Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
75 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Star Wars: Rebellion» Forums » Play By Forum

Subject: Star Wars Rebellion PBF - 1st Galactic Tournament rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
- -
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We stand on the threshold of a new beginning.

In order to ensure our security and continuing stability,we will organize the First Galactic Tournament, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for years.




Introduction:

This is a main thread of a first SW:R PBF tournament on BGG forum, which will be used for all announcements, discussion and for tracking the results. You will find a tournament bracket and links to every tournament game in a second post of this thread. A first post will be used to present players' and moderators' lists with a full set of tournament rules. A third post contains a summary of all match results.

Basic information:

• Single-elimination tournament for 8 players in total
Rise of the Empire expansion used in every game
• Two games played with different factions to choose a winner of each match - 14 games, 7 skirmishes, 3 rounds
• Moderators are allowed to play and will invite all remaining players
• An estimated start date: 24.02. - 03.03.2018 (first games can be started as soon as all rules are approved by moderators, a player list is full, and all players are assigned to a tournament bracket)

Moderators:

cyb3k
JosephProphet
Koleman2
mrfan

Players:

cyb3k
JosephProphet
Koleman2
mrfan
robbbbbb (invited by JosephProphet)
Lawldude (invited by mrfan)
Sringoot (invited by Koleman2)
Perf (invited by cyb3k)

Tournament rules:

I. General

Due to a long estimated time for this tournament, all participants should avoid adding any unnecessary delay time to it and keep everyone informed if they can predict their longer absence.

All participants will have their status on Player Waiting List updated:

- #[1stGT] for players,
- M for moderators.

If you received any invitation to a PBF game anyway or you're going to host a new game outside of tournament, please ensure that you will be able to play/moderate tournament games without delaying them significantly.

All players and moderators should subscribe to this thread and visit it regularly since all events like e.g. start of new games, result updates, rules questions etc. will be announced and resolved here.

II. Tournament phases

1. Selecting players

Each moderator who joined tournament at its beginning is allowed to invite one player.

If for some reasons remaining spots cannot be filled before a scheduled time of starting a tournament, other moderators may report own suggestions, e.g. decide to use Player Waiting List.

2. Assigning players to tournament bracket

Initial standings will be drawn by using the following steps:

1) drawing randomly a player
2) drawing a number representing a free AND available standing for that player

In addition, all match-ups of a first round will be created in a way excluding skirmishes of players who have already competed with each other in at least one other PBF game. Therefore, before an each step a whole situation will be checked - if at any times it appears that there's only a single option left for any player / standing, it will be announced and that player /standing will be taken out of the pool automatically instead. Then another step can be resolved as normally, if able.

3. Assigning moderators to games of current round

• Both games of each match will be moderated by different moderators
• An equal sharing of work should be used as much as possible in order to avoid delays / making it a burden
• Assigning moderators outside of tournament initial pool is allowed, assuming that there are any volunteers
• The same steps as for players' standings will be used to determine moderators randomly
• All 8 games of current round will be drawn at once

4. Resolving games of current round

• Moderators should host a game as soon as it is possible to start it (both opponents are ready and a previous game is completed); if that's not possible, please announce a scheduled date in a main tournament thread.

• A hosted game should be titled according to the following convention:

Quote:
Star Wars: Rebellion PBF <0XX> ( 1GT - <gameID> ) - <insert game title here>

<0XX> - game number according to the list from wiki page
<gameID> - double digit number which can be found on a list of games

• Each hosted game must be followed by posting a game link by its moderator in this thread; please add additional info for all players in that new post.

• The following steps of Galaxy Setup will be resolved as described below:

Prepare Mission Cards
Players send a GM to moderator with their selection (either base deck, expansion deck, or a decision to select own deck randomly) and post a notification in a game thread. If random selection is chosen, it will be done in a game thread, using a roll tool, after both sides are ready.

Place Starting Units and Loyalty
Moderator randomly draws starting loyalty for both factions, Then both players send another GM to moderator with unit setup selection (either base unit set, expansion unit setup or a request for random selection) and post a notification in a game thread. After both sides are ready, their selection is revealed.

1) If the same option is chosen, it will be used to determine unit setup.

2) If different options are chosen and no player selected a random option, unit setup type will be determined randomly.

3) If only one of players selected a random option, that player is allowed to either accept an opponent's selection or to force a random selection.

• Game moderator resolves a whole game between players and is responsible for managing players' decks, preparing board maps and following all game rules during a skirmish. If necessary, other moderators are allowed to help by providing board maps, answering some rules questions etc.

• In order to choose a winner of the match properly, each game should be played until a victory of any side, or at least to a point from which:
- determining all final results required to resolve a tie between players is possible,
- all possible players' moves cannot change the final outcome of both a game and its match.

Therefore, if a player wants to surrender a game, his request must be accepted by his opponent or else he loses a whole match if stopped playing without such permission. An opponent should be reminded by either moderator or a player willing to surrender to check a possible result of a match at this point (see resolving ties).

• When a game is completed, moderator prepares all information necessary to resolve a possible game tie and posts them in a game thread:
- a map presenting a final board state,
- list of played Objective cards (cards discarded for Rebel Cell or The Long War also count for that purpose, but should be marked accordingly),
- a total number of played/attempted (not discarded) Rebel and Imperial missions separately (base missions and other cards returned to hand counted multiple times if able).
A game result should be also announced by posting it in a tournament thread with a game link attached.

5. Round summary - match results and resolving ties

• Results of each match will be updated in a third post of this thread, in a duration of a current round, as soon as any completed game, with all required data filled in, is reported in a tournament thread.

• A player who won both games in a match advances to a next round.

• A winner of a match in which both players won a single game will be determined based on a following tie breaker list in a presented order:

In case of double Rebel victory:

1) Rebel reputation (surplus gain, i.e. below time marker included); lower result on track = better
2) number of Objective/Action cards played to achieve it* ; less = better
3) number of Rebel units on board, excluding Build Queue; more = better, unit types/quality do not matter
4) total number of Rebel loyalty markers; more = better
5) number of Rebel units in base/base system; more = better
6) played (i.e. attempted or resolved, but not discarded) missions** ; less = better

In case of double Imperial victory:

1) difference between time and reputation markers; higher result = better
2) Rebel reputation; lower result on track = better (because less rounds were played)
3) number of Objective/Action cards played to achieve final Rebel reputation* ; more = better
4) number of Imperial units on board, excluding Build Queue; less = better , unit types/quality do not matter
5) total number of Imperial loyalty markers; more = better
6) total number of subjugated systems; more = better
7) played (i.e. attempted or resolved, but not discarded) missions** ; less = better

* Only Rebel Action cards shifting reputation included
** cards returned to hand should be counted multiple times if played again


6. Resolving next rounds

• The only difference for resolving Round 2 is that each moderator will host a single game. During first two games of that round, remaining moderators will either participate in or spectate, awaiting for a completion of a first game. Even with no games hosted at the moment, all moderators are supposed to fulfill their duties concerning troubleshooting (see below), like e.g. resolving issues with rules questions which cannot be resolved by using rules book.

• During Round 3, if there are more moderators interested in moderating any final game than required, it will be determined randomly who will host each game. The other moderators still are supposed to fulfill their duties concerning troubleshooting (see below).

III. Troubleshooting

As a general rule: if at any times a situation not covered by tournament rules occurs, it should be reported in this thread immediately by a game moderator. In case of information which should be kept in secret (e.g. because of its impact on game decisions), a private communication via GeekMail between moderators should be used instead.

1. Rules questions

All rules questions should be either published in a game thread or sent to a game moderator by any player participating in at first place.

If a question can be answered by a game moderator without additional discussion, using game rules and other public information (see links below), including posts in a tournament thread, that moderator answers a question and reports a solution in a tournament thread as soon as it won't give away any decisions in a moderated game. A purpose of that is to remind all players a questioned rule and to use the same solution in all tournament games.

Useful links:

Official game FAQ
Official rules clarifications from FFG


If a question requires finding a solution for an issue, or in case of any doubts, a moderator can use either a tournament thread or (in case of secret information) GeekMail to contact with all other moderators. In that case, all moderators should determine how an issue will be resolved in all tournament games.

2. Misplayed rules

Depending on a situation, if either a player or a game moderator notices a misplayed rule one of the following should be used:

• If no vital information about held cards / decks were revealed in the meantime, and a reasonable amount of time is required to fix a problem, a game should be returned to a point allowing to fix that error. In case of too many dices rolled, surplus results should be ignored (starting from a last dice of that color) so that repeating a roll is avoided.

• Otherwise, a game will be continued from its current state as it's considered valid. Please double check the rules and game actions in order to avoid such situation.

A misplayed rule should be also reported in a tournament thread as a reminder for all other players.
5 
 Thumb up
0.54
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
- -
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tournament bracket:

(last update: 23-10-2018)



List of games:


Round

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1



2

2

2

2



3

3

Match ID

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4



5

6

5

6



7

7

Game ID

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08



09

10

11

12



13

14

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
- -
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Match results:

(last update: 23-10-2018)

Round

1




1




1




1




2




2




3



Match ID

1




2




3




4




5




6




7



Score

2

0


0

1


1

0


2

0


1

0


0

2


0

0

Draw type


---




---




---




---




---




---




---


Deciding step of tie breaker


---




---




---




---




---




---




---


Score of tie breaker

---

---


---

---


---

---


---

---


---

---


---

---


---

---

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Prophet
United Kingdom
London
Camden
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Love it, bracket looks amazing!


At first I didn't like the -1 for at least 2 away in addition to the -1 per adjacency, but it makes sense.

I think it should be -1 for being 2 away, -2 for being adjacent, and nothing is > 2 away.

My reasoning being the adjustment should be based on how quickly the empire could reach the rebels via movement, and not on how risky the play is (which would be # of imperial systems adjacent). If you are deciding to make a largely risky base placement (adjacent to more than 1 empire system), it would be because the placement has enough benefits to outweigh the risks (in theory), and as such doesn't need an extra benefit.

EDIT: For clarity
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paranoid Seer
Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Looking super! Love the bracket! I'm using my invite to invite lawldude, who has accepted.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex S
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have invited Sringoot to the tournament, and is confirmed to join
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
- -
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pending approval of last invitation ATM.

Regarding starting positions on a bracket: would you like to use a fully random setup, or some kind of seeding?

If seeding is used, a first option is to use ELO ratings order from most recent ELO Ratings for PBF Players for slots 1-8, which gives quite interesting match-ups.

A semi-random solution is also possible, by assigning slots 1-4 only by ELO (as an alternative, all moderators might take those slots). Slots 5-8 would be drawn randomly for the remaining players.


I need a third post to prepare a table for match results, which will allow to input all tie breaker results when they happen. I can't mix two such tables like a one for games' list in a single post. So that I'll paste an old post below and continue a discussion about a quoted issue:

cyb3k wrote:
Perf wrote:
Potential problem with 2-game matches (and elimination system) where main tie-breaker is reputation-time difference (it was pointed out in the other thread and I think I agree with it) is that it discourages risky choices for Rebel base.

Example:
In first game, Rebel player loses in second round due to risky choice for base location. In second game, the other player, now as Rebellion, only needs to select a very safe system for the base, stuff all units there and survive a few rounds.

Whatever tie breaker is used as a top priority, it rather can't (and shouldn't) exclude benefits from an early destruction of Rebel base. After all, that's what players are supposed to do while playing as Empire. Regardless if that's more or less a matter of luck, denying Rebel Objectives and an efficient usage of troops to seek and destroy Rebel base ASAP is a most important task of Imperial player. Whoever did it better/faster, IMO deserved a victory in a double skirmish.

We can, however, include an impact of a starting Rebel location for Imperial 1st tie breaker, by implementing a following modifier:

An Imperial player receives a penalty to a difference between time and reputation markers:

• -1 for each adjacent starting Imperial system to an initial Rebel base location (including a remote system with DSUC),
• -1 if distance between the nearest Imperial system and an initial Rebel base location is 2 or lower.

EDIT: A penalty is halved (fraction is kept) if a new Rebel base was established during either Round 1 or Round 2.

(a rule above is to prevent exploit attempts)

With that modifier, a Rebel player who lost a first game early due to a dangerous base location, might force an opponent to look for some equally risky location for his base. Of course, a final result can reach negative values and a higher one wins, like without a modifier.


JosephProphet wrote:
At first I didn't like the -1 for at least 2 away in addition to the -1 per adjacency, but it makes sense.

I think it should be -1 for being 2 away, -2 for being adjacent, and nothing is > 2 away.

My reasoning being the adjustment should be based on how quickly the empire could reach the rebels via movement, and not on how risky the play is (which would be # of imperial systems adjacent). If you are deciding to make a largely risky base placement (adjacent to more than 1 empire system), it would be because the placement has enough benefits to outweigh the risks (in theory), and as such doesn't need an extra benefit.


My reasoning to reward double adjacency by -3 and a triple (!) adjacency of Alderaan by -4 is that multiple adjacent Imperial systems:
- allow to reinforce a sector much faster,
- make creating and maintaining a "bottleneck" made of sabotaged and blockaded systems much harder.

Such method does not include Imperial unit setup at all, and that's it's drawback, but I'd say that's something which should be take into account during Imperial setup anyway. And if Empire leaves any sector slightly weaker defended, why not to reward a Rebel player for a potentially wise selection of a base location? That still can be verified by drawn missions and executed moves.

On second thought, keeping a fraction in case of moving a base during Round 1. or 2. is a bad idea, let's round the halved result down instead.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Prophet
United Kingdom
London
Camden
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cyb3k wrote:
Pending approval of last invitation ATM.

Regarding starting positions on a bracket: would you like to use a fully random setup, or some kind of seeding?

If seeding is used, a first option is to use ELO ratings order from most recent ELO Ratings for PBF Players for slots 1-8, which gives quite interesting match-ups.

A semi-random solution is also possible, by assigning slots 1-4 only by ELO (as an alternative, all moderators might take those slots). Slots 5-8 would be drawn randomly for the remaining players.


I need a third post to prepare a table for match results, which will allow to input all tie breaker results when they happen. I can't mix two such tables like a one for games' list in a single post. So that I'll paste an old post below and continue a discussion about a quoted issue:


Well my gut reaction would be to not have it seeded by ELO, but that's because I'm biased and would end up playing Koleman again (I've only played on the forums twice, and both times I've lost to Koleman ).

If I had to vote though, I'd vote for completely random, as the games needed to fully flesh out the ELO hasn't been achieved yet.

cyb3k wrote:
My reasoning to reward double adjacency by -3 and a triple (!) adjacency of Alderaan by -4 is that multiple adjacent Imperial systems:
- allow to reinforce a sector much faster,
- make creating and maintaining a "bottleneck" made of sabotaged and blockaded systems much harder.

Such method does not include Imperial unit setup at all, and that's it's drawback, but I'd say that's something which should be take into account during Imperial setup anyway. And if Empire leaves any sector slightly weaker defended, why not to reward a Rebel player for a potentially wise selection of a base location? That still can be verified by drawn missions and executed moves.

On second thought, keeping a fraction in case of moving a base during Round 1. or 2. is a bad idea, let's round the halved result down instead.


I'll preface this by saying that I'm not too fussed about this, and am willing to go either way.

My thoughts though are that the original reason for the modifier is so that rebel base placement is not affected by the structure of the tiebreaker in the tournament. I feel if we give adjacency points, it treads back into that territory of affecting rebel placement beyond that of the game at hand. -1 and -2 I feel deal with the original problem, but don't warp any decisions beyond.

As said that's my 2 cents, and am just happy we get a tournament regardless !
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paranoid Seer
Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For the tie breaker, in the case of double imperial victory, I think something based around the reputation-time gap is right, perhaps with the base location modifications for the reasons discussed.

Double Rebel victory should probably be the lowest reputation marker. Should also encourage aggressive rebel play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
JosephProphet wrote:
Well my gut reaction would be to not have it seeded by ELO, but that's because I'm biased and would end up playing Koleman again (I've only played on the forums twice, and both times I've lost to Koleman ).

I'm biased too: having played Cyb3k six times already (including F2F games), I wouldn't want to meet him again immediately in the first round.

So my idea would be similar to something Cyb3k already proposed: for the first round, each of top 4 ELO players gets randomly paired with one of the bottom 4 ELO players, but the pairings of players who already played at least 1 PBF game against each other are not allowed.

Second round proceeds with no restrictions.


EDITED TO ADD:

I've been reading on various tournament systems recently and apparently something like this - avoiding pairing of players traveling to tournament together or from the same country - is done already in some tournaments (casual or semi-casual ones, I guess, not the ones that are strictly professional).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastiaan Ringoot
msg tools
Avatar
If I was to have any say in it, I'd disregard the elo ratings as they're based on so little games. I'd go with random but you can offcourse prevent players from opposing someone they already played several times.

Edit : but in all fairness, everything is fine with me. Great initiative!





4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
cyb3k wrote:
Perf wrote:
Potential problem with 2-game matches (and elimination system) where main tie-breaker is reputation-time difference (it was pointed out in the other thread and I think I agree with it) is that it discourages risky choices for Rebel base.

Example:
In first game, Rebel player loses in second round due to risky choice for base location. In second game, the other player, now as Rebellion, only needs to select a very safe system for the base, stuff all units there and survive a few rounds.

Whatever tie breaker is used as a top priority, it rather can't (and shouldn't) exclude benefits from an early destruction of Rebel base. After all, that's what players are supposed to do while playing as Empire.


It's not really about benefits for winners, but rather, too severe punishment for the loser. Obviously, the problem with Rebellion in context of tournaments is that game result doesn't depend on victory points in the strictest sense - you either win, or you lose. So I wasn't really suggesting any kind of modifier for initial base location (which feels like a huge contrivance to me; it didn't even cross my mind when originally making this point), it's more like argument in favor of using other tournament system which doesn't rely on artificial tie-breakers applied to a very small sample of games. "You either win, or you lose" approach feels more in spirit of this game to me - the less interference to it, the better.


Using double elimination system for 8 players as an example:



With double elimination (vs. single elimination):

1. The same number of games: 14 (possibly 15, if necessary).

2. The same number of "rounds" necessary to complete: 6 (possibly 7, if necessary - with just 1 additional game).

3. Winner will have to face at least 3 different opponents, quite possibly more (as opposed to exactly 3 with single elimination), so defeating wider field of players is a better test of skill. Not to mention probably more fun to most players, because of variety.

4. No need for tie-breakers, you either win or not. I mentioned earlier the punishment for risky strategies with tie-breakers. It doesn't have to be as extreme as losing in the second round of the first game. If you lose your first game as Rebels with 4 rounds to go, then in the second game, there will probably be a point where (playing as Empire) you're left with only 3 rounds to go, so you know you're already eliminated - even if you eventually win the game, it might be a bit of a downer. Not too fun, and quite anticlimactic if it happens in the final game of tournament! With double elimination, you will never find yourself out of tournament in the middle of the game - and the worst case scenario is that you're out of tournament the moment you lose your second game, not earlier.

5. If you're the second-best player, but encounter the best player in first round, you don't end your participation in tournament, as opposed to single elimination. (This is a common argument against single elimination, but probably worth mentioning.)

6. If any player prefers playing one faction for whatever reason, then they probably have a better chance to have it with double elimination (again, "fun" would be the argument here) as opposed to playing exactly half of your games with each faction, no matter which one you prefer.



Of course, the reverse of the last one (point 6) is that playing half of the games with each faction is probably more likely to result in a winner that is skilled at playing both, so that would be the argument for it - it's just a matter of deciding what is more important.



It may probably look I'm only complaining, but that's certainly not my intention! Just providing some discussion points (for this or future tournaments) about things that were not mentioned yet or perhaps not discussed enough. I definitely appreciate all efforts expended by PBF moderators - for this tournament and overall.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paranoid Seer
Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That double elimination thing is clever. I don't think I've seen it before (or rather, I suspect I have but not understood it). That looks like it might work well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
- -
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1. Just to confirm: players' list has been completed, Perf has accepted my invitation.

We are ready to draw standings for each player. Assuming that we agree to avoid creating any skirmishes between contenders who already played any game before, following skirmishes would be excluded:

Koleman2 - JosephProphet
Koleman2 - robbbbbb
Koleman2 - mrfan (PBF game incomplete yet - please confirm that you want to include that skirmish)
mrfan - Lawldude
cyb3k - Perf


I agree that ELO rating isn't reliable enough yet to use it for any seeding, there's simply too few games played. In that case, my suggestion for drawing is below:


Quote:
A draw would be resolved in a following way:

1) drawing randomly a player
2) drawing a number representing a free AND available standing for that player (some can be already locked by a previous opponent from skirmishes above)

Steps 1 and 2 would be repeated until all players are assigned. Before each step a whole situation is checked - if at any times it appears that there's only a single option left for any player / standing, it will be announced and that player /standing is taken out of the pool automatically instead. Then another step can be resolved as normally, if able.



2. Tie breakers

As we're missing some hard data, I've finished a spreadsheet that I was preparing to evaluate how good each possible starting setup is in terms of distances to the nearest starting Imperial system. Here's a link: <click>

Apart of its primal usage (choosing potentially best Rebel base location , Imperial unit setup and starting remote system), the results on attached charts will greatly show why more variety of a mentioned modifier for a starting base location is needed.

Just to summarize current suggestions - tie breaker looks so far as below (with minor changes for last positions and with an altered Imperial set):
Quote:

I. In case of double Rebel victory:

1) Rebel reputation (surplus gain, i.e. below time marker included)
2) number of Objective/Action cards played to achieve it
3) number of Rebel units on board, excluding Build Queue; more = better, unit types/quality do not matter
4) total number of Rebel loyalty markers
5) number of Rebel units in base/base system; more = better
6) played (i.e. attempted or resolved, but not discarded) missions; less = better

II. In case of double Imperial victory:

1) difference between time and reputation markers with a modifier (see below)
2) Rebel reputation
3) number of Objective/Action cards played to achieve final Rebel reputation
4) time marker (number of rounds played)
5) number of Imperial units on board, excluding Build Queue; less = better , unit types/quality do not matter
5) total number of Imperial loyalty markers
6) total number of subjugated systems
7) played (i.e. attempted or resolved, but not discarded) missions; less = better

And for a modifier we have two options:

Quote:
Option 1:

• -1 for each adjacent starting Imperial system to an initial Rebel base location (including a remote system with DSUC),
• -1 if distance between the nearest Imperial system and an initial Rebel base location is 2 or lower.

Option 2:

• -2 for an initial Rebel base location adjacent to any starting Imperial system (including a remote system with DSUC),
• -1 if distance between the nearest Imperial system and an initial Rebel base location = 2.

I assume that in both cases, if Rebel base is moved to another location during Round 1. or 2. , a modifier is halved, rounding down.


So that a difference is that multiple adjacency increases a modifier.


IMO a problem with a 2nd option is that for all variants of setup possible, as a linked spreadsheet shows, >60-80% has any adjacency, and >95% has distance 2 or lower. That makes -1 and -2 modifier rather common and unlikely that it will change anything in case of early Rebel loss during 1st game. An opponent will simply go for -2 too or even -1, and only an equally lucky draws and decisions could change the final outcome. A single point of difference between modifiers of both players will give only one additional round to tie a match. In that case, there's no point to use a modifier which will not work at all as supposed to.

Even if a total, modified difference allows to use a 2nd Imperial tie breaker, a player who won a first game still has the advantage, because he will have more rounds to draw and play Objective cards.

That's why I'd rather keep Option 1, assuming that we're going to keep a current tournament system. Whatever we'll do, we probably cannot further appease results of early Rebel loss for a whole match. We're probably too cautious about that, as I doubt that it will happen even once that base is eliminated earlier than Round 5 during a whole tournament.

I'm not quite sure how it will affect longer games, but for sure it will force both players to choose possibly equally rated Rebel base locations, unless they think that they can handle the risk of giving the edge to an opponent.


Perf wrote:
Of course, the reverse of the last one (point 6) is that playing half of the games with each faction is probably more likely to result in a winner that is skilled at playing both, so that would be the argument for it - it's just a matter of deciding what is more important.


For me, that's no problem to change a tournament system at this point, if necessary, I kept single-elimination because that was a first suggestion, and it also has some advantages. I was just going to use double-elimination for a second tournament when it starts anyway.

I think it's about time for moderators to make/confirm some decisions, if we can't decide about everything at once, let's spit that on smaller parts. Adding my vote next to questions:


1) What tournament system definitely? I like both, but I'm lazy so I'd rather kept single elimination for that one, the next one will be double-elimination and perhaps with 16 players

BTW: A reminder from a previous discussion how it would work with a single game per match:

Perf wrote:
Another possible way to select factions is:
1. Both players secretly select their preferred faction. If they're different, each gets their choice.
2. If they're the same, the random draw decides factions, but...
3. ...the player who didn't get their preferred faction, gets to decide which unit setup is used (base or expansion).


2) Please either accept a suggestion for drawing initial standings or propose some corrections so we can discuss them.


The following two if tournament system remains unchanged:

3) Please check and either accept or correct a suggested tie breaker order for both factions and then we will ask everyone again for opinion.

4) Modifier for Rebel base - please select a preferred option, or, as an alternative: please either declare that you don't want any special modifiers for Rebel base location or suggest something else which could fix that.
For me, Option 1 is a way to go. It will at least make a second game more interesting.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paranoid Seer
Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just to confirm I'd prefer to not play either lawldude or koleman2 in the first round as I've played/am playing them recently.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Medley
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I would like to play! I'm 11-0 so far, tho not against the strongest competition.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aron
Netherlands
flag msg tools
Life is game, you gotta enjoy the journey.
badge
Life may knock you down sometimes. Its up to you if you stand up and live your life to the fullest.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Great work all. Will follow for certain.

One thing though, when there is a winner, the a new hope throne room medal ceremony video must be played. The ultimate victory music (good side that is).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex S
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1) I like single elimination - 2 matches per round. I like being able to play both sides, and not adding more brackets.

2) I’m good with whatever is decided for standings

3) Tie breaker seems good.

4) I don’t like the Rebel base modifier. Up to me, I would remove that.

Either way, there is a lot of luck and randomness to starting setups and missions, I’m just looking to play for fun and not take it too serious... but if you’re my opponent I will still crush you
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebb R.
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My 2 cents
1) I'm okay with Single Elimination this time. Doulbe Elimination or swiss has the charm of bidding and players being able to compete in games against two opponents.

2) Ya, I'm in for the fun, so I'll play whoever. Mrfan already vetoed our matchup meeple

3) Ok with tiebreakers, would have the following inputs/questions:
- why is less Imperial units better?
- Why action cards as a win indicator? Some action cards are worthless but the leader is good, or sometimes you will not get a chance to play the card. I would go for objectives solely.
- second TB for Imps: Guessing higher marker --> better?

4) I'm fine with either way (slighly favoring no modifier), so I will not vote on that.

As Koleman2 said, Rebellion is a lot of randomness (that is one of the reasons, why apart from gametime, this probably isn't part of the organized play of FFG), but let's try to have fun and see this as a first chance to get a competitive scene of PBF going in here meeple
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
One more thing that perhaps might be worth mentioning.

Both winner and runner-up will have to play 6 games. "I'm going to play a lot of Rebellion" perhaps sounds alluring on paper, but 6 back-to-back games? I can imagine this might be exhausting, the current record is 7 games - after over year and a half of PBF games.

If this tournament is supposed to be testing the waters of sorts and a fun thing to participate in, perhaps it's better to err on the side of caution and - instead of relatively long tournament, with all complicated tie-breakers, modifiers etc. - just go in the opposite direction and do something quick and fun, with players selecting factions (in whatever way is agreed upon before tournament) and then playing a single game, with winner progressing to the next round? So that would be 3 rounds, 7 games in total. You wouldn't even have to change the brackets picture, Cyb3k. Being out in the first round of tournment wouldn't feel as disappointing either, since this would also allow for the next tournament to start sooner.

I'm sure going that far in the tournament won't be my burden to carry... laugh ...so I'm fine either way, but still...

Just thinking out loud.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebb R.
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Perf wrote:
One more thing that perhaps might be worth mentioning.

Both winner and runner-up will have to play 6 games. "I'm going to play a lot of Rebellion" perhaps sounds alluring on paper, but 6 back-to-back games? I can imagine this might be exhausting, the current record is 7 games - after over year and a half of PBF games.

If this tournament is supposed to be testing the waters of sorts and a fun thing to participate in, perhaps it's better to err on the side of caution and - instead of relatively long tournament, with all complicated tie-breakers, modifiers etc. - just go in the opposite direction and do something quick and fun, with players selecting factions (in whatever way is agreed upon before tournament) and then playing a single game, with winner progressing to the next round? So that would be 3 rounds, 7 games in total. You wouldn't even have to change the brackets picture, Cyb3k. Being out in the first round of tournment wouldn't feel as disappointing either, since this would also allow for the next tournament to start sooner.

I'm sure going that far in the tournament won't be my burden to carry... laugh ...so I'm fine either way, but still...

Just thinking out loud.


For the Discord Tabletop Simulator Tournament we used a bidding system:
After the planets got drawn, both players bid in secret for their faction with a bid of 0-5. If players had different faction bids, they got their faction. If players bid on the same faction, the higher bid got the faction while the lower bid got the equivalent of the bid in trianlge units, where 3 triangles could be substituted for a square. If we go with single games, I would prefer a bid system to determine sides.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastiaan Ringoot
msg tools
Avatar
My personal preference would be to determine the sides randomly for each game if we play 1 game per round.


I also agree with Perf that we're looking at a boatload of games.


Maybe another format can be considerd? 2 games ( 2 rounds, 1 game per round ) vs random opponents and then semi final + final = 4 games total.
The ' losing 4 ' after the first two games could play for the third place in a similar semi final + final.
Half the players would play 4, the other half would play 3.


Some tie breakers would be needed but the game's reputation/time system is perfect for that.


Not critising, just brainstorming here.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex S
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sringoot wrote:
My personal preference would be to determine the sides randomly for each game if we play 1 game per round.


I also agree with Perf that we're looking at a boatload of games.


Maybe another format can be considerd? 2 games ( 2 rounds, 1 game per round ) vs random opponents and then semi final + final = 4 games total.
The ' losing 4 ' after the first two games could play for the third place in a similar semi final + final.
Half the players would play 4, the other half would play 3.


Some tie breakers would be needed but the game's reputation/time system kinda is perfect for that.


Not critising, just brainstorming here.


Yes, this is my favourite idea, but with bidding for sides
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Prophet
United Kingdom
London
Camden
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If everyone is worried about length, then single game per match is fine with me.

As for 2 games per match up, my thinking is that the flow would be much better as there wouldn't be waiting between games, as sides are switched, and the next game is started. Only potentially significant wait time would be between brackets. No queue system in place to drag on the next round of games.

Also with 2 games per match up there is no need to incorporate game changing aspects (such as bidding). I'm personal to keeping the game as unchanged from the source as possible as I just don't feel confident that the extent of balance has been reliably discovered to make informed bids (which would really be revealed over large data sets).

My votes would be for:
2 games per matchup, single round elimination, tiebreakers and no round modifiers

or

Single round elimination, and bidding (trooper units only though).

EDIT: NVM updated to prefer single round elimination, as yes it would be the quickest, and we would have a good idea for what is needed in future tournaments from it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
- -
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Perf wrote:
One more thing that perhaps might be worth mentioning.

Both winner and runner-up will have to play 6 games. "I'm going to play a lot of Rebellion" perhaps sounds alluring on paper, but 6 back-to-back games? I can imagine this might be exhausting, the current record is 7 games - after over year and a half of PBF games.


To be more precise: 4 players will play 2 games, other 2 players will play 4 games and the last 2 players will play 6 games in total. I expect also some interruptions / awaiting time between consecutive games since there's no way that nobody will have to wait for either a new opponent or a free moderator. That doesn't sound so bad IMO, especially that getting to a new game from the waiting list currently takes probably a similar amount of time (length of 4+ PBF games?).

Lawldude wrote:
Ok with tiebreakers, would have the following inputs/questions:
- why is less Imperial units better?
- Why action cards as a win indicator? Some action cards are worthless but the leader is good, or sometimes you will not get a chance to play the card. I would go for objectives solely.
- second TB for Imps: Guessing higher marker --> better?


- Less Imperial units and still won game means that player probably used them more efficiently,
- Action cards are mentioned for Reputation tiebreaker just to include a possible reputation shift from Noble Sacrifice,
- lower Rebel reputation (higher score on a track) loses.


Regarding a discussion above:

Well, that's more ideas than we could agree with each other for. Whatever variant is used, we won't make everyone fully satisfied of that choice.

That's why I was asking for moderators' opinion at first place - we shouldn't hesitate that much. I keep believing that it's not a last chance to play in a PBF tournament, the next one will certainly use another system and it will rather be working with a single game per match.


(As a side note: I'm not sure why we're getting back to bidding with unit compensation, IMO an option below for a single game per match takes a cake)

Perf wrote:
Another possible way to select factions is:
1. Both players secretly select their preferred faction. If they're different, each gets their choice.
2. If they're the same, the random draw decides factions, but...
3. ...the player who didn't get their preferred faction, gets to decide which unit setup is used (base or expansion).



Let's summarize - 3 of 4 declared moderators have already voted for some asked details, and from those we can state that:

- a current tournament system remains unchanged (3 of 4 votes),
- no extra modifiers for 1st Imperial tie breaker condition will be used, i.e. Rebel base location has no effect on it (was 2 of 4, but at second thought I don't want to use it too so it's 3 of 4),
- a suggested method for drawing player's standing seems to be approved without any additional suggestions (3 of 4), i.e. I'll exclude listed skirmishes from a drawing,
- tie breaker also seems to be fine (3 of 4), however after thinking again about it I found that Imperial one can be reduced if we don't use any modifiers. Combined 1st and 2nd condition (diference of time and rep., Rebel rep.) make a 4th one obsolete (time marker) since it's already included in a first one, and 2nd just checks the same thing.

So that a final list of tie breaker conditions would look as below:

Quote:
I. In case of double Rebel victory:

1) Rebel reputation (surplus gain, i.e. below time marker included)
2) number of Objective/Action cards played to achieve it
3) number of Rebel units on board, excluding Build Queue; more = better, unit types/quality do not matter
4) total number of Rebel loyalty markers
5) number of Rebel units in base/base system; more = better
6) played (i.e. attempted or resolved, but not discarded) missions; less = better

II. In case of double Imperial victory:

1) difference between time and reputation markers
2) Rebel reputation
3) number of Objective/Action cards played to achieve final Rebel reputation
4) number of Imperial units on board, excluding Build Queue; less = better , unit types/quality do not matter
5) total number of Imperial loyalty markers
6) total number of subjugated systems
7) played (i.e. attempted or resolved, but not discarded) missions; less = better


I'll keep updating things according to those. Once I'm done with a list of less important rules (you'll find everything in a first post of a thread), I'll let you know in a new reply and I'll start drawing your standings in a bracket.

When that's done, I assume that we'll have to assign moderators to each match. I've already suggested assigning two different moderators for each match; each game would be moderated by other person. I guess we can draw that too, obeying a similar exclusion rule (nobody can host a game for himself).

And a final step is to approve a whole set of rules by moderators.


That's how I'd like to resolve all preparations. Feel free to discuss in the meantime.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  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.