past the 50 turn (1790 BC), and both parties want to continue and both parties are having equal troubles in getting a time set to arrange continued play, then the top score at the end of two weeks is the winner. But, if one party does not show as agreed to or if the person winning in score does not make himself available, then he forfiets his game (He cannot ride the clock until he wins by high score).

The "Organizer" should have final say in all games in all instances no matter what.

That's my "ideas" for now.



Thanks for doing this nye.

[notyoueither]

I must say that I resigned myself to having to accomodate Yankee rabble when I got involved on this site. However, spelling shall never succumb to the raging of the mobs. It will have to suffer my own neglect, which I can assure you is quite lethal.

Oh, and thank you for your response, BF.

[Beta]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I must say that I resigned myself to having to accomodate Yankee rabble when I got involved on this site. However, spelling shall never succumb to the raging of the mobs. It will have to suffer my own neglect, which I can assure you is quite lethal.

How true.

OK - I agree with BF's second rule of scoring games past 1790bc.

But I would think that it would take less than 24 days to get a game in - the 10 plus two weeks. I would be prepared to go with two weeks per round - including organizing time and playing time.

32 players if we can get them. 16 otherwise.

Yes the organizer can play - and the vice-organizer - to be appointed somehow - can rule in disputes in the organizers game.

As to disputes over who was being most 'difficult' in arranging games - it would seem the cases so far have been pretty black and white. ie the one party just didn't show up. I would think that contact should be made within 3 days of the opponents being set and the tourney declared a 'go'.

[Beta]

And oh yes - we need to specify the game format. Simulplay is winning the poll as of now.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by BigFree
If the game makes it past the 50 turn (1790 BC), and both parties want to continue and both parties are having equal troubles in getting a time set to arrange continued play, then the top score at the end of two weeks is the winner. But, if one party does not show as agreed to or if the person winning in score does not make himself available, then he forfiets his game (He cannot ride the clock until he wins by high score).

I actually don't like this one. Anyone on the ISDG team should be able to easily identify why this is a huge problem, since I've posted enough about it there. A player which did very well early on and racked up enough score points and then got his a-- kicked later but still retained some amount of score due to posted score in reality being an AVERAGE of score, could easily claim a victory despite being half or even a quarter of the actual size, power, or wealth of their opponent when the game stopped.

As such, rather than using posted score, you could compare GNP, MFG, population, and other factors that reflect CURRENT game conditions at the time where play stops.

[notyoueither]

Ah good. A little action. I was afraid my jest with BigFree had been misundertood.

As such, rather than using posted score, you could compare GNP, MFG, population, and other factors that reflect CURRENT game conditions at the time where play stops.

That has potential.

Anyone else?

[Fried-Psitalon]

This opens a massive can of worms- what do you value more? Based on what reasoning? If you're going to try and use a "reflective of current standings" method, use victory points. Otherwise we'll be here all day trying to compare the relative value of GNP vs Manufacturing vs Land Area vs Population vs, vs, vs. (Which could be extensively debated - particularly given the government one civ or the other might be operating under - what's more dangerous, a moderate-production/low commerce Feudalism or a low-production/moderate commerce Monarchy? A high commerce Democracy vs a high commerce Fascism/Communism? Blah blah blah...)

Translation: Finish yer games. If we must use a measurement system, use score or victory points. If you're going to try and use "pre-natural" completion methods, that's why we have elimination, to give those that "catch up" late a chance against those who start strong.

[Arnelos]

Personally, I think for MP games, the Civ3 power graph gives a much better indication of, well, power, than "score" does. The problem with posted score is that it's an average. It's possible to track score over time and thus determine the turn-score on the ending turn and I do that with PBEM games, but with MP it would be an absolutely b**ch to handle and would slow down the game.

Frankly, I think just taking a glance at the power graph would give a pretty good indication of who should win the match. If the power graph is too close to tell, then you could use score as a tie-breaker.

[notyoueither]

That could be a good way of doing it. Power is more current, certainly. History would be the tie breaker if close.

What about this idea?

Fill the spots for the tourny by invitation to past participants who kept up their end. Some fewer number of spots on one leg of the tree could be open to new people.

That way the tourneys could move along with byes to some of the newer people who show up, but have less than committed opponent(s). Eventually they meet the vets in the tree. Something like this.

Position
1. vet
2. vet
-
3. vet
4. vet
-
-
5. vet
6. vet
-
7. New player
8. New player

and so on, up to 16 or 32 people.

Does that have merit?

[BigFree]

That sounds good nye. BTW, I forgot about this thread.

Arnelos: How would you compare power scores when there's not a number per se? If its close enough that you can't tell by the graph then how do you tell? Well, if you have a huge power lead over another, I will tell you that your score will also be higher. There's hardly the case where that is not true. If you say that we can use score to determine the winner if the power graphs are to close to tell, and I say that if there';s a large enough diffenerces in the power graph then that difference will reflect in the scores. That said, we should just use scores to determine the winner. You will also note that I put in a stipulation about a person 'coasting' with a high score until turn 50. That person only wins if the other cannot/will not continue the game.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by BigFree
That sounds good nye. BTW, I forgot about this thread.

Arnelos: How would you compare power scores when there's not a number per se? If its close enough that you can't tell by the graph then how do you tell? Well, if you have a huge power lead over another, I will tell you that your score will also be higher. There's hardly the case where that is not true. If you say that we can use score to determine the winner if the power graphs are to close to tell, and I say that if there';s a large enough diffenerces in the power graph then that difference will reflect in the scores. That said, we should just use scores to determine the winner. You will also note that I put in a stipulation about a person 'coasting' with a high score until turn 50. That person only wins if the other cannot/will not continue the game.

You want an example of someone having an enormous power advantage over someone and eventually winning the match against someone with a higher score:

My match with Shogun Gunner that finished Friday night. He had a higher score than me at several points during my advance because he had more culture and thus his borders encompased more terrain. The fact that my military was at least twice the size of his and bearing down to wipe him out was only reflected in the power graph.

Such situations are not uncommon when of two opponents, one builds culture or REXes a few more cities while the other builds more military units to wipe him out.

[MotownDennis]

The power graph is meaningless in determining who will win the game. Just because you have more units at this point in time doesn't mean you will use them effectively.

I'm with Fried - just finish the game.


Mo D

[notyoueither]

Finishing games is important, no doubt, so should we allow 2 weeks per round? And then in the unlikely event that a game not be finished in time... then what?

I like the power idea. It is certainly more up to date information than score is. If power is at all close, then score should still decide it (that would be the majority of cases).

[Snotty]

As harsh as it sounds, perhaps losing both players?

As you say, extensions have killed the other 2. Drastic times call for drastic measures.