What if we talk about tournaments?

On 5th November Ben & me organized one of the first tournaments of Mythic Battles: Pantheon in Aubagne (Provence).

We organized a team tournament (2 vs 2), with 16 players (8 teams), which is according to us a good beginning!

The aim was to organize 3 rounds with a swiss system, with a final game against the 2 best teams after these 3 rounds. Unfortunately we had to adapt because we didn't receive the 2 prototypes sent by the Mythic team on time, due to problems with transport. So we changed our mind and only made 2 rounds (which is not enough according to me for a swiss-system tournament). Despite that, everything went well and the 16 players enjoyed, which is always our main target

Before this tournament we discussed to know how to count points, as a swiss system cannot go well if we count on a "binary basis" (1 point for victory, 0 point for defeat).

What we put in place for this tournament is:

1/ Each round lasts 15 minutes for the draft, and 45 minutes for the game (if we had received the protos in time, it would have been 15mn for the draft and 1h for the game).

2/ For each table, at the end of each game, we calculate "game points".
"Game points" are calculated this way: "game points"= (VP lost by opposing gods) + 2x(number of omphalos absorbed by the team)

3/ The winning team is the one that wins the game before the 45mn, or the one with the most game points at the end of the game.
The winning team of the round gains 5 "round points", whereas the losing team gains 1 round point. In case of draw, each team gains 3 round points.
Draw happens when each team has the same "match points".

4/ In addition, a team can gain bonus points, depending of "game points".
Bonus points are calculated this way:
+2 round points for the winning team if: (game points of the winning team)-(game points of the losing team) > 5
+1 round point for the winning team if: (game points of the winning team)-(game points of the losing team) > 3
+1 round point for the losing team if: (game points of the winning team)-(game points of the losing team) < 2
+2 round points for the losing team if: (game points of the winning team)-(game points of the losing team) < 0 (it happened one time)


I hope everything's clear.

When we debriefed, we talked mainly of the time limit. Players were not on a very competitive state of mind, so everything was OK, but in that case we could have some blocking situations with a team losing time because they have more game points (anti-play situation).
Time limit was put in place to facilitate organization, because in tournaments (in any game, by the way) some players sometimes take too much time to play.
The conclusion of the discussion for me was that the best system would be a kind of chess clock mode : each team has a total of 30mn to play, and they utilize their time as they want (some turns could last 5mn whereas others could last less than 1mn). The question is then : "what if a team has no time left?". This is a good question


I think that the "bonus point" system is a little bit heavy, and the experience showed that many winning teams received 2 bonus points, making them nearly unreachable. My opinion is that it is not good for the tournament, it becomes "tensionless".
I think that for the next tournament we will calculate the bonus points as such:
+1 round point for the winning team if: (game points of the winning team)-(game points of the losing team) > 5 (large victory)
+1 round point for the losing team if: (game points of the winning team)-(game points of the losing team) < 2 (short defeat)

What should be discussed also:
What about a +1 bonus point for a game won before the time limit?
Changing the game points calculation: "game points"= (VP lost by opposing gods) + 3x(number of omphalos absorbed by the team)

I let you comment this and share your ideas!

Hey Ben,

not much talk about tournaments around here it seems, let's devellop this side of the game!

First of all, it is my opinion that 2V2 tournaments are real fun, but not pratical in term of long term, wide competition. It must be an alternative, "casual" mode.

That said here is what I laid down for heavy tournament rules, freely inspired by different games past and present : (translated from french i hope it makes sense... Il y a un forum spécifique FR d'ailleurs hormis TT..?)


Tournament Common rules :

During the tournament announcement, the organisator must specify the format chosen (see below) and which map will be used for each round. Eventually furnitures could be lended for tournament purposes, otherwise the organisator must anticipate, sometimes by asking players to bring some material along.

All games are played with Duel rules, which are :

A player wins by absorbing 4 Omphalos OR by killing the opposing God.
Each player starts with 18 RP (God included).
During the first round, the first player is determined via a dice roll. During each subsequent round, the first player is the one with the less Victory points or, in case of a tie in Victory points, the less Goal Average. If there is still a tie, a dice is rolled.
At the start of the round players have 15 minutes to do the Draft. Then the game begins, and lasts 1 hour. As soon as the round ends, players must put the dices on the table and stop playing. The only exception is if a roll is in progress, in this case it is resolved before the game ends.
There is a Draw between the players if at the end of the time no player has managed to achieve one of the two objectives.

A tournament consists of 4 rounds if there is 16 players or less, 5 if there is up to 32 players, 6 up to 64 players, 7 up to 128...

At the end of each duel, each player must fill his game sheet, writing down his Victory Points (win=3points, draw=1point, loss=0 point), and the Goal Average he obtained (the RP of all unit eliminated minus the RP of all unit losts, god excluded).

Rankings are done in Swiss round. Ties in Victory points are settled via the Goal Average. If a player were to confront an adversary he already fought, he instead play with the next in line, and so on. This does not happen during the last round, during which old enemies may confront again...

In case of litigation of for any ruling or behaviour problem, the tournament referee (which is the organisator if there is no appointed referee) has always the last word and the upper hand.



In order to satisfy a maximum of players, MB:P tournaments should present themselves under TWO different formats, called Basic and Custom.

BASIC :

Each player bring the content of the Core Box. The draft is done normally with one set of core box miniatures, and each player play with their own minatures. It is possible to anticipate in order for some players to bring no miniatures (which makes this an ideal way to present MB:P and Competitive play to a friend or a spouse), as long as all players agree with it and that at least half players bring the Core Box miniatures. In Basic each table should have its own full core set of miniatures to draft from.

Basic can be declined in Basic +, or Extended. The organisator only adds all expansions he wants. The more expansion added, the more works there is during the event preparation, as all tables must have the exact same pool of miniatures to draft from. In a Basic + tournament, the event organisator must defines which miniatures are available for the tournament. To do so, each player sends a list of the miniatures from available expansions she or he can bring along. Then the organisator must establish which miniatures will be part of the draft pools. There must be one complete draft pool for each pair of player, so some players may bring less miniatures, thus making it possible for people who do not own expansions to play with new minis...
It should be fairly easy to create an app or a .xls to help manage the miniature selection and draft pool creation.


CUSTOM :

The main difference between Basic and Custom is that in Custom it is not required to have the same draft pool for each table. Each player comes with his own miniatures, from the core box, the expansions and even the Ks SG. Each player must bring at least 2 Gods and 12 points worth of miniatures. Adversaries put their miniatures in common for the draft, after eliminating any double. So it is possible to play with our opponent minis...

Why do you think that the 2v2 is not a valid tournament format ?

Salut Pep's, on a fait un nano-tournoi chez les Tisseurs de Chimères en interne : 3 joueurs en 1v1. 3 games en 1 soirée avec horloge d'échec, 30 min chacun pour jouer. 1 game n'a pas été au bout et 1 sur le fil. Le draft avait été fait par forum.

Mes impressions :
- 30 min pour une game c'est trop court je trouve, ça favorise les draft bourrin et sans réflexion, et peut frustrer des joueurs qui n'auront pas le temps de développer leur jeu.
L'hydre par exemple est chiante à jouer car si tu maximises l'utilisation d'onslaught, t'as plein de jets de dés chronophages à résoudre. Ulysse t'as envie de maximiser l'utilisation de Subterfuge qui nécessite un peu de réflexion sur les actions que tu envisages pour les tours suivants. Quand t'as les deux tu galères.
- Quid du temps de réflexion de l'adversaire pendant ton tour : "j'utilise garde ou pas ?". Perso j'ai "tapé" sur l'horloge quand la réflexion était trop longue. Contre-attaque (retaliate), on tape sur l'horloge bien sûr.
- Pour répondre à ta question, quand je suis arrivé au bout de mon timer parce-que je jouais un dieu fragile dont je devais bien peser chaque déplacement, Ulysse et l'Hydre :p Mon adversaire a joué et moi je passais mes tours. Dans une telle situation, en général, il gagne.

Après cette première expérience, 1H30 max de game avec 50 min max par équipe ça me semble pas mal. Si une équipe utilise ses 50 min, ça laisse 40 min à l'autre équipe. Si on compte 2 heures par ronde, ça laisse 30 min pour le draft, la gestion de l'inter-ronde par les orgas et ranger les tables. Ca me semble un peu court mais j'n'ai aucun recul là-dessus.

Tepes : it is a valid, and even more a really really fun, tournament format. It just isn't viable for competitive play and rankings. Most people won't have a teammate to make most tournaments of one entire season, let alone more, so it is way too much restrictive to start with.

Glad to see some discussion beginning regarding that tournaments topic!

Tefen wrote:

At the end of each duel, each player must fill his game sheet, writing down his Victory Points (win=3points, draw=1point, loss=0 point), and the Goal Average he obtained (the RP of all unit eliminated minus the RP of all unit losts, god excluded).

I feel that the way to calculate the Goal Average in your proposal makes the winning by omphalos clearly not competitive, as it is clear that a team drafted to kill a god will also be better to kill any other unit; so it pushes players to draft killing teams, making omphalos absorption an option more than a victory condition.

That's why my proposal for calculationg a GA and offering bonuses only includes points related to each condition of victory.

Rankings are done in Swiss round. Ties in Victory points are settled via the Goal Average. If a player were to confront an adversary he already fought, he instead play with the next in line, and so on. This does not happen during the last round, during which old enemies may confront again...


For the rest of your post, it is close to what we put in place with Ben, so no comment from my side

Biel wrote:

Salut Pep's, on a fait un nano-tournoi chez les Tisseurs de Chimères en interne : 3 joueurs en 1v1. 3 games en 1 soirée avec horloge d'échec, 30 min chacun pour jouer. 1 game n'a pas été au bout et 1 sur le fil. Le draft avait été fait par forum.

Mes impressions :
- 30 min pour une game c'est trop court je trouve, ça favorise les draft bourrin et sans réflexion, et peut frustrer des joueurs qui n'auront pas le temps de développer leur jeu.
L'hydre par exemple est chiante à jouer car si tu maximises l'utilisation d'onslaught, t'as plein de jets de dés chronophages à résoudre. Ulysse t'as envie de maximiser l'utilisation de Subterfuge qui nécessite un peu de réflexion sur les actions que tu envisages pour les tours suivants. Quand t'as les deux tu galères.
- Quid du temps de réflexion de l'adversaire pendant ton tour : "j'utilise garde ou pas ?". Perso j'ai "tapé" sur l'horloge quand la réflexion était trop longue. Contre-attaque (retaliate), on tape sur l'horloge bien sûr.
- Pour répondre à ta question, quand je suis arrivé au bout de mon timer parce-que je jouais un dieu fragile dont je devais bien peser chaque déplacement, Ulysse et l'Hydre :p Mon adversaire a joué et moi je passais mes tours. Dans une telle situation, en général, il gagne.

Après cette première expérience, 1H30 max de game avec 50 min max par équipe ça me semble pas mal. Si une équipe utilise ses 50 min, ça laisse 40 min à l'autre équipe. Si on compte 2 heures par ronde, ça laisse 30 min pour le draft, la gestion de l'inter-ronde par les orgas et ranger les tables. Ca me semble un peu court mais j'n'ai aucun recul là-dessus.

Merci pour ton retour, très intéressant !
Je continue en anglais si ça te convient, sinon dis-le moi, je traduirai

Regarding the length of the game, it is clear that 30mn/team is not "comfortable". I am that kind of player who like to take my time, to think and balance each choice. Nevertheless I also recognize that playing Blood Bowl with a timer is great (even if penalaizing for me), because it adds tension to the game, and it allows mistakes due to the lack of time.
But you are right on one important point: some units take more time to be played, mainly due to their talents and powers.

I thought about the system we utilize on Blood Bowl: we found an app that we utilize as a timer. How does it work? We implement an amount of time per turn, and we can add a time "reserve" that is utilized when we come out of the turn time.
For example we play with 4mn per turn, and have 15mn of reserve per half. Some turn 4 mns is enough, then we don't need the extra time, but some turns take more than 4mn, and then the extra time is taken in the reserve.
I think this could be a good way to deal with time in MBP tournaments. But thinking at the opposite than for Blood Bowl. I mean: we first fix the game time we want (let's say: 1h20, without the draft), then we divide it by an average number of turns (we need stats regarding this average number of turns; do you have an idea of that? I never checked this, but will ask to our tournament teams to count the turns on Saturday); let's say 15, for the example. That makes 2mn40s per turn per team. We could then fix 1mn/turn, with a time reserve of 25mn.
That avoids the situation you encountered when coming out of time: with that system, if you have no time left in your reserve, then you always have 1mn to play your turn.

Regarding the reactions of the opponent during your turn, I think like you: chosing to use Guard or not would take less than 20 seconds in most of the cases, if it is too long then we can stop the timer in order not to waste too much time of the playing team, or call a referee. "Retaliate" has to be counted as an opponent turn, I think (that means: 1mn to retaliate, and the extra time will be taken on the time reserve).

The weak point of an app to deal with time is, according to me, the obligation to have one smartphone per table, with the possibility to reload the smartphones...

Tefen wrote:

Tepes : it is a valid, and even more a really really fun, tournament format. It just isn't viable for competitive play and rankings. Most people won't have a teammate to make most tournaments of one entire season, let alone more, so it is way too much restrictive to start with.

I think that we could apply the results of a team to each teammate individually, adding these results to the individual results of a player.
This would "allow" a player to play 1 vs 1 tournaments and 2 vs 2 tournaments, with a single ranking table.

I know that ELO system (I don't know if this one will be implemented, by the way) is based on comparing the ELO score of 2 players, but we could imagine that when entering the results of a team, the ELO of the best players in each team are compared, then the ELO to the 2 others players are compared.


Why we organize 2 vs 2 tournaments for the moment:
1/ because we like this game mode
2/ because, more practically, we can invite more players with the same material (with 6 tables, we double the number of players)

I agree that 2vs2 seems interesting in tournaments : it is also more time-efficient I believe. The (pnp) rulebook gave the following indications I recall : 60min for 1vs1, 90min for 2vs2.

I also agree that if a point system is to be devised for rating draws/unfinished games, it should take into account other things than kills. Absorbed Omphalos seems obvious.

We can expect all games in the same round to be played on the same map. Maybe a different map for final rounds ?

Should Divinity cards be part of tournaments materials ?

Telgar wrote:

I agree that 2vs2 seems interesting in tournaments : it is also more time-efficient I believe. The (pnp) rulebook gave the following indications I recall : 60min for 1vs1, 90min for 2vs2.

I will also try to collect the number of games finished before the time limit; if it is 25%, then 1h is not enough. If it is 75%, then 1h is enough.

Telgar wrote:

I also agree that if a point system is to be devised for rating draws/unfinished games, it should take into account other things than kills. Absorbed Omphalos seems obvious.

By the way, a point system HAS TO be put in place, otherwise the Swiss format cannot be implemented.

Telgar wrote:

We can expect all games in the same round to be played on the same map. Maybe a different map for final rounds ?

I am on the same way of thinking further tournaments, when the game is received.
For the Avignon tournament (this saturday), we will have 2 prints of each map from the Core Box, for 6 tables.
I think that we will let the second team choose the map, and play first. The first team should choose their side to compensate. But it is not fixed yet; I think it will be discussed with Ben in the car to Avignon

The problem I found with "merging" 2v2 and 1v1 results for rankings is that a "bad" player might get carried by a good teammate, or embarassed by a bad one, so it wouldnt reflect each player real capabilities...
In addition, some will always play with the same mate, and so devellop habits and fast plays, while others won't have the possibility and so will always have "random" partners, which could lead to biased rankings.

Considering Goal Average and how it is calculated, I considered a quite radical way of handling this : there is only one way to win, absorbing Omphalos (and maybe some others depending on the scenario, if multiple scenarios are played during a tournament), and Gods are worth twice their RP value while calculating the Goal Average...

On time limit, I don't like the idea of timed turns, but am strongly in favor of a well tuned timed round. Timed turns add a layer of "complexity" that is neither required nor relevant in my opinion, by adding material (be it a clock or a mobile phone) and a rule where none exist.

It goes without saying that "anti game" behaviour and stalling should be detected and "punished", and for me that's each player's responsibility, with the judge/referee as last resort. Relatively fast play is required but not controlled nor monitored except by the opponent.

Tefen wrote:

The problem I found with "merging" 2v2 and 1v1 results for rankings is that a "bad" player might get carried by a good teammate, or embarassed by a bad one, so it wouldnt reflect each player real capabilities...
In addition, some will always play with the same mate, and so devellop habits and fast plays, while others won't have the possibility and so will always have "random" partners, which could lead to biased rankings.

You are right, this wouldn't be a perfect ranking showing the right place of each player.
As the individual ranking of each competitor in the 1 vs 1 tournaments won't be a "perfect ranking"; because most of the time players will attend tournaments not for from their home, and so they will meet nearly always the same players instead of the whole international community of tournament players. Their ranking will be relatively correct if they compare to the players they meet regularly, but it should be totally disconnected if they compare to other players from another country or even town.
I think that a pure, perfect ranking doesn't exist, so the problem you found has according to me no real impact on the aim of an organized play, with tournaments and events: meeting and playing together. But that's my vision of the organized play, which is not the most competitive one, I know

Tefen wrote:

Considering Goal Average and how it is calculated, I considered a quite radical way of handling this : there is only one way to win, absorbing Omphalos (and maybe some others depending on the scenario, if multiple scenarios are played during a tournament), and Gods are worth twice their RP value while calculating the Goal Average...

This is a really radical way of handling tournaments by themselves, by the way!
My aim is to try to take into account the 2 way of winning in MBP. You "just" delete one of these 2 ways (including it in the GA, if I understand well)!
This, according to me, has a huge impact on game environment and needs to be tested a lot. Because I feel that some units could become very powerful compared to their RP (and others could become less powerful), in that game environment.

Tefen wrote:

there is only one way to win, absorbing Omphalos

Sorry I don't get it. What happens if you kill the other player's god ?

• Is it blocked to 1 vitality ?
  
• Or is he dead and the other player can't win (as he can't absorb Omphalos) but can prevent you from winning ?
  

Peps wrote:

As the individual ranking of each competitor in the 1 vs 1 tournaments won't be a "perfect ranking"; because most of the time players will attend tournaments not for from their home, and so they will meet nearly always the same players instead of the whole international community of tournament players. Their ranking will be relatively correct if they compare to the players they meet regularly, but it should be totally disconnected if they compare to other players from another country or even town.
I think that a pure, perfect ranking doesn't exist, so the problem you found has according to me no real impact on the aim of an organized play, with tournaments and events: meeting and playing together. But that's my vision of the organized play, which is not the most competitive one, I know  

Whereas I'm a heavy competitive kind of player ^^ even if I like some casual fun games now and then... Competitions are just a part of organized play, albeit (for me) a really important one.
That's where the ELO system, even if a tad complex (or is it?), could be helpful. Even if you only play against the same players it shouldn't really impact your rankings, to do this you would have to do other tournaments in other towns. It was the case during the 2000-2006 period for Confrontation by Rackham, where a pool of players from everywhere (even if Paris was at the top...) traveled around France (and Belgium) to defy each other in (almost) each and every city. MTG does this by attributing different coefficient to each tournament, so that big ones with many players are valued highly, which prevent people to do just 15 eight players tournaments per week and up their ranking through the roof artificially.

Peps wrote:

This is a really radical way of handling tournaments by themselves, by the way!
My aim is to try to take into account the 2 way of winning in MBP. You "just" delete one of these 2 ways (including it in the GA, if I understand well)!
This, according to me, has a huge impact on game environment and needs to be tested a lot. Because I feel that some units could become very powerful compared to their RP (and others could become less powerful), in that game environment.

Yeah my idea is not well explicated and the example too extreme ... ^^'
What I meant is that we have two ways of proposing games for competitive play :

1/ Duel mode, with the two usual victory conditions, and with a goal average calculated simply (maybe adding some points for each Omphalos would solve the problem you mentionned if necessary)

2/ Scenario mode, with different ways of winning (king of the hill(s), capture the flag, Kill the God, and all the classics well known to all skirmish wargames players). The scenario I described would have been "capture X omphalos to win", which would effectively have implied "kill the other God to prevent your opponent to win".


In my tournament rules proposition I went with the first solution because I find it more simple and efficient, and also closer to what we have seen from MBP yet ; but the scenario driven tournaments are really cool too, even if they tend to be less "perfect ranking" as they might differ from one tournament to the other. It is what we did for the Confrontation competitive play, and it worked well, but it demanded a huge work on the scenario creation and balancing...

A discussion with Ben Clapperton on FB about the format we should put in place for MB:P :

https://www.facebook.com/groups/341167856241960/permalink/402606923431386/?comment_id=404186533273425&reply_comment_id=404252056600206&notif_t=group_comment&notif_id=1489514445354944

I'm trying to put all discussions about tournaments in the same (good) place, but it's complicated ^^'

Tefen wrote:

MTG does this by attributing different coefficient to each tournament, so that big ones with many players are valued highly, which prevent people to do just 15 eight players tournaments per week and up their ranking through the roof artificially.

Yep, that's an efficient way to prevent what I pointed out.

Tefen wrote:

1/ Duel mode, with the two usual victory conditions, and with a goal average calculated simply (maybe adding some points for each Omphalos would solve the problem you mentionned if necessary)

That's what we apply on our tournaments, see my first message.

For the Avignon tournament, we will proceed like that:

1/ Each round lasts 15 minutes for the draft, and 60 minutes for the game.

2/ For each table, at the end of each game, we calculate "game points".
"Game points" are calculated this way: "game points"= (VP lost by opposing gods) + 2x(number of omphalos absorbed by the team)

3/ The winning team is the one that wins the game before the 60mn, or the one with the most game points at the end of the game.
The winning team of the round gains 5 "round points", whereas the losing team gains 1 round point. In case of draw, each team gains 3 round points.
Draw happens when each team has the same "match points".

4/ In addition, a team can gain bonus points, depending of "game points".
Bonus points are calculated this way:
+1 round point for the winning team if: (game points of the winning team)-(game points of the losing team) > 5 (large victory)
+1 round point for the losing team if: (game points of the winning team)-(game points of the losing team) < 2 (short defeat)

5/ Goal Average is calculated this way: (game points of my team)-(game points of the opposing team)

6/ Ranking depends on:
1. the higher total points = "round points + bonus points"
2. the most victories
3. the higher GA

Peps wrote:

"game points"= (VP lost by opposing gods) + 2x(number of omphalos absorbed by the team)

What is "VP" ?

Vitality point ?

I suppose VP are valor points, aka RC, Recruitment Cost.

Peps : yep I saw that what you do in Avignon is real close to what I propose, quite logical I guess there aren't 50000 ways to do this.

Don't you think it's simpler and quite identical to have victory points as "usual" (victory 3 draw 1 loss 0), with Goal average to determine rankings? It seems to me that with the "end of game winner" rule system a viable and really not fun strategy could be to stall once you are ahead in game points...

the 4/ point is interesting, and could be very fun, not really sure it is worth having one more point calculation rule but it definitively requires testings. It could be a very good and clever way to compensate for a game gone really bad, or to deepen the gap between leaders...

Garshell wrote:

Vitality point ?

Yep !

I thought about VP = victory points

I am a bit annoyed about this concept of defining victory from damages. I understand it could be useful to gives point in case of an uncompleted game.
However, I see MBP as a mix of Magic and Chess. In chess (as in war), it is a completely valid way to win to sacrifice pawns or important pieces. With taking Damages into account you are favoring the aggressive player over the smart one. Definitely not the Odysseus way !

There are 2 ways of winning in MBP:
1/ killing an God (=victory from damages )
2/ absorbing 4 omphalos

The aim of the game points is to represent how a team managed, or progressed, to achieve the winning path.
That's why we take into account the vitality points lost by enemy Gods and the number of omphalos absorbed (with a coefficient, in order to try to give the same importance for the 2 winning paths).

Peps wrote:

we take into account the vitality points lost by enemy Gods and the number of omphalos absorbed (with a coefficient, in order to try to give the same importance for the 2 winning paths).

That makes more sense than to consider damages caused on any unit.

And that is what we always planned to do (and did on our first tournament)

The GA calcutated with all units killed is the idea exposed by Tefen in his first message here. And I also think it's not a good idea