PD Tournament 2017 - Options

Compete in a Tournament game hosted on PlayDiplomacy.

PD Tournament 2017 - Options

Postby Carebear » 08 Jan 2017, 08:36

So far, it looks like the tournament structure is winning the event format vote. At the end of the preliminary rounds of PDET 2015, we had a discussion about possible format changes for the next tournament. This thread consolidates issues discussed in that thread plus other things mentioned elsewhere.


Format Goal
I think we want to structure the tournament and the games to appeal to the most players and to the highest ranked players. The 2015 PDET had 78 participants over six rounds and 38 games were played in total. All of the then top ten rated players participated in at least one game, fourteen of the top fifteen, 21 of 25, and 34 of the top 51. A very healthy representation of the site's top players. Once we have established a list of players who in general are interested in participating, it might be better to poll them directly rather than use a forum poll since it would be those players whose opinion would matter the most.


Scoring
Ideally, we want every game to be played like it was standalone with the natural goal of every player being a solo. Unfortunately, tournament games are linked together, however tenuously. Scoring systems have one goal, identifying the best players. Unfortunately, scoring systems tend to suffer from the Observer Effect. Players will sometimes make game decisions based on tournament position and knowledge of the scoring system.

Overall, the scoring system used in PDET 2015 worked well. Those that soloed got on the Gold Board and those that consistently participated in small draws made the top tables too. But, it does not do anything to differentiate those in the draw or discourage settling for a draw.

One of the common methods for differentiating those in a draw and encouraging dynamic play is to use an algorithm that includes center counts. It will make being the 800 lb gorilla on the board mean something. For instance, the soloist who is stopped scores better than the three other players who stopped him in a four-way draw. It will also mean more jockeying for position within a draw and perhaps creating more soloing opportunities.


Game Duration
The PDET 2015 games were ranked with the tournament scoring settled at 1915. I feel this creates dual goals in a game, which is counterproductive to play in my opinion. If the goal is the tournament itself, then we could make the games unranked. But, I believe the majority of players would rather keep the games ranked. Therefore, I recommend removing the artificial deadline and let the final result be used for scoring.


Tournament Rounds
The PDET 2015 had six preliminary rounds plus the finals. The consensus was that while the games were great the length of the tournament was somewhat of a grind. The commonly mentioned solution is to reduce the number of rounds to four, maybe three.

One question I have is whether the burnout was due to the length of the tournament or number of games? The Online Diplomacy Championship at WebDiplomacy only had three rounds, but it had two games per round with the second started two weeks after the first. Maybe using their format maintains the number of high quality games played, while reducing the overall tournament duration with the downside of more intensity.


Time Control
Do we want a standardized time control like 48 hrs/24 hrs/24 hrs or more flexibility for the players involved in a particular game. Understanding that longer time control could mean more game overlap/concurrency.


Standalone Final
One of the things I think would have helped the PDET 2015 Gold final would have been if the tournament placement would have been based standalone on position within the game. I think a similar situation happened with PDVT.
You can have my last supply center, when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Spam Ambassador Wannabe

Officially Sanctioned Site Gadfly (meaning the negative kind of sanction)
User avatar
Carebear
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 04:26
Location: In the fingerhold
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1573)
All-game rating: (1589)
Timezone: GMT+8

Re: PD Tournament 2017 - Options

Postby asudevil » 08 Jan 2017, 18:07

How many people really played in even 4 of the 6 rounds leading up to the championship. I would bet its a pretty small number.

I would keep all the games at either 2/1/1 or 1/1/1...and I think staggering start times for games is probably good...every like 3-4 weeks start a new game.

I think more people want the games ranked...so that they continue to play them to their fullest.
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.
User avatar
asudevil
Premium Member
 
Posts: 16604
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1351)
All-game rating: (1437)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: PD Tournament 2017 - Options

Postby Carebear » 08 Jan 2017, 19:17

asudevil wrote:How many people really played in even 4 of the 6 rounds leading up to the championship. I would bet its a pretty small number.

This would be a good statistic to support the suggestion of reduced rounds that I and others have made! 8-)

Unfortunately, I have gone back to look and it appears that nearly 40% of the formal participants (excluding unnamed substitutes) played in all six rounds and another 10% played in five rounds. SO, just about half the participants played in all or nearly all of the rounds. :( :geek:

This, I think, was a sign of the quality of play/opponents and how well the tournament was run. People came back again and again for good games. I know I played all six rounds to have games in which every player was pretty good. :D

Unfortunately, unless we double up games per round like ODC, I think reduced games is necessary. :?:


asudevil wrote:I would keep all the games at either 2/1/1 or 1/1/1...

Are you stating agreement that all games should be at one time control or just one of these two?

Were I playing (but I might not if TD), my personal preference would probably be for 3/1/1, but I think it is too long for this event. While I play effectively blitz speeds at F2F events, I really appreciate the extra time that 2/1/1 provides over 1/1/1. I feel with different time zones, jobs, and family, one day order phases cuts it pretty close for quality diplomacy. On the other hand, retreats and adjustments in F2F are done without negotiation. How would people feel about reduced negotiations for those phases with 48/12/12?


asudevil wrote:I think staggering start times for games is probably good...every like 3-4 weeks start a new game.

I am not sure I clearly understand your meaning. Were you referencing my OP regarding two games played per round or was it a completely independent statement?

If the latter, that is a good point I had not considered for discussion. My initial thought was to have rounds staggered similarly to the prior tournament, 4-6 weeks I think it was. But, people may be open to more over-lapping and a shorter period between round starts.

If the former, then I was speaking only about the situation of having two games per round and staggering starts of those two games within each round. Then, a shorter period of one or two weeks I think would be necessary, especially if each round starts in 4-6 weeks.


asudevil wrote:I think more people want the games ranked...so that they continue to play them to their fullest.

I agree. However, it was pointed out to me in a PM that might change if we consider opening the event up for cross-site play. If we were able to include and invite the top players from WebDiplomacy, Stabberfou, backstabbr, discord, and/or Spark, then we would have a situation where we would have a tournament that could have solid players with ratings of only 1000. This would impact regular players' rankings in a loss. I personally would not care, but I bet others would. In this situation, site pride might need to substitute ranking for ensuring play to its fullest.
You can have my last supply center, when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Spam Ambassador Wannabe

Officially Sanctioned Site Gadfly (meaning the negative kind of sanction)
User avatar
Carebear
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 04:26
Location: In the fingerhold
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1573)
All-game rating: (1589)
Timezone: GMT+8

Re: PD Tournament 2017 - Options

Postby asudevil » 08 Jan 2017, 20:26

I can't believe its that high of a percentage played in that many of the games.

I was saying it should be a one time control...of one of those. And I know that there is no diplomacy in build/retreat...but 12 hours is hard for real life issues too...Sometimes Im at work for 12 hours so I would miss a turn. And since coms are allowed in build/retreat...you can start talking about the following turn...during the retreat.

I was regarding your 2 games played per round ... but instead just do a rolling start time and every 3-4 weeks start another game. Kinda between the concept of official start times...and the 2 games "on top of each other"

I didn't even THINK about the issue with a bunch of stud guys coming in with a 1000rating...yeah...people who care about their rating may want these unranked so that they aren't taking huge hits from really good players who have terrible fake ratings. But if we don't get a lot of other guys from other sites...its not a sbig of a deal.
User avatar
asudevil
Premium Member
 
Posts: 16604
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1351)
All-game rating: (1437)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: PD Tournament 2017 - Options

Postby Carebear » 08 Jan 2017, 20:47

asudevil wrote:I can't believe its that high of a percentage played in that many of the games.

I know!!! You can sort through the archive yourself to confirm. I cheated a little by using Conq's unofficial standings list. He had 72 players listed, I think six additional players were substitutes without declaring their identities. Of those 72, 28 played in all six rounds, just under 40%. Another 7 played five rounds, just under 10%. So not quite 50%, but close enough for horseshoes, played nearly all rounds. Again, I think it was the opportunity of having a board FULL of solid players and good experiences in prior rounds.


asudevil wrote:I was saying it should be a one time control...of one of those. And I know that there is no diplomacy in build/retreat...but 12 hours is hard for real life issues too...Sometimes Im at work for 12 hours so I would miss a turn. And since coms are allowed in build/retreat...you can start talking about the following turn...during the retreat.

I agree, but people might call me authoritarian or statist. Yeah, I doubt many would like 48/12/12, but I thought maybe to throw it out there to see. If I were TD, I would probably set at 2/1/1.


asudevil wrote:I was regarding your 2 games played per round ... but instead just do a rolling start time and every 3-4 weeks start another game. Kinda between the concept of official start times...and the 2 games "on top of each other"

Hmmm, hadn't really thought about that. Hopefully, WHS will get a couple of behind the scenes things answered and then we can move forward. Finding out people's load threshold will be important. I had another thought with fewer rounds to try and have most games settled before starting the next. That way some reseeding based on results from the prior round could occur in the subsequent round rather than a pure random matching.


asudevil wrote:I didn't even THINK about the issue with a bunch of stud guys coming in with a 1000rating...yeah...people who care about their rating may want these unranked so that they aren't taking huge hits from really good players who have terrible fake ratings. But if we don't get a lot of other guys from other sites...its not a sbig of a deal.

Yeah, gsmx has been shilling for a cross-site event. I like the idea too. It would be a nice way to promote our site. If I were TD and we were allowed to invite players from other sites to participate, I would go out and advertise and send specific invitations to get the best of the best of the best, sir!

Having those players would add complexity to the process. Perhaps if we have an invitational with known qualities from other sites, we could see about a rating accommodation for them to keep the games rated. Say requesting super_dispy to modify their rating to 1500 or something? Do you think something like that would be possible?
You can have my last supply center, when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Spam Ambassador Wannabe

Officially Sanctioned Site Gadfly (meaning the negative kind of sanction)
User avatar
Carebear
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 04:26
Location: In the fingerhold
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1573)
All-game rating: (1589)
Timezone: GMT+8

Re: PD Tournament 2017 - Options

Postby asudevil » 08 Jan 2017, 21:01

Not a clue about adjusting their rating...I doubt he would do it...but I don't know.

And the rolling start time in my mind is easier because there are periods of luls but I find a lot of time the end part of the game is less communicative "usually"...so having a game in beginning, middle and end...would be feasible (IMO)
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.
User avatar
asudevil
Premium Member
 
Posts: 16604
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1351)
All-game rating: (1437)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: PD Tournament 2017 - Options

Postby gsmx » 08 Jan 2017, 22:12

Carebear wrote:
asudevil wrote:I didn't even THINK about the issue with a bunch of stud guys coming in with a 1000rating...yeah...people who care about their rating may want these unranked so that they aren't taking huge hits from really good players who have terrible fake ratings. But if we don't get a lot of other guys from other sites...its not a sbig of a deal.

Yeah, gsmx has been shilling for a cross-site event. I like the idea too. It would be a nice way to promote our site. If I were TD and we were allowed to invite players from other sites to participate, I would go out and advertise and send specific invitations to get the best of the best of the best, sir!

Having those players would add complexity to the process. Perhaps if we have an invitational with known qualities from other sites, we could see about a rating accommodation for them to keep the games rated. Say requesting super_dispy to modify their rating to 1500 or something? Do you think something like that would be possible?

Just to give you some background on my 'shilling', last year there was an Online Diplomacy Championship‎ tournament hosted over at WebDip of which we had 12 of our members participate including me, Conq, Fatmo, Daximus, Jokke, jimbobicus, etc. All the details were here: http://tournaments.webdiplomacy.net/onl ... ampionship. The premise of this tournament was to bring the online community together to introduce high quality match-ups with fresh faces and sprinkle in a little bit of healthy 'which site has the best players' competition. It was hoped this would be an annual-ish tournament that rotates from site to site each year so thought could be fun to throw our hat into the ring as hosts for this time around while giving us a change of pace for this years tournament after two years of the PDET/S. Was hoping to wait until our site modernization was in place to petition for this tournament so we could really show off our site to visitors but as that's been delayed perhaps this may be as good a time as any.

I'm perfectly happy to endorse alternative new ideas for tournaments as well, just feel it would be nice to get something different to keep things fresh.

I do think it may be more practical to finish the polling and make the decision on which tournament you prefer to do though before moving on to polling for options as what's ideal for one is probably different from what's ideal for another, so you're risking this discussion getting overly convoluted if there's not a common vision on what we're talking towards.
The first quality that is needed is audacity.
User avatar
gsmx
 
Posts: 1477
Joined: 22 Aug 2011, 14:50
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 2088
All-game rating: 2424
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: PD Tournament 2017 - Options

Postby Verse9 » 10 Feb 2017, 02:29

Yes and agreed. Please sign me up.
Verse9
Premium Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: 17 Mar 2016, 04:40
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1413
All-game rating: 1429
Timezone: GMT-5


Return to PlayDip Tournaments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest