So, as I mentioned here (http://www.beenhereandthere.com/SMF/index.php?topic=873.0), we're having a little going-away tournament. We're going to go double-elim, because this is still a card game, and even great decks almost always need more plays to prove themselves! ... anyway... So, we only have 6 players, though, so we'll need to figure out a way to seed the tournament. I came up with two ways, but since I felt like they were fairly unique, I'm actually splitting them into 2 separate topics (the other is here (http://www.beenhereandthere.com/SMF/index.php?topic=875.0)).
This idea takes the basic Round Robin approach, but for the sake of time I wanted to speed it up. With 6 players, we'll have 5 rounds during the RRobin, and that can take awhile, so I decided to limit each game.
When I've hosted Madden Tournaments in the past, this was as simple as adjusting the game clock to have only 2minute quarters (for all the Canucks: quarters are like hockey periods :P). Well, putting a time limit on Overpower felt a little weird, but then I had an idea
- a point system!
So, here's my idea. Each of the 5 Rounds will last 10 minutes. At the end of each Round, every player should get some point(s), even if they lost their head-to-head match up, depending on how well they did in their game. At the end of the 5 rounds, the players will be seeded into the Double Elim Tournament Brackets based on their points accumulated in the Round Robin. Here's how the scoring will work:
2 points for every Opponent who is KO'd, regardless of it happening through Event or their own sacrifice, you get credit for the KO.
2 points for every Completed Mission.
1 point for every Reserve Mission.
0 points for every Defeated Mission.
That was the preliminary scoring idea, but I didn't want anyone draining the clock just because they have a "lead" so I also included this:
20 points flat, if you actually manage a win within the 10 minute limit.
This means if you come as close as possible to winning your game, but come just shy (Opp with 1 character left, and your Missions at 6-1-0), you'll get 19 points, giving any flat-out winners the edge, so there's still incentive to actually go FTW.
I think this option should make the seeding be the most realistic, by giving a more accurate snap-shot of which decks are stronger. Combine that with the fact that the whole set of 5 Rounds will only take 1 hour, and this seems like the best option. It's also convenient that there are 5 rounds and a maximum of 20 points available for each round, giving the decks scores from 1 to 100 :D Having said that, if the group wants to save some time, I think we'll go this route (http://www.beenhereandthere.com/SMF/index.php?topic=875.0).
But, let me know what you think of both! :D
UPDATE:
well fine! I'll post my own feedback :P
After playing it through (see the link at the top for the Tournament results), there were some slight changes I think that should be made. There was a small problem that a person might venture aggressively, trying to get the W before time expires, only to have cards ventured in limbo. A person might have ventured 3 from the top, trying to win quicklyk, only to lose 6 possible points because they weren't actually completed (technically, having just been ventured). We didn't implement this mid-tourney, but in the future it seems like the solution would either be,
allowing all current hands to finish once time expires
or
consider all ventured cards as still being from their original piles.
I personally think the former is the way to go, but it starts to eat up time, I think. If the players know they only have to edge in to the start of that one extra hand, then they can play it out much more slowly. Overall, that's a small concern though, I guess. The other option (simply putting the ventured cards back) seems like it's creating a bit of a "safe mode" where you can venture really agressively in those last few minutes, trying to go FTW, but then if it looks like you're not going to win, you could stall and still get credit for the Ventured missions...
In typing it out, I definitely think the first option is best - or maybe just leave as is and forget about it! afterall, there were enough games that were actually won during the 10 minute period to prove it can be done with good draws and agressive play. That's plenty of proving ground, I think.
Or simply have each ventured mission count for half of the points that the pile it was ventured from count for. No real push there. If you don't finish within the time limit, they don't count for or against, just half. Less likely to edge into an extra hand if their are no time extentions, and there is no downside to the venture. It's just enough of a penalty to make the players wonder if it's worth moving forward at the 9.5 minute mark or not. And since you can't venture from defeated anyways, there's no worry about solving for half of zero.
Example: 1 player has 6 completed and 1 defeated missions as time is drawing to a close. He currently stands at 12 points, and going into another hand doesn't give him any hope of true victory unless they play fast and he CAN win venture. By venturing 2 from the top, he goes from a potential 12 points for that game to a potential 10 points (8 from the 4 completed and 1 each from the 2 ventured) IF he can't win before time is called. It's a calculated risk, instead of points lost/gained.
Quote from: Demacus on June 02, 2012, 12:13:31 PM
Or simply have each ventured mission count for half of the points that the pile it was ventured from count for. No real push there. If you don't finish within the time limit, they don't count for or against, just half. Less likely to edge into an extra hand if their are no time extentions, and there is no downside to the venture. It's just enough of a penalty to make the players wonder if it's worth moving forward at the 9.5 minute mark or not. And since you can't venture from defeated anyways, there's no worry about solving for half of zero.
Example: 1 player has 6 completed and 1 defeated missions as time is drawing to a close. He currently stands at 12 points, and going into another hand doesn't give him any hope of true victory unless they play fast and he CAN win venture. By venturing 2 from the top, he goes from a potential 12 points for that game to a potential 10 points (8 from the 4 completed and 1 each from the 2 ventured) IF he can't win before time is called. It's a calculated risk, instead of points lost/gained.
That's not a bad idea, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought that the system probably doesn't need too much change. I mean, the Round Robin Blitz we used, pretty much predicted the final outcome of the tournament. I think the only exception was the 2/3 spots (swapped). I just really liked the effect of venturing big to try and get that early victory, but having the downside of losing credit... I think if I do it again, I'll leave it as-is, actually...