To All WineCape Tourney Vets

[Redwolf]

Will this tourney be based on unblanced scenarios with Nabla's scoring system?

[Treeburst155]

Seeding

Well, that sure is simple. Thanks, Cogust. I had considered arranging the sections just that way.

It really depends on whether the emphasis of the tourney is to be on determining who really played the best, or on the fun factor. The scoring system is designed to determine performance, especially the way it is implemented in the "regular season". Players were put into sections with the "fun factor" as priority.

The idea behind this is that, within each section, an accurate determination can be made as to who played the best. On top of that, the players will go into the tourney knowing their opponents are roughly of the same skill level. This creates hope (more fun) for the lesser players. They just might be able to win the section!

The playoffs and the final showdown between the final two are just add on features of the tourney to determine who gets the fine wines. Here again there is hope for the lesser players. If they can win their section, and get a couple of upset victories against the uber players they can win the tourney! Of course, chances are the Section One winner will go all the way, but the hope is alive for the others.

Dividing the sections as I have done, without seeding, is definitely not fair to the uber players when it comes to advancing to the finals. The worst uber player could probably win the lowest section with little trouble. If one looks at the section games as the real tourney, and the playoffs as simply an added attraction, this is OK.

If the Uber players were equally divided among the sections they would eventually find themselves playing each other in the "post season" games anyway. I have simply made this happen right away where the best scoring system is in effect. The competition is within the sections. Think of each section as a complete tourney all by itself. The rest is just frosting on the cake for fun.

Several players have commented on their placement. Some players in the uber section are not thrilled that they are placed there. The guys in the other sections are apparently quite happy with their placement. Nobody relishes playing the uber players, not even the other uber players. LOL!

To repeat, the REAL tourney is within the sections where the excellent scoring system is in effect. There are actually going to be eight small tourneys taking place. If you win your section you won your tourney. The playoffs, and possibly the wine, are just the rewards for winning your tourney.

Any arguments in favor of seeding I would love to hear. Try to convince me. I'm very interested.

If you have a definite preference concerning the seeding of the sections please post your preference here. The tourney is for you. Your preferences carry weight. Majority opinion will be the determining factor.

Treeburst155 out.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

OK then, Combined Arms is now in the 48th slot with Uber General, Ari Maenpaa, and Tuomas on the waiting list, in that order.

Let's hear it for CapitalistDogInChina who has sacrificed his tourney fun in order to help Boots & Tracks with the scenarios. You will be missed, CapDog. Your sacrifice is admirable.

Treeburst155 out.

Woo Hoo. Hey, way cool. Thanks CapitalistDogInChina! Shortest waiting-list experience yet! Glad to be joining the party!

[Cogust]

Sounds cool to me, I'm participating in a couple of tournaments using reversed seeding over at Band of Brothers at the moment and it's great fun. The best thing is that it will only get easier when I advance to the play offs.

In one tournament each player begins with 2000pts and are faced with the closest ranked player (#1 plays #2 and so on) and the winner keeps the remnants of his force (probably a lot less than 2000 points by now) for the next round where he's pitted against another closed ranked player. I was originally seeded #2 and it will be great fun to see if I can work my way to the finals with the remnants of my force (I'm currently well below 1000pts for the third round).

[Holien]

Hi TB,

I understand where you are coming from and I am happy to play that way. As has been mentioned I will have won by playing brand new scenarios that have not been played before.

However, as you have asked for opinons then here is my view.

I would prefer random seeding.

By seeding players against their perceived peers it is open to errors of judgement. By trying to seed evenly it is again open to errors of judgement.

Print out the names, cut them up on a bit of paper and draw randomly.

No one can complain (yeah I am an idealist) and it is all down to luck. In reality there will be a spread of players and if not c'est la vie.

H

P.s. I am truly gutted that CDIC has pulled out to design the games and if KF does the same I will cry for weeks..

P.P.S I am not fond of the term "Uber Player" and it seems as if it can be used a derogatory term at times. I am saddened to have gained a label by association with the group I have been placed in. I am a player who gets lucky at times and never see myself as an "Uber Player".

(TB I mean no offence, and I am sorry for getting on the soap box but I have a personal crusade against labeling people and I am a tad touchy on such issues.)

P.P.P.S Tom Way to go....

[ April 22, 2002, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Holien ]

[Enoch]

TB,

Either way you decide to place the players in their groups is fine with me. There are certain advantages to either way. By placing players of equal skill in the same groups you will get some very good games that should be close due to equal skills of the players. However, I do appreciate the occasional opportunity to play against players who are more skilled (I even enjoyed my game against Wreck). So, there is an attraction to placing players into groups based on seedings. By seeding the players you could equally distribue the talent amongst all the groups.

As I said before, either way I'm sure I'll be happy.

[Treeburst155]

Redwolf,

The scenarios will be as balanced as Boots & Tracks want them to be. SuperTed is aware that balance is not an important issue as long as the scenarios are fun for both sides. Keep in mind however that these will be "Official Boots & Tracks Scenarios", more than likely released to the full community. Balance is important for this reason. The stats from our tourney will help them determine balance before the scenarios are released to the general community. They can tweak them, based on our stats.

My guess is that they will make an attempt to present us with balanced scenarios, but I don't think they will go to any great effort to determine balance since we will be doing that for them. SuperTed may correct me here. He knows what will be going on with scenario development. I'm only guessing.

I'm of the opinion that virtually ALL scenarios are unbalanced to a certain degree, even when significant energy has been put into balance.

Treeburst155 out.

[MrSpkr]

I rather like the current seeding. If you randomly spread the so-called "uber players" throughout the group, you will begin dealing with a dropout problem among several weaker players. IIRC, I lost an 89-11 (or so) victory after my opponent got his butt kicked in two earlier scenarios, then just quit and refused to even respond to emails.

In the grouping you have currently chosen, everyone from each skill level has an opportunity to at least make it TO the playoffs. That will make it more fun for them.

BTW, Holien, while I understand your position on "labeling" people, I do not think an honest evaluation of a player's skill level based upon their performance is necessarily wrong. I see it as a way of keeping interest in the tournament based on prior accomplishments. This makes it very different than grouping people by, say, home continent, skin color, member number, etc. Those would be totally arbitrary groupings and I would oppose them on principle if nothing else.

Will the evaluations be perfectly accurate? No, probably not. No evaluation of a competitor's skill level is ever 100% accurate simply due to the nature of human interaction and accomplishment. Look at the "professional" evaluators for the American NCAA college football championship game last January!

However, as a whole, I think Treeburst's current grouping is an acceptable way to handicap this tournament.

Steve

[ April 22, 2002, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Mattias]

I have actually never thought about how seeding works in sports but it seems fairly obvious that there would be some objections among the top ten of any sport if they were always pitted against each other in the beginning of every tournament.

After all, they would keep one another from the big money while lower ranked players would "sail by". There would be a lot of shady business around the ranking and players would intentionally loose matches to get a slightly lower rank, etc.

That being the real world of course, this, on the other hand, being for fun and mutual enjoyment..

Bring em on

M.

[Holien]

I object to the word "Uber" as it has negative meanings. It is a label.

I do not object to grouping by perceived skill.

However, as we are into grouping (not groping) then it is still arbitary as we have no sure fire ranking scheme.

Anyway, whatever, I am just happy to play. You can label me in private as that way I don't read it...

H

[Treeburst155]

Cogust,

That sounds like a very interesting tourney somebody dreamed up. My hearty Congrats to the guy who organized that one. Very interesting indeed.

Holien,

You should be proud to be an "Uber Player". Derogatory? Perhaps, but in a friendly way. It's a lot like being called a "grog" I think. It depends on who says it, and the context in which it is said. Because of this ambiguity I think I will refrain from the term from now on. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I LOVE your idea of random seeding! This throws a roll of the dice into it and turns the simple placement of people into sections a fun event. The announcement of the sections and the subsequent complaining and joking on the thread would be fun for me. It's also somewhat of a compromise between the two other seeding options.

Also, random seeding addresses Enoch's point about it being fun (and educational) to play players of more skill. I agree with him on this.

I'm leaning towards random seeding now. Let me think about it. I want to see what others think about this seeding issue too.

Treeburst155 out.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Mattias:

I have actually never thought about how seeding works in sports but it seems fairly obvious that there would be some objections among the top ten of any sport if they were always pitted against each other in the beginning of every tournament.

After all, they would keep one another from the big money while lower ranked players would "sail by". There would be a lot of shady business around the ranking and players would intentionally loose matches to get a slightly lower rank, etc.

Actually, that hasn't been the case in the American professional football championships, the NBA playoffs, etc.

In Division I (the biggest schools) NCAA college football, the heavy hitters are paired up with other top ten teams in a series of bowl games. In the lower divisions, playoffs between the top ten teams are conducted to determine a championship.

In professional football, back in the early to mid 1990's Dallas and San Francisco were two fo the best teams playing in the NFL. Unfortunately, as they were both in the same conference (NFC), they had to play each other to determine which of the two teams would go to the Superbowl championship game to play the top team in the AFC. Did it hurt the Cowboys or 49ers? Arguably yes, because those two teams were the strongest in football at the time, but both teams had to do it. The winner of the NFC generally went on to win the whole shootin' match in the Superbowl.

As far as players intentionally "throwing games", to my knowledge such events are exceptionally rare in major American professional sports for a variety of reasons, including the will to win, the integrity of the athletes to the game, and the harsh penalties that would accompany such behavior if discovered.

In this instance, that observation about throwing games is completely irrelevant since the groupings were made based upon play in the previous Winecape tournaments. I seriously doubt anyone "threw" one of those tournaments just to have a shot at an easy grouping in this one. Likewise, I doubt anyone will "throw" this tournament just to get a good position in the CM2 tourney (coming in about three years or so).

Steve

[Treeburst155]

MrSpkr brings up a very real issue I hadn't considered. The round robin nature of the tourney, combined with the Nabla scoring system has one severe drawback, drop-outs. As many of you know this can be quite a problem in the later stages of the tourney. Replacements are not so thrilled about filling in when the situation is hopeless; and that is exactly when players disappear. I don't think anyone with a good game or two behind him has ever dropped out. I have recruited a couple replacements who did it soley as a favor to me to keep the tourney going. MickOZ and Kingfish come to mind here.

I will have to consider this issue carefully.

Treeburst155 out.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

I'm leaning towards random seeding now. Let me think about it. I want to see what others think about this seeding issue too.

Okay, here goes . . .

I LOVE your idea of random seeding! This throws a roll of the dice into it and turns the simple placement of people into sections a fun event. It's also somewhat of a compromise between the two other seeding options.

I strongly disagree as to randomly seeding everyone. It is more fun to play with an opportunity to at least win in your division. An otherwise competent player who comes up against, say, Wreck*, Mattias* and ciks* as their first three games probably would not enjoy the experience much, particularly if one of the "gladiators" (say, Mattias*) had three of his games against Dorosh*, Warhammer* and Enoch*. That would all be possible with the random seeding.

Also, random seeding would not prevent one of the stronger players from having a slate of opponents entirely from the top two tiers while another of his peers had a slate from the bottom two tiers. The one with the harder schedule would have a much more difficult time getting into the playoffs simply because of random scheduling.

Also, random seeding addresses Enoch's point about it being fun (and educational) to play players of more skill. I agree with him on this.

True, but not in a tournament setting. Besides, the winners of the lower divisions would have that opportunity in the playoffs (the ostenisble goal of the first round of play). I would be irritated if I had to play Holien*, Fionn* (yes, I know he isn't in the tournament, but bear with me here), Bil H.* and J. Shandorf* while one of my peers (in playing power) got to play Mace*, Speedbump* and Iron Chef Sakai*. They would have a much easier time of accomplishing their goal of winning their division than would I because they would be playing opponents far beneath their level of play while I had to play people above my level of play. That does not seem competitive or enjoyable to me.

As you can see, I have pretty strong feelings about this, too. If it will make people happy to call call the groupings "Divisions 1-4", then by all means, do it, but maintain the divisions by skill level for fairness and enjoyability of players whose skills are not as refined as the top dogs in this tournament.

In closing, I offer this: There is a reason that my alma mater (Phillips University, enrollment of 750 including grad students) did not play baseball or basketball against the University of Oklahoma or Oklahoma State University (each with enrollment of 20,000+) - Phillips did not have the resources or ability to compete effectively against those top tier teams, thus Phillips wanted to avoid being humiliated. Similarly, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State wanted to compete against other top teams to refine their games and had no desire to roll over a little podunk college.

Steve

*No offence was meant to any of the named players - I simply used their names because they were on the list or about whose skills I had some knowledge. Apologies for any offense taken.

[MrSpkr]

Now that I finish that long post, I see that you are reacting to my previous one. I think I will sit back a while and see what develops.

Steve

[Mattias]

First of all, I' m all fun and enjoyment in this respect, was just speculation on the reasons for not grouping top players

And, secondly, I was thinking more along the lines of a Tennis or soccer tournament where all the best players and teams always started in the same section. It could happen of course (like in Sweden's group in the soccer World Championships) but to make it the norm could hardly be a good thing? Again, in the, hard as rock and cold as ice, world..

--

I do see what you mean with regards to the CM:BB tournament, no argument there...

--

M.

[ April 22, 2002, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Wreck]

As Treeburst points out, there is a tradeoff here between quality of the average game played, the accuracy of the resulting rating, and the "fun" factor related to chance to win.

If the uber players play only each other, they get best games since they have the closest opponents. But the resulting information makes it impossible to compare them to others. And they also lose "fun factor", since they know that merely by being placed into the uber section, their chance of making the finals is only 1/10 or 1/5 or whatever. The lesser players *gain* fun-factor. One more thing to mention -- the playoffs then have less good games; we would expect to see more blowouts there as the uber section winner(s) knock out the winners of lesser sections.

On the other hand if the ubers are mixed into other sections, then there is good a-priori reason to think that the games will be worse (more one sided affairs). But the playoffs will be better -- mostly uber players will go. The "fun factor" from chance to win it all is high for the uber players and lower for everyone else.

Anyway, my opinion is that I would prefer the random distribution into sections, which should be more fun for the uber players. I am one, after all, and that means fun for me -- very selfish. But I am pleased to play no matter what, really. The talent spread here is not *that* huge, and luck can play a big role in some scenarios.

But with wine riding on it... nope, I like it random.

BTW as to "uber" it doesn't bother me. We do need some way to label the section with the players that are prejudged as "best". And "uber" works fine for that. Four letters -- nice and short. Perhaps "top"?

[Wreck]

Reading MrSpkr's last post, I realized there is a larger issue before us here. That is, do we use information gained from the results of previous tourneys or not? If so, how?

Random grouping is the simplest way: use no information. It has the advantage of being simple and fair. It has the disadvantage that it does not use any information, which seems wrong from the point of view of generating good games. Also, players who know something of past tourneys can feel left out before it even begins.

On the other hand, using information from previous tourneys has the advantage of making evener matchups, while making the selection of the overall winner much less fair. In the (lack of) system at hand, it also has the disadvantage of being subjective, and the disadvantage that the chance of winning can be strongly affected by the grouping. If the objectively 10th best player somehow gets switched with #11 and therefore gets to be the strongest player in the second section, his chance to win the overall tournament is quite a bit better than if he were the worst player in the uber section.

Using a more ladder-like system, it might be possible to mitigate some of the disadvantages of preseeding. But not all -- fairness (of one sort or another) is always a problem.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Wreck:

If the uber players play only each other, they get best games since they have the closest opponents.

I disagree. To me, a "fun" match is one in which the players are of relatively equal playing skill such that either player has an opportunity to win. I think if you do the random seeding, you will see players currently grouped on the bottom two tiers having very little fun.

But the resulting information makes it impossible to compare them to others.

To some extent that may be true, but not necessarily.

And they also lose "fun factor", since they know that merely by being placed into the uber section, their chance of making the finals is only 1/10 or 1/5 or whatever.

Which means that they will have the same chance of getting into the playoffs as anyone from the other groups do right now. What is wrong with that?

The lesser players *gain* fun-factor.

Of course they do -- that's the whole point. What you appear to be arguing is that the 6 players in the top tier are more entitled to their fun and the opportunity to skate into the playoffs by playing opponents far beneath their abilities than the other 42 players in the other brackets. I strongly disagree.

One more thing to mention -- the playoffs then have less good games; we would expect to see more blowouts there as the uber section winner(s) knock out the winners of lesser sections.

Perhaps, but upsets can happen. And in a tournment playoff with only eight players, if a top tier player loses to a second tier player and merely ties a third tier player, he may very well lose the whole tournament.

Another alternative is to make the playoffs a single elimination tournament bracketed in three rounds as follows: (Nota bene - I strongly prefer this option)

ROUND 1 (Quarterfinals)

Bracket A

#1 winner\

v. . . . . <U>WINNER A</u>

#8 winner/

Bracket B

#3 Winner\

v. . . . . <U>WINNER B</u>

#6 Winner/

Bracket C

#4 Winner\

v. . . . .<U>WINNER C</u>

#5 Winner/

Bracket D

#2 Winner\

v. . . . . <U>WINNER D</u>

#7 Winner/

ROUND 2 (Semi-Finals)

WINNER A\

v. . . . .<U>Finalist 1</u>

WINNER B/

WINNER C\

v. . . . . <U>Finalist 2</u>

WINNER D/

ROUND 3 - CHAMPIONSHIP!

Finalist 1

v. . . . . <u>TOURNAMENT CHAMPION</u>

Finalist 2

This would make the playoff games a bit closer, and would result in a good final championship game. Additionally, given the grouping, it could well result in the winner of the second tier playing the winner in the first tier for the championship - and that would be a fun game to watch.

On the other hand if the ubers are mixed into other sections, then there is good a-priori reason to think that the games will be worse (more one sided affairs). But the playoffs will be better -- mostly uber players will go. The "fun factor" from chance to win it all is high for the uber players and lower for everyone else.

Which is exactly why I think it would be foolish to spread the ubers out - lesser players who might otherwise have enjoyed playing people of relatively equal abilities will become burned out and have a higher likelihood of dropping (and will probably be, as Treeburst indicated, harder to replace).

The talent spread here is not *that* huge, and luck can play a big role in some scenarios.

Seriously, have you ever really played Grog-Dorosh (j/k Michael!)

I think there is a significant gap between people who have been playing for nearly 2 years (or more) and people who picked up the game last summer, as well as a difference between 20+ year wargaming veterans and newbies to the genre. There is also a significant difference between players who play for fun once or twice a week and people who have the time and desire to play several games at once via email everyday (not to mention the TCP/IP CMBO crack addicts out there - you KNOW who you are!).

But with wine riding on it... nope, I like it random.

Aha! The REAL reason appears! I understand your reasoning; however, I simply reject it as being unfair for 87.5% of the players in the tournament

Steve

{edited 'cuz the UBB messed up my original bracket}

[ April 22, 2002, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Treeburst155]

Mr Spkr's latest argument for keeping things as they are is VERY persuasive. I'm leaning back toward no seeding at all.

The scoring system is very good for determining relative performance within a section. When you compare two players from different sections it isn't nearly so good because both played an entirely different set of opponents. Mr. Spkr has touched on this.

Determining performance in the playoffs is also not very accurate due to the fact there will be no well established median for the scenarios being played. The playoff scoring system is quite different as a result. It's really a do or die thing.

In order to make best use of the excellent Nabla scoring system players should be grouped according to apparent skill based on past performance. There will always be guesswork involved in this. For example, the worst tourney score in Section One may be fairly low. Does this mean that this player drops to the bottom section for the next tourney?

Not to get sidetracked here, let's assume the players are fairly accurately grouped according to skill. What better way to find out who performs the best within that skill range than by having them fight amongst each other with the benefit of the superb scoring system. The section battles ARE the tourney this way. The rest, just a reward for winning.

As for placement in future tourneys with two results for each player. Maybe the brilliant Nabla can come up with a way to weight the scores based on the section in which these scores were achieved. That's a new can of worms however.

Treeburst155 out.

[Ricochet]

Being new to this thread please bare with me….

What exactly is the requirement to be an Uber player? Is it a veteran of several tournaments and finishing at the top?

[Treeburst155]

Ricochet,

You are a borderline Uber Player based on your Wannabee performance. There are several in that borderline category. When I break it out into eight sections you borderline guys will probably fill most of a section IF we stay with the original plan. As you can see, the debate is raging.

Treeburst155 out.

[Cpl Carrot]

This will require more second teir scenarios to be made but how about the top two from each section going through. This would allow a Uber* faced with playing several other Uber* a chance to proceed to the next level.

Just my two cents.

PS I have no problems with being in the Uber's - I just find it wierd to be called one.

* insert appropriate group ranking here

[Enoch]

Cpl. Carrot makes an interesting point. If you allowed the top two from each group plus two wildcards through to the next round, you could then have three new groups of 6 players(18 players in total). These 18 players then follow the same format as the first round and the top player from each group plus one wildcard move onto to the finals. This format would require 5 more scenerios for the semi-final round. It would also take that much longer to complete.

Perhaps that is adding too much on, but it is an interesting idea.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Cpl Carrot:

This will require more second teir scenarios to be made but how about the top two from each section going through. This would allow a Uber* faced with playing several other Uber* a chance to proceed to the next level.

Just my two cents.

PS I have no problems with being in the Uber's - I just find it wierd to be called one.

* insert appropriate group ranking here

Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea if the scenario logistics support it. I would prefer to do it in a single elimination playoff - we could use my prior bracket and just expand it one more level (think 'sweet sixteen' in the NCAA basketball tournament).

The winners of Tier 1 would be Players 1 and 2; Tier 2's winners would be 3 and 4, etc., to the 8th tier, who would be numbers 15 and 16. You would split the top 4 players into different brackets, then have the top players play progressively stronger opponents. Theoretically, this would come down to the semifinals matchupo betwee Player 1 and Player 4 in one game, and Player 2 and Player 3 in the other.

I like this idea! (It works well with my preference for a single elimination tournament.) My only question is whether the scenario angle can be covered.

Oh yes, an explanation for why I like a single elimination playoff tournament so much -- By the time players get to the playoffs (assuming the grouping system is used), they will have each played seven games to win their brackets. If you go to another round-robin tourney, each player would have a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 15 playoff games to determine the champion (I think - my math may be off). This means the tournament champion might not be crowned until late in 2006. Even breaking the winners into four groups and doing an additional round robin style playoff will mean the players have to play at least 4 games to get to the championship game, and that assumes a single elimination tourney between the four playoff division winners. If the final round for the championship is conducted in round robin style, the players will have to play 7 games to determine a champion. A single elimination tournament, however, will go much more quickly because the players in the championship round will only have had to win 3 playoff games to get there; the championship itself would be the fourth game for the two semi-finalists.

Another problem with a round robin playoff is that it allows a player make mistakes and survive. I like the idea that, just as in real life, if you are waxed on a mission, you probably won't be going back out to fight the very next day. A single elimination playoff addresses that.

It also eliminates the risk of a player dropping out in the finals (and the question of who takes his place). The players that are necessary to continue the tournament (the winners) will have every incentive to continue, where as the losers, who have a stronger incentive to quit if they lose the first three games of the playoff, aren't in a position to severely disrupt the playoffs by dropping out.

Steve

[ April 22, 2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]