Tournament Finals Structure Promotes Stalling

I found it. So people didn't like deal making and king making. I'm not sure why we would allow them in initial rounds but find them odious in the finals other than the desire to make vtes into a competitive game in the finals to make the entire enterprise seem competitive by association. This entire concept is logically flawed. We are using this formula in the finals to but the tie breaker is based on results obtained with all the king making and deal making allowed, there by making the event some amalgam of social group activity and competitive activity.

Finals should have same rules as rest of games, it just contains the 5 best seeds.

Mewcat wrote: I found it. So people didn't like deal making and king making. I'm not sure why we would allow them in initial rounds but find them odious in the finals other than the desire to make vtes into a competitive game in the finals to make the entire enterprise seem competitive by association. This entire concept is logically flawed.

So you're re-introducing the same problems that existed in the past, and handwaving that they're not a problem. Even though they were a problem . Even though they were sufficiently a problem that the rules were changed. And even though until today, you didn't understand that this problem existed - which you would have done if you'd even bothered to read the whole thread!

Your entire approach is flawed in every way.

kschaefer wrote:

DJHedgehog wrote: My hypothesis is: A majority of #1 seed players win tournaments. I believe the benefit of choosing your seat combined with the tie-breaking means an overwhelming advantage for the first seed. This advantage can be reduced and still benefit the best player without making 1st seed a much higher incidence of victory.

Using the raw Archon data, we could easily determine this.

Ankha, is it possible to get a dump of all of the Archon data or the data as it exists in the ratings system and answer these questions and concerns with stats?

Why bother busy Ankha about this.

DJHedgehog can easily dig from this forum's event calendar the info regarding points for each tournament. You know, to prove his hypothesis. It'll take little bit of time and some effort but you can't expect to make some hypothesis and have others spend some hours of their time to prove it....¨

An example:
www.vekn.net/event-calendar/event/8841

Lönkka wrote: Why bother busy Ankha about this.

DJHedgehog can easily dig from this forum's event calendar the info regarding points for each tournament. You know, to prove his hypothesis. It'll take little bit of time and some effort but you can't expect to make some hypothesis and have others spend some hours of their time to prove it....¨

An example:
www.vekn.net/event-calendar/event/8841

Because I had hoped that Ankha could provide all of the Archons in a single zip file or have a way to access the rating system that would avoid the need to spend hours going through the Event Calendar.

If those methods are not possible, then the Even Calendar it is.

Lönkka wrote:

kschaefer wrote:

DJHedgehog wrote: My hypothesis is: A majority of #1 seed players win tournaments. I believe the benefit of choosing your seat combined with the tie-breaking means an overwhelming advantage for the first seed. This advantage can be reduced and still benefit the best player without making 1st seed a much higher incidence of victory.

Using the raw Archon data, we could easily determine this.

Ankha, is it possible to get a dump of all of the Archon data or the data as it exists in the ratings system and answer these questions and concerns with stats?

Why bother busy Ankha about this.

DJHedgehog can easily dig from this forum's event calendar the info regarding points for each tournament. You know, to prove his hypothesis. It'll take little bit of time and some effort but you can't expect to make some hypothesis and have others spend some hours of their time to prove it....¨

An example:
www.vekn.net/event-calendar/event/8841

Hey man, don't drag me into this. I made a hypothesis, not a call to action.

@jamesatzephyr I agree with mewcat. What you're saying is that the base game, which allows for king-making and garbage deals is fine to create a seeding structure. That same game was so terrible that we had to change the finals structure? Seems like flawed logic to me.

@jamesatzephyr I agree with mewcat. What you're saying is that the base game, which allows for king-making and garbage deals is fine to create a seeding structure. That same game was so terrible that we had to change the finals structure? Seems like flawed logic to me.

I don't understand why bring up king-making and garbage deals up for preliminary rounds, where those are exactly not beneficial there. You want to maximize your GW, followed up with VPs, in preliminaries to get to the top seed. If you make garbage deals, you play to lose.

Very similarly, and as stated at the very beginning of the topic, if you plan for anything else than maximizing your VPs in a final, you are playing to lose. The only exception is the top seed.

1st, maximize it all to get into the top seed.
2nd, maximize your VPs in the final in case you didn't make it top seed.

...or, actually, only disregard the 2nd step if other players are letting you win.

On my part the question was more or less settled already: when you know for a fact who's going to win the finals (that's not you) and don't act accordingly, you are in fact playing poorly. Before players understand this and play accordingly it will be hard to say if the structure is ACTUALLY flawed.

We'll get plenty, plenty of more info on how it all evolves from EC. I'm more than willing to re-evaluate the topic after that.

Bottom line: you can't force people to play well. If they make a bad evaluation or mess up a beneficial two-way they had reason to get into at a given time, they made a mistake and the better player won. Bad deals and king-making are not part of the topic, as far as I see it.