Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
54 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Terra Mystica» Forums » Organized Play

Subject: Season 32 of the Terra Mystica tournament rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Juho Snellman
Switzerland
Zurich
Zurich
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
The next season of the tournament starts in a couple of weeks, signups are open at http://tmtour.org/
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Saikat Banerjee
Germany
flag msg tools
Season 31 was my first season at TMtour, and I won the bottom league (Leaue 7). If I do not sign up for Season 32, will I get an entry to League 6 in Season 33? Or, do I have to play again in the bottom league?

I could not understand it from the rules, which said, "A returning player may however not fill an empty slot higher in the league system than the player finished on the last season he/she played."

Thanks
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Haas
United States
Mountain View
CA
flag msg tools
I believe the way that works is that you're eligible for any open slot created by a D7 winner in S32 not signing up for S33. So: you might rejoin in D6, but you also might rejoin in D7; it depends on what signups for the season look like.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lizzy VandeVogelweyhde
msg tools
First try since S20. Have fun all - let the Giants win!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adi G
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi,

I'm new to the tournament (second time I'm playing this tournament).

Yet, this is the first time I noticed the clock when I clicked on 'Info' bar. Could someone explain how it works? I'm unable to figure it out, and I feel kind of stupid.

Appreciate the help!

Good Luck to all the participants!

Cheers

EDIT: Dropbox link removed after Socks explanation below.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Socks Wielder
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello,

The left timer is raw time taken thinking. As soon as you have a decision to make this one starts counting.

The 8h-12h-1d-3d are chess clock related. They list how much time has been taken but only after you haven't made a decision for 8h-12h-1d-3d of not playing.

The one in bold is the one used in your current game (tournament has a 8h grace period)

So if you always play after 7h59 minutes your first timer would get high but the 2nd-3rd-4th and 5th ones would stay at 0.

In your picture: player one took more than 8h to make a decision / play for a total of 4h. Could have been that he played in 12h once or 9h 4 times. The other players took 18h-18h-11h but never took more than 8h on each individual move they played.

Hope this help!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adi G
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks a ton Socks! Indeed, your explanation helped a lot!

Cheers!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anders Füchtbauer
Denmark
flag msg tools
mb
caravanlizzy wrote:
First try since S20. Have fun all - let the Giants win!

Go Giants! meeple
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Harris
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
OzymandiasDK wrote:
caravanlizzy wrote:
First try since S20. Have fun all - let the Giants win!

Go Giants! meeple

I am watching this game with interest - a Giants pick from seat 2 was very interesting! You've cleared the first hurdle by getting no colour neighbours, and indeed the only top-level precedent for this matchup is in your favour: https://terra.snellman.net/game/4pLeague_S4_D2L1_G3
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
I paid 100 Geek Gold so that you can read this! :-)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I noticed that the tournament divisions and leagues pages don't update with the current result any more in Firefox while they still do in Chrome. This is probably due to some change in the recent Firefox update. Anybody out there who knows what flag/option/... to change in order to get it work in Firefox again?

Btw. the signup for season 33 is open - maybe one of the official guys can start a new thread announcing this fact?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Juho Snellman
Switzerland
Zurich
Zurich
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Anybody can make the threads. That's what usually reminds me to update the notification on the front page :-P

(And works for me on Firefox 69.0)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ararar ararar
msg tools
OK, It's the second time I come here, talking about the unfinished game problems. We can see that We are having the probably-unfinished games in
even the high division as 1 and 2. And everyone can see the importance of the game I'm in in the division 1. Which makes me feel more anxious is that I still get no response from 2 players in that game, and one of them is acting slower than 1 move per day. What is more horrible is, someone in that game can really benefit from the unfinishing.

I still have the trust of division 1 players. But I cannot be optimistic about the situation in league 2-1, not only because it is slower, but I see the same guy who is one of those who cause the problem in season 27, Which is the first time I come to here.

It is still 4 days left so it is not the time I start to blame players. The thing I want to say is that, do we REALLY have no machnism towards unfinished games? In our Rules the game unfinished will not count. Before we blame to the specific players, we should see the flaw of the rules. If the rules encouage the players making the game unfinished is unchanged, soon it will be people making use of it.

At least a machnism of preventing the unfinished game from not scoring should be changed. For the games like L1_G5, everyone's move is clear but they just don't do it. If the game cannot finished in time the admin can force it to an reasonable end. It will not be different from letting the game end in the natural way. It's another story for the games who are far from an end. But the ways dealing with it can be flexible. The most important thing is, do you really want to see the unfinished games in high divisions even like division 1?

And the other part of machnism is punish the players who directly lead to an unfinished game as well as who dropped the game. I don't know that if you truly punished the dropped players because of what I observed the situation in 2-1. But what is true is the one who directly lead to an unfinished game cannot be punished if they don't drop. It's terrible because dropped players in most case is surely relegated but the player lead to an unfinished game can even benefit from it. Only after we make the machnism right we can start to blame to the specific players

At last, if you think there are too many works to do, at least to make sure that it works in 1-1, 2-1 and 2-2.


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Manpanzee
msg tools
I'm concerned about this issue as well. Thankfully my group sped up in the past week to get things done, but I had some horror at the prospect of my league coming down to unfinished games. And I'm going to be in D2 next season, which means I have a high chance of getting stuck with some of the worst slowplayers.

One of the issues I see is the disconnect between the chess clock and the season length -- there's enough time on the chess clocks that you could probably play for 3 months without anyone dropping. In order to finish games on time, you need people to play faster than the clock requires them too.

The clock is the main enforcement mechanism, and I think the long clocks are part of how slowplayers justify their behavior -- i.e., "I have the time on my clock, I'm allowed to use it." That logic makes sense, as it's hard to argue that people can't use a resource that the game explicitly gives them. But if everyone plays that way the games can't finish.

To me the cleanest solution would be to tighten up the chess clocks. You can leave a bit of margin of error, but make it so that if everyone uses individual max time, the game is still close to finishing.

Obviously time zones are a concern, but I think realistically if you take one move per day you won't come close to dropping. The kind of slowplay required to cause these problems is far beyond simple time zone issues.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
I paid 100 Geek Gold so that you can read this! :-)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Reminder: the current chess clock settings are a compromise between 1) avoiding premature drops and 2) preventing unfinished games. Having a player drop from the game can hurt/benefit somebody else in the game almost as much as when a game doesn't finish.

The main difference between 1) and 2) is that in the former case the slownik is unlikely to benefit from dropping (because the game will likely finish with the slownik coming last), whereas in the latter case the slownik(s) may actually benefit from the game remaining unfinished (e.g. because he/she is losing and would end up in a lower league position if the game was actually counted). It's this suspicion that makes 2) seem worse than 1), especially if you're the one who suffers from the unfinished game (e.g. because you get relegated/don't win your league/... because a good game of yours is not scored).

Juho once made an analysis how certain chess clock changes would have affected the drop rate in previous seasons, and back then it seemed that 5d+1.5d/round and 8h grace were a good compromise. Maybe the drop rate wouldn't go up if the setting was changed to e.g. 4d+1d/round (since people would change their behavior), but maybe it would.

Note that unless you want to get rid of the 8h grace period, that alone can make a game last more than seven weeks (an average game has at least 40 actions by each player = 320h of allowed grace time per player; 4 * 320h ~= 53d). More realistically, unfinished games have at least two slowniks, which will likely push the total amount of grace time used to at least one month. So if you really want to force a game with two slowniks to finish within two months (or have one of them drop), you can't allow more than ~7d on each players clock (assuming an 8h grace period).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Feathers
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ararar wrote:


At least a machnism of preventing the unfinished game from not scoring should be changed. For the games like L1_G5, everyone's move is clear but they just don't do it. If the game cannot finished in time the admin can force it to an reasonable end. It will not be different from letting the game end in the natural way. It's another story for the games who are far from an end. But the ways dealing with it can be flexible. The most important thing is, do you really want to see the unfinished games in high divisions even like division 1?

And the other part of machnism is punish the players who directly lead to an unfinished game as well as who dropped the game. I don't know that if you truly punished the dropped players because of what I observed the situation in 2-1. But what is true is the one who directly lead to an unfinished game cannot be punished if they don't drop. It's terrible because dropped players in most case is surely relegated but the player lead to an unfinished game can even benefit from it. Only after we make the machnism right we can start to blame to the specific players

At last, if you think there are too many works to do, at least to make sure that it works in 1-1, 2-1 and 2-2.


While I totally sympathize with the frustration about unfinished games, I tend to fall on the side of things where I'm not sure there's much to do but just accept it as an annoying but unavoidable evil.

One of the greatest parts about TMTour is how automated it all is. There is just about no way this thing would have chugged along for this many seasons on this fine a timeline with this many players if someone had to manually do much work. Just go look at all the work Meeple League goes through to run their leagues. It takes a lot more effort for those individuals to sign up and participate, including having to create games and report results while some organizer has to keep everything going along as well.

Personally I think we should keep the feature that there simply is not any admin presence here, and everything is just automated. It's surely what enables us to have such a great thing without the organizers suffering burnout, etc.

The issue is if you agree with that, there's really nothing to be done about unfinished games. Sure, one could change to a flat 15d timer for everyone that some have advocated for in the past, but most of us realize the big issue with that. (Namely time zones can make even reasonably paced players to drop before the end of the game by going over 15d on their clock.) As long as we're going to allow an 8h grace timer (and I think we certainly should), games potentially can go over 60ish days and therefore be unfinished.

I'm open to tightening the time controls down to something like 4d+1d per round, although I do think that will cause quite a few more drops which also impact the overall experience of TMTour in a negative way. Unfinished games are worse, but dropped games are pretty annoying and impactful also.

Overall I truly do think we have the balance pretty great. We have very few unfinished games and relatively few drops. Most leagues complete without issue and everything chugs along. It really sucks when one is impacted by the unfinished games personally...but I really have yet to hear any good solution to the problem. I'm not sure there is a solution that would actually improve the overall tournament experience.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Manpanzee
msg tools
I get that there’s a balance to be struck between drops and unfinished games, but – as economists like to say – people respond to incentives. I don’t think you can just look at timers of finished games and say “x more people would have dropped with a shorter clock”. People can speed up.

The thing about a shorter clock is that there’s literally no incentive to drop. If the clock shortens, players are incentivized to speed up, and that’s about it. Whereas there’s definitely an incentive to take your time thinking through your moves, and the long clock basically creates an incentive to cut things close and take as much time as you think you can get away with while still finishing.

I also think the costs of the current system aren’t just measured in unfinished games. I have had a couple games recently where I made crucial late-game mistakes by playing too fast. In these instances I was playing fast to ensure the game finished, not because my clock was in any danger of running out – I felt myself obligated to rush even though I’d already been the fastest player throughout the game. That’s not a good experience. Currently selfishness is being rewarded, and we’re reliant on good citizens being selfless to avoid disaster.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Feathers
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Manpanzee wrote:
I get that there’s a balance to be struck between drops and unfinished games, but – as economists like to say – people respond to incentives. I don’t think you can just look at timers of finished games and say “x more people would have dropped with a shorter clock”. People can speed up.

I also think the costs of the current system aren’t just measured in unfinished games. I have had a couple games recently where I made crucial late-game mistakes by playing too fast. In these instances I was playing fast to ensure the game finished, not because my clock was in any danger of running out – I felt myself obligated to rush even though I’d already been the fastest player throughout the game. That’s not a good experience. Currently selfishness is being rewarded, and we’re reliant on good citizens being selfless to avoid disaster.

Ah, totally agreed then. I was more so responding to ararar's original complaint where he seemed to be advocating for some sort of different solution that would see the end of unfinished games.

I very much agree with you that I suspect many of the very slow players do so because they have that much clock time, and if you simply reduced their clock they'd manage to still play. I also agree it sucks to wind up in games where you feel compelled to rush your endgame because your opponents were all slowniks throughout which is really unfair.

So I'm all for tighter clock controls that will reduce unfinished games and likely will lead to slightly more, but not that many more, drops. (I certainly would go to 1d per round over 1.5 days per round, and I would also be okay with cutting the starting days a bit)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Kremer
United States
flag msg tools
mb
I'm in League 2-1 right now that ararar references above and am likely going to be relegated because of unfinished games, whereas I would stand a good chance to not be if they were all to finish. So, admittedly, I'm biased right now and fairly annoyed. But, trying to be objective, here's where I think the current system and the arguments that we can't do better fail:

1. There's a concept in organizational behavior called Parkinson's Law, which basically says that tasks will become as complicated as they need to be to occupy the time and resources allotted to them. It's frequently referenced with respect to meetings, which almost never end early even when the topic being discussed does not require the full time scheduled. Research has shown that organizations and teams can increase efficiency simply by placing tighter constraints on the same level of work, because people will adapt to adhere to them.

This can apply to our chess clock - I strongly believe that if you tighten the clock, most players will adapt and play within it, because they'll respond to the time pressure. Right now, especially early in seasons, players feel like they have tons of time because they're only thinking about how far their own clock is away from dropping. I've done it myself - I went 5 days without making a move in one game this seasons because I didn't have my PC on vacation and wanted to do some planning tool permutations, which is a pain on my phone. But I could have made a move on my phone if I didn't have that perceived time luxury. (Of course, that's now one of the games that is likely to not finish and cause me to be relegated, because another player now has an incentive to not finish it - more on this below.) The issue with this is that the total time we've allotted to the players FAR exceeds the time in which we want the games to actually finish. Thus, if multiple players use a significant portion of their allotted time, the game can go unfinished.

We see this frequently in practice even beyond unfinished games - most of my recent seasons have had at least one or two games that finish at the very last minute, because the players collectively realize the game won't finish at the current pace (which, again is designed that way) and scramble to make a ton of moves in the last couple days to do so. When the time pressure comes, people respond!

2. Of course, another issue with the current design of the chess clock is that, because people can often make a game fail to end, they sometimes will (or at least will flirt with it) when it benefits them. We're all (especially in the upper divisions) smart, strategic, competitive players, and people respond to incentives. Right now, there is little to no disincentive for slowing down a game, and potentially large incentive to do so in certain situations. While, yes, this is technically against the rules, it's basically an unenforceable rule, and thus not really a rule at all. And, as we continue to accumulate examples of abusing it, more people will feel okay to do it, and thus it escalates. Take my current league, 2-1:

http://tmtour.org/#/seasons/32/divisions/2/leagues/1

It seems like, if game 1 finishes while games 2 and 5 do not, Fatcat will win the league with 12 points. Whereas if games 2 or 5 or both finish, he may not, it's not entirely clear. But, regardless of whether he tried to put himself into this position or not with his 21+ days spent on the clock in G2 and G5, Fatcat has both the power and the incentive to force this outcome. I regard the fact that this is even possible a failure of design.

This too applies beyond just unfinished games. Earlier in the season, in our same league, moonsea faced the following situation:

https://terra.snellman.net/game/4pLeague_S32_D2L1_G7/max-row...

Everyone else had passed, and he was locked into last place. But he had the power to decide who would win, and who would get second. With plenty of time on the chess clock, moonsea sat on this decision for days. Of course I have no idea if he was deliberately trying to gain an advantage or not, and/or whether he ultimately made his decision based on how things were playing out in the rest of the league. But the point is, he might have. And if games had gone differently - or if none of the remaining three games finish (moonsea does have the power to stop G1, the one Fatcat would want to finish in the above scenario) - choosing Fatcat to win over Sam might have won him the league.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dhrun
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
To me this is about "TM being only a game" or, if you disagree, about sportsmanship.


One of the reasons I stopped playing the tour was several players *regularly* using up more than their fair 15 days (and it is the same players over and over again, but before I succumb to finger pointing I'd rather look for other pastimes).

For what it's worth, I still totally support the rules, automation, and mostly the tuning of parameters (I remember there have been several changes, lots of figures and observations, lots of estimates on the effects of other changes).

All aspects involved have been discussed multiple times, still:

The point of 4*player's max time>2 month is to cover unexpected hardships, people should aim to play much faster under regular conditions.

If you play slower you cause some players to
1.1. get nervous
1.2. play (too) rashly simply to avoid being timeouted due to your slowness
1.3. lose track of the game, lose interest so much that they can't be bothered to reconsider/recount each time they have been waiting for say 3 days - and just resign themselves to making mediocre moves instead
1.4. be at a disadvantage as you can better metagame them
and/or
1.5. simply enjoy less.

OTOH tightening timing too much will also cause
2.1. people to run
2.2. other people to continue but enjoy less
2.3. people to timeout and cause more of 2.1. and 2.2.

Etc.

There is probably no chance the people I'd like to reach will read beyond

Dhrun wrote:
Manpanzee wrote:
Definitely should be rolled back by an admin imo.

I definitely understand that feeling, but do not share it now, knowing the background including some history.
(Surprised myself I continue to feel strongly about this even though I stopped/paused playing TMtour for some time now)
There has been discussions and explanations on similar situations years ago, related to minor bugs as well as to stalling, this is my personal recap:
There is no such thing as an "admin" as you understand it.
Juho and Daniel created this world we populate here and though they turned their attention to other things, they are kind enough to continue to host and maintain it...!
Even in their most active days they decided that this should run without any manual interference.
Personally I applaud this decision mostly based on these thoughts - which I hope to remember correctly to be similar to what they said, probably several times:
If you do not have the resources to have a really sophisticated and fully staffed supervisor/judge/arbiter team, a "blind" algorithm is a better decision maker.
Even if you find a competent, impartial body of people to do that work, it will have many downsides, just to name the most important ones in ascending order (sorry, can't resist):
1) Delays
2) The most vocal (and smart and dogged) people might get "more" "justice" than the others, even if the judges do their best
3) It seems unrealistic that such a body of arbiters would continue to work reliably for several years - if Snellman was not such a smooth interface and TMtour such an autonomous system, all this might have faded years ago (see 1,2 minor hiccups in the past during holidays)

Just my off-stage voiced 2 cents..

Dhrun wrote:
Vikraal wrote:
Right now, in season 23, I will be relegated to D7 from D6 because the only game I am almost sure of winning will never get completed since two of the other three layers are playing extremely slowly (perhaps on purpose).

A person getting relegated to a lower league because a game could not be finished (for no fault of his) is painful.
Situations like these are the worst of course (my sympathy!), "fortunately" they are pretty rare, so despite the injustice involved, we have to consider the overall benefit of TMtour = the risk of losing players who basically act sportsmanlike.

At the same time ultra slow play adds more burden to the tourney:

The slowest players usually though not always have advantages metagaming their league, to some degree I do not care, but find it annoying if the same people always get that adavantage.

And finally, as Brian mentioned, there is an unknown number of players leaving because they get annoyed by slow play
AND
definitely a higher number of players who do not enjoy the tour as much as they could, because of it.

So personally I think, we are not at a "sweet spot" yet, though I am conservative enough to say "better this pretty good compromise than 100 worse solutions".

I think there are different approaches to get a better automated solutions, e.g. see next post:

Personally I'd still think a minor tightening of the parameters might help, like 1.25d/round or grace period=6h instead of 8.

I still think a more complex solution like the following might be more satisfying, but who's to implement ;-}?

Dhrun wrote:
Dhrun wrote:
Alternatively an extra inter-season time buffer might help.
Each player gets a little extra time accross seasons and can save a small amount of time for future seaons if he plays quickly.
Of course caps will be needed etc and it requires some work by Daniel and probably Juho, but I think a good sophisticated solution would be possible.
Some suggestions regarding this:
* Everybody starts with 3 days as opposed to current 5
* You get 1.25 days/round instead of 1.5
* Grace remains at 8h
* New players get 3 (starting) clock days extra to compensate for those reductions
* Continuing players may get extra (starting) clock time depending on how much time they used up in their slowest game in previous season; this will be added to each of their four games

I guess we might want to look at the 8h grace clock (or a 4 hour grace), but as I am more familiar thinking about the no grace time usage, this is a first take based on that:
slowest game used <7 days: 2.5 extra days
<8.5: 2
<10: 1.5
<11.5: 1
<13: 0.5

Undecided if the bonus for a next season shall be increased by unused bonuses of older seasons or not.

Effects I'd hope for:
In addition to speeding up slow players, this might entice players who play reasonably fast to play even quicker (to accumulate buffer time, though they might actually never need this) -> helping to get faster games overall and getting
-> less timeouts
-> less potential to abuse timeouts which IMHO is even more important
-> better "play" experience
-> better chance to get some TM vacation (e.g. 1-3 weeks off once in a while)

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg W
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ararar wrote:
At last, if you think there are too many works to do, at least to make sure that it works in 1-1, 2-1 and 2-2.

Not too much to add - I’m supportive of shortening the per-round clock again (not the 8-hour period) to help ensure timeliness over coddling extremely slow players - but I think it’s a little self important to suggest that the top two divisions should get any different treatment from the rest of the divisions - and I say that as someone who has played mostly in those top two divisions. Even at the top, it’s still a game - and even in lower divisions people have the same right to speedy and fair play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ararar ararar
msg tools
I think I must reply to some because of some reasons we all know. From the player stat you can see that I start taking part in the tournament from season 2 and have already gone through 30+ seasons. Most of the time I'm in division 4 or division 3. I stay quite a long time in what you called as "lower division".But only after I enter the division 2 I know what true horror is—— people strategically lagging behind, and severe unfinished problems as what I mentioned in season 27. All that problem(except dropping) is more severe in higher divisions, while it seems to be more drop in the lower divisons. And what cause that is how people treat the tournament. In other words, the problem of "a game".

I must add it again that the unfinished game cannot be tolerated in the high division. Anything should be done to prevent it. It's not some kind of self importance. While The players are all the same, the result of unfinished is more disastrous in top division. I always feel guilty to greenraingw for what I had done in https://terra.snellman.net/faction/4pLeague_S28_D2L2_G1 by doing some metagame move to securing my position and finally make greenraingw relegate to D3. Though I think it's a reasonable move(and is not possible to be forbidden) it really hurts and I can really feel his anger that time. But if we are playing some unimportant game and some new player just randomly moved and hurt you, would you stick on that move or find it a good chance to show that every players can move freely as they want in our good environment, and the advantage of TM over some game like Puerto Rico which players affect others much more? We always have a high standard to others in the high division game and actually cares more about the result.

We should prevent bad things happen in every division. But when it happens we would better have ways to fix it and do punishment, at least let it looks like that. If we do have method, people will concern about that and these kind of things can be less. But if we declares that we can do nothing to stop it and shows our weakness, the problems will continue and be more and more. At least we should pretend to be that we can deal with the problem at all cost, and it may not actually cost much because people don't really want to try this. But if we don't we cannot ignore the harm, especially in high divisions, to the tournament itself. The most important part of a tournament is its credit, and an unfinished game in D1 can deal great damage to this. Just make a survey how many people will exit when these things really happen in a more frequent times(We can see Dhrun exits even for lesser problem).

And I see different people above mentioned the problem of "just a game" several times. Although I know the meaning the expression somehow surprised me. As you see I am Chinese and it's true in the Chinese the word "game" have no meaning of "tournament" and sometime is a derogatory term. But in English the word "game" also has the meaning of "tournament" or competition and even Olympic Game is a "game". And though top players are talking about "a game", it is obvious that those profit-driven play is mainly among the top players. How can we explain that gap between words and actions,even if they come from different players?

What I want say is that when people talk about "just a game" it's a kind of requirement in moral(and it is still questionable) and have no meaning, no restriction to the troublemakers. The only thing which can make the environment better is doing something.

For clock reducement, it's good if it works(and it may not and it cannot solve the basic of this problem). But it also gives pressure to all the players—— both in high or low divisions—— while those problems we are talking about only caused by a small number of players, and only affect a small number of players. So I think, if we can afford, then some new rules directly towards those small number of players(like blacklisting) have more efficiency. But if it can truly reduce the unfinishing problems(we will see) it's good to accept it(but it still not means I think we don't need other methods further).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Hannay
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Regarding the stats about dropping players and unfinished games. Has anyone split these out by division?

My guess is that dropping players is much more likely in the lower divisions, but artificially stalling games is more likely in the higher divisions, where players are much more competitive.

If I'm correct, would it make sense to have different chess clock settings for different divisions? Tighter settings at the top and looser ones at the bottom? Surely that can be added to the tournament creation script pretty easily?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
I paid 100 Geek Gold so that you can read this! :-)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ararar wrote:
We should prevent bad things happen in every division. But when it happens we would better have ways to fix it and do punishment, at least let it looks like that. If we do have method, people will concern about that and these kind of things can be less. But if we declares that we can do nothing to stop it and shows our weakness, the problems will continue and be more and more. At least we should pretend to be that we can deal with the problem at all cost, and it may not actually cost much because people don't really want to try this.
I agree that this is an important point: Right now, players may perceive that they can get away with deliberately "managing" the speed of their games, e.g. they move quickly on the games where they do well, while delay those where they expect to lose. And while the majority of players will not bother, or not find it in themselves ethically to go this route, there certainly are some who will flirt with the idea or actually implement it (and assuming that players in higher divisions are playing more competitively, this risk will be higher in div 1+2 than in div 6).

Since the full automation of the tournament is such a big factor for its success, any deterrent to such behavior needs to be automated as well (as opposed to some person or jury checking "the records" and decide that a certain player is "too slow on purpose"). I see two ways which might help (either one of them or in combination):
1) shorter chess clocks (short enough that even two slow players will have a hard time to stop a game from finishing within two months - I guess that 4d + 1d/round is still not enough to achieve this, but it would be at least a step in this direction)
2) automatic kick from the tournament if certain "slowness thresholds" are exceeded (e.g. "can't sign up for next season if you were in an unfinished game and your no-grace clock in that game was >20d")

I presume that 1) would be relatively easy to implement (hopefully less than 30min of work for each of Juho and Daniel), while 2) would put some more work on Daniel to code this (and maybe even for Juho depending on how easy it is to check for the no-grace clocks of players in an unfinished game).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dhrun
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ararar wrote:
must ... we all know ... only after I enter the division 2 I know what true horror is ... people strategically lagging behind ... severe unfinished problems ... all that problem(except dropping) is more severe in higher divisions ... the problem of "a game".
... must add it again that the unfinished game cannot be tolerated in the high division... the result of unfinished is more disastrous in top division ... I always feel guilty to greenraingw for what I had done ... it really hurts and I can really feel his anger that time ... do punishment, at least let it looks like that ... shows our weakness ... that we can deal with the problem at all cost, and it may not actually cost much because people don't really want to try this ... especially in high divisions ... most important part of a tournament is its credit, and an unfinished game in D1 can deal great damage to this ... We can see Dhrun exits even for lesser problem
...
I lack the energy here to discuss all, but want to be clear on 2 points at least:

"Only a game"
When I said ""only a game"" I meant this as indication of how lots of people use it:
This is not about the end of the world, mankind, drowning continents, starvation, war, the welfare of your family - or even the job.

It is about a thing which should only have positive connotations:
Intellectual stimulus, amicable contact with different people and ideally even friends, creativity, relaxation..
Add "competition" if you want but do not mix with "being an asshole".
This does also not mix nicely with "must", "anger", "true horror", "punishment", "at all cost", "must" ...

People play for lots of different reasons, maybe you get surprised and occasionally even annoyed.
But I expect them to play according to the spirit of the rules otherwise I might try to discuss and probably turn elsewhere.

Side note:
I realize people's moral compasses are different, but I believe smartness and fairness as well as organizers and 90%+ more involved players will agree metagaming is within the spirit of this league while provoking timeouts is not. (And delaying significantly to help one's own metagame decision is for losers too=just refrain).

"It's not some kind of self importance"
I will surely understand your annoyance if the current game was not to end in time (which I doubt), buuuut..
you mentioned having been around from season 2, now, the only two times you posted at BGG was about perceived slow play when it threatened to hurt you, each time asking for an "admin" to intervene - our fading benefactors and others have explained and discussed and updated their stances dozens of times since when they started.
Some of it is "presumption of innocence" and keeping a positive attitude.

Anecdotal evidence as Doc might say: Me and 2 friends never encountered nasty situations in our D1+2 games and none of us ever had a timeouted game, but we all play(ed) fast. Admittedly some people there just now are much slower then usual, which might be a coincidence or some deterioration.

I also think it is a bit more difficult to argue for speed at the end of a game, when on average (or even worse, within the game in question), you use up about as much time as the people you suspect of stalling.
If everybody took as much time as you in your last 6 games, very few games would ever end in time:
19 days 1 hour
16 days 5 hours
14 days 11 hours
16 days 16 hours
13 days
16 days 1 hour

So take it (or leave it) easy and ideally speed up to help yourself and make others happy toomeeple

Second side note:
I am still in favor of tightening the clock slightly once more; not saying I "know the sweet spot", but IF Daniel was to have a vote on this I would participate.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Manpanzee
msg tools
Option I came up with: Keep the chess clock as-is, but add an additional hard cap on total days. So you can time out via chess clock time OR via total time. Thinking something like 17-18 days as a hard cap.

17 days for four players = max 68 days. It would take at least 3 slow players to prevent a game from finishing on time. Currently 2 very slow players can be enough to cause a problem.

I think the cost in extra drops would be small. Probably some at first, but falling to near-zero once everyone gets the hang of the new rules.

Might require some setup on the site, but pretty straightforward to comprehend.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   |