Announcing the 2020 Masters Tournament

[MadMarx]

?

I read into that response a rationalization / justification / defense of how another tournament played out is all...

You really need help. If you're still going on about that all this time later you have some type of problem.

It’s encouraging that you are not, even if that’s largely because you think you were in the right. That is a very recent part of my personal webDip experience, as I have not participated in too much here since, and I definitely have very strong opinions on the matter. Anyway, wasn’t intending to hijack this thread, I just appreciated the chuckle from my perspective and decided to share, that was a mistake, my bad.

[MadMarx]

@rdrivera2005, if you disagree with the tournament director's decision to approve a strategy you are always welcome to appeal their choice to the admin team at [email protected]. But it does seem to me that once a player has checked with a tournament director on a strategy and it has been approved, the player really should not be criticized for their play.

Why on earth not? If there's to be any meaningful discussion of diplomacy on the forums beyond a self appreciation society, being critical of play is absolutely vital. And there's a hell of a lot to be critical of in that display.

Well said!

[Valis2501]

Since when is "allowed by the TD" mean it "really should not be criticized for their play."? I didn't disallow submitting all-hold every turn, or being bad, or being impatient, or not communicating, for my tournaments but I feel that could be criticized. It clearly doesn't follow.

For such a deviant scoring system and meta tournament play I'm surprised these games weren't made unranked.

The TD approving a strategy of "we refuse to draw because we'd like to see the outcome of the other games and see if our game makes the difference or not" seems to be going against the idea of "making use of anothers identity is not a valid strategy in this tournament".

Plenty of high level players are reliable. Doesn't mean they'll join this, or other, tournaments. Tournaments are large sinks of time and effort and vary greatly in their come hitherness.

My 4 cents.

[jmo1121109]

@Valis, but if the things you mention led to a win, would it still be something to criticize? The goal of this tournament as I understand it is to solo. So if people find weird strategies to do so, why criticize? It's just not a mindset I share so curious to see the counter.

[rdrivera2005]

@rdrivera2005, if you disagree with the tournament director's decision to approve a strategy you are always welcome to appeal their choice to the admin team at [email protected]. But it does seem to me that once a player has checked with a tournament director on a strategy and it has been approved, the player really should not be criticized for their play.

As for commitment, like I mentioned in my above post, this has always been a problem in tournaments and for close to a decade we've failed to solve it. Suggestions on how to fix it would be very very welcome.

I am not disagreeing with TD decision, there wasn't anything explicit in the rules that say players can't do that. But I think the rules need to be changed for the next multiple round tournament to address this. Maybe establish a year limit for the game or force draw after some years without SC changes.

[rdrivera2005]

@Valis, but if the things you mention led to a win, would it still be something to criticize? The goal of this tournament as I understand it is to solo. So if people find weird strategies to do so, why criticize? It's just not a mindset I share so curious to see the counter.

I am not criticizing the player that soloed, he played well, and took his chance, but the one who refused to draw to wait for the next rounds.

[TemplarsBane]

With the end of Round 4 coming in, would now be the time to update the scoreboard?

Or are you waiting on Round 5 to end?

[Deinodon]

1 for Solo, 0.1 for board tops, but what is 0.05 for?

[TemplarsBane]

I'm assuming it's for people who tie for board tops.

[goldfinger0303]

I'm assuming it's for people who tie for board tops.

Exactly.

I'll update scoring in a bit

[goldfinger0303]

So, since I have everyone's attention, I was wondering if you could help me brainstorm on a better way to resolve a problem I've been noticing with the tournament - that is "bad" draws.

The tournament is designed to make drawing a difficult decision for most. The only way to score is solo or top the board. I've done everything I can think of to give the 2nd place player 0 reason to draw the game.

So what's a "good"draw?

https://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=270631

The R4G5 game is an example of a "Good" draw in my opinion. Italy could not reasonably advance any further, and the second place player, England, did not have enough spare units to stab Russia to go for 1st place without risking an Italian solo. Russia and Turkey couldn't do much either, besides push Italy a bit, but even then England would be the real winner. Solid, good draw.

https://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=270634

R4G4 on the other hand, is a "bad" draw. I'm giving Squigs the benefit of the doubt because he had just subbed in at this point, but as an example for everyone I think its very good (and won't hurt feelings), because the tournament is riddled with similar cases.

Germany was getting blown up in the East, and France had just left Tunis vulnerable. Nipping Tun and holding Trieste would've been enough for Turkey to go from 0 points to being the board top. So why draw here? And what more can be done to incentivize this behavior? After all, the current leader, kissemo, is only at the top of the leaderboard because of board tops.

[goldfinger0303]

Complete easy-to-read scoring update

1st - 1.2 points
kissemo

2nd - 1.1 points
Yigg - Would win the tiebreak over kissemo

T-3rd - 1 point
Chesney
teccles
TemplarsBane
Yonni


7th - 0.2 points
The Belgian Bulldog

8th - 0.15 points
kgray


T-9th .01 points
90kicvesb
AncientMemories
Fortress Door
Garagenpunk
marshal969
Miguel1612
MylesP14
Octavious
Powow
rdrivera2005
Restitution
SirThursday
Theoneandonly
VillageIdiot
Wusti

24th - 0.05 points
GalahadIII


T-25th 0 points
allanxo
Ayreon
BobMcBob
Claesar
Computer_Genius
dargorygel
davidclaridge
Deeply_Dippy
Deinodon
Dip Yogi
Deus velunt
Eric1984
EvW
Flamebere
foodcoats
gjdip
Hamilton Brian
Hoppsywins
ishirkmywork
Jamiet99uk
Josafina
KingJohnII
Locke-
Matticus13
mdrltc
micha
MPC
nguyenmt
PRINCE WILLIAM
Roadhog
sideroxylon1
Squigs44
stefanodangello
Sunstriker
Temasek22
The Czech
TheFlyingBoat
tobieee911
Tom Bombadil
Tugster
Your Humble Narrator
zscheck

[TemplarsBane]

I have NO idea what I'm talking about, so feel free to think this is stupid.

Is there any fruit to the idea of NEGATIVE points? Like...you could lose points for something. Like...being at the bottom of the board in a draw? Like you'd rather be eliminated or even survive with someone winning than be at the bottom of a draw?

Does that give too much power to a 1 center nation in the end game? Create opportunities for abuse? I'm not sure, probably.

But what about negative points in some way? To enforce certain qualities of play etc. Just an idea.

[goldfinger0303]

Gonna do a quick no on the negative points for bottom board.

That would mean allowing a solo gets you more points than forcing a draw. I think it would create bad incentives.

Could do negative points for allowing a solo, but I would've thought that was already punished enough, and doesn't address the problem I highlighted above.

[jmo1121109]

Could always do negative points for a game that drew without a stalemate lined up.

[Octavious]

If you want to really shake things up then have 13 points for a win, with -3 for the highest centre count, -2 for second highest centre count, and - 1 for third highest.

[Yonni]

I think the scoring format is just fine. It's on the players to play more.competitively. I'm not sure how to increase the prestige of the tournament but flairs and trophies could help.

[rdrivera2005]

Gonna do a quick no on the negative points for bottom board.

That would mean allowing a solo gets you more points than forcing a draw. I think it would create bad incentives.

Could do negative points for allowing a solo, but I would've thought that was already punished enough, and doesn't address the problem I highlighted above.

I like the second idea on theory, but there are some problems like a player that was eliminated early being punished for the others allowing a solo and also you are giving an incentive to people play more defensive which is the negative of only solo counts.
I still think just not allowing people to drag the game is a good start. If people want to throw a solo it's part of the game, but you can try to break anonymity or use metagame the way that was suggested.

[TemplarsBane]

Yeah, I firmly disagree with the metagaming strategy that was employed in the game that everyone was taking about. Totally against the spirit of the tournament and rules.

That being said, players at this level shouldn't be so stupid as to hurt their OWN chances of victory by giving someone else a solo. It's more difficult than it ought to be to get people to behave with enlightened self-interest lol.

[Hamilton Brian]

I see I am in good company tied for 25th thus far.