|
Post by paddy649 on Dec 11, 2019 14:04:36 GMT
All valid points and an interesting discussion. I certainly managed to get beaten sufficiently in the 40 or 45 minutes PAWS allocate - but tat may just be me!
Can I ask - is there consensus as to how long a tournament should allocate to a DBA game. If 40 mins is too short then is 60 mis too long? Is 50 mins a reasonable compromise?
|
|
|
Post by colinthehittite on Dec 11, 2019 16:39:22 GMT
50 minutes is the UK standard; I can’t think of another tournament that does not offer 50 minutes. I think 60 minutes may be more likely abroad. Another 10 minutes does not sound much but on the UK circuit, which has a tournament just about every month, I am much more comfortable with the slightly longer games.
Colin
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Dec 11, 2019 22:05:48 GMT
Extending the PAWS half-day tournaments to 50 minute games (plus 5-10 minutes turnaround time) would mean dropping the number of games down to 4 (plus a final for the top 2).
Would everyone be happy with that? I know some who have to make more of an effort to attend like to have as many games as possible.
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on Dec 11, 2019 23:16:02 GMT
As an outsider on the other side of the world, may I ask why do you have a top 2 final? If this was dispensed with than surely that would leave time for another round. The winner of the tournament would be the player with the highest score at the completion of X number of rounds. That's how it works here in Australia. Hopefully I'm not poking my nose in where's it's not wanted.
Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Dec 11, 2019 23:40:32 GMT
As an outsider on the other side of the world, may I ask why do you have a top 2 final? Because the old format of top 4 into semi-finals and finals takes even longer.
Actually, it's because these tournaments are organised into two groups, with the winner of each group in the final. Theses tournaments are limited to half a day, so organisation has to be quick. If there was just a single group it would need to be planned swiss-chess style, which takes time to organise, to balance the level of players' opponents. Otherwise one player could gain an unfair advantage only being drawn against weaker opponents while other stronger players only play each other.
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on Dec 12, 2019 1:33:32 GMT
As an outsider on the other side of the world, may I ask why do you have a top 2 final? Because the old format of top 4 into semi-finals and finals takes even longer.
Actually, it's because these tournaments are organised into two groups, with the winner of each group in the final. Theses tournaments are limited to half a day, so organisation has to be quick. If there was just a single group it would need to be planned swiss-chess style, which takes time to organise, to balance the level of players' opponents. Otherwise one player could gain an unfair advantage only being drawn against weaker opponents while other stronger players only play each other.
Thanks for the explanation. Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by colinthehittite on Dec 12, 2019 7:46:51 GMT
In the PAWS system it is still possible to have most experienced players in one group as players are placed into their group randomly. At some PAWS events I have faced a string of experienced players, at others I haven’t. Incidentally, just because you get matched with a less experienced player does not mean you will likely have an easy win. In my experience there are other more important factors.
Martin makes a very significant point about start time and one that really ought to be addressed particularly as PAWS is a half day event.
As gregorius says, does there really need to be a final? DBA is not a spectator event and players who do not make the final often leave before it begins. If there was no final could there be 5 50-minute games in the time available? And yes, it needs to be well organised, but that is one of the things participants pay for. If PAWS could start promptly and offer 5 50-minute games, then I think that would be a welcome improvement. It would be good to hear the views of others – if I’m just a grumpy lonely voice I’ll shut up.
Colin the grumpy old Hittite
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Dec 12, 2019 8:40:43 GMT
I'm absolutely with Colin on this one and it has been discussed previously on Fanaticus. The Northern Cup, with 45 minutes per game playing time, has very few draws, but that is down to 3 factors - a prompt start, a generous '5 minutes' (which often is closer to 10 minutes) to familiarise yourselves with your army and the set-up (as this is matched pairs on pre-set terrain boards) and the fact that we remove the need to roll for sides and deploy terrain, thus removing some of the 'time-wasting' elements at the start. I'm a strong advocate of at least 50 minutes for each game at a 'normal' tournament and, ideally, an hour and would prefer quality over quantity being the organiser's mantra.
There is no doubt in my mind that, as the UK DBA scene has grown and players have become more experienced, play has slowed and it definitely takes longer to get a resolution, especially if playing with high CF armies (ie. heavy foot) and/or terrain heavy boards.
P.
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Dec 12, 2019 16:37:32 GMT
One week to go, who's coming? Phippsy is competing
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Dec 12, 2019 16:47:51 GMT
On game length and overall format etc.
I have played in a few events now, and have been very much welcomed from being a green tournament starter to a reasonably experienced player. The organisation has been good and flows, once started. Yes it can be a bit hectic sometimes.
Start time - yes should be prompt. Think waiting for the odd late player should be avoided. If anround is missed then an Ave draw result could be provided or the average points for games played worked out and into the final standings.
Game time. 50 is reasonable. I have had a tendency to go for LH armies and try and manoeuvre, but end up having to be a bit rash in order to force a result and have probably lost more than won doing That.
Final - well I have never troubled the scorers and been in one, and tend to leave when the league groups have been completed. Personally - to get 5 games is good, and then the winner be selected From the person with the highest points total would work for me. Sometimes luck of the draw.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Dec 12, 2019 19:46:04 GMT
One thought on the format is this;
What could be done is that two groups play their games, and then the players in each group are ranked top to bottom. Then, like in a Swiss chess system, the top from group A plays the top from group B, the second from group A plays the second from group B, et cetera et cetera. That would produce a total ranking top to bottom throughout the field. (Effectively a ‘final’ between the two group winners, a ‘third place’ playoff between the next pair and so on.
There is bound to be a flaw in this. Please advise! Probably needs ‘ convenient ‘ numbers of players in the initial groups.
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Dec 12, 2019 21:00:45 GMT
One thought on the format is this; What could be done is that two groups play their games, and then the players in each group are ranked top to bottom. Then, like in a Swiss chess system, the top from group A plays the top from group B, the second from group A plays the second from group B, et cetera et cetera. That would produce a total ranking top to bottom throughout the field. (Effectively a ‘final’ between the two group winners, a ‘third place’ playoff between the next pair and so on. There is bound to be a flaw in this. Please advise! Probably needs ‘ convenient ‘ numbers of players in the initial groups. This would be similar to how the tournament is run at CanGames.
In the first round the organizer tries to get as close to historical match ups as possible, then after that it is winners vs. winners and losers vs. losers, then tries to continue this unless it would pit an opponent against an opponent that they played in a previous round.
For the final round which everyone is still involved in, the organizer matches up the two players with the highest scores up to that point, and considers that match up to be the decider for who will win the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by attilathenun on Dec 13, 2019 12:23:16 GMT
One thought on the format is this; What could be done is that two groups play their games, and then the players in each group are ranked top to bottom. Then, like in a Swiss chess system, the top from group A plays the top from group B, the second from group A plays the second from group B, et cetera et cetera. That would produce a total ranking top to bottom throughout the field. (Effectively a ‘final’ between the two group winners, a ‘third place’ playoff between the next pair and so on. There is bound to be a flaw in this. Please advise! Probably needs ‘ convenient ‘ numbers of players in the initial groups. I like this idea - sort of like a "plate" competition, like at the English and Welsh opens.
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Dec 14, 2019 12:05:50 GMT
One thought on the format is this; What could be done is that two groups play their games, and then the players in each group are ranked top to bottom. Then, like in a Swiss chess system, the top from group A plays the top from group B, the second from group A plays the second from group B, et cetera et cetera. That would produce a total ranking top to bottom throughout the field. (Effectively a ‘final’ between the two group winners, a ‘third place’ playoff between the next pair and so on. There is bound to be a flaw in this. Please advise! Probably needs ‘ convenient ‘ numbers of players in the initial groups. I like this too. We could have four 50-minute (plus 10 minute turn-around) games, then a "Final" 5th round to completion (hopefully) for everyone.
The only flaw that I can see is that when the groups are each of an odd number of players, you often have to play one of your group games agaionst a player of teh other group. So there would be the possibility of some players playing the same opponent twice.
|
|
|
Post by cgothicus on Dec 14, 2019 19:10:26 GMT
Ooooh, I like plate competitions they are the only thing I get lucky with in Wales!
|
|