webdiplomacy.net

But this is a good discussion so far. Let's keep hearing ideas from others, even if you have no previous Masters experience. It was my favorite tournament on the site (because I would drag several games into the 1920s or 30s to try and solo) and I want others to experience that enjoyment. :)

Which, of course, requires that people actually enjoy the tournament and don't view it as a slog or boring draws.

I liked The Leagues to be honest

Thank you Wusti. Fortunately for you, those are currently ongoing.

The problem is that as soon as a player made a 'solo' (and there will be a first one) he will play the other games a different way. And given the players are 'anons' it is not possible to know this and adapt in function of this situation.

I don't see why they should be anon ever. The anonymity is going to be broken so quickly anyways. Just save us all the trouble and let it be non anon.

I worry though that as soon as a player has a solo it'll devolve to "he has a solo, let's kill him"

I'm never playing a non anon tournament again tbh

I am definitely interested in this, although I am not very highly ranked.

I really liked the Masters, have some of the best games ever in this tournament. The mentality that only solos give you a point make for some really interesting games. The only drawback was that sometimes people just play to avoid a solo too early (blame me, I once draw all my seven games on it).
Making the tiebreaker the numbers of top boards could make things even better.

Completely agree, it needs to be anon. Yes it'll break sooner or later, but even that head start of having a few rounds of non-meta before everybody knows everybody is still a significant difference.

I can't speak too much on this as i'd never played it, but on the surface the solo or zero sounds flawed. Annoying enough to play a whole game, get to (say) 17 centers, and then walk away with zero after a couple months worth of time investment. That sounds like it could leave a bad taste.

I'm also concerned about taking away the inherent nature of the game that you're unable to dangle consolation prize incentives in front of players to justify why they ought continue to help you. Sure they may want to screw other people out of spite, but there's not any incentive in knocking out any players if you're unlikely to solo yourself so six players linking arms to stop board leader sounds like a pretty easy sell and pretty easy to succeed. I know solos have happened in this tournament though so must be some flaw in my analysis, but certainly would be curious to hear about that aspect of it from those who played.

I personally don't mind the World Cup scoring system. You don't need to solo to succeed, but if you do it's going to give you a significantly higher boost then drawing. Maybe even throw on an additional bonus for soloing to further incentivize the solo mentality.

Dear god do i HATE leagues.

I agree that it would be better if the games were anonymous. While anonymity will eventually be broken, I see no need to make it worse by having no anonymity at all.

Also, I think the games should be unranked, unless we use a scoring system that is exactly equal to one already existing. Otherwise, players would have to choose between play that is best for their GR xor play that is best for their tournament performance.

I very much dislike the 'solo or zero' scoring system. I agree with VillageIdiots arguments on this and I'd like to add one more. As I see it, solos are more due to the mistakes of other players than to the successes of the winner; this is supported by the fact that solos become rarer when the level of the players improves. There won't be many solos in the tournament, and the games in which there will be a solo, will, on average, contain worse than average players. While many top players are very good at creating the conditions for other players to make mistakes in, and this is what makes them top players, this still leaves too much of the final standings of the tournament dependent on the arbitrary mistakes (or even grudges) of a few players that won't even have a chance of winning themselves.

I am just thinking out loud here, but what about a scoring system like the following:
A solo is worth 1 point. If there is a draw because a stalemate line has been formed, the largest power (the solo threat) gets 1/2 point, and the other players in the draw each get 1/(2 (n-1) ) points, where n is the number of players in the draw. If there is a draw just because of a mutual agreement and there is no stalemate line formed, each player in the draw gets 1/n points.
It is simple, incentivices aggressive play, and everyone on the board will have something to fight for.

When a boardgame is designed (or rules are written) it is important to have mechanisms to bring situation back to equilibrium (ie to disadvantage in a way the one who has the lead). That whats makes the boardgame interesting until the end.

In Diplomacy, when we see somebody is going to solo, we can gather against him, having anyway in mind that the 2nd one could stab everybody else etc.

If we play 'full anon' the first player who gets a solo may well be the one to win the tournament.

To avoid 'meta' or that everybody jumps at the 'good [dangerous] players' and not being 'full anon', we could register under new accounts : Master2018-P01 ; Master2018-P2, ...

I like the ‘get the leader’ aspect, because it only puts that player at a disadvantage. There are still incentives to ally with them.

what if some of the games are played simultaneously? e.g. two rounds of two games each, and a final round of three.