Another test tournament

jasonrohrer · 2015-01-12 18:58:58

I've fixed a few things about the tournament structure.

1. Prizes for ties are now more sensible (players split the total prize sum at their tied levels evenly).

2. The Games Played stat on the leaderboard only updates after you finish a game (so you can't tell who you're playing by watching that stat for upticks).

I've launched a new test tournament with a 10-cent entry fee. It will start in about 3 minutes and run for 9 hours.

Hypothetical prizes can be previewed here:

http://cordialminuet.com/gameServer/ser … players=20

The leaderboard can be seen here:

http://cordialminuet.com/gameServer/ser … name=test3

computermouth · 2015-01-12 21:22:07

There's currently 5 people with 0 games played set to receive a prize. Shouldn't it be a requirement that people play at least a game before being committed to the leaderboard/prize pool? Otherwise, people could theoretically enter the tourney en masse, not play a game, wait, and cross their fingers.

Mevans · 2015-01-12 21:55:29

Computermouth, I absolutely agree with what you're saying. Being fortunate enough that other people have lost, therefore propelling them below you in the leaderboards, seems like a bit of an undeserved victory. Jason, is it possible to implement a flexible system that adapts based on how many people have played games or on the basis that you can only win part of the prize pool if you finish with a profit? (I'm just throwing out ideas, I've never seen how tournaments of this nature are set up).

Also, what happens if multiple people are all tied for the same position regardless of how many games they have played? Say, for example, Computermouth and I both play 1 game each and make a profit of 0.01 cents each but this places us both in-line for last place in the prize-winning leaderboard. Would 1 person win based on a certain characteristic or would the prize be split?

Omnibot · 2015-01-12 22:03:09

Well, they are getting a prize but they still lost money in the tournament overall. I would assume by the time this long tournament ends a lot will play a few games at least.

If there is a tie the prize is split evenly regardless of games (or at least it was on Saturday between the two who tied for 2nd).

jasonrohrer · 2015-01-12 22:30:24

Yeah, there's no requirement to play any games at all, and it is possible to win a prize by doing that if lots of people go negative. That's the nature of this game: net $ is king.

But, people are motivated to play games, because going up 1 step in the ranking multiplies their prize by 1.5

The number of games you play has no bearing on your prize or how ties are split.

joshwithguitar · 2015-01-13 04:01:23

Another test tournament in the bag .

Now if only I could do as well at the real ones...

joshwithguitar · 2015-01-13 13:36:19

Although I've been enjoying the tournaments as they are there is a sense where the top players do not want to play each other and the most clever strategy is to try to play against as many poor players as possible. If you're in a game against an equal opponent it seems the best idea is to leave and hope to meet a lesser one. You can even currently watch the leaderboard to see
who you are playing against by noting whose game count increases after you join (not that I was doing this in the last tournament).

I was thinking about how you could set up a tournament that is more skill based and will be able to find the best overall player on the day. Reading over your thread on tournament ideas the idea of a swiss style tournament based that matched players based on winnings came up and I like the idea. This way the only way to climb would be to beat opponents that are at a similar level to you and would hopefully make sure the top players end up playing each other.

The big problem with this is waiting around for appropriate matches. In the current system it generally doesn't take long to find a game but in matched system a player could be waiting around a long time for an appropriate match to come up.

My only idea of getting around this would be to have fixed time rounds that start every 5 mins or so. This way every X min every currently active player in the tournament can be matched to the best candidate using a proper swiss method. Matches would be restricted in length (say to X-1 mins). If there is an odd number for a round give one of the lower players a bye and some free points.

This would of course work best for a short tournament where all players are playing for the entire duration - say 1-3 hours. It would be fun playing and knowing that as you climb you're being pitted against more worthy opponents. It would also be more fun for beginner players as they at least would end up playing against those of a similar skill level.

One more interesting idea - have the stakes rise as you go up the ladder.

computermouth · 2015-01-13 17:26:24

Josh, I'd emailed Jason about the same problem with refreshing the leaderboard. He said he'd changed the code.

Plus, knowing when to leave a match is kind of part of the game. The object of the game is to walk away with more money. I like the idea of an actual matched tournament, even with eliminations. But there's also only about 15 players committing to each over a several hour span. It'd probably be hard to get proper matchups working.

jasonrohrer · 2015-01-13 17:45:55

Yeah, Josh, that should be fixed so the game count doesn't go up until you end a game. Thus, that exploit should have been impossible in the test3 tournament (though you could have still been imagining that it was possible by watching the wrong number go up and thinking you were playing someone that you weren't actually playing!)

I've thought about these kinds of "forced" match-ups for the top players.

The problem is that the skills involved in winning such a tournament would be quite different from the skills involved in doing well at the main game. It seems sensible to have "profit" be the way you win a tournament. An important skill in the game is knowing when to leave a table, for example.

There's even a song about that....

jere · 2015-01-13 17:58:04

IT'S A METAPHOR FOR LIFE GUYZ http://youtu.be/Jj4nJ1YEAp4

jasonrohrer · 2015-01-13 18:06:30

He never drinks the whiskey....

computermouth · 2015-01-13 21:09:20

Maybe that's why he knows when to hold them and when to fold them. I've been doing this all wrong!

joshwithguitar · 2015-01-13 21:23:38

I think the tournament style as it is is interesting and am not saying that you shouldn't have them. I was just thinking it would be nice also to have tournaments that you win/lose depending on how good you are at the actual game and not the metagame. I also think it would provide more interesting challenges for players and be less about the luck of who you are matched with.

jere · 2015-01-13 21:56:11

Throwing this out there: what if each tournament had an Elo requirement to qualify? Typical tourneys could be base cases with a 1 Elo requirement, but occasionally we'd have a higher minimum.

Say you need 100+ Elo to join. There's 24 provisional and 33 non-provisional players that currently meet this requirement. We'd get fewer people, but the competition would be fiercer. This would be more about skill and less of a focus on a large cash prize (you're probably already profiting more from regular play if you're really that good). Sounds like what you're aiming for, Josh, without any of the additional complexity. Less metagame.

jasonrohrer · 2015-01-13 22:39:54

Well, that's a great idea for someday, but right now, I think it would shrink the pool of players too much.

CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE

#1 2015-01-12 18:58:58

Another test tournament

#2 2015-01-12 21:22:07

Re: Another test tournament

#3 2015-01-12 21:55:29

Re: Another test tournament

#4 2015-01-12 22:03:09

Re: Another test tournament

#5 2015-01-12 22:30:24

Re: Another test tournament

#6 2015-01-13 04:01:23

Re: Another test tournament

#7 2015-01-13 13:36:19

Re: Another test tournament

#8 2015-01-13 17:26:24

Re: Another test tournament

#9 2015-01-13 17:45:55

Re: Another test tournament

#10 2015-01-13 17:58:04

Re: Another test tournament

#11 2015-01-13 18:06:30

Re: Another test tournament

#12 2015-01-13 21:09:20

Re: Another test tournament

#13 2015-01-13 21:23:38

Re: Another test tournament

#14 2015-01-13 21:56:11

Re: Another test tournament

#15 2015-01-13 22:39:54

Re: Another test tournament

Board footer