GameTable Online

The Gathering Place has been a great way to unify the GTO gaming community by the bringing of all the traffic into one lobby. One side effect to this has been the challenge of running tournaments with the mix of tournament players and folks seeking to play other games. With the old system of each game having its own lobby, it was more evident who was interested in the game of the tournament.

The current plan is to build a special Tournament Lobby. We’re also looking at adding some automation to the tournament system, but that’s a long-term plan. For now, we’d just like to try to standardize make sure that everyone is familiar with the tournament rules and guidelines.

The only major change will be that late comers are no longer guaranteed a spot in tournaments. If you arrive late we will try to accommodate you but it can get hectic sifting through The Gathering Place chat traffic to determine who is playing and retooling the tourney to reflect a changing number of players. If you know you are going to be late, sending me a Private Message or email will help me make space for you.

Tournament Basics:

Target tournament lengths are 2 to 3 hours. The number of rounds varies based on the average length of the game.

To insure a variety of opponents, game rounds need to stay in sync which means all the games should start at roughly the same time. Sorry, this will mean some waiting time for other games getting over.

To minimize wait time, please keep an eye on lobby and ear open for people returning to the lobby from games. Being AFK can really bog down the tournament.

We try to give a 5 minute break about 2/3 to 3/4 through the tourney. If you need one sooner, inform the moderator.

If you must leave early, try to communicate that to the moderator so that he/she can adjust the table assignments.

Table assignments will be made by the moderator via lobby chat. When the players for a table are announced, the first player listed is responsible for creating the table.

Table assignments will be made randomly unless otherwise noted

Familiarize yourself with the rules for new games in advance as a consideration of the tournament pacing. If you need to learn the rules, moderators will usually be online for guidance 30 minutes before tournament start times.

Report your place and pertinent score when you return to the lobby after your games. This should be done via the lobby chat using CAPS

Tournament Game Scoring

Tournament scoring for multiplayer games (more than 3 players, with the exception of Nuclear War) is based on game points, the place of finish, and number of players.

4th place’s tournament points = 1+.5(points scored by 4th place*(# of players) - total_score)/total_score
3rd place’s tournament points = 2+.5(points scored by 3rd place*(# of players) - total_score)/total_score
2nd place’s tournament points = 3+.5(points scored by 2nd place*(# of players) - total_score)/total_score
1st place’s tournament points = 4+.5*(points scored by 1st place*(# of players) - total_score)/total_score

The cumulative score of tournament points from all rounds will determine tournament finish position.

Tournament Prizes:

Unless otherwise noted prizes for top finishers in GTO Tournaments will be in GTO Points

The total prize pool will be 10 GTO Points per player in the tournament. The number of players will be based on the average whole number of players per round.

Payout percentages will be based on the number of players playing. Players receiving prizes and their percentage of the prize pool are:
2 players (75/25)
3-10 players (50/30/20)
11-20 players (45/25/18/12)
21-30 players (40/23/16/12/9)
31-40 players (38/22/15/11/8/6)
41-50 players (35/21/15/11/8/6/4)

At the end of the tournament should there be a tie, the GTO Points will be split

In addition to the GTO Points, for every 5 participants, there will be consolation prizes of random virtual Creepy Freak figures for your online collection. The drawing for these will be from non-GTO Point winners.

VOID

For some time I have been looking for a standardized tournament scoring system for the GTO tournaments but nothing ever seemed to fit. I wanted a standardized scoring system that rewarded winners of games with more players without overly penalizing those who were assigned to smaller tables, gave a reward for those who played a close 2nd place, and also had enough differentiation to minimize ties. When I was at GenCon last month, I threw my hat in the Ticket to Ride tournament that was sponsored by the Puffing Billy Train Gamers Association and was introduced to their tournament scoring system. Like most of our games they had some of the same issues to deal with so I am adopting it on a trial basis here at GTO. It is a little more complex than the simple whole number systems that I have normally employed in the past.

The short form of this is that 1st place gets a base 3 tournament points, 2nd 2 points, and 3rd 1 point. In addition to these points, 2nd through 4th place will receive a percentage of a tournament point based on the ratio of their score to the 1st place player. 1st place will get the sum of all of the aforementioned percentage multiplied by .03. Yes, it is a little confusing but it is a little simpler if you see it boiled down algebraically. (Don’t worry I set up a spreadsheet to do the math work.)

1st place’s game score=a

2nd place’s game score=b

3rd place’s game score=c

4th place’s game score=d

4th place’s tournament points=.5(d/a)

3rd place’s tournament points=1+.5(c/a)

2nd place’s tournament points=2+.5(b/a)

1st place’s tournament points=3+.015[(b+c+d)/a]

EXAMPLE: 4 player New England game with scores of 35, 33, 27, and 25 will earn scores of 3.036, 2.471, 1.386, and 0.357 for the tournament.

The values of the game scores will vary from game to game but examples would be connections in Ten Days in Africa, spaces away in Igel Argern, territories in Condottiere, or points in most games. If a non 1st place player has more points than the winner (possible in Condottiere or Lemmings in Space), they are considered to have equal points to the winner and the max fraction they can have is .5. 5th place and beyond get 0 tournament points for that game. This means that the winner will get between 3 and 3.045 points. While the margin of victories may very well be in fractions, ties should be rare.

The most controversial element of this tournament scoring system is that the fractional system rewards winners of close games more than winners of landslide victories. Example: in a 2 player game of 10 Days in Africa, if you beat someone 10-8 you would earn 3.012 tourney points and if you beat them 10-1 you would earn 3.002 points. If you look it at from the winner’s vantage the argument is that they are being penalized for crushing their opponents but by the same token it could have very well been an ace player got matched up against newbies which shouldn’t be favored either. There is a slight incentive to hold off your victory to let the other players catch up but that incentive is really only if you consider the other game winners your competition because letting the 2nd place player earn more points that may come back and sting you, particularly because the scoring system favors 2 2nd place finishes over a 1st and 3rd place finish.

The bottom lines of this scoring system are that it will apply to everyone equally, it is complex enough where it is unlikely anyone will take the time to see how to best manipulate their scores, and it is a trial program. If enough people speak out against it we will drop it. If you want to read more about this scoring system at http://www.mimgames.com/tga/puffingbillyscoring.shtml.

Exceptions to this scoring system will be Nuclear War and Kill Dr. Lucky where it difficult to measure degrees of loss and Backgammon which has its own built tournament point system.

After seeing some oddities in our first tournament using this system I am altering the formula for first place slightly. The reasons and goals for the alterations is to give a greater value to winning games. The new formula for tournament points for 1st place in a game is

1st place’s tournament points=3+.15[(b+c+d)/a]

How does these formulas work for less than 4 players?

Is is still the same equations for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd?

And the case of ties.

Using last nights tourney as an example:

1st place: 10 connections
2nd & 3rd both have 5 connecions.

Yes the formula is the same. With a 4th player, the winner gets slightly more points.

Ok. So using my 3 person example:

1st gets 3+(.015*[(5+5)/10] =3.015

But what about 2nd and 3rd since they tied?

Ties got a split of the 2nd and 3rd place points.

(2.25+1.25)/2=1.75

Okay.

I think your spreadsheet formulas might have a problem in them then.

In Round 8 last night, I ended up with .175 instead of 1.75 (I believe this will be the case with Snaketongue as well)

I'm not sure if there are other occurrances like this like this, or if that was an isolated case.

Just wanted to point this out before the next tournament, in case it was a bug

And thank you again for your hard work.

I left my actual scoresheets at home and will have to look into this tomorrow.

No disrespect but the scoring system sucks bad. In the Vampire tourney I had three great rounds, blowing the competition out of the water the first two rounds, and barely getting 2nd the last round. Somehow because played so well I lost?

The sad part is that under the first system (with the .015) multiplier I probably would have won the tourney. The change not only put more value on a 1st place win but ALSO put more value on close wins (which none of my wins were).

Becky won even though I beat her handily in the first round, because her two wins were closer games than mine? Becky is a friend of mine, and congrats to her for winning her two other games, but you can probably see why I'm not happy.

I doubt I'll participate in future tourneys. I hate losing to the scoring system.

I can understand your feelings about the situation. The first time I played under this system was in Ticket to Ride tournament where I had such a dominating victory that I lapped the last place player on the scoring chart and I found myself in the tournament standings lagging. That being said, I have yet to find a scoring system that can handle multi-match, multi-player game without limiting the number of entrants to some squared number to keep all players on an equal footing.

Your issues with the scoring system may be valid so ask you for your help: offer me a better system. If anyone posts up a better system, I will give 50 GTO Points for it.

In your particular case, you may have also been short-changed the margin of victory because of leons1701 being disconnecting in round 2 but it seemed a no win situation for me as a moderator. It is entirely your choice to quit playing in our tournaments over a 9.03 vs. 8.938 2nd place finish or the 24 GTO Points difference but I think you should acknowledge that the quirks of the system may also favor you sometimes also.

If we don't modify or find a replacement The bottom line for your decision should be if the effect of the quirks create such a bad experience that they overwhelm the positive elements of tournament play. If the answer is in the negative, I am sorry that you feel that way and hope that you continue to enjoy our games.

Yes, winning a tourney might be nice. GTO points might be nice, as well as a Creepy Freaks figure for online play (Not sure, because there never seems to be anyone on line when I go on that seems to want to play it.) But you know what? The reason ANYONE that comes here to game is here to do just that, PLAY GAMES!!!

Winning isn't everything, playing the games and getting to play with many people is. I can't physically get 20 people in a room to play Ten Days in Africa or Kill Dr. Lucky. I am lucky if I can find (4) people to play because of schedules, logistics, etc. It was really nice that I finally found a place that seems to have many people with similar interests and enjoy playing games. I don't even mind getting my *** handed to me every time I play ToneDog and Cmoffit at E&T, I just enjoy playing a good game with like minded people. Not to mention Majiken's obsession with beating the snot out of me at BotB, I don't mind, I just enjoy playing the games.

Scoring systems are never perfect; the best, most public and greatest example may be the last (2) elections. Depending on how it would have been "scored" it would have been different and we would have had a completely different outcome. Even though it was challenged, in the end, it was what it was. They were playing under rules that they both understood and how it could turn out. That is the same thing here.

You know what the rules are, how it is scored, etc. You say you whipped the competition by a huge margin in the first game. You also could have easily just strung them along for awhile and gotten the game closer before going in for the kill. If you had done that, in just your first game, you likely would have beaten Becky in the end.

Maybe someday when they automate the tourney system with an actual tourney lobby, etc. they can setup autoscoring, and elimination rounds or tie breakers. Example; everyone goes in, signs in to the tourney. It actually starts on time; late comers can join but only up to a point and at a penalty. Start with a set number of rounds, say (5), everyone is auto assigned tables and they play, end of five rounds someone is either determined the winner or there is a tiebreaker round which everyone can watch (Like a WSOP final table.) A winner is then declared right on the spot and as everything is automated, everyone gets their points, accolades, etc.

Someday it will happen. Until then, take a chill pill, realize that not winning because of the scoring system is NOT the end of the world and just enjoy getting to play some great games with some great people!

The above system is basically a fixed score for place (regardless of # of players) plus a "tie-breaking bonus" based on relative scores. The problem is the winner's incentive is to score the minimum instead of the maximum.

This could be fixed simply by making the "tie-breaking bonus" for all players based on percent difference from the average score instead of the leader's score. I also scaled up the constant since the bonus will be negative for players with a below average score.

4th place’s tournament points = 1+.5(d*num_plyrs - total_score)/total_score
3rd place’s tournament points = 2+.5(c*num_plyrs - total_score)/total_score
2nd place’s tournament points = 3+.5(b*num_plyrs - total_score)/total_score
1st place’s tournament points = 4+.5*(a*num_plyrs - total_score)/total_score

You can calculate num_players in an spreadsheet with a COUNT( x>0, score range), even if less than max are playing.

I will have to take a little time to compare this with our current system.

After comparing the results of the 12/11/07 New England tournament using both systems, I found I actually liked the cmoffitt system. It really didn't change the order of the top finishers but there were a couple of tough situations that I thought it ended up handling better (favoring a player who finished 3 out of 4, 4 out of 4, and 1 out of 3 over a player who only played 2 rounds at 2 of 3 and 2 of 4).

As noted no system is perfect but we'll try our best but I think we'll adopt it.