This tournament was definitely one of the better run and smoother ones I've been in. However, like all tournaments, it suffers from a lack of quality and commitment come the end of it. Often, you'll join a tournament with the expectation of playing games against the people on the sign up list only to have them promptly drop out after the first game. This was no exception and definitely isn't a reflection of your TDing.

I'm not sure how to get around it other than only targetting to join shorter term tournaments.

For the record, though. I have no idea how the tournament is going (I completely forgot about it even). Maybe you can keep updates here a little more frequent.

I keep this page updated for the tournament instead of spamming the forum every few weeks.

https://sites.google.com/site/phpdiplomacytournaments/themasters/masters-2013

Some games were good, some were bad - pretty much the norm. I'm not sure the quality of play was where the tournament title suggests it would be, but it might be unrealistic to expect that all the time. Some of the games were excellent, though.

Overall, I think the scoring structure needs to change. Solos probably should outweigh everything else, but to say that a draw is equal to a defeat is to say that not soloing is a failure, which in some sense it is, but not in the *whole* sense of Diplomacy, which is what that scoring structure suggests.

Yeah, quality was definitely affected by the dropouts. At inception there were only maybe 5 players outside the top 100 in rankings.

As one of the replacements, I can see why the main players were complaining about quality drops - I certainly didn't do a great job of holding my own.

Well, by the quality dropping, I meant you can't exactly replace MadMarx when he drops out. Or Tom Bombadil, LanGaidan and a bunch of other top 25 players who dropped.

Only came in as a sub this year, but saw most of the action

I rather like the scoring system and would avoid changing it. The "only wins count" concept gives the tournament a valuable uniqueness without, in practice, changing the gameplay much at all.

The little widget that prevented nmrs was, like Communism, one of those great ideas let down by the inadequacies of the people. Removing the rule towards the end of the tournament was probably an error, but an understandable one. I suggest never changing rules mid-tournament without unprecedented demand from participants.

Overall quality was up to usual Masters standard and the TDing was done well. Generally a lot of fun.

I had fun in the one game I am a sub in. I might even consider joining next years from the beginning.

I subbed into 2 games and I enjoyed them more than your standard run of the mill games. I am actually a little surprised that a tournament of this size and magnitude actually made it to the end with as little chaos as it seemed to have.

I would say that it is worth spamming the forum every couple of weeks with updates. This is important to
1. Keep players aware of the standings since they are located offsite (although a web page on this site which lists out that offsite location would be great so spamming wouldnt be required)
2. Gives a sense of continuality to the tournament. Like many, once my games ended I kind of forgot about it.
3. Lets players not involved be aware that such a thing exists and to keep an eye out for it.

I second Yonni -- for me, the quality of the early games in general (play, press, etc) was high, but the later games were just not fun (especially the last one I was in, which I think Yonni won (?)). Things ran about as well as they could have, all things considered.

I don't know if the quality of the players is exactly the issue. Maybe motivation is the better word? I got a strong sense of "going through the motions" play from some of the later games -- lackadaisical press, that kind of thing. I don't know if that resulted from fill-ins or from competent people who were just tired of playing the tournament or what. There's not an obvious way to fix that, to me.

I agree with bo_sox about the scoring. I made the draw in all 7 games -- which means I played well, had no defeats, and allowed no one to solo against me -- but I have 0 .

I think if there was a way to make the tournament move a little faster it might keep people from losing interest. Like say 36 hour phases instead of 48 or something.

I had initially advocated for 36 hours phases, but was strongly outvoted by those participating. Then the Wait-for-Orders mode slowed things down a bit more. Its meant to be a 9 month tournament, not the year long one that we have seen.

Next time it will be slimmed down a little...from 49 players to 42, so that might help reduce dropouts.

Yeah, CK, I was clearly thinking about our game when I said that. Maybe it's self deprecating to say so but it did feel like interest was slipping quite a bit in that game.

I liked the scoring structure. It is the only tournament that uses this criteria, and was the primary reason I joined. If anyone does not like the scoring system, there are plenty of other tournaments that use draws or other criteria. If the scoring method is changed, it should not be called the Masters.

As for the quality of play, I though it was rather good. For the most part, communication was good, even if the content of it was not. I was rather surprised to see a player throw a game so that he could teach a lesson to other players. I'm not accustomed to that type of play.

It's almost impossible to eliminate NMR's and CD's, and in my opinion, they typically only happen to someone who is losing anyway. I didn't think adding the automatic pause, and then dropping it was a good idea. The official rules had provisions for NMR's and CD's. Although, it didn't affect me that much.



Thanks for inviting me Goldfinger. I just squeaked in, at the bottom of the ranking to start. And, with 4 games remaining, I am in 2nd place. I can't complain about that.

The only other thing that was a nagging question I had during the tournament: Being the TD, and a participant, did you know who was in the games you were playing, and which country they played? If so, that should be changed for the future.

Yes, I did know who was in the games I was playing in and which country they were. It didn't affect my gameplay, and I usually promptly forgot about it all within a week or so. Its very hard for a TD to play in this tournament and not know these things, which is why I asked everyone permission to play before the tournament started. I mean, I took over the Masters because the 2011 ones just stopped halfway through and I wanted to finish them up. Once it hits round 4, if you work everything out you can figure out who is who in each game through the end.

Yonni, I think we can say both that you played a strong game and that many of the other players did not.

goldfinger (and others, I guess), it's a tough balance. I probably could not have played a 36 hour phase, so that means other people probably could not have, reducing the the participants. But that might mean a better group of games - more involved, fewer people leaving, and so on - from the people who do play. I don't know which way would mean a better tournament, though.

Goldfinger, I realize that being a TD and a participant would make it difficult to not know the participants in your game. And, I don't know if there is a good solution. One possible thing to equalize it could be to announce your participation in the game to the other participants. I don't know... I'm just tossing out idea's. I also don't think it really had any affect on the tournament. Thanks again for putting it together.

I didn't have a very good experience. The scoring system leads to everyone who doesn't have a shot at winning the tournament playing conservatively to prevent solos. Add that to the quickly evaporating pool of talented players and suddenly the games are all pretty terrible. I found myself struggling to just remember to get online to submit my orders routinely. Obviously that was my failure and not the tournament's, but I feel like the monotony of it needs to be rectified with shorter phases, fewer players, and scoring that actually incentivizes solos like it's supposed to.

All of that said, thanks for running it gf, you were awesome.

1) Was it a positive experience? Yep.

2) How can the structure/format be improved? The 2011 tournament had an 8th round to make it more difficult to figure out who was who. The problem is, that prolongs the tournament overall and exacerbates the problem of declining commitment and play quality. No solution here, just observations.

3) Is there anything I could have done better as a TD? Travel back in time and kill Wait-For-Orders when it was just a gleam in someone's eye.

4) Overall impressions:

I thought the tournament was well run. The problems (other than W4O) were not the TD's fault. Thanks, goldfinger!

I like the solo-only format of the Masters. It's unique and should put pressure on people to try harder to solo. In general, I think people on this site settle for draws too easily in WTA games. The format of having only solos count should motivate people to push the envelope, not play defensively. Ideally, you have 2 or 3 powers coming down the home stretch each with a roughly equal chance to solo. Then it comes down to who was able to look down the road most accurately (and execute via diplomacy and tactics) to pull off the win.

I think 36 hour phases would be very difficult to accomplish. I already was slammed with having at one point four 48 hour full press WTA games going simultaneously (3 Masters, 1 non-Masters). If your volume of press is high and you are going deep in your games, that's a lot to juggle for most people with school or work commitments.

I like the solo-only idea too, but it seems to lead to people playing defensively because their odds of soloing are going to be tiny anyway. I can't think of a way to fix that, but I think it's a problem.

I think 36 hours would be better only because people stopped talking and that in turn led to forgetting to check the game, whereas 36 hours means you really have to check every day.. If there were actually high quality of competition, it wouldn't be a concern.

Ghug, I find it interesting that you think the solo-only idea leads to defensive playing. That's not how it affected me. I played more offensively because I knew I couldn't win with defensive play. At the end of the tournament, there were only a few players who had a solo, so I would have worked hard to get to the top of the list, even if I couldn't take first.

There was about a 20% solo rate which I think is pretty respectable. I understand where ghug is coming from but there were a decent number of wins.

I know I would have struggled at times with 36 hr phases, and if I'm honest I rather enjoyed the break that came from a 48 hr retreat and build phase.

The most important benefit of the 48 hr phase, however, is found when dealing with time zones. I find it easy to fit in enough conversation with players who have evenings at the same time as me. When talking to Yanks or Australians, however, you really need a couple of days to get a decent bit of back and forth in. Reduce the phase time and I expect you will increase the number of geographical alliances.

The Masters is one of the things that keeps me coming back to the site, and is something I have enjoyed in every incarnation.

I'm an advocate of 48hr phases (mostly because I can only access webdip during the evening as my work network blocks it), and I couldn't play effectively on a shorter phase length (some may say it makes no odds). Shorter phases would make me consider if taking part was worthwhile (I found the leagues really hard work for example)

I like the solos matter concept - the only wrinkle would be to rank non soloers by # of draws perhaps (and then by # SCs) - so 2 draws with 22SCs rates lower than 3 draws with 21SCs.

I'm compiling some of the stats right now on draws, SC counts etc, and I'll put them up on the Masters site later, just for fun.

This tournament has also been a really good test of whether the country or the player is more important. The answer is overwhelmingly the player......unless you're France or England. Those two countries have performed ridiculously well in this tournament, while all the rest are more or less even (though Italy is technically in third)

As the Masters is one of the bigger tournaments that had been consistently played out for a while, I think it would be cool if the winner a) got a point prize and b) got a little trophy next to their name or in their profile.

There already is a point prize that was paid for by the entrance fee.

I didn't get one as a sub. Seems unfair that I offered to fill the whole and didn't get a point prize for it.

Only to the top 3 people, Draug. Hey, you didn't have to pay the entrance fee like everyone else, so really you saved yourself 50 :)

What point prize do the top 3 people get?

It was a joke gf.

Whoops.

1400 for first, 700 for second, 350 for third

I just wanted to thank everyone for their contributions and critiques here. I'll be taking these into account to hopefully have a cleaner tournament next time

I'm not sure if I get how the SoS is calculted. Why does THM have 3?

The players in the games where I soloed collectively have three solos themselves (Devonian 2, General Lee 1). Per the Masters rules, that's the tiebreaker. A solo over someone else who has soloed in the tournament is worth more than a solo over someone who hasn't. You can have your SoS number increase after the game is over if people you defeated go on to solo in a later round.

Ah, I didn't catch Gen Lee's solo cause he name is crossed off. Makes sense now.

Well, will try to answer the questions:

1) Was it a positive experience? It was the worst experience until now and I have played on all editions. Anyway, I like the format and the "only solo counts" approach and will probably play it again.

2) How can the structure/format be improved?
I think we need more commited players and maybe some policy like the on the GB Tournament, where people who NMRs twice are excluded from the tournament, but of course it demans a lot of work from the TD/mods.

3) Is there anything I could have done better as a TD? No. Great work keeping it going until the end.

4) Overall impressions.
The first game were a lot better the the last ones, don´t know if the subs, but really think people get less interest in the tournament as they don´t get chance to win.
Also, the W4O has been abused and removing this get games going smoother, but also get a lot of NMRs and that´s really bad. I like the way as NMRs are being dealt on the GB Tournament, with one warning and a second offense pulling the player out of the tournament.

You'd

That's odd... My message failed. A shame, really, because it was rather profound. Ah well...

I'd have no opposition to playing against some people multiple times if it meant a more reliable player group. Not sure if that's a common sentiment among the group though.

I think that it would be hard to ensure such a large group is consistently ful of top players, and that it would be hard to do it better. I like Yonni's sentiment, but I feel that should be a seperate tournament, where we arrange a smaller group of 'elite' players that assure us they won't drop out. Oh and job well done, thanks goldfinger!

A few points I'd like to add.

1) Octavious, your message already was profound

2) rdrivera - I have written down every person who has NMR'd and CD'd in the tournament. The most serious offenders will not be allowed into the next iteration. Hopefully reliability ratings is implemented between now and then, as those will help too.

And perhaps my seeding was partially to blame for some of those people who feel the best games were the first ones. I mean, when you start off the tournament playing with this group of fellows gameID=110386 its pretty much all downhill from there lol.

Yep. that game had some really great players and I guess some of them pulled of from the tournament.