Field of Glory II Tournament

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11879
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:26 pm

ianiow wrote:Don't worry about it mate. You had the terrain with you in both games and it would have been a hard stretch for me to get many points out of you, let alone win both battles. Besides, Pete deserves at least one victory - he might not get another! lol :twisted:
:lol: That's very true! :lol:

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11879
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by stockwellpete » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:11 pm

I have just been looking at this tournament in terms of the number of players dropping out and the number of matches being timed out. Remember here that there was only a 7 day turn around for matches whereas later tournaments now have a 10 day turn around.

In Round 1 13 of the 64 matches were timed out.
In Round 2 23 of the 58 matches were timed out.
In Round 3 23 of the 54 matches were timed out.

So, in total, one third (33.6%) of matches were timed out.

It is also noticeable that the proportion of matches being timed out by players at the bottom of the table was much higher. 80% of matches involving players in the bottom ten places of the table in Rounds 2 and 3 were timed out.

10 out of the 64 players entering did not complete the three rounds of the tournament.

Any thoughts?
Last edited by stockwellpete on Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

devoncop
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by devoncop » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:18 pm

My thoughts are probably not printable Pete given so many wanted to enter but were unable because the Tournaments were full.
My attitude is always to complete every game even if I am being smashed and in fact the rules encourage that because every point gained from a losing position matters.
I also do my best (sleep permitting) to return turns quickly. Most of my opponents seem to do the same but I feel sorry for those not as lucky.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11879
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by stockwellpete » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:32 pm

devoncop wrote:My thoughts are probably not printable Pete given so many wanted to enter but were unable because the Tournaments were full.
My attitude is always to complete every game even if I am being smashed and in fact the rules encourage that because every point gained from a losing position matters.
I also do my best (sleep permitting) to return turns quickly. Most of my opponents seem to do the same but I feel sorry for those not as lucky.
The figures are very high. Obviously the now discarded 7 day turnaround was too short and that must be the reason why some games were not completed. But I think there is probably a more important structural problem that is having an impact. It doesn't really matter if there are 32 or 64 players, the difficulty is that players well down the table after the first and second rounds may not feel that they have very much to play for, given that the main focus is on getting one of the three places on the podium. I am not saying that all players, or even a majority, will feel like this but I am fairly certain that a significant proportion do. And I think that might help to explain the 80% "timed out" figure for matches played between those towards the bottom of the ladder and why the players dropping out tended to be from the bottom third of the table. What difference does it make if, say, you finish 43rd instead of 52nd?

I think the introduction of player ratings and seedings (both are in the pipeline apparently) might help a bit, particularly if they can significantly reduce the number of uneven matches in the first round. If most of the first round matches are between players of a similar standard then there could be far fewer players tailed off very early in the tournament, which has to be a good thing. Having said this, it remains to be seen whether the use of ratings and seedings just re-creates a similar problem in the second and third rounds. I say this because top players playing each other in the first round are likely to score a similar number points as the less experienced players playing each other in the first round will do. So this is likely to mean that a number of very uneven match ups occur in the second round instead. So all you end up doing is displacing the problem from the first into the second rounds of the tournament. The issue is, whatever you do, you cannot get around the very wide range of playing abilities that you are going to have when there are between 32 or 64 players in the competition.

The last factor that I think might be relevant is that I found the two automated tournaments that I have entered a bit impersonal and lacking in atmosphere. I didn't actually enjoy it that much even though I have done quite well. There is much less contact between players compared to previous competitions and campaigns and the profile of tournament on the forum is negligible. So I think this is another reason why players might find it easier to bale out of a tournament prematurely. Also, at the moment these automated tournaments do benefit from a "novelty" factor, but I am not sure how long this will last.

In due course I will provide similar statistics for the other two automated tournaments in progress now for comparison.

MikeC_81
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by MikeC_81 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:46 pm

stockwellpete wrote: The figures are very high. Obviously the now discarded 7 day turnaround was too short and that must be the reason why some games were not completed. But I think there is probably a more important structural problem that is having an impact. It doesn't really matter if there are 32 or 64 players, the difficulty is that players well down the table after the first and second rounds may not feel that they have very much to play for, given that the main focus is on getting one of the three places on the podium. I am not saying that all players, or even a majority, will feel like this but I am fairly certain that a significant proportion do. And I think that might help to explain the 80% "timed out" figure for matches played between those towards the bottom of the ladder and why the players dropping out tended to be from the bottom third of the table. What difference does it make if, say, you finish 43rd instead of 52nd?
This is not an uncommon problem with any Swiss/modified Swiss tournament structure. You invariably get players who drop out very quickly once it is clear they are not in contention. This is why I recommended the ability for players to drop out the tournament before the the next round was paired up. Keep in mind, this was also the very first tournament for most people, myself included, who may not have had a background in PBEM systems who are more used to the immediacy of a live setting. I adapted well but I can see how some people have difficulty maintaining interest or the commitment on an everyday basis to sit down and get in at least a turn in per day. If their opponent is tardy in getting a turn sent back, it may exacerbate the problem if both players were not super keen on continuing the games to being with.

There is also the fact that being a new game, a lot of people might have feasted on the AI and felt the compulsion to try multiplayer got a rather rude awakening to just how much better live players are in terms of exploiting rules and maxing out units and army selection. When they inevitably run into monster players like yourself and get brutally violated without even know what was really happening, it can be a turn off for some.

Some players are also motivated to primarily play armies of their own interest and are relatively straightforward to play. Round 1 involved two well known historical factions who both boasted a large number of reliable and powerful heavy foot units where as Round 2 and 3 had much more disparate matchups with the very scary Post-Marian Romans against Dacians who really had nothing who could stand in open combat with Legionaries and had to rely on employing good terrain and tactics a step beyond lining up your men and advancing to beat the Romans. I have voiced my feelings on Round 3 in a separate thread so I won't do a full rehash but suffice to say most players, especially those on the bottom, did not understand how to properly command or fight against a super mobile horse archer army.

I think all of these things are factors leading to the high time out rates. Some of this will self-correct as once the novelty of the game wears off, the less dedicated portion of the playerbase will fade away and the hardcore crew will play out every round regardless of standings or armies. Some of it won't go away as there is the natural human propensity to simply give up on the endeavor if there is no reward in sight.
stockwellpete wrote:I think the introduction of player ratings and seedings (both are in the pipeline apparently) might help a bit, particularly if they can significantly reduce the number of uneven matches in the first round. If most of the first round matches are between players of a similar standard then there could be far fewer players tailed off very early in the tournament, which has to be a good thing. Having said this, it remains to be seen whether the use of ratings and seedings just re-creates a similar problem in the second and third rounds. I say this because top players playing each other in the first round are likely to score a similar number points as the less experienced players playing each other in the first round will do. So this is likely to mean that a number of very uneven match ups occur in the second round instead. So all you end up doing is displacing the problem from the first into the second rounds of the tournament. The issue is, whatever you do, you cannot get around the very wide range of playing abilities that you are going to have when there are between 32 or 64 players in the competition.
That would not really solve anything other than pushing the disparity in skill onto later rounds, which is exactly what you want to avoid. Tournaments are supposed to weed out the less skilled or casual players early and have the best meet in the end. The beauty of the Swiss system is that this very quickly sorts out the skill levels within a few rounds by forcing all the creme to the top and allow players to play similarly skilled opponents for the rest of the tournament. If anything, if we do a pre-seed it should be on the basis of 1 vs 64, 2 vs 63, etc so that skilled players do not meet early and we can quickly skim all the creme to the top right away and spare the middling and lower tier players from a potential spanking by a skilled player who was randomly matched up against another skilled player early on and was forced into the loser's bracket early.

The answer is to simply have more rounds in the tournament or move towards a league system that has already been proposed with a European Football style system of divisional tiers where players can be promoted or relegated each season so that within each division playskill is reasonably equal and players that progress faster than others in their division are promoted up and up until every game they play is against another shark.

stockwellpete wrote:The last factor that I think might be relevant is that I found the two automated tournaments that I have entered a bit impersonal and lacking in atmosphere. I didn't actually enjoy it that much even though I have done quite well. There is much less contact between players compared to previous competitions and campaigns and the profile of tournament on the forum is negligible. So I think this is another reason why players might find it easier to bale out of a tournament prematurely. Also, at the moment these automated tournaments do benefit from a "novelty" factor, but I am not sure how long this will last.

In due course I will provide similar statistics for the other two automated tournaments in progress now for comparison.
Most players I played against were reasonably chatty enough. As I mentioned before, once the novelty of the game wears off and we are left with a smaller more hardcore crew, I suspect it will work out fine.
Stratford Scramble Tournament

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093

FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

edb1815
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by edb1815 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:07 am

Several points from TT tournaments. They are usually run as an "open" - ie you choose whatever army you want to play, or "theme" where the armies are restricted to time period or historical match ups. Obviously it is early days with FOGII with only one time period available. What about a tournament where the players pick their army?

devoncop
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by devoncop » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:03 am

All good points above.

My feeling as Mike says is that a permanent League system once players have become bedded in such as the one you are proposing after Christmas Pete is the way to go as the "fight up the table" or the interest of being paired with someone and checking where they are in the table (and hopefully upsetting the odds!) will maintain interest.

I have been really fortunate in that I have entered all the tournaments and yet to have anyone drop on me but I do enjoy a bit of banter and comments on the games as they unfold and can help a bit in feeling less sterile for some folks.

I should say I have loved the tournaments and the challenges of playing some armies I would never have touched.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 24117
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by rbodleyscott » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:27 am

edb1815 wrote:Several points from TT tournaments. They are usually run as an "open" - ie you choose whatever army you want to play, or "theme" where the armies are restricted to time period or historical match ups. Obviously it is early days with FOGII with only one time period available. What about a tournament where the players pick their army?
Currently the automated system won't support that. It is on the wishlist.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11879
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by stockwellpete » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:57 am

MikeC_81 wrote:This is not an uncommon problem with any Swiss/modified Swiss tournament structure. You invariably get players who drop out very quickly once it is clear they are not in contention. This is why I recommended the ability for players to drop out the tournament before the the next round was paired up . . .
My first reaction to this was that it was not a good idea because it would embed "dropping out" into the structure of the tournament. But, if you take the view that "drop-outs" are going to occur whatever you do then I think it might have something going for it. At least you would reduce the number of players who currently hope to start their matches but end up being disappointed.
I think all of these things are factors leading to the high time out rates. Some of this will self-correct as once the novelty of the game wears off, the less dedicated portion of the playerbase will fade away and the hardcore crew will play out every round regardless of standings or armies. Some of it won't go away as there is the natural human propensity to simply give up on the endeavor if there is no reward in sight.
Yes, I think you are right here. I think it is inevitable that there will be some players who "drop-out" whatever you do.
That would not really solve anything other than pushing the disparity in skill onto later rounds, which is exactly what you want to avoid. Tournaments are supposed to weed out the less skilled or casual players early and have the best meet in the end. The beauty of the Swiss system is that this very quickly sorts out the skill levels within a few rounds by forcing all the creme to the top and allow players to play similarly skilled opponents for the rest of the tournament. If anything, if we do a pre-seed it should be on the basis of 1 vs 64, 2 vs 63, etc so that skilled players do not meet early and we can quickly skim all the creme to the top right away and spare the middling and lower tier players from a potential spanking by a skilled player who was randomly matched up against another skilled player early on and was forced into the loser's bracket early.
I am not so sure about this. The idea I had was that the seeding should be used to initially divide the entrants into two pools for the purposes of the first round draw. So players 1-32 would be in one pool and players 33-64 would be in the other. the draw within these two pools would be random (e.g. 1v4, 2v30 . . . 33v56, 40v64 and so on). The purpose of this would be to prevent match-ups where the very top players could meet new or relatively inexperienced players in the first round. These pools would only have relevance at the very start of the competition and matches in the second round would be drawn in the same way as they are now.
The answer is to simply have more rounds in the tournament or move towards a league system that has already been proposed with a European Football style system of divisional tiers where players can be promoted or relegated each season so that within each division playskill is reasonably equal and players that progress faster than others in their division are promoted up and up until every game they play is against another shark.
I would like to see more rounds but I fear it might just lead to more "drop=outs" with the competition becoming relevant to less and less players as it progressed. Divisions of players, as we had with FOG1 in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (LOEG) and the FOG Digital League (FOGDL) is definitely a far better system, in my opinion. You can use the ratings to allocate players to divisions (of 10 in the FOGDL) where opponents are of a similar standard. We had a few "drop-outs" but not very many and players "dropping-out" early were replaced by players from the reserve list, so disruption was minimal. The problem is that the automated system is not set up for smaller divisions where players can arrange matches at their own pace. I have drawn up a proposal for FOG2DL that will eventually see 6 sections in the competition; 5 of these sections will eventually have 4 or 5 divisions each, while the other section will probably have 3 pools consisting of 4 groups of 4 players followed by a knock-out stage. So you would be talking about, maybe, 30+ separate automated sections operating at once. I am not sure that this is feasible myself and it is certainly not possible at the moment.
Most players I played against were reasonably chatty enough. As I mentioned before, once the novelty of the game wears off and we are left with a smaller more hardcore crew, I suspect it will work out fine.
Oh yes, I got on OK with my opponents. What I didn't enjoy so much was what I felt was a complete lack of atmosphere in the tournament and the very small footprint the tournament had on the forum. It didn't really feel like a "big event" and if the intention is to run lots of these 3 round tournaments indefinitely into the future then I think they will quickly lose all significance really. They will just become another tournament. The automation does away with all the nitty-gritty of organising matches for sure, but I think other things are lost as well. There was a lot more interaction and banter between players in LOEG and FOGDL because they were organising matches and reporting results on the forum. With the FOGDL we made a special effort to develop the presence of the tournament on the forum by having discussion threads, AAR's, polls, updated tables and other bits and pieces. So it was always worth players checking the forum space out and I think this is what helped to bind the tournament together so well. I think players felt like they belonged to the tournament and some of them said as much. That's what I am missing from the automated tournaments. I think some of the older FOG1 players will know what I mean here.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11879
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by stockwellpete » Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:21 am

edb1815 wrote:Several points from TT tournaments. They are usually run as an "open" - ie you choose whatever army you want to play, or "theme" where the armies are restricted to time period or historical match ups. Obviously it is early days with FOGII with only one time period available. What about a tournament where the players pick their army?
This is what is proposed with the FOG2 Digital League. Discussions are on-going with Slitherine at the moment.

devoncop
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by devoncop » Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:52 am

stockwellpete wrote:
edb1815 wrote:Several points from TT tournaments. They are usually run as an "open" - ie you choose whatever army you want to play, or "theme" where the armies are restricted to time period or historical match ups. Obviously it is early days with FOGII with only one time period available. What about a tournament where the players pick their army?
This is what is proposed with the FOG2 Digital League. Discussions are on-going with Slitherine at the moment.
Added bonus of this of course is that people develop much greater loyalty and attachment to their favourite Army. I have already formed a completely irrational attachment to Syracuse Merc Hoplites who have performed heroically in a few games against the odds and an equal(though no less fervent) hatred of the Bithynians !! :D

MikeC_81
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by MikeC_81 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:05 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
edb1815 wrote:Several points from TT tournaments. They are usually run as an "open" - ie you choose whatever army you want to play, or "theme" where the armies are restricted to time period or historical match ups. Obviously it is early days with FOGII with only one time period available. What about a tournament where the players pick their army?
This is what is proposed with the FOG2 Digital League. Discussions are on-going with Slitherine at the moment.
I would just like to add that matched pairs of games is a really big plus since it will help negate imbalances in army lists. As long as the lists picked are reasonable against one another, both sides seemed to have fun. The old DBA crew I used to play TT with use to have a "Stratford Scramble" tournament type. Everyone bought their own army and your opponent played your army vs you and vice versa!

stockwellpete wrote: I would like to see more rounds but I fear it might just lead to more "drop=outs" with the competition becoming relevant to less and less players as it progressed. Divisions of players, as we had with FOG1 in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (LOEG) and the FOG Digital League (FOGDL) is definitely a far better system, in my opinion. You can use the ratings to allocate players to divisions (of 10 in the FOGDL) where opponents are of a similar standard.
A league would also be a longer term project with guaranteed games for players for a long time which would be nice. I don't think you should worry so much about people dropping out of swiss tournaments. Its just a natural phenomenon. Certainly it is better to remove these people who want out rather than potentially matching them up against someone who wants to play, and then leave that person with a sour experience of a no-show or someone who does turns every 2-3 days at an uninterested pace.
Stratford Scramble Tournament

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093

FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11879
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by stockwellpete » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:57 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:A league would also be a longer term project with guaranteed games for players for a long time which would be nice.
Yes, the league season would last 10 weeks and every player would be guaranteed 9 matches for each league section that they entered. An important difference from the automated tournament is that players can arrange their matches at their own pace. Some players will finish everything in a month, others will take the full 10 weeks so it is a bit more relaxed overall.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11879
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:29 pm

stockwellpete wrote:I have just been looking at this tournament in terms of the number of players dropping out and the number of matches being timed out. Remember here that there was only a 7 day turn around for matches whereas later tournaments now have a 10 day turn around.

In Round 1 13 of the 64 matches were timed out.
In Round 2 23 of the 58 matches were timed out.
In Round 3 23 of the 54 matches were timed out.

So, in total, one third (33.6%) of matches were timed out.

It is also noticeable that the proportion of matches being timed out by players at the bottom of the table was much higher. 80% of matches involving players in the bottom ten places of the table in Rounds 2 and 3 were timed out.

10 out of the 64 players entering did not complete the three rounds of the tournament.

Any thoughts?
I have now looked at the second tournament for the same statistics. Remember, this was a smaller 32 player tournament and 10 days (not 7 days) was allowed for each match.

In Round 1 2 of the 32 matches were timed out.
In Round 2 5 of the 32 matches were timed out.
In Round 3 9 of the 30 matches were timed out.

So, in total, 17% of matches were timed out, around half the rate of the first tournament.

40% of matches involving players in the bottom ten places of the table in Rounds 2 and 3 were timed out this time, again at about half the rate of the first tournament.

And just 2 out of the 32 players entering did not complete the three rounds of the tournament.

devoncop
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by devoncop » Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:51 pm

That is much more encouraging.

I am wondering if the Army choice may also have helped. My gut feeling is that the two Armies for the second tournament were more "forgiving" for new players who maybe did not feel so overwhelmed? Alternatively of course people may simply be more confident as they had been playing longer.

The figures for tournament three may show which is true as the armies for the third tournament are certainly not an easy equal match up in my view.

76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by 76mm » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:13 pm

Have the results of the tournaments even been posted anywhere? I can't find them. I'd like to know if the guys smoking me in MP are pros or noobs!

devoncop
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by devoncop » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:24 pm

76mm wrote:Have the results of the tournaments even been posted anywhere? I can't find them. I'd like to know if the guys smoking me in MP are pros or noobs!
If you click on the white "Tournaments" header at the top of the Field of Glory forum page it takes you to the page where you can click on the past and present tournaments and when the next one opens you can enter the next one.

Hope that helps.

PS....please ignore my shocking performance in the 3rd tournament...(I am no barbarian :D )

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11879
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:11 pm

devoncop wrote:That is much more encouraging.

I am wondering if the Army choice may also have helped. My gut feeling is that the two Armies for the second tournament were more "forgiving" for new players who maybe did not feel so overwhelmed? Alternatively of course people may simply be more confident as they had been playing longer.

The figures for tournament three may show which is true as the armies for the third tournament are certainly not an easy equal match up in my view.
Yes, the third tournament will make for a good comparison with the first tournament. We would need data from 4 or 5 each of 32 and 64 player tournaments before drawing any firm conclusions but the two sets of figures we have so far might suggest that 32 player tournaments are going to be more cohesive than 64 player tournaments. The "timed-out" and "dropped-out" numbers in the second tournament are about half what they were in the first tournament (which had a very tight 7 day schedule as well).

So if this trend continues then maybe the best way of running the automated tournaments would be to run two pools of 32 players simultaneously. Have an "A" pool and a "B" pool based on the automated player ratings that are in the pipeline. In that way, you would not have the top players playing against very inexperienced players at all; and more players in the second pool would have a realistic goal of getting promotion into the top pool in the next tournament (instead of being tailed off in a 64 player table). This hopefully would reduce the number of "timed-out" and "dropped-out" incidences. Another possible way of reducing these is to say that players not completing a tournament will definitely be excluded from the next one.

76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by 76mm » Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:07 pm

devoncop wrote:If you click on the white "Tournaments" header at the top of the Field of Glory forum page it takes you to the page where you can click on the past and present tournaments and when the next one opens you can enter the next one.
I'm feeling pretty dense, I still don't see any results. Are you talking about this link:
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=494

There's a bunch of stuff in there, but no results that I can see?

hidde
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1761
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:31 am

Re: Field of Glory II Tournament

Post by hidde » Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:19 pm

76mm wrote:
devoncop wrote:If you click on the white "Tournaments" header at the top of the Field of Glory forum page it takes you to the page where you can click on the past and present tournaments and when the next one opens you can enter the next one.
I'm feeling pretty dense, I still don't see any results. Are you talking about this link:
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=494

There's a bunch of stuff in there, but no results that I can see?
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”