http://www.ironagenda.com/2009/11/12/ep ... ttle-lola/

Running Time: 1:51:23m

Hey guys, great show as always.

A few things.

1)Orco did know about He-man, they said he knew it during the theme music of EVERY SHOW!


2)Strength of schedule, this is a weird thing but it happened to me and my friend in our first official tournament. My friend was 3-0 going into the final match against another 3-0 player. He lost and ended up 4th and I ended up 2nd because even though he ended up 3-1 and I ended up 3-1, my only loss was to him and everyone I beat had more wins or better records versus people he ended up playing who all had losing records.

The problem is if you don't want to run elimination then the folks who lose early but play better players etc do have a chance of playing tougher opponents in the longer run.

I do not know if there is any easy solution except to have a mini tournament or playoffs amoung the 3-0 players or something that ignored the previous record established during the tournament.

It was Hordak who was the leader of the Horde. Can't believe I forgot that. (edit: something called Horde Prime was actually above Hordak, but I don't remember that part, whatever)

Welcome to the forms!

On one hand I wanted to watch a episode of He-Man while posting the show notes just to see the corniness, but in the end I passed hoping to keep my childhood in-tact. I'm not surprised though - Orko was the man.

I really liked this episode...as someone who organizes events the tie breaker problem is one that needs to be addressed. I found a possible solution...the DCI (the sanctioning body for Magic: The Gathering) has some tie breaker rules that I found for the Dreamblade game. With Warmachine being a one game match (not the best two out of three) this seems the best way to do it. I'll post the detailed info, but to sum it up:

1st Tie breaker is a form of a Head to Head rating.
2nd is Opponent Match Win Percentage (this is the BIG improvent over a simple player rating)
3rd Tie Breaker is Opponent's Opponent Win Percentage

The big problem is the pain the butt it is to calculate on the fly. That is where a computer program needs to be implemented to do this. Now I have access to an old version of the DCI program that I plan on messing around with at an event or two. I also plan to track the outcome using a traditional style and see how it differs.

Here is the breakdown of the system (take some aspirin before you read):

Tiebreaker 1 - Direct competition score:
A player’s direct competition score is either 1 or 0.

If 2 or more players are tied and one of those players has both played and defeated each other player with whom he is tied, that player would receive a direct competition score of 1. The other players would receive a direct competition score of 0.

Any other situation would give players a competition score of 0.

Among tied players, the player with a direct competition score of 1 is ranked higher than those with a direct competition score of 0.

Examples:
* Players A, B, and C are all tied with 24 match points. Each player’s match results against the other players with whom he or she is tied are:

Player A: Played and defeated players B and C.
Player B: Played player A and lost, did not play player C
Player C: Played player A and lost, did not play player B

Player A both played and defeated all the other players with whom he was tied. Player A would receive a direct competition score of 1. Players B & C would receive a direct competition score of 0. Player A would be ranked higher than players B & C.

* Players A, B, and C are all tied with 24 match points. Each player’s match results against the other players with whom he is tied are:

Player A: Played and defeated player B, did not play player C.
Player B: Played player A and lost, did not play player C
Player C: Did not play player A and B

As no player both played and defeated the other players with whom he or she is tied, players A, B, and C would each receive a direct competition score of 0.

Tiebreaker 2 - Opponents’ match-win percentage:
A player’s opponents’ match-win percentage is the average match-win percentage of each opponent that player faced (ignoring those rounds for which the player received a bye). Use the match-win percentage definition listed above when calculating each individual opponent’s match-win percentage.

Examples:
* Player F’s record in an eight-round tournament is 6–2–0. Her opponents’ match records were:

4–4–0, 7–1–0, 1–3–1, 3–3–1, 6–2–0, 5–2–1, 4–3–1, and 6–1–1, so her opponents’ match-win percentage is:

(12/24 + 21/24 + 3/15 + 9/21 + 18/24 + 15/24 + 12/24 + 18/24)
8 opponents

Translated to the decimal system, this equation is:

(0.50 + 0.88 + 0.33 < raised from 0.2> + 0.43 + 0.75 + 0.63 + 0.50 + 0.75)
8

With the individual match-win percentages added together, this equation becomes:
4.77
8
Player F’s opponents’ match-win percentage is 0.5963.

* Player G’s record at the same tournament was 6–2–0.

His opponents’ records were:

Bye, 7–1–0, 1–3–1, 3–3–1, 6–2–0, 5–2–1, 4–3–1, and 6–1–1, so his opponents’ match-win percentage is:

(0.88 + 0.33<raised from 0.2> +0.43+0.75+0.63+0.50+0.75)
7 opponents

With the individual match-win percentages added together, this equation becomes:

4.27
7

Player G’s opponents’ match-win percentage is 0.61.

Tiebreaker 3 - Opponent’s opponent’s match-win percentage:
A player’s opponent’s opponents Match-win percentage is the average match-win percentage of all the opponents that each of a player’s opponents faced (ignoring those rounds for which a player received a bye). Use the match-win percentage definition listed above when calculating each individual opponent’s opponent’s match-win percentage.

Example:
* Player A has played in a five-round tournament. Her opponent’s (Players B, C, D, E, and F) opponent’s match records were:

Player B’s opponents: 4-1-0, 3-2-0, 1-4-0, 2-2-0, and 1-1-1
Player C’s opponents: 2-3-0, 2-2-1, 1-0-0, 5-0-0, and 4-1-0
Player D’s opponents: 5-0-0, 4-0-1, 3-2-0, 3-2-0, and 2-0-0
Player E’s opponents: 3-1-1, 2-2-0, 4-1-0, 2-3-0, and 1-2-0
Player F’s opponents: 5-0-0, 4-1-0, 3-2-0, 2-3-0, and 0-5-0

So his opponent’s opponent’s match-win percentage is:

(12/15 + 9/15 + 3/15 + 6/12 + 3/9) +
(6/15 + 6/15 + 3/3 + 15/15 + 12/15) + (15/15 + 12/15 + 9/15 + 9/15 + 6/6) +
(9/15 + 6/12 + 12/15 + 6/15 + 3/9) + (15/15 + 12/15 + 9/15 + 6/15 + 0/15)
25 opponent’s opponents

Translated to the decimal system, this equation is:

(0.80 + 0.60 + 0.33 <raised from 0.20> + 0.50 + 0.33) +
(0.40 + 0.40 + 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.80) + (1.00 + 0.80 + 0.60 + 0.60 + 1.00) +
(0.60 + 0.50 + 0.80 + 0.40 + 0.33) + (1.00 + 0.80 + 0.60 + 0.40 + 0.33 <raised from 0.00>)
25

With the individual match-win percentages added together, this equation becomes:

15.92
25

Player A’s opponent’s opponent’s match-win percentage is 0.6368.

Just a quick explanation. If are trying to figure out the math above, take note that these figures always rounds up to a minimum value of .33 to keep people from getting too hosed by a bad match up early in an event.

Once again for tournament position there is only so much you can do.

Do you allow for strength of schedule? If so then a good player might get screwed over by having to face a line of perhaps just bad players etc.

I think awarding wins with some bonus points for objectives and primary victories might be the fairest way although it tends to penalize assassination lists

I think the main problem is that sometimes tourneys are TOO short, if we had more games etc then there would be a higher chance of separation between folks who have advanced by playing easier players all day vs good players fighting each other. Lets also face is sometimes its also just luck.

In the end First place should go to the guy who just plain WON, who cares about the rest

I think that the discussion is leaning more toward people that win and get to what would be the final game (between undefeated players), lose, then get dropped out of the top 2 or 3 in the standings.

The system above does a few things to help with this...

1. It takes in consideration head to head competition between the people tied in tournament points.
2. The main tiebreaker (which is the 2nd one) is based on opponents match win percentage (modified strength of schedule) where instead of tiebreaking based purely on total tournament points, you base it the percentage of wins by the amount of rounds you play in. Soooo....Someone who happens to play against someone who drops doesn't get screwed. As an example if you played against someone who went 1 and 1 then drops (say in an event where there is 5 rounds), they would give you a .50 rating, where if you use the system we have now it would be like .20 rating. A big difference that will help.
3. There is a minimum rating that will be figured in (which is .33). This way if someone who plays a person that doesn't win a game at all, they won't get hurt by the opponents' horrible rating.


Hope this helps...

If PP's official events only awarded 1st place and then non-placing awards, 2nd-3rd wouldn't matter as much. But since the official coin kits do go to 2nd and 3rd it becomes something we have to take into account.

I think the problem is that we're not going to find a solution that is both fair and uncomplicated. Which I suppose begs a followup question - is it far to expect most TO's to have access to a computer either to run an application or open a spreadsheet nowadays? If so then complexity is less of a concern.

I would say that 99% of the game stores have a computer that would run an tourney program for someone that has an event at their store. For events that are more of an independent nature...I think it isn't asking too much to get a computer on site for the event. For PP to take the next step in organizing bigger and better events, they need something like Wizards of the Coast uses.

Interesting discussion on this episode.

My thoughts:

I'd just love it if they dropped 2nd and 3rd place. It causes so many headaches that are seemingly impossible to justify. Replace them with coins for best sportsman and paint job. On several occasions I've had dissatisfied players request copies of the tournament sheet so they could pick it over, feeling that they've been screwed in some way, which I can't say I blame them for.

On scenarios, I love the anything that forces engagement, but hate the immediate win conditions. If they went to a system where if you're holding the Mosh Pit, you score a point with a requirement of three points to win. This way I wouldn't feel so damned guilty about Landslide-related scenario victories, as my opponent would have opportunity to strike back. I'm not a huge fan of Contested Ground or its brother scenario that is effectively the same but with slightly different scoring rules, though. Vertical scoring zones don't force engagement.

Eliminating 2nd & 3rd would definitely make things easier. The only reason I like them is they give people something to shoot for if 1st is out of reach. If the faction coins were still in existence I think 1st in the tourny is more than enough, but without them, I dunno.

I love awards for painting and sportsmen, but there are a fair number of WM players who have moved to it away from games like GW because they don't use soft scores in tournaments. Would painting/sportsmen coins affect that? I dunno, but it's something to consider.

Balancing "making the awards mean something" with "keeping everyone happy" sure ain't easy.

I think awarding painting and sportsmanship are great ideas...as long as it does NOT play any part in scoring for standings in the tourney. I also think that part of the reason you award 2nd-3rd is to keep the events from degrading into a single elimination tourney. Most tournaments are held to get a day where people can go and have a full day of gaming. If you don't give people a reason to keep playing, I think you will see a large amount of people dropping from the events. This, in my opinion, is more than likely NOT what PP or most tournament organizers would want. Sure just playing until you can award one person 1st place would be really easy (and I would love to run and event like that sometimes) it just doesn't give a satisfying feeling to the other people that come to the event.

...just my 2 cents...

Guys really enjoyed this episode.

Good discussion on tournament and SR4, strength of schedule etc. I've organised tournies in the UK for the last 10 years so have some experience of rules packs etc. It was for that "other" game system which I spent years of wasting my time and money on until PP and HorMachine came along and made me a happy man.

As we dont know what they will do with SR5 (though assuming the pts cost will be used for scoring purposes for Mk2 stuff), one of the problems is with the granularity of the pts system being as it is in Mk2, it allows for little variation when strength of schedule doesnt work out and you need some thing else to split the pack up in terms of placings. There are so many things you could use but whether or not it fits in with the PP and SR ethos is the question. However unless its a PP event, TOs can do what they want on this side of things.

On scenarios, I've just played at Maelstrom's Savage Skies event which was a 750 pt Mk1 Blood and Iron event. Scenarios were played at this event, so there were 2 ways of winning - double caster kill or scenario win. One of the major things I found with the scenarios was that getting 1st turn seemed to matter. Scenarios played were Mosh Pit, No Mans Land, Throw Down, Destruction, Contested Ground and Caster Kill. This 1st turn syndrome reminded me of 40k and it made me sad. It would be so easy to fix this with you only being able to win after the 2nd players turn following the current victory turn conditions. Mind you we were playing scenarios under B&I rules so in a normal game, victory conditions as they are now arent bad to be frank.

Anyway guys keep up the good work, love the cast.