Ratings Bash 2?

[geoschmo]

With the completion of the Championship game between Primitive and Rex, (congrats again to Primitive), my thoughts once again return to the planning of the next great tournament adventure. I know there's still a few games left in the Bash Tourney 1, but they are just consolation matches really. The winner has been decided. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

My thoughts for the next one are a little different then the first. How does this sound to everybody?

Open to anybody, but all tourney results will go on the SE4 Ratings run by Slynky.

All participants to get put together in a pool. All players to play 3 games against random opponents out of this pool to qualify for second phase. Top 8 planyers by win/loss ranking compete in a single elimination bracket.

Obvious problem with such a system of course is the possibility of ties in the rankings. We could have some sort of tiebreaker arrangment with head-to-head, and record against common opponents, and strength of opponents (Based on their opponents tourney results). It might be possible we'd still have ties at that point, I am not sure. I'd have to run some numbers. If so I am sure we could figure out some system that would be fair and yet not slow us down too much. I would even consider adding to the final phase bracket as neccesary with the top x number of players getting a first round bye.

The other thought I was having is that the we could limit the empire setup choices. Go with vanilla 100% settings maybe, like the Mediocrity games?

Anyone interested in such an animal?

[Alneyan]

I would be interested in another edition of the Ratings Bash, as I do have to get even after my *Coughs* not that great *Coughs* record in the first edition. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I am not sure about the vanilla Empire setup though. If you would like to greatly reduce the Empire setup choices, perhaps you could consider giving, say, only -2000 racial points (that is, you need to have 2,000 points left when creating your Empire) or PvK Balance Mod. (Or a combination of the two, or...) I do love these tweaks making Empire setup harder rather than (almost) a no-brainer, and so I would prefer to keep the option of having different Empires.

My two mineral cents worth.

[Slynky]

I'm starting to get the idea you like being tourney-meister, Geo... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

Comments:

Not in favor of "Mediocrity" type empire restraints (designing empires, I think, is part of the skill of the opponents, IMO).

Would like to see Chess style tourney (Swiss pairing) of 4 (or 5) rounds. A quick summary for the Google-impaired: Example, 12 players. Ranked by rating. #1 plays #7, #2 plays #8 (etc.). A point (for tourney purposes) awarded to a winner. After the round is done, line up the players as follows: all with one point (according to rating) form a Category then we break that in half (like the first round) and (assuming #1-#6 all won) #1 plays #4, #2 plays #5. And the same goes for the players with 0 points. There are various other rules to use if you would be paired up with someone you have already played and for pairing down. If odd number of players in the tourney, lowest rating gets a bye. The only disadvantage in this is having to wait till the entire round is completed so that pairings can be done for the next round.

I'm in favor of using your Balance mod, that provides a good field to play on (and has shown me that I must have had too many good maps in the past because it seems like I have to play my *** off to win on the map...Joachim being the latest example...not that I've won...I've just been playing my *** off to be competitive http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif ).

Other suggestion:

To help distinguish an all-around expert player, set up some varied rules from round to round (i.e., 0 racial points, full-tech, or must take one of the special races).

[geoschmo]

RE: Varied game rules from round to round. Isn't that sort of what someone else is trying to do with the skills competition. I also toyed with the idea for Survivor. I'm not against the idea in principle, I am just wondering if it's really practical for a big tournement setting. How many different ways of playing are there? How many would you like to see incorporated in the tourney? How many games for each player in each style are a sufficent measure? Would you like to finish the tourney some time before SE5 is released? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

RE: Swiss paring. Wouldn't that require that all players going in have some sort of rating? DO we just stick the unrated players in at 1000 and seed them somewhere in the middle? Or do we seed them at the bottom, below the ranked, but sub 1000 players? Or do we not allow unranked players? Avoinding that mess was what I was going for with the random pool idea for the first phase.

I'd like to get more info about the swiss paring style. I'm not totally clear on it. I'll look it up.

RE: "Mediocrity" empire setup. Ok, maybe that was a bad idea. I like the idea of zero racial points though. I don't know if I want to get into the complication of negative points though. I don't want to have to go through everyone's empire setups with a fine tooth comb. If I can come up with an easy way to do it I might consider it.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I don't want to have to go through everyone's empire setups with a fine tooth comb. If I can come up with an easy way to do it I might consider it. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, if you are looking for what I think you are looking for, give people "x" number of points and just say, "No attribute can ever be below 'average'." Then let the players report any race with words like "non-existant", "reduced", etc...automatic loss.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
RE: Swiss paring. Wouldn't that require that all players going in have some sort of rating? DO we just stick the unrated players in at 1000 and seed them somewhere in the middle? Or do we seed them at the bottom, below the ranked, but sub 1000 players? Or do we not allow unranked players? Avoinding that mess was what I was going for with the random pool idea for the first phase.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Unrated players join tournements all the time in chess (they get a provisional rating which we have already assigned new players). Unranked players--in our situation, those having no games completed yet listed at 1,000--are put at the bottom in alpha order.

Reading about it at the FIDE site can make it look confusing. One aspect of it (chess) we wouldn't need to worry about (that chess tourneys DO need to worry about) is color assignment... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
RE: Varied game rules from round to round. Isn't that sort of what someone else is trying to do with the skills competition. I also toyed with the idea for Survivor. I'm not against the idea in principle, I am just wondering if it's really practical for a big tournement setting. How many different ways of playing are there? How many would you like to see incorporated in the tourney? How many games for each player in each style are a sufficent measure? Would you like to finish the tourney some time before SE5 is released? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I thought the skills competition was one map with small "pitfalls" and problems to solve. Not quite the same thing but perhaps I misunderstood that thread.

How many types are there:

KOTH standard start
3/10 world start
0 racial points (or one of the other settings)
Full-tech start
Must take special race (Religious, Organic, etc.)
Can ONLY take a special race
Can take NO special attributes
Can lower nothing below "average"
Various other settings (e.g., no mines/no stellar manip/no ancient/no intel/no fighters)

To get a bit weirder:

Victory setting of 100 turns, or having twice the points as your opponent
Ships less than 600 MT cannot mount weapons
Full-tech but no warp points at game start

(and, any combination of the above)

[Alneyan]

You could also think of something like "no Ship Construction" (the Light Carrier is your friend), which would be the opposite of "No Fighters". Or along the sames lines, an Anklebiter game, though you might want to lower/remove mines from such a game.

Incidentally, what is the difference between "Must take one special race" and "Can only take a special race" Slynky? Does it mean that in the first case you are allowed to pick more than one? I admit that idea would not cross my mind, unless I have ample time to do two lengthy research paths. Even my research powerhouse would be hard pressed to have effective racial research done before the war happens. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif (Except the Religious technologies I guess, which allows you to skip other technologies such as Psychology, Combat Sensors, and gives you a few other nice bonuses along the way)

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Alneyan:
Incidentally, what is the difference between "Must take one special race" and "Can only take a special race" Slynky? Does it mean that in the first case you are allowed to pick more than one?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"Must take": You can take as many as you can get but ONE of them must be a special race (like Temporal).

"Only take": You must take one special race and you can't take any other special race abilities (like Propulsion, etc.).

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by Slynky:

To help distinguish an all-around expert player, set up some varied rules from round to round (i.e., 0 racial points, full-tech, or must take one of the special races). <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I like that idea right there. That would be neat to see. It would also help in doing as Slynky said, determine who is the best in all areas.

No time, no time, no time! But man, this sounds like it would be alot of fun.

Grrrrr, you can count me in if this happens. I'm starting to dislike you Geo, you make too many fun sounded tourneys! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Alneyan]

Thanks for the answer Slynky, I hadn't thought of these other traits.

(No, this is not a shameless bump, but merely an attempt at luring more people into checking this thread before it falls into oblivion, and... Well...)

[Master Belisarius]

Now most my games finished, I would play.
About settings and tournament format, I have not special preferences.

[ March 20, 2004, 15:50: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

[rextorres]

I wouldn't mind an "IROC" tournament where all players get the same exact setup.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
I wouldn't mind an "IROC" tournament where all players get the same exact setup. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's what I had in mind, but we seem to be in the minority. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by rextorres:
I wouldn't mind an "IROC" tournament where all players get the same exact setup. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's what I had in mind, but we seem to be in the minority. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"IROC" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[Atrocities]

That sounds limiting.

[Baron Grazic]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by rextorres:
I wouldn't mind an "IROC" tournament where all players get the same exact setup. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's what I had in mind, but we seem to be in the minority. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I would agree to that. It would mean that you won because you were the better player, with luck on your side, rather than a poor Empire Designer.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Slynky:
"IROC" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">International Race Of Champions. It's a type of car race. I am not a huge Race fan so I don't know all the ins and outs, but basically IROC is a race where all the cars are exactly, or nearly so, the same. Same style, engine, etc. This is as opposed to your regular profesional care race where you have vehicles form different manufacturers. It's supposed to be a test of skill of the drivers and crews as opposed to which team has teh best designer, or the most money to get the highest tech vehicle.

[ March 22, 2004, 01:44: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Slynky]

Thanks for the explanation, Geo. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I'm not necessarily against this sort of play...which is the reason I suggested an alternative: nothing below average. However, I feel it's a bit, hmmmmm, hypocritcal (kind of a rough word but I couldn't think another one) to readily accept ship design a trait of a good player yet, seemingly, declare empire design ability as something that gives an unfair advantage. I just think that both those traits/abilities contribute to determining a good player. If people want to use vanila empires (perhaps because they wonder sometimes if someone's empire design played an important role in beating them), then why not also require ship designs to be vanila...everyone use a standard set of predetermined ship designs? I don't see much difference (except for the logistics of defining ship designs to use for all the different tech levels...but you, hopefully, get my drift).

[Slynky]

I guess my Last post killed this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif .

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by Slynky:
I guess my Last post killed this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif . <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Really?
Think Geo simply should start the tournament like he did the first tournament: send mails to the people and then, start the tournament with the persons that want (or have the time) to play.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Slynky:
I guess my Last post killed this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif . <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Really?
Think Geo simply should start the tournament like he did the first tournament: send mails to the people and then, start the tournament with the persons that want (or have the time) to play. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, there was such a gap (and no response), I figured my comment ruined interest. Either that or people were busy or somewhat uninterested. All I know is that Geo can usually put together a good tournement with good interest and I'd surely wager my points in one. So, naturally, I assumed I somehow disaffected it.

[Asmala]

The tournament idea is interesting but I'm not sure if I've enough time.