Recommend
11 
 Thumb up
 Hide
119 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

Dominion» Forums » General

Subject: Discussion on a Universal Tournament Format for Dominion rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steven Metzger
United States
Pullman
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
With the recent slew of threads advertising past and upcoming Dominion tournaments, and my steadfast nose-butting into these threads, I think it would be prudent to discuss a universal tournament format (from here on, a "UTF") for this game, and get the opinions of the people who organize and play in many of these tournaments. A UTF would be a great way for new organizers to start a competition on their own with a good set of guidelines for how the tournament should be staged.

Do we need a UTF for Dominion (or other games, if you can think of them)?

What kind of questions need to be answered when a tournament format is considered for this game?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Metzger
United States
Pullman
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
And because I figure this thread will get no play without some issues being addressed, I will make some comments here:

1) Every tournament's games should be the same number of players. If you are playing 4-player games, that's what you are playing all tournament, from start-to-finish. If you are playing 3-player games, etc etc.

1a) If you have a number of players total indivisible by 2, 3, or 4, then we need to come up with a proper system of balancing 3-player games with 4-player games.

2) There should always be a winner-takes-all final game.

3) If there is a point system in place, then the winner should take all (or almost all) of the points available in each game in order to prevent collusive behavior.

4) VP totals, margins, and quotients should be avoided as tiebreakers because they discourage playing in a self-interested fashion in each game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I disagree on several points. First of all, if there aren't going to be tie-breaker points used then I don't think it is critical that all games contain the same number of players.

I don't think the winner needs to collect most if not all of the points for a game. This discourages people from even trying to compete once it becomes obvious they aren't going to win. If everyone except last place gets something a bit more than the place below him or her, then each person will keep playing for position all of the way through.

I think all tie-breakers should be avoided. I think the best system is this. Take the points available for the tied positions, add them together and divide by the number of tied players and award that number of points.

I favor a two-player championship. That accomplishes two things. First it makes sure that the champ can successfully compete in that format. Secondly it prevents a player in that title game from helping decide who wins once he or she realizes they can't win.

One big item you've left off your list is deciding what cards get played each round. Will it be the same 10 at each table? If so there needs to be a lot of copies of the game around for a large turnout. If there are no points for tie-breakers I fail to see the need for the same cards to be used at each table.

It is a commendable suggestion that a tournament format be in place. Of course we also know that anyone running one will be free to alter those as they like especially since RGG is unlikely to stage any such tournaments officially to set up large champion ship events at gatherings like GenCon.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allen Hoffmann
msg tools
I will preface my long post with this. I ran a board game store for 5 years, running tournaments for magic, pokemon, yu-gi-oh, warhammer fantasy and 40k, axis and allies, etc. it was my task to develop fair tournament protocol for the players.


A game like this is tougher to establish a consistent tournament protocol for. trying to force it to 2p only would make it logistically difficult and not keeping with its multi player roots.

for consistency's sake, I would like to see a TO pick at random the 10 cards to be used at the start of the round, those are the cards used at every table. this insures consistent performance without someone lucking into a runaway combo that other tables did not even get to see that round. for example ironworks/great hall appearing at only one table could produce runaway results for a single player.

I think total VP's should accumulate in the standings rather than awarding points for 1,2,3,4th place. however this cannot have an influence on each game played, only their standings going into the final round. and the final round must be a winner take all scenario where the previous scores are only used to determine who gets to sit there and turn order (highest previous total to lowest)

for actual tournament progression, say we have 16 players. we're goign to be playing 4 tables of 4 players. after the first round, the tables will be rearranged by place so all 4 1st place play each other and so on. this will very quickly aggregate the results and produce clear leaders. 3-4 total rounds should be enough to eliminate the bottom 12 people, then a final table can be held.

a tie for 1st and 2nd can be resolved with a faceoff 1v1 to determine 1st place. no one would be allowed to offer a "prize split" in order to concede this game. collusion to establish a winner would be met with instant disqualification, moving the other players up in ranking accordingly.

I hope those thoughts help

Allen Hoffmann
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Hall
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
nazdr3g wrote:
I think total VP's should accumulate in the standings rather than awarding points for 1,2,3,4th place.

As I pointed out in another recent thread, this allows the possibility that players in a game will collaborate to increase the victory point totals for all participants in that game (for example, mutual avoidance of Witch strategies). How would you intend to deal with that if basing tournament standings of victory points accumulated?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Hall
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
metzgerism wrote:
Do we need a UTF for Dominion (or other games, if you can think of them)?

Tournaments for a great many games have been organised successfully without a single, mandated set of tournament rules worldwide. (For millennia, in fact (he says, thinking of his reading early this year concerning the ancient Panhellenic Games)). There is certainly no need for a universal tournament format.

Furthermore, the only organisation that could possibly come close to mandating such a system for Dominion at this time would be the publisher, and even then groups who didn't care to have formal support from the publisher would deviate.

Different groups have different purposes in organising tournaments, therefore tournament rules vary. That's just how it is. Even well after Magic had sanctioned tournament formats, tournaments which did not conform to those formats were still run from time to time. Heck, I ran a few, back when I was a member of a club that was interested in the occasional multiplayer Magic tournament (and there was no sanctioned format for such, at least back then).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that keeping track of VP is a very bad idea for this game. Plus VPs are the only reason why it would even be necessary to keep the 10 Kingdom cards the same at each table.

I have been running tournaments at stores for CCGs for upwards of 10 years and virtually none of those systems will work for this game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wraith wrote:
metzgerism wrote:
Do we need a UTF for Dominion (or other games, if you can think of them)?

Tournaments for a great many games have been organised successfully without a single, mandated set of tournament rules worldwide. (For millennia, in fact (he says, thinking of his reading early this year concerning the ancient Panhellenic Games)). There is certainly no need for a universal tournament format.

Furthermore, the only organisation that could possibly come close to mandating such a system for Dominion at this time would be the publisher, and even then groups who didn't care to have formal support from the publisher would deviate.

Different groups have different purposes in organising tournaments, therefore tournament rules vary. That's just how it is. Even well after Magic had sanctioned tournament formats, tournaments which did not conform to those formats were still run from time to time. Heck, I ran a few, back when I was a member of a club that was interested in the occasional multiplayer Magic tournament (and there was no sanctioned format for such, at least back then).


But there's a greater good to be served here. By having a UTF it would give players a basis for rules without having to start from scratch. Plus it would make writeups for tournaments easier because the poster would just have to say he used UTF or UTF with these adaptions and then briefly list those. I think it's a bit of tunnel vision to think there's no benefit to setting up a UTF just because there will be no national or international tournament scene to use them.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
You can't handle the truth?
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
nazdr3g wrote:
...
for consistency's sake, I would like to see a TO pick at random the 10 cards to be used at the start of the round, those are the cards used at every table. this insures consistent performance without someone lucking into a runaway combo that other tables did not even get to see that round. for example ironworks/great hall appearing at only one table could produce runaway results for a single player.
...


I don't like this idea. I think each table should have a different random set of cards. Being able to evaluate the current board, and think of your deck is part of the game. If you overhear play at anyother table, it could influence play at this table.

It would be like running a settlers of catan tournament, with each table having the same board set up.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Hall
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
metzgerism wrote:
1) Every tournament's games should be the same number of players. If you are playing 4-player games, that's what you are playing all tournament, from start-to-finish. If you are playing 3-player games, etc etc.

Why? Some players are interested in how Dominion accommodates a variable number of players, and favour broadness of skill. I'd agree that everyone should play the same set of games, but I can certainly see possibilities for tournaments that feature a mix of rounds.

(Hmmm... Some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate to me that a six-round tournament with two rounds of 2-player, two rounds of 3-player and two rounds of 4-player could work fairly well. Assign points 6/0 for a 2-player game, 6/3/0 for a three-player game, and 6/4/2/0 for a 4-player game, and each size of game should have about as much influence on the final standings.)

Quote:
1a) If you have a number of players total indivisible by 2, 3, or 4, then we need to come up with a proper system of balancing 3-player games with 4-player games.

Or for accommodating byes.

Quote:
2) There should always be a winner-takes-all final game.

Not everybody favours this. I know players of quite a few multiplayer boardgames do, but it has been avoided for decades in chess. It also seems to be disfavoured in Diplomacy. In professional sports, elimination matches are favoured because that way everything builds up to a spectacular show for the spectators, which brings in the money, but is Dominion really a spectator sport? How many attendees would rather play an extra round than watch somebody else play the final round?

Quote:
3) If there is a point system in place, then the winner should take all (or almost all) of the points available in each game in order to prevent collusive behavior.

Is this really necessary? Are there significant methods of manipulating the game that allow somebody to target second place without playing equally strongly for first place? Given Dominion's design, it's really hard for two players in a game to gang up on a third. This would be more of a consideration for games in which that is easier.

Quote:
4) VP totals, margins, and quotients should be avoided as tiebreakers because they discourage playing in a self-interested fashion in each game.

There are systems of tournament tiebreakers that are based purely on the outcomes of the games, rather than points scored within the games. I agree that these should be examined.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
crambaza wrote:
nazdr3g wrote:
...
for consistency's sake, I would like to see a TO pick at random the 10 cards to be used at the start of the round, those are the cards used at every table. this insures consistent performance without someone lucking into a runaway combo that other tables did not even get to see that round. for example ironworks/great hall appearing at only one table could produce runaway results for a single player.
...


I don't like this idea. I think each table should have a different random set of cards. Being able to evaluate the current board, and think of your deck is part of the game. If you overhear play at anyother table, it could influence play at this table.

It would be like running a settlers of catan tournament, with each table having the same board set up.


This is interesting because we agree on something. If you dump VPs as counting for anything except who wins, I think the tournament is more fun without requiring the same set of 10 cards at each table.

If you are going to give out points for placings at each table, you have to make the same number of points available on as per player basis. So if you would do 6,4,2,0 for a 4-player game, that's 3 points per player. That would mean you'd need 9 points available for a 3-player setup, which I would suggest at 6,3,0. I would hope that every table in the opening rounds of a tournament would be either 3 or 4 players.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Travis, I think many would favor a two-player, winner-take-all championship. It requires someone to be able to adapt to that format in order to claim the title. It keeps a third and/or fourth person from being able to determine the outcome or at least influence it. Plus I believe that several would hang around to watch the tournament's two best players duke it out. If they didn't want to, they could play informally at another table. Considering that a two-player game takes 30-40 minutes it's not a stretch that people would watch. They do in Magic tourneys.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Hall
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
rickert wrote:
But there's a greater good to be served here. By having a UTF it would give players a basis for rules without having to start from scratch. Plus it would make writeups for tournaments easier because the poster would just have to say he used UTF or UTF with these adaptions and then briefly list those. I think it's a bit of tunnel vision to think there's no benefit to setting up a UTF just because there will be no national or international tournament scene to use them.

It's not that there's no tournament scene. It's that there's no body to say what the standard format is. Put up a poster in a game store stating that a tournament will be run using the "Dominion UTF", and the great majority of players will be utterly unenlightened by that. Even referring back to BGG is unlikely to produce widespread knowledge of the format.

Any tournament organiser worth his salt should be making the full rules for his tournament available. If you care to put together a document giving organisers a starting point for their tournament rules, that's fine (and a lot of organisers really could use some pointers concerning how to put together tournament rules), but that's well short of a universal format.

What do you think "universal" means, anyway? In this sort of context, it generally means that pretty darn close to everybody uses that format, and that just won't be the case. Naming your document that would be purely wishful thinking on your part.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Then wishful thinking it is. After all, they are playing the World Series in baseball without any teams outside the US and Canada even having a chance to compete in the league. It is just a name and it's as good a name as I can think of.

Of course I agree that full rules can and should be posted for people who enter. But if those UTF rules are posted, they can copy and paste them and be done. Or copy and paste and then make whatever changes they want.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Hall
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
rickert wrote:
Travis, I think many would favor a two-player, winner-take-all championship.

Many might. Would all? Because you need all if you want to make that a universal.

Otherwise, it's down to the organisers of the tournament to decide. The best we can do for them is to increase awareness of the pros and cons of such ideas.

Quote:
It requires someone to be able to adapt to that format in order to claim the title.

But doesn't require that someone be able to adapt to three- or four-player. Why single out two-player this way?

By "championship" I'm assuming you mean a tournament devoted to this style of play, by the way. If you mean that just the last match of the tournament should be a two-player game, why isn't adaptability to the various forms of the game being tested throughout the tournament?

Quote:
It keeps a third and/or fourth person from being able to determine the outcome or at least influence it.

Again, I have to ask whether this is a significant factor in Dominion.

Quote:
Plus I believe that several would hang around to watch the tournament's two best players duke it out. If they didn't want to, they could play informally at another table. Considering that a two-player game takes 30-40 minutes it's not a stretch that people would watch. They do in Magic tourneys.

I've tried watching games at CCG tournaments before. Frankly, I've never been able to see much of what was going on. There's a reason chess championships typically display the board to the audience on large TV monitors (and ordinary tournaments don't have a finals match at all).

So again, obviously, some favour this sort of thing, and some don't. How does this bring us towards a universal format?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Hall
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
rickert wrote:
Then wishful thinking it is. After all, they are playing the World Series in baseball without any teams outside the US and Canada even having a chance to compete in the league. It is just a name and it's as good a name as I can think of.

Of course I agree that full rules can and should be posted for people who enter. But if those UTF rules are posted, they can copy and paste them and be done. Or copy and paste and then make whatever changes they want.

So, what you are really asking is, "Do you think somebody might find it useful if I put together an example set of tournament rules for Dominion, and maybe post it here?"

And then answer is, of course, sure, they might, go for it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wraith wrote:
rickert wrote:
Travis, I think many would favor a two-player, winner-take-all championship.

Many might. Would all? Because you need all if you want to make that a universal.

Otherwise, it's down to the organisers of the tournament to decide. The best we can do for them is to increase awareness of the pros and cons of such ideas.

Quote:
It requires someone to be able to adapt to that format in order to claim the title.

But doesn't require that someone be able to adapt to three- or four-player. Why single out two-player this way?

By "championship" I'm assuming you mean a tournament devoted to this style of play, by the way. If you mean that just the last match of the tournament should be a two-player game, why isn't adaptability to the various forms of the game being tested throughout the tournament?

Quote:
It keeps a third and/or fourth person from being able to determine the outcome or at least influence it.

Again, I have to ask whether this is a significant factor in Dominion.

Quote:
Plus I believe that several would hang around to watch the tournament's two best players duke it out. If they didn't want to, they could play informally at another table. Considering that a two-player game takes 30-40 minutes it's not a stretch that people would watch. They do in Magic tourneys.

I've tried watching games at CCG tournaments before. Frankly, I've never been able to see much of what was going on. There's a reason chess championships typically display the board to the audience on large TV monitors (and ordinary tournaments don't have a finals match at all).

So again, obviously, some favour this sort of thing, and some don't. How does this bring us towards a universal format?


You are completely ignoring the fact that I don't intend for these to be ironclad rules. Forget the name. A rose by any other name would..... If you think there could ever be a set of rules upon which everyone could agree, then you aren't that experienced at these things.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
tim
United States
hudsonville
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ok, its been established why some think a "universal" set of tournament rules wouldn't be feasible. Can we discuss what different good tournament formats would look like or what formats have not worked and why? Examples of actually having implemented it would be more helpful than speculating what would or wouldn't work.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Calhoun
msg tools
I like the idea of a 2p only dominion tournament, but I think a 4 player format would be a better test of a players skill, because 4 player games by nature are more complex. I agree with the previous poster who said counting VP makes no sense and is a bad idea, even for tie breakers; the VP total is reflective of the relative skill of the players in the game against each other, and overall the VP totals are basically random, and unrepresentative of the skill of the individual player; not to mention that counting VP will inevitably tempt people to collude. I think a great way to go would be a variable elimination swiss style.

An ideal size for a tournament would be 16 players, then it could last 4 rounds, with the last place player from each game being eliminated in each round; or it could last 3 rounds with the 3rd and 4th place being eliminated each round, except for the final round which is winner take all.

Tournaments with more or less than 16 players can have an elimination structure tailored to the number of players and the time available. A first place finish in a given round is worth 4 points, 2nd place 3 points, ect... and the seating is designed so that the players with the 4 highest scores play together, the players with the next 4 highest play together, ect..., and after each round, a certain portion of the field with the lowest score is eliminated. A tie in game results in each player getting the avg points, e.g. a first place tie gives each player 4+3/2 = 3.5 points.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Miranda
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
I don't know about any sort of UTF, but this is what I'm putting together for ChiTag (Chicago Toy and Game Fair).

This is based on distinctions I've made from the last tournament I hosted through Cat and Mouse Game Store, and the one tournament I've played in.
Plus I received some feedback from some of the players, as well.



First off, I will attempt to throw two tournaments: Class B for Beginners, relative newbies, and casual players.

And a Class A tournament for more competitive players.


The Class B tournament will be free, with prizes in the form of anything we can get from sponsors.

The Class A tournament will have a $10 (subject to change) entry fee, 100% of which will go toward the prize fund, and will be paid out in the form of gift certificates.


The general format will be the same for both Class A and Class B, with differences I will discuss later.


The ideal number of players will be 16, and we'll use this number as an example.
....

Ok, here goes:

Round 1-- 16 players. 4 players at each table. Players are seated randomly.

We'll call the tables: A B C D

After the games are played, players will get tournament points based on how they finished.
For the 1st round:

1st= 3
2nd= 2
3rd= 1
4th= 0

As you'll see, the points awarded per round will be slightly different each round (weighed more heavily for later rounds)

All players will advance to the second round, with the following seating


Table A
1st-A
2nd-B
3rd-C
4th-D

(the number is how they placed in Round 1, with the table they were at)

Table B
1st-B
2nd-C
3rd-D
4th-A

etc etc.

After the games are played, the players will receive tournament points based on how they finished. The following are the number of points players receive:

1st= 3.1
2nd= 2.05
3rd= 1.03
4th= 0

Note: The 2nd round's tournament points are weighted a little more.

The 16 players are now dwindled down to 8 players.

The 8 players who advance are:
1) The 1st place finishers of each table in Round 2 (4 players)

2) From the remaining 12 players, the 4 players with the highest tournament point total.

In case of a tie in tournament points, we look to the opponent with the highest point total, he/she defeated. Whoever beat the person with the higher point total advances.

If there is still a tie, we look to the opponent with the highest point total, he/she was defeated by.

If there is STILL a tie, we look to the opponent with the 2nd highest point total, he/she defeated.

....

The top 8 are seated, as follows:

Table A---- 1st 4th 5th 8th

Table B---- 2nd 3rd 6th 7th

The standings are based on total tournament points.

I will try not to have the same players playing each other.
This is probably impossible.
But higher ranked changes will take precedence.

EG if the 1st and 4th player and 8th players have all played each other, more of an effort will be made, so the 1st and 4th player don't play each other (given the 1st hasn't played the 2nd or 3rd player)

....

After the game is played, players will receive tournament points, as follows.

1st= 3.14
2nd= 2.07
3rd= 1.04
4th= 0

The Top 4 players advance to the next Round.

Who are the Top 4?

1)The winners from each table (2 players)

2) From the remaining 6, the two players with the highest # of tournament points.

Ties decided as in the previous round.


For the Class B tournament, the ultimate rank in the tournament will be based on the player's standing in the last game

eg
1st= 1st place, 2nd= 2nd place...etc

and they'll receive prizes accordingly.


In the Class A tournament, the final 2 will advance to a Best-of-3 game showdown.
Who are the final 2?

1) The player who won the Top 4 game
2) From the remaining 3 players, the player with the most tournament points.

BTW, Tournament points from Top 4 Round (Class A) are as follows:

1st= 3.17
2nd= 2.09
3rd= 1.05
4th= 0

....

In the first game of the final 2 round, the player with the most tournament points will have the choice of going first. (All previous games, starting player is chosen at random)

For each subsequent game, the loser of the previous game will have choice of starting player.

The winner of 2 out of the 3 games will be the champion.

.........


Other notes:

1) Class B will be Base and Intrigue (5 and 5)

2) Class A will be half base/intrigue and half seaside

3) In all rounds of Class A, the players will stack their opening two hands, thus choosing their opening split. eg 5/2, 3/4

4) Random set-ups for all rounds. Ideally, we'll have the same random setup for each table, given the required amount of sets.

5) Random setup will be announced right before the start of the game.

6) if there is a tie within a game (after # of turns has been settled), then the players will receive an average of the two places in which they finish. eg average the points for 2nd and 3rd (rounding up to 2 decimal places)

7) with 16 players, the top 3 players will be paid out.
For class A, it will be fractions of the prize fund , 1st= 50% 2nd= 30% 3rd= 20%

8) For an odd amount of players, we will split the tables up in to tables of 3 or 4. The scoring of tournament points for a 3 player table, will essentially be the same, except there will be 0 points scored for 3rd place. 1st and 2nd have the same # of points.


I may be leaving out some stuff.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Metzger
United States
Pullman
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Good comments, thank you for posting these to the thread. I will address issues as they come to mind:

1) The term "universal" came after the term "uniform" took up that spot in the acronym "UTF." And yes, I was trying to coin a phrase just a little bit.

2) Matthew was the first to bring up a pet peeve of mine when reading some of these tournament reports: the "4-3-2-1" point system. I believe that winners should be credited higher than that when a point system is used, especially when there are games with different numbers of players.

3) Travis touched on something interesting that I hadn't really thought of - making 2-player games a part of the tournament. I personally consider the 2-player game vastly different from the 3 and 4 (moreso than they are from themselves), so I eschewed them from my mind. However, I can see a small tournament with one table for 4, two tables for 3, and a couple of tables for 2, and the players simply rotate around until they've played once at every table (and never played the same opponent twice).

However, this makes the point system that much more important. I don't like the idea of the "ceiling" being the same (Travis, you said winner gets 6 points from winning, regardless if they beat 1, 2, or 3 players). So here are some proposed splits for the differing numbers of players:

4-player game: 4-2-1-0
3-player game: 3-1-0
2-player game: 2-0

However, they should be adapted a little bit in order to deal with tied scores, but the important part is that a 3-player win is less than a 2-player win.

4) The reason why I didn't bring up card makeup is because I honestly don't care - Dominion utilizes a random setup from the start, and you play according to those rules...a good Dominion player should be able to win regardless of the set of 10 cards that are out there.

The whole "card selection" or "card drafting" schematic I see in these tournaments doesn't seem to be in the true nature of the game...it's kinda like going into a Settlers of Catan tournament game and selecting where the 6's go.

---

Alright, so new questions:

a) How much longer is a 4-player game than a 3-player game? A 2-player game? Can we stage two 2-player rounds in the time it takes to play one round of 3- or 4-player?

b) What IS a good tiebreaker?

c) Should there be a final, or a final bracket, or just play a Swiss-style for X number of rounds and declare a winner without a final?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Metzger
United States
Pullman
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
fungamebob wrote:
POST
I really like how you have some built-in tiebreakers.


I think my biggest problems with your scenario are the 2-player final (explained earlier in the thread), and the outright elimination of half of the field so early in the tournament.

I think it's a little odd to have a five-round tournament, and half of your field of players is gone after the second round. If there is going to be five rounds of 16 players anyways, you might as well just have a round-robin for five rounds of 4-player games (and I'm not talking a swiss, actually go in and schedule it).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Miranda
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
My whole thing is I absolutely do not want anyone who has no chance of winning or placing to remain in the tournament. There are too many potential problems. eg disruptive play, possible collusion, retaliatory play, or simply just not giving a shit.

Plus, playing a minimum of 2 games is generally enough.
If you want to play longer, then PLAY WELL haha

That's the thing with tournaments. people get eliminated.

i ran a similar format, and everyone seemed fine with it.

there were a few issues, but hopefully this new format will alleviate them.

i'm debating whether to make class B a little less cutthroat, where players will be playing longer, as you suggested.


the 2 player finale is a must for me. it plays out really well.
and if people know the format ahead of time, it's just something they prepare for.

eg "if i'm gonna win this thing, i better be able to play well with any no# of players"
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Cochran
United States
Costa Mesa
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmb
crambaza wrote:
nazdr3g wrote:
...
for consistency's sake, I would like to see a TO pick at random the 10 cards to be used at the start of the round, those are the cards used at every table. this insures consistent performance without someone lucking into a runaway combo that other tables did not even get to see that round. for example ironworks/great hall appearing at only one table could produce runaway results for a single player.
...


I don't like this idea. I think each table should have a different random set of cards. Being able to evaluate the current board, and think of your deck is part of the game. If you overhear play at anyother table, it could influence play at this table.


This is IMO no different than duplicate bridge, where everyone in the room plays the same set of cards over the course of the evening. Sure, you could be busy trying to overhear what the table next to you is doing with board 12, or you could just be playing your best. Dominion introduces enough randomness into the game once the board has been set that I don't think it's going to be an issue. It's not like people will be verbalizing their plans in advance ("before I kill you, dear opponents, I shall divulge my master combo"), so by the time the killer combo at the next table is going you'll already be playing and it'll probably be too late for you to assemble that combo anyway.

I'm all for the same kingdom set at all tables in a given round.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Metzger
United States
Pullman
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
There was an idea of having the same kingdom card set at each table, and the players just rotate tables (playing at each one once) in a round-robin. That would simplify some of the processes involved here by not having to set up (just reset the board after a game).

In a 16-player, 4-player-game round-robin, this would be the full intrigue and basic sets, 10 cards at each table, and each round you leave one table fallow.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.