Field of Glory II Tournament Suggestions

[Macedonczyk]

I have idea how to resolve not finished games:
Let computer play rest of turns for both sides and take result from it (maybe with some penalty for person which delay).

[melm]

I have idea how to resolve not finished games:
Let computer play rest of turns for both sides and take result from it (maybe with some penalty for person which delay).

But before the time run out, you don't know the game is abandoned or not. So it's hard to tell when the computer should kick in to take the ride of human player.

[Macedonczyk]

I have idea how to resolve not finished games:
Let computer play rest of turns for both sides and take result from it (maybe with some penalty for person which delay).

But before the time run out, you don't know the game is abandoned or not. So it's hard to tell when the computer should kick in to take the ride of human player.

I meant that after time run out computer play both side to the end (so we'll get an estimated result then).

[jsbarker702]

I don’t understand some of the tournament scoring. In this latest round the guy I played sat on his turns for days at a time but ended up scoring twice as much as me. I promptly played all of my turns.

The rules say he should have been penalized for taking so much time between turns that we never finished the games but This didn’t happen. Not sure why.

Thanks for the info

[rbodleyscott]

I don’t understand some of the tournament scoring. In this latest round the guy I played sat on his turns for days at a time but ended up scoring twice as much as me. I promptly played all of my turns.

The rules say he should have been penalized for taking so much time between turns that we never finished the games but This didn’t happen. Not sure why.

Thanks for the info

If you played at least 12 turns each, the bye rules do not apply and there are no score adjustments.

[CONSTANTINIX]

If you played at least 12 turns each, the bye rules do not apply and there are no score adjustments.

As match have a 24 turns limit , I m in favor of a 24 turns Bye rules. I know there is a problem of time zone but you have to take the time if you want to participate. Nothing less frustating than having a 24 % percent advantage at the 12th turn and not being able to finish the game

And I believe that a 150 points victory for a timeout at least for the the first turn (where time out is the most common) is not sufficient to keep a chance to win. The top three players have consistently more than 500 points at the end in each tournament so having less than 170 points because of a "missing" player is a handicap

[rbodleyscott]

And I believe that a 150 points victory for a timeout at least for the the first turn (where time out is the most common) is not sufficient to keep a chance to win. The top three players have consistently more than 500 points at the end in each tournament so having less than 170 points because of a "missing" player is a handicap

True, but tournament rules are not purely designed for the top players. Even 150 points can allow a lesser player to leap up the ranking to a position far higher than they might otherwise achieve, which is equally "unfair" to the players who end up below him.

So we strike a balance.

[rbodleyscott]

If you played at least 12 turns each, the bye rules do not apply and there are no score adjustments.

As match have a 24 turns limit , I m in favor of a 24 turns Bye rules. I know there is a problem of time zone but you have to take the time if you want to participate. Nothing less frustating than having a 24 % percent advantage at the 12th turn and not being able to finish the game

I am not totally against this. Can anyone think of a downside?

[kronenblatt]

If you played at least 12 turns each, the bye rules do not apply and there are no score adjustments.

As match have a 24 turns limit , I m in favor of a 24 turns Bye rules. I know there is a problem of time zone but you have to take the time if you want to participate. Nothing less frustating than having a 24 % percent advantage at the 12th turn and not being able to finish the game

I am not totally against this. Can anyone think of a downside?

Are currently players being timed out prohibited from joining the next official tournament? Maybe they should be. (I realise I'm one of those who would be locked out, having been away for one week's hiking, but I notified my opponent immediately when starting, asking for high-frequency turns before hiking week and immediately after.)

[rbodleyscott]

As match have a 24 turns limit , I m in favor of a 24 turns Bye rules. I know there is a problem of time zone but you have to take the time if you want to participate. Nothing less frustating than having a 24 % percent advantage at the 12th turn and not being able to finish the game

I am not totally against this. Can anyone think of a downside?

Are currently players being timed out prohibited from joining the next official tournament? Maybe they should be. (I realise I'm one of those who would be locked out, having been away for one week's hiking, but I notified my opponent immediately when starting, asking for high-frequency turns before hiking week and immediately after.)

They are if they played less than 6 turns.

[kronenblatt]

I am not totally against this. Can anyone think of a downside?

Are currently players being timed out prohibited from joining the next official tournament? Maybe they should be. (I realise I'm one of those who would be locked out, having been away for one week's hiking, but I notified my opponent immediately when starting, asking for high-frequency turns before hiking week and immediately after.)

They are if they played less than 6 turns.

So maybe that should be stricter: if you are timed out (i.e., being the player with the most time for turns) in any of the games during the tournament, then you are locked out for the next tournament. Or is that maybe too harsh?

[CONSTANTINIX]

True, but tournament rules are not purely designed for the top players. Even 150 points can allow a lesser player to leap up the ranking to a position far higher than they might otherwise achieve, which is equally "unfair" to the players who end up below him.

So we strike a balance.

Yes , right. But after getting 170 point , for the next turn , the system must find a opponent who was not timed out the previous turn so the player has to prove his worth against a opponent who got his "point matching" through real play ==> most probably a good player. So, if the initial player (who got promoted through free 170 points gain) is a below than average player, he will most probably lose this next match and go down in the classement.

[rbodleyscott]

True, but tournament rules are not purely designed for the top players. Even 150 points can allow a lesser player to leap up the ranking to a position far higher than they might otherwise achieve, which is equally "unfair" to the players who end up below him.

So we strike a balance.

Yes , right. But after getting 170 point , for the next turn , the system must find a opponent who was not timed out the previous turn so the player has to prove his worth against a opponent who got his "point matching" through real play ==> most probably a good player. So, if the initial player (who got promoted through free 170 points gain) is a below than average player, he will most probably lose this next match and go down in the classement.

Not in the last round.

We have heard all of the arguments before and against before. We will be sticking with 150.

As I say, tournaments are not designed purely for the benefit of the top players.

[Macedonczyk]

I have 2 suggestions:
1. Score: giving the winner points for the difference in losses has 3 disadvantages:
a) a lot depends on the last round - see point b)
b) forces to combine - intentionally leaving the opponent's fragmented unit to the last turn in order to stay as far away from the 25% difference as possible.
c) Causes the score 40:15 and 60:35 to be scored the same way. In real life, it is as important as winning to keep your own strength. Several Pyrrhic victories and an army lost.
Solution:
Change the winner's score: 120 points minus percent of loss.
Then:
For a score of 40:15: 120-15=105 points for winner (15 points for loser)
60:35: 120-35=85 points for winner (35 for loser).
40:0 and 50:0=120 points for winner.
50:15 the same like 40:15.


2. how to score an unfinished game (e.g. when more than 5 turns have been completed).
Maybe the missing turns will automatically play the computer with the computer.
Then it will take the score, add e.g. 10 points to the person who played faster and subtract 10 points to the person who played slower.

[rbodleyscott]

Unfortunately 2 would require a major rewrite of how the game and the AI work

[kronenblatt]

I have 2 suggestions:
1. Score: giving the winner points for the difference in losses has 3 disadvantages:
a) a lot depends on the last round - see point b)
b) forces to combine - intentionally leaving the opponent's fragmented unit to the last turn in order to stay as far away from the 25% difference as possible.
c) Causes the score 40:15 and 60:35 to be scored the same way. In real life, it is as important as winning to keep your own strength. Several Pyrrhic victories and an army lost.
Solution:
Change the winner's score: 120 points minus percent of loss.
Then:
For a score of 40:15: 120-15=105 points for winner (15 points for loser)
60:35: 120-35=85 points for winner (35 for loser).
40:0 and 50:0=120 points for winner.
50:15 the same like 40:15.

I kind of like that idea. And the loser (or non-winner) would always get the percentage of losses that he/she inflicted? So in a battle that ends 20%-10%, the player who inflicted 20% would get 20 points and the player who inflicted 10% would get 10 points?

[Macedonczyk]

I have 2 suggestions:
1. Score: giving the winner points for the difference in losses has 3 disadvantages:
a) a lot depends on the last round - see point b)
b) forces to combine - intentionally leaving the opponent's fragmented unit to the last turn in order to stay as far away from the 25% difference as possible.
c) Causes the score 40:15 and 60:35 to be scored the same way. In real life, it is as important as winning to keep your own strength. Several Pyrrhic victories and an army lost.
Solution:
Change the winner's score: 120 points minus percent of loss.
Then:
For a score of 40:15: 120-15=105 points for winner (15 points for loser)
60:35: 120-35=85 points for winner (35 for loser).
40:0 and 50:0=120 points for winner.
50:15 the same like 40:15.

I kind of like that idea. And the loser (or non-winner) would always get the percentage of losses that he/she inflicted? So in a battle that ends 20%-10%, the player who inflicted 20% would get 20 points and the player who inflicted 10% would get 10 points?

I didn't consider what to do when you tie, but yes, I think it's a good solution for the players to get points as if they were losing. Then there will be a motivation to fight more aggressively

[kronenblatt]

I have 2 suggestions:
1. Score: giving the winner points for the difference in losses has 3 disadvantages:
a) a lot depends on the last round - see point b)
b) forces to combine - intentionally leaving the opponent's fragmented unit to the last turn in order to stay as far away from the 25% difference as possible.
c) Causes the score 40:15 and 60:35 to be scored the same way. In real life, it is as important as winning to keep your own strength. Several Pyrrhic victories and an army lost.
Solution:
Change the winner's score: 120 points minus percent of loss.
Then:
For a score of 40:15: 120-15=105 points for winner (15 points for loser)
60:35: 120-35=85 points for winner (35 for loser).
40:0 and 50:0=120 points for winner.
50:15 the same like 40:15.

I kind of like that idea. And the loser (or non-winner) would always get the percentage of losses that he/she inflicted? So in a battle that ends 20%-10%, the player who inflicted 20% would get 20 points and the player who inflicted 10% would get 10 points?

I didn't consider what to do when you tie, but yes, I think it's a good solution for the players to get points as if they were losing. Then there will be a motivation to fight more aggressively

Good! Tieing or losing is never on your radar, Macedonczyk!

[Yorck]

Not sure this is the right place to put a couple of tournament questions, but I could not find a better thread.

1. With the Rise of Macedon tournament finishing, is there anything in the queue for another using FoG2 (I know about the FoG:M one)?

2. Regarding the Rise of Macedon tournament, are the aggregated results published on the forums anywhere? I am really curious about how the 3rd Round broke down, in terms of players winning with the Indian side.

[SimonLancaster]

Not sure this is the right place to put a couple of tournament questions, but I could not find a better thread.

1. With the Rise of Macedon tournament finishing, is there anything in the queue for another using FoG2 (I know about the FoG:M one)?

2. Regarding the Rise of Macedon tournament, are the aggregated results published on the forums anywhere? I am really curious about how the 3rd Round broke down, in terms of players winning with the Indian side.

The tables are on the Slitherine tournament page. Same page that you used to join the tournament. I don’t know what has been posted up yet as I am not in the tournament.