I just wanted to push out some clarifications and minor rule changes to OverPower Toronto's tournament rules to be use for future events.
It should be obvious and was never a problem, but decks cannot be changed after a tournament has started.
The tie-break for Swiss Rounds will be based on points. Assuming n rounds of Swiss, you get n+1-c points for a win in the c-th round. So in a 4 round Swiss, 4 points for a win in the first round, 3 points for second round, 2 points for third round, 1 point for fourth round.
This should probably involve further discussion for balance. For now, without tournament software, this is the easiest method on paper.
At the last hand (the hand played after the hand when "last hand" was called), if the ventures are tied, the battle ends in a draw and no further hands are played, Missions ventured return to their piles. Tie-breakers are then applied.
There were some complaints about players taking too long to make a decision. I'm not sure how we are going to address this, some could be: issue warnings for stalling, chess clocking, turn timers, etc.
This is not a shot at anyone. I have not attended any of the tournaments that have been organized for OP, but I was a judge for Upperdeck's VS system card game not too long ago, and have a touch of insight for the organizers/judges.
As a VS judge, we had to be wary of folks taking over 30 seconds to make a decision, and if they took over 1 minute they would get a warning for stalling or "slow play." I am aware that Overpower is a strategic game, as is any other card game, but most players should be able to discern the bulk of what they plan to do moments after they draw their hands. Most players know exactly what they put in their decks, why that card is there, and how they plan to play it even before they sit down at the table. ...but not all do...
For the tie-breaking, I referenced this article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie-breaking_in_Swiss-system_tournaments
The method that I explained above is effectively the Cumulative method.
The other manual I used was from Wizard/DCI (http://www.wizards.com/dci/downloads/TOHndBk_Feb_5_07.pdf).
Honestly, I think 30 minutes is too short of a time limit. I know their are time contraints based on the venue and other factors, but 40-45 minutes has always been the sweetspot in my local tournaments. Ask yoruself how many games actually finished and how many went to tie breaker in Buffalo. Im guessing its around 50-50. I think adding the extra 10-15 minutes would make it more 75-25. You will just have to be super fast organizing between rounds, cut down on unnecessary breaks, ect.
"10 Minutes to Eat Lunch! HURRY UP!"
Dr. Death makes a good point, about deciding Venture being a time eater, but even then, you should be able to discern in less then 2 minutes whether you feel your hand is strong, and what you should be risking.
The only problem with 45 minute matches would be if there are a lot of folks at the event, or in a round robin format. With 20 people and a 45 minute time frame, you are looking at 7.5 hours of play, without breaks, without tie-breakers, without potential slow play, ect, ect. With 30 minute matches, those same 20 players would take 5 hours, again without anything that might prolong a match.
Quote from: Jack on March 25, 2013, 12:57:45 PM
There were some complaints about players taking too long to make a decision. I'm not sure how we are going to address this, some could be: issue warnings for stalling, chess clocking, turn timers, etc.
I'm still so on the fence about this. On one hand, I think a couple extra hands would help. Average deck has 56-64 cards, so 7-8 hands. 5 minutes per hand = 35-40 minutes. Screw power pack.
On the other hand, Dr. Death brings up a good point about the overall event taking way, way too long. Sigh.
As for slow playing, take a cue from poker. Call a clock on them. If a player thinks their opponent is stalling, judge brings over a 1 minute timer. If it expires, they either make an instant decision or its a renege + warning. Too many warnings = forfeit. Give each player a single 1 minute extension for that rare instance where it is an honest brain scratcher.
Part of the problem is getting players to actually call a clock. It is a bit aggressive and a bit of a dick move-- but then again, so is stalling. It's a tough thing to do in what is ostensibly a "casual fun" game.
Time is one of those things that was discussed and we would love to see all the games finish properly. But as you pointed out, we are working with venues that have time constraints that we need to abide by.
Even if we did go for 40-45 minute matches, there will still be that one match that plays out their last hand beyond the limit and pushes our schedule to its limits. When the events draw more people and we outgrow our borrowed spaces from hobby stores, etc., we should be able to rent out spaces and not worry.
Just to put it in perspective, our tournaments in Toronto get about 10 to 15 players, getting a room at a public school, library, or community center is about $150 for the day. That already takes in $10-$15 from each player and gives us almost no margin for the prizes. But, if we were to double the number to 20 to 30 players, the costs are the same and allows us to offer more prizes.
The lunch break we scheduled in for Buffalo was basically a way to catch up on the schedule. We wanted to get things going against at 3PM or so but, given our location, there wasn't many places to get food within a 5-10 minute drive. The other breaks, as seen on the live stream, was because of those matches that went beyond the 40 minutes slotted for the rounds. I'm sure if we put the long matches on the stream it would not have been as noticeable.
Determining rounds will be more efficient when we get/make software to handle it for us. Larry had said he used software to determine the rounds but it still ended up being worked out on a table with our index cards.
---
The clock idea works but only if we have a dedicated judge at events, or at least someone that's just the time/score keeper. I wouldn't want to take away from one of our playing judges games just to officiate another player.
Quote from: Jack on March 25, 2013, 04:36:58 PM
The clock idea works but only if we have a dedicated judge at events, or at least someone that's just the time/score keeper. I wouldn't want to take away from one of our playing judges games just to officiate another player.
The only problem with having someone who's JUST a time/score keeper is incentive for that person to take that role INSTEAD of playing in the tourney that is only bringing in 10-15 people as it is. This is basically going to be an on-going issue, as with all tournaments.
Before this event, I had never played a timed OverPower game before, and it was much different. But I liked it.
I feel that being able to make the call in a reasonable amount of time is what separates the skilled from the unlearned. In many cases, I rushed a play because I didn't want to hold out on my opponent (allow me to note that no one pressured me to make any plays). If I had taken a few minutes to think or count and make a more calculated play, I might have had better results (maybe not :) ), but doing that can rob my opponent of their rightful victory, and I wouldn't want someone to do that to me. I've seen near fistfights break out due to stalling at Magic events.
I'm not sure how the chess clock works, but I think you forfeit your turn if you don't make a move in the time allowed by the clock... this could really be good for the sharp players that know their decks and playtested hard before the tournament. I'm a guy that feels reward should be based on merit, and if I can't make the right play in a reasonable amount of time, I either throw an attack, for better or worse, or give up priority to my opponent, who gets to apply more pressure on me. Either way, the battle will likely go to the deserved winner (there's always room for a random lucky break).
On one hand, this clock could give the game a more instinctive feel, kinda like a REAL fight.
On the other, the less experienced players might lose ALL hope of achieving victory, preventing them from coming to future events. Not to mention, you might run into problems when you need to search a deck or draw pile... but if you could stop the clock for these purposes, it would probably be ok.
Chess clock is basically two clocks, one for each player, that counts down from a certain amount, usually half the alloted time for a round.
What happens if a player hasn't made a decision when the time is up?
That's why it's up to discussion. Either trading ventures for more time or straight out forfeit.
I would also like to point out this is not the desired solution. Out of the box chess clocks don't normally have a neutral time (since when playing chess, your turn begins at the end of your opponent's), where OverPower has the draw phase, events, venture calculation, etc. It becomes a huge mess to get it working correct -- and to make sure people use it right.
zip and i were just discussing the idea of using a chess clock
first player to hit 20 minutes loses. no tie-breakers
a few details will need to be hammered out, like when to have it time-neutral, but i think it would be better than the current format. i think tournament overpower is too far from the actual game
get an early lead, and stall to time limit
Quote from: breadmaster on March 25, 2013, 05:33:14 PM
zip and i were just discussing the idea of using a chess clock
first player to hit 20 minutes loses. no tie-breakers
a few details will need to be hammered out, like when to have it time-neutral, but i think it would be better than the current format. i think tournament overpower is too far from the actual game
get an early lead, and stall to time limit
Okay, now I see how the clock works. That way you have your time, and the opponent has theirs.
The clock starts on me. I play my attack, hit the clock... now the clock is on you, so you take your time choosing a defense, then you make an attack and hit the clock... I take my time to defend, then I attack you and hit the clock... and so on.
It might demand alot of attention... anyone ever play with a chess clock?
i've played chess with a chess clock, but not overpower
i think standard clocks can be time-neutral by half-pressing each players button.
times for that would be:
-drawing the cards
-playing/resolving events
-calling a judge for a ruling
-calculating venture
there's sure to be some more
I'm stressing that we shouldn't need to use chess clocks if we can find an alternative solution to the 'stalling' issue.
If people don't play like shitheads, you should be able to do 45 minute rounds with an appropriate number of matches (16 or less people = 4 rounds, 20+ = 5 rounds, 32+ 6 rounds), and most likely be able to play the entire top 8 with no time limits within reason. At the very least, the finals should not have a time limit, but you can still impose warnings for slow play since you need to leave the venue at some point. Your average tournament turnouts should be taking about 6.5 hours altogether, depending on if you have a food break or just leave it to players to get something to eat on their free time between rounds.
Pairings should be automatic and completely inconsequential to how long the event takes to run. Any generic tournament software will take less than 30 seconds to input the results of 10 or so matches and spit out the pairings for round 2. At most, each round should take an hour total to get the pairings, seat, play, and report. If for some reason you didn't have something to run Swiss pairings, a smaller event could easily get by on running a double elimination bracket. You can run those by hand with no effort and it can lead to some exciting Grand Finals matches since the person from the losers bracket needs to win twice. Matches in a bracket can also be played without dedicated start/finish times, since as soon as the next prong of the bracket is set you can immediately start your match regardless of what other players are doing.
It was extremely rare for matches to go to time in tournament play unless someone was deliberately stalling. I attended four Regionals, and I can explicitly remember only one or two matches going to tiebreakers. I'm sure we would all like unlimited time to think out a move, but part of the game is being able to formulate your actions in a reasonable amount of time. The duress of playing under shorter rounds might be making decisions feel even more impacting and thus lead to analysis paralysis, so with 45 min rounds + concerted effort to play at a reasonable pace you should be fine.
Also, it's fine to be deliberate in your play, but you should pick and choose your spots. When you spend 45-60 seconds deciding to block a teamwork followup when you have only one possible way to defend it, you are really eating into your time to go into the think tank in actually appropriate situations. I would have no problem with someone spending a solid three minutes deciding whether or not he should bet for the win on a turn where there were 7+ cards placed, given that the pace of the match up to that point hadn't been absurdly slow.
Poking at the OverPower Tournament Guide, on page 8, the time limits suggested are 30 to 45 minutes. I'm not sure if this includes the "last hand" that is in our rulings. We felt that, with our 25 minute rounds, that the 25+LH will drop into the 30-45 minute range. Likewise the 30 minute rounds we had at Buffalo.
#5 on the page is quite interesting:
Quote from: Number FivePlayers must take their turns in a timely fashion. Whereas taking some time to think through a situation is accepted-able, stalling for time is not. If the Judge feels that a player is stalling to take advantage of a time limit, the Judge may issue a warning, or interpret the stalling as a Declaration of Forfeiture, at their discretion.
.. so there was actually a guideline on how to handle it and we will likely go with something similar.
---
To also add to clarifications:
Forgetting to venture automatically ventures one from the Reserve Missions pile (or if none available, from the Completed) for both players.
I'm much less enthused about the chess clock. It's a completely foreign concept to almost every player. It will require extra through on both players-- never mind to abide by it-- but to actually remember to press it, and to interpret what the countdown means. That's less brain juice to apply to the game itself. There will be so many "forgot to hit time" with it that the countdown will be all but meaningless.
Plus its extra hardware for the tournament director to buy, carry and be responsible for.
We really just need a single clock-- anything that can count down from 60 seconds to 0. An iPhone app would do it. The only time it comes into play is if Player A is stalling. Player B calls the judge and asks for a clock on Player A's decision. Judge starts the clock. At 0 seconds, if no action has been taken, judge takes appropriate action (force player to renege round, game, or tournament).
Chess clocks will over complicate things.
As for Swiss Software, I'm sure there's websites, downloadable software or even apps for that. There's a thread in this very forum that has all the players and matchups for the PB tourny listed. If anyone can find any appropriate software, grab that data. Let us know:
1) How long it takes you to enter the data initially?
2) How long it takes you to enter followup data (results)?
3) Does it give you the same results as the manual method?
3a) Especially for the top 8.
I have software on my phone but no way to export the data. Larry said he had software for it but it wasn't run for some reason.
oh man, i don't think i would have won a game at this tournament..usually i sacrafice venture for KOs...
chess clock is definitely foreign. my feeling is that the current tournament system has strayed too far from actual overpower
the clock should really have zero impact on the games. it simply forces players to not use stalling as a strategy. since there is no tie-breaker, and games should end normally (through completing venture or ko), stalling is no longer a valid strategy
having a judge determine 'stalling' on a judgement call is just asking for trouble. it's my understanding you have 1 minute per play
if i have a minute per decicison, i can take take almost 8 minutes between drawing cards and starting the first round (that's placing 4 cards). now on every turn, i have an additional 2 minutes (1 for my offensive turn, 1 for defense). assuming 3 turns/round, that's another 6 minutes. then another to calculate venture. that's 15 minutes/round, JUST on my half. throw in another couple minutes for opponents actions. if i get an early venture lead, i can get to 'last hand' sometime during round 2, and my opponent will be forced to venture big and give me cards in round 3.
and this is all assuming there's a time-keeper standing over me from the very start of the game
of course this is an extreme example, but i've already seen strategy heading in this direction
Quote from: halcyon1234 on March 26, 2013, 08:41:38 AM
We really just need a single clock-- anything that can count down from 60 seconds to 0. An iPhone app would do it. The only time it comes into play is if Player A is stalling. Player B calls the judge and asks for a clock on Player A's decision. Judge starts the clock. At 0 seconds, if no action has been taken, judge takes appropriate action (force player to renege round, game, or tournament).
Chess clocks will over complicate things.
This is also overcomplicating things, a hard and fast rule doesn't need to be put into place. If you are playing at a reasonable pace, there can be intense moments of long deliberation that are perfectly acceptable. Don't take 4 minutes to place for the turn and you'll be fine on time, regardless of someone needing more than 60 seconds for some actions. Basically just don't play like a dick, and then take time to think when it's appropriate.
For your next tournament ~20 people, I'd suggest 4 or 5 rounds of Swiss with 45 minutes, with a cut to top 8 seeded into a double elimination bracket. Top 8 matches with no time limit (though warnings still given for slow play), matches played as they are available in the bracket advancement. You can do a double elimination bracket by hand quite easily, but if you wanted a digital record of it you can use something like challonge.com
As far as running the pairings on a computer, play around with any generic Google result for Swiss software. Here is a web based one: http://wowtcg.od.ua/mantis/
Took about 30 seconds to type in 18 names, less than 10 seconds total to click the winners and hit next round, and spits out standings each round to let you know how close you are to making top 8. Works fine from a phone browser too, really there should never be any time devoted to the book keeping portion of a tournament, especially on such a small scale. When I worked for a CCG company I used to run 200+ person events, and even with our primitive methods (having players manually report their outcome instead of signing a match slip and dropping it off) we still kept things running smoothly.
Everything sounds good when it's planned but nothing ever goes accordingly.
To criticize a bit, on the 45 minutes: what happens when the timer hits 45:00? Surely the battle can't end at that moment because it might end at one person's advantage. Letting this hand play out will drag it to 50 minutes.
With double elimination, there is an uncertainty with the number of matches to be played.
Having multiple matches going on requires multiple timers, so even if players can get their brackets going while others are still stalling playing, they would need have their own x minutes.
Without naming names of course, how big of an issue was this? I didn't get a chance to view the livestream, but was this just one player? Multiple players? Could it have been new players shaking off the rust or players openly stalling? With a close knit group (to a certain degree), one would think this wouldn't even be an issue.
Quote from: Jack on March 27, 2013, 01:46:41 PM
Everything sounds good when it's planned but nothing ever goes accordingly.
Like I said, I ran huge events (one time using pen and paper even) and we didn't really have any major time issues. Also, this was in a game that (unfortunately) heavily incentivized stalling for a timed win if you were in a bad position. If 19 year old me was handling entire conventions in 2004 using primitive hardware, I'm sure you can manage 18 people playing relatively casual matches for a 50 dollar prize pool.
QuoteTo criticize a bit, on the 45 minutes: what happens when the timer hits 45:00? Surely the battle can't end at that moment because it might end at one person's advantage. Letting this hand play out will drag it to 50 minutes.
This should be a rare occurrence though. The few times it does happen shouldn't delay you that much, you'll just have all the other round results input, sitting there waiting 5 mins for the last hand to end, tap in the result, next pairings are already up, boom. Total round (even with extra time) + pairings for next round + seating/shuffling up for next round is still less than an hour total. But really, you shouldn't be seeing lots of games go to time in 45 minute matches unless a) something fishy is going on, or b) both players have extremely powerpack oriented decks. If you really wanted to discourage slow play, just say any games that go to time are a straight up tie. As it stands, a regular win should be worth 3 points, a timed win should be worth 2 points, and a timed loss should be worth 1 point. This is all nearly academic though, games should not be going to time this much.
QuoteWith double elimination, there is an uncertainty with the number of matches to be played.
Having multiple matches going on requires multiple timers, so even if players can get their brackets going while others are still stalling playing, they would need have their own x minutes.
Don't time the double elimination brackets (though still observe for any unreasonably long stalling). Just have matches play as they become available in a new prong of the bracket. And there aren't an uncertain amount of matches, there would be 4 "rounds" with the grand final match being 2 out of 3 only if the person who emerged from the loser's bracket was able to win the first game. Double elim top 4 goes even quicker and would make more sense for your smaller local events. But for the bigger events like the one you just had, double elim top 8 is the best balance of reasonable speed + competitive fairness. If you had like 30+, I would even suggest 6+ rounds of 45 mins swiss on day one (instead of a side tournament), then run the top 8 double elim brackets on day two (and run the side event then for people who didn't make top 8 ).
Quote from: TGW on March 27, 2013, 02:54:26 PM
Without naming names of course, how big of an issue was this? I didn't get a chance to view the livestream, but was this just one player? Multiple players? Could it have been new players shaking off the rust or players openly stalling? With a close knit group (to a certain degree), one would think this wouldn't even be an issue.
If there was any stalling, it wasn't intentional.
Quote from: Onslaught on March 27, 2013, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Jack on March 27, 2013, 01:46:41 PM
Everything sounds good when it's planned but nothing ever goes accordingly.
Like I said, I ran huge events (one time using pen and paper even) and we didn't really have any major time issues. Also, this was in a game that (unfortunately) heavily incentivized stalling for a timed win if you were in a bad position. If 19 year old me was handling entire conventions in 2004 using primitive hardware, I'm sure you can manage 18 people playing relatively casual matches for a 50 dollar prize pool.
Would there be a difference if I were actively taking part in the tournament as opposed to a dedicated judge/timekeeper/recordkeeper?
Quote from: Onslaught on March 27, 2013, 03:47:02 PM
QuoteTo criticize a bit, on the 45 minutes: what happens when the timer hits 45:00? Surely the battle can't end at that moment because it might end at one person's advantage. Letting this hand play out will drag it to 50 minutes.
This should be a rare occurrence though. The few times it does happen shouldn't delay you that much, you'll just have all the other round results input, sitting there waiting 5 mins for the last hand to end, tap in the result, next pairings are already up, boom. Total round (even with extra time) + pairings for next round + seating/shuffling up for next round is still less than an hour total. But really, you shouldn't be seeing lots of games go to time in 45 minute matches unless a) something fishy is going on, or b) both players have extremely powerpack oriented decks. If you really wanted to discourage slow play, just say any games that go to time are a straight up tie. As it stands, a regular win should be worth 3 points, a timed win should be worth 2 points, and a timed loss should be worth 1 point. This is all nearly academic though, games should not be going to time this much.
I think we had 2 games that went beyond the 45 minute mark even after last hand was called after 30. And I'm just counting games recorded on camera.
Since you're actually playing in the tournament, you can just do previous round results/announce pairings for next round in one sitting. That's a lot cleaner than having people report individually to you. So end of round, call out names to see who won, tap in the 9 or 10 results, hit the button for next round pairing, call them out, done. That's just like two minutes at most of organization, though if you had more people than you usually do I'd suggest just having a basket to put match slips in for you to enter the results at your leisure instead of gathering a big group of people.
QuoteI think we had 2 games that went beyond the 45 minute mark even after last hand was called after 30. And I'm just counting games recorded on camera.
I'll have to analyze the vids when you get a chance to upload them, but that is just people being way too slow. Were these matches with some newer players who didn't fully grasp the rules? I clicked around on some of your previous uploads to try to find examples of appropriate tempo, and this came up in my results:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf8Jh_MOVl8&list=PLa4yIhKxDMwsK_X7wjWWWlJyq8r4NZbNy
From the start of the game to the first venture, nearly four minutes pass. From the time both players have ventured to the very first attack of the game is played, another 70 seconds passes. The first actual play of the game is over 5 minutes into the start of the round. That's way too slow, and the first turn (not a particularly complicated one, just some attacks and blocks) ends around 13 minutes into the game. Thirteen minutes! I'm not saying this is indicative of all your matches, but there are some good examples here of just playing too slow. Aside from taking time to think, it's also possible to just be slow in your actual mechanical gameplay, which adds up over time and takes a lot of minutes away from the match. Talking is fine too, but save the strategy discussion for after the match instead of eating into your gameplay time.
The longest match we had was Dan vs Marcel, at around 50 minutes. Second longest was the final, just under 50 minutes. (The filesizes were a bit deceiving since the new camera produces much smaller files and has better quality.)
I do agree that a software solution helps, though it'll have to be accessible offline since I don't normally have data services in Canada. We use index cards and they sometimes go unfilled by the participants because of oversight. For the Buffalo event, it was Larry who was in charge and I wanted to leave it up to him to manage -- which, not to offence him, was a bit disorganized. BBH and I handle things a bit differently for our tourneys in Toronto.
We'll consider Double Elimination for our bigger (possibly 2-day) competitions. For now, we're hoping to wrap things up in a day and single elimination works fine.
We will consider a stalling penalty; after reading some news from this weekend's big golf tournament, a 1 venture penalty for stalling would be considered.
I don't like to introduce ties for games longer than 35 or 40 minutes because it doesn't work out on the scorechart. I doubt we'll ever see more than 2 tie in our games, and doubtful that they'll both occur in the same round. Both players will end up with the same record (hopefully, because it's swiss) and they'll be paired up again because of the way pairing works.
No chess clocks, too much can go wrong. It also doesn't scale well in terms of $.
I will work on finding/making software solutions for the pairings. I have one such app that I used on my phone and it works pretty well. I never had a chance to use it because I wasn't hosting the past 2 tournaments.