Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
There are two options for the ideal number of games in a tournament:

A) Available play time divided by reasonable time for game, rounded down
B) The number of games necessary to have a single undefeated player

Any option other than these two is not optimal.

Given the lack of player fatigue as a consideration I'd say this is a bit too much simplification. Unless you mean to imply changing the value for 'reasonable time' from day to day.

Pretty much. While 'reasonable time' is flexible, I'd still expect it to be not more than 10 hours in a single day. That can get pretty draining if done back to back.

So if you could round of 40K in two hours (including between round time, excluding meal breaks), 4 or even 5 rounds in a day would OK. If it takes three hours a game, 3 is pretty much the limit. So the number of rounds is very much a function of game size. You can run more Incursion games than Strike Force Games. And even more Combat Patrols than Incrusions.

Audustum wrote:

What would be really fun is if we had at least one large tournament that was single elimination rather than the Swiss pairings system commonly employed. Be fun to see what lists make the deep runs (this would entail the finalists playing quite a few games while half the tournament goes out after just one, however).

Nah. You would determine winner same way by having rounds # enough to have single undefeated which would be needed that way anyway. And most players would not be able to play much.

Works maybe on TTS but physical tournament? Why go to tournament when you are unlikely to play more than 1-2 games...

IMO, Three 2.5 hour games in the day is the limit.
Beyond that, you're gonna get fatigued, throat's gonna get sore, and you'll make easy mental mistakes.

 alextroy wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
There are two options for the ideal number of games in a tournament:

A) Available play time divided by reasonable time for game, rounded down
B) The number of games necessary to have a single undefeated player

Any option other than these two is not optimal.

Given the lack of player fatigue as a consideration I'd say this is a bit too much simplification. Unless you mean to imply changing the value for 'reasonable time' from day to day.

Pretty much. While 'reasonable time' is flexible, I'd still expect it to be not more than 10 hours in a single day. That can get pretty draining if done back to back.

So if you could round of 40K in two hours (including between round time, excluding meal breaks), 4 or even 5 rounds in a day would OK. If it takes three hours a game, 3 is pretty much the limit. So the number of rounds is very much a function of game size. You can run more Incursion games than Strike Force Games. And even more Combat Patrols than Incrusions.

Issue with incursion games are balance is even more wonky than strike force. Patrol even worse

I think that 3 is the optimal number.

Three is pretty perfect.

Is there anything to stop you using VP's scored to determine a winner and not having to rely on just game results?

 PaddyMick wrote:
Is there anything to stop you using VP's scored to determine a winner and not having to rely on just game results?

Depend on the size of the tournament. When you only have a small number of games there's a very good chance that you'll have multiple people with the same VP score. A chance that goes up exponentially the more players you have.

That's why most tournaments rely on Swiss pairing, because it forces the better players to face each other and breaks up those ties. But it needs enough game rounds to work.

VP scored is also a bad tiebreaker in that it rewards people who can beat their opponents by a lot and thus encourages you to crush newer/less experienced players, which I'm not a fan of. Swiss pairing till undefeated is ideal, but I feel that strength of schedule is better than VP.

 insaniak wrote:

 PaddyMick wrote:
Is there anything to stop you using VP's scored to determine a winner and not having to rely on just game results?

Depend on the size of the tournament. When you only have a small number of games there's a very good chance that you'll have multiple people with the same VP score. A chance that goes up exponentially the more players you have.

That's why most tournaments rely on Swiss pairing, because it forces the better players to face each other and breaks up those ties. But it needs enough game rounds to work.

Right ok, so there must be some other way to seperate performance without increasing the number of games? Hmmm. Tough one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grrrfranky wrote:
VP scored is also a bad tiebreaker in that it rewards people who can beat their opponents by a lot and thus encourages you to crush newer/less experienced players, which I'm not a fan of. Swiss pairing till undefeated is ideal, but I feel that strength of schedule is better than VP.

Ah yes there are always unintended consequences i suppose, and it very much depends on what kind of tournament you are running.

I am interested because I can see myself setting one up one day.

Using VP to determine the winner encourages a particular sort of play and particular sorts of list. Namely those that can score big.

It is entirely possible under this method to have a 5 Round tournament where Player A go 5-0 with lowish score while Player B goes 0-5 in high scoring games. You then total up both players VP and Rank Player B higher despite a worst record.

This is why many tournaments use VP as the tiebreaker. I think VP differential (how many more points did you score than your opponent) is a better metric than raw VP. That at least measure how convincingly you won your games.

How would timing and such change when talking about a 1,000 point Incursion tournament?

I'm considering starting up an Incursion set of tournaments, probably starting with 501, then 750, then start a run of 1,000 point tournaments.

So, I'm trying to plan for one every two months or so. What should I be looking at interns of timing, number of rounds, etc, assuming they're all one day things.

With the GT pack having Incursion missions and the like, I thought, why not? Incursion is 501-1000, so why not take advantage of the lower point games and the difference in playstyle needed for them.

 Blndmage wrote:
How would timing and such change when talking about a 1,000 point Incursion tournament?

I'm considering starting up an Incursion set of tournaments, probably starting with 501, then 750, then start a run of 1,000 point tournaments.

So, I'm trying to plan for one every two months or so. What should I be looking at interns of timing, number of rounds, etc, assuming they're all one day things.

With the GT pack having Incursion missions and the like, I thought, why not? Incursion is 501-1000, so why not take advantage of the lower point games and the difference in playstyle needed for them.

We did an Escalation Tourney in the Fall with four games in one day: 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000. If you stayed at 1000 points you could have four games of 90 minutes each with time in between to determine matchups, have a coffee/smoke etc. You could go with 1:45 games if you are ready to rush the transitions. The recommended minimum table size can make things decisive.

0900 to 1030 - Game 1
1100 to 1230 - Game 2
1230 to 1330 - Lunch
1330 to 1500 - Game 3
1530 to 1700 - Game 4

We did 1500 point tourneys like this in 8th - worked out.

so 4 games would be 16 players with one undefeated. 8 tables is doable by any sizable FLGS.

I can easily finish my 2k games in 2 hours but i do play custodes.

Would probably have to run no bigger than 1500pts for a 4 game day at a normal event.

GT's are a bit different just because of the scale. You can do 4 2kpt games in a day, but thats a 12 hour day at a minimum.

Most conventions run 3 days and do 6 games the first 2 days and the finals on the third day.
They will throw a 4rth game in on the second day if more than 12 people are undefeated on day 2.

9 games will handle up to 512 players so it would be pretty rare you would need more than that (only the LVO usually).

How about this for a crazy idea - I'm thinking as I am typing here:

A 16 person KO tourney is 4 four games which at 2000 points is doable in one day and obviously has a clear winner and the excitement of a final battle.

So with the 8 people who are knocked out round 1, you start a 'royal rumble' massive table multi-player game* where there can be only one winner. The next 4 to get knocked out get to join the rumble later as a reward and have a better chance of surviving to win it.

The next two that get knocked out play each other for 3rd place in the main tourney. Anyone kncoked out of the rumble gets to hang out and spectate the main event.

Does that sound like fun?

*simplify rules and reduce points to make it work

If people are up for it anything can be fun.

But I've got to say, my first ever tournament (Circa.. 1998 or so) was a KO event, and I got knocked out in the first round to the guy who ultimately won it all.

Which meant I was just twiddling my thumbs watching other people play for the rest of the day. Which in terms of hype->wow this sucks, was not a good experience.

With hindsight - I should have just found someone else who got knocked out and played our own game on one of the tables not being used. (After all, its not like it matters.) But it didn't seem like something I could do.

Tyel wrote:
If people are up for it anything can be fun.

But I've got to say, my first ever tournament (Circa.. 1998 or so) was a KO event, and I got knocked out in the first round to the guy who ultimately won it all.

Which meant I was just twiddling my thumbs watching other people play for the rest of the day. Which in terms of hype->wow this sucks, was not a good experience.

With hindsight - I should have just found someone else who got knocked out and played our own game on one of the tables not being used. (After all, its not like it matters.) But it didn't seem like something I could do.

That sounds like a TO issue. Single elimination tournaments shouldn't end up with players having no games to play just because they've lost one or more times. You just get paired up in one of the lower brackets, much as you would in a Swiss system.

Slipspace wrote:

Tyel wrote:
If people are up for it anything can be fun.

But I've got to say, my first ever tournament (Circa.. 1998 or so) was a KO event, and I got knocked out in the first round to the guy who ultimately won it all.

Which meant I was just twiddling my thumbs watching other people play for the rest of the day. Which in terms of hype->wow this sucks, was not a good experience.

With hindsight - I should have just found someone else who got knocked out and played our own game on one of the tables not being used. (After all, its not like it matters.) But it didn't seem like something I could do.

That sounds like a TO issue. Single elimination tournaments shouldn't end up with players having no games to play just because they've lost one or more times. You just get paired up in one of the lower brackets, much as you would in a Swiss system.

Out of curiosity isn't that basically swiss system though then? I mean if you keep on playing how that differs to swiss system?

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Tyel wrote:
If people are up for it anything can be fun.

But I've got to say, my first ever tournament (Circa.. 1998 or so) was a KO event, and I got knocked out in the first round to the guy who ultimately won it all.

Which meant I was just twiddling my thumbs watching other people play for the rest of the day. Which in terms of hype->wow this sucks, was not a good experience.

With hindsight - I should have just found someone else who got knocked out and played our own game on one of the tables not being used. (After all, its not like it matters.) But it didn't seem like something I could do.

That sounds like a TO issue. Single elimination tournaments shouldn't end up with players having no games to play just because they've lost one or more times. You just get paired up in one of the lower brackets, much as you would in a Swiss system.

Out of curiosity isn't that basically swiss system though then? I mean if you keep on playing how that differs to swiss system?

Swiss is just a pairing system rather than a tournament resolution system. You'd still use it in a single-elimination tournament to determine who plays who, just as you would if you didn't have enough games to use single-elimination, or were using a different system to determine the winner. In a single-elimination system the only way to win the tournament is by winning all your games. The format is designed to whittle down the field until only one undefeated player remains. The problem with this system for 40k is mainly that the game takes too long to play to make this a practical solution once your number of participants exceeds a certain number.

More than 3 2000 point games in a day is too tiring.

U02dah4 wrote:
More than 3 2000 point games in a day is too tiring.

Yeah I can imagine if you are not in the running that 4th game could feel like a chore. If the 4th game was a final the adrenaline kicks in.

Anybody had any experience with tournaments running 3000 point games, or is this just not done due to limiting the amount of games you get?

I have not done tourneys with 3000 points. My town has had the following tourneys for 9th:

Great Crusade: three rounds of 1500 points in one day with a boss battle at the end - Named Character as Warlord and lists are meant to be thematic
Escalation: four rounds at 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 points in one day - can't cut units as you go
Secret Santa: four rounds at 1000 points in one day - meant to be a "fun" tourney with quirky lists
Club Champs: six rounds of 2000 points over two days - meant to be "hard" lists but some soft scores as well for painting and sports

We use the GT2020 pack and the rankings are on your total VP. What I have found is that you stay in the game even if you are sure you have lost to try and scrape out some VPs.

3 max a day... 8 hours is about as much as I like to play.

Small tourneys (<32 players) 3 in 1 day
Medium tourney (~33-80 players) 3 first day and 3 second day
Large tourneys (80+ players) 3 first day, top 16 ranked second day for 4 games... 1 winner

Out of the above I like to play small tourneys 3 games 1 day... I just don’t have time to take up my entire weekend plus I get tired of playing more then 1 full day... large tourneys aren’t bad either if it’s like a convention since I’m not getting to top 16 anyway :p

 PaddyMick wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
More than 3 2000 point games in a day is too tiring.

Yeah I can imagine if you are not in the running that 4th game could feel like a chore. If the 4th game was a final the adrenaline kicks in.

Anybody had any experience with tournaments running 3000 point games, or is this just not done due to limiting the amount of games you get?

Gaah 2k is already starting to be too slow since GW is hellbent on slowing game down. Unless tournaments increase times(and 3h/round is getting already long) it's getting more and more common to timeout midgame. If games end up round 3-4 there's problem. Since GW keeps making slower and slower rules players should be dropping point sizes or increase time. Time is hard to increase(do we want to do 12h+break days?) and point reduction is hard to sell as people want to use their toys and are too used to fielding these models. Just look how tournaments have increased in size if GW upped model point costs! Surprising 9e 40k didn't get bumped up to 2250 or so but guess time issue is keeping that in some check.