Correct all instances of "Master's" to *Masters'*, and similarly for "Masters"

Congrats, Wizard!

I have to say without any hesitation that I really learned the game from playing this tournament. It was a wonderful experience. Ghost, I can't thank you enough for the countless hours of challenge and entertainment.

When I joined last Sept, I was a novice, not quite a newbie. I had joined this site 4 months earlier in May 2009, so I was thrilled to even be in the tournament at all. Then the first game assignments came and I was scared to death that I would have to play Madmarx, the #1 rated player. Luckily for me, we allied and he taught me an awful lot , including some much-needed ethics. By Round 4, I was brave enough to stab my allies and try to move past the Draws that I was perpetually getting stuck in.

All the players were terrific. No one Cd'd. Everyone honored pauses.

The round-robin aspect made it quite interesting, playing different people each time. The phases were perhaps a tad too long. I think 36-42 hours would be ideal.

At first, the scoring system scared the dickens out of me. I would have drawn with Madmarx in Game 1 but since a draw was worth 0, I ended up stabbing him, much to my detriment, since I got stuck with 17 centers in the end anyway.

My only regret is that the Mastergamer , who I believe helped create the idea of this tournament, is leaving the site.

I look forward to another tournament soon.

A to B, Wizzie.

I'm going to take a wizz in your honour.

Congrats Wizard!

I like the scoring system in that it pushes for some more exciting games while at the same time removes some of the concern over who is included in draws when it normally comes down to a draw.

Round-robin is what makes the tourney special. Love it. Being anonymous next time won't change that, assuming that is still the plan.

Last should be wildcard. Either the same as the first game, or just random.

I liked it being longer than 25 hours. But maybe could be backed down to 36 hours, although 48/50 is fine with me.

Pauses. Since we are talking about 8 games over the course of 10 months, we've got to allow for pauses. IMHO.

RE pauses, I was thinking we might limit it to 2 weeks, or something like that, if people thought that was a good idea.

I thought this tournament was brilliant. I agree that the phases could be reduced by 12 hours BUT the overall quality of the players and the games themselves were fabulous.

I thought it was a good idea to have only points for the win but maybe points for a win and something for a draw would be a good idea. 7 for the solo and 1 point for the draw. i dont know, it could make it a little more interesting but WTA and solo's only could be the way forward.

Well done Wizz, and i too will take a nice hot Zombie wizz in your honour.

Congratulations to the Wizard.

As for the tournament, I do have some suggestions/complaints.

1. It has to be anonymous. Especially if only wins count. Some of the games were good, but some were really bad (comparing it to the League for example).

2. Round-robin is good and playing with so many different people is also good - however, how long did this last - almost a year? This is too long somehow. Maybe play more games together?

3. Phases were too long. For me this totally messed up with the flow of the game and only led to more, unnecessary, communication - making sure others didn't forget the plan and so on.

4. The scoring system... well, I guess that was the whole idea. Not sure how it can be changed or if it should - after all the idea is not to make a second League tournament, so maybe it's fine as it is.

I suspect that you might be in a minority in wanting shorter phases *and* more games on top of each other, Ivo_. You do play a lot of diplomacy.

first - congrats wiz. well done

second - I agree with almost all of ivo and crazyter's points. 36hr phase. maybe 2 games at a time if its 48. anon would be better. points system - NEED to give something to draws... maybe 1 pt for draw, 3 or 4 for solo. how many solos did you have out of how many games? ppl were very conservative and would try to stop the solo as soon as someone (me) hit 8-9 dots. annoying.

third - I would love to see a FULL 49 player ranking at the end... (1pt for draws 3, 4, or 5 for solo).

Thanks Ghost for organizing this awesome tournament. I really enjoy playing on the Masters, as it was an opportunity to play with 48 different players and styles. Congrats to Wizzard and to everyone who get a solo on this tournament, I have still to learn how to do that (8 straight draws on the 8 games).

About the next year Masters, I think being anonymous will make for some more fun (in the last games I heard some metagaming about killing someone who already have a win, and don´t think it´s on the spirit of the tournament, so let´s keep the metagaming only on the leagues and make this anonymous).
Also, I personally think 36h will be the best, as this gives you the chance to not having to access everyday, but don´t break the flow of the game either, like Ivo point out. Sometimes you have a retreat and a build phase with almost no options to discuss and it take almost 5 days to move on to next turn.
About the point system, I think it should stay the same way, as this is what makes this tournament special (you don´t need to kill someone to get a smaller draw and even the players that are almost defeated can play a role on avoiding a solo, so this scoring system allows for a really diferent and interesting gameplay).

Feedback:

I didn't make anything of the scoring system, I joined 100% for the round-robin format. I'd revert to a normal WTA system if it were up to me, it's hard enough to get a solo that way. A zero-sum scoring system is fine, but honestly keeping the scoring system the same isn't a problem either, I didn't see much of an effect on game play and, again, it's all about the round-robin format.

Absolutely the last game as the wildcard game.

The longer phase length was horrible. 48-50 hours is fine for a game here or there, but this tournament went on FOR-EV-ER. This must be changed in my opinion, the required committment is just too overwhelming to go through it again. I say 36 hours maximum and absolutely two games at a time or start games every two weeks like the league (or even every three weeks would be an improvement). I'm coming to the conclusion that any sort of league or tournament over the summer is an absolute disaster. That TGM Champions Trophy game is currently the bane of my existence, it's been paused so many times and there is absolutely no flow to it at all, I'm ready to cancel that game and be done with the whole thing. Sorry for the rant/digression!

Not sure how you limit pauses, things do come up, especially in the summer. I think the key is getting through the games much quicker via phase length and starting games more often.

Madmarx, I have to say, I agree with you.

re time tournaments take over summer, the effect of necessary pauses and so on.

"About the point system, I think it should stay the same way, as this is what makes this tournament special (you don´t need to kill someone to get a smaller draw and even the players that are almost defeated can play a role on avoiding a solo, so this scoring system allows for a really diferent and interesting gameplay)."

What would you say about a system where we awarded 4 for a win and 1 for a draw then, regardless of the size of the draw?

Honestly, I'm warming up to this idea of a non-zero-sum scoring system very quickly. The "only wins are rewarded" system is much too extreme, so non-zero-sum still gives the tournament a unique flare. Plus, I still kind of like the idea of a non-zero-sum GR, even if just slightly non-zero-sum, so maybe my bias has already been revealed for that type of system.

PS - I'm also warming up to starting two games at a time. If we start games one at a time, even if every two weeks, there are always delays getting everyone to join and nobody wants to start a game around Christmas or whatever holiday. The fewer times we have to organize people to join a new game the better, I think, so having four start times of two games each really makes the most sense, efficiency-wise, which us INTJ's are really all about, right?!

I would certainly support 1 point for a draw regardless of the size of the draw. I'm completely against eliminating a small ally to "improve" a draw. A draw is a draw.

BUT, if you want to win the tourney, you will certainly want to keep others from gaining that valuable point, so people will be inclined to eliminate a small ally.

GR should stay zero sum, but tournaments need not be, MM

MM - to some extent yes. But it not reducing how many points you are getting tempers it some at least.

Just to point to you north hemisphere guys, that summer isn´t exactly the same at all locations and there are players from Latin America and Australia and other places down south. So, pauses or sitters will be needed one way or another.
About the point system, a non-zero-sum is interesting, but it need to be a drastical difference, like 7 for a win and 1 point for a draw no matter which size (this also guarantee that the most points a game could give is 7, either for a win or a 7-way draw).

Congrats to the Wizard.
My feedback: I really enjoyed the round robin, play everyone once format. Like MM, that meant much more to me than the scoring system. Next time, I would also be in favour of shorter phase times, starting games closer together, and adding a small scoring element for being part of a draw. I understand the arguments for anonymity, so I guess I support that as well.
I also wonder if the pot could be made larger. I know there is a standard option for the players to agree to a larger pot, but I have never seen that actioned. When I looked at my home page, and saw four Masters games going on, plus 2 league games, but only 30 pts invested, it was a bit discouraging. How about moving the pot to 20 each?

Oh, forgot to say, anonymous games are a must as well, thanks for the reminder Mr. Non-Metal!

Mr. Non-sane, non-Lenin:
I prefer to define myself by what I am, rather than what I am not.

NO NO NO!! I prefer to NOT define myself, rule out some of the extreme peripheral stuff for sure, but having plenty of room to fluxuate and evolve suits me, even if just the idea of change over time... though for sure I'm making this up as I go!

Making it up as you go...isn't that your whole playing style in a nutshell?

Suppose it could be defined like that, if you must define things, but another way of looking at it is that I react to my fellow players (enemies AND allies). If I sniff a stab coming from an ally, I'll try to beat them to it for sure, regardless of how great of an ally they had been to that point.

Thanks all for the gratulations!
Winning was very tough in it, I was lucky enough to once find someone who threw the game at me and in the other one profited from a mistake in the endgame of one of my temporal non-allies. I'll be honoured to play the champions Trophy with Crazyter then... don't think she can be pushed from 2nd palce anymore either.

I really enjoyed the tourney, the round robin format is awesome! I also had no problems with pauses, they were granted and undone all the time, plus no CD's in my games either! Good playing, everyone in it!
I also don't care too much about the scoring... though maybe sth can be said for not only awarding points to victories but also for draws, maybe that would lead to more solos? I suppose 36 hours is my preferred phase length, and starting 2 at a time sounds like a good idea! It definitely has to be anonymous next year, otherwise I'll read sth like "he won last year, let's take him out right away to make sure he doesn't solo" about 8 times on the global chat next year!

Thanks so much for organizing it, Ghostie! Awesome job, as always!

Wiz, you're just saying that because I've already lobbied everyone else in our current game to kill you off because you won the TMG Masters! :-P

It's true, you need it to be anon next year for sure, probably every game you join for a while...

no, honestly, I've had that thought before.
and not that you didn't try that before ;) but I guess we shouldn't discuss ongoing games in the forum.

And, come on... I just won 2 games out of 8... that is worse than both our win percentages ;)
Ouch... suppose I should stop lobbying for non-anon games then... I'll bow before your wisdom and will listen to your recommendation...

We shouldn't discuss on going games in the forum, but can't we discuss a joke posted in the global tab of a current game?!

I won 0 of 8 and 25% is better than my win percentage in WTA games, so thanks for making me feel like crap about myself and rubbing my nose in it, you win again...

hmmm.. suppose we could

true... no idea what my WTA win percentage vs my PPSC percentage is.. but probably lower, yes. you're right then, 25 % is not that bad.
And I'm sure, you'll do better next year...

I never won against you... ;( maybe, one bright day in the future...
But I'm positive we can find someone in this forum that will say your're the number 1 in GR and points to make you feel less crap...

25% in a tourney that is based on everyone not allowing a solo, extremely impressive! I'll only do better next year because I'll get some points for a draw, assuming that decision goes through, but thanks for the vote of confidence.

Hey, you're right, less crappy now! ;-)

First of all, I wanted to say great tournament. Absolutely ridiculously awesome. I got sooo much better and enjoyed playing the best players on the site (and even sometimes hanging with them!).

But, just to play devil's advocate, I realize that it is supposed to be a Master's tournament, but for those people like me who played it more to learn and have great games than to win (although I did get a couple solo chances after all), I thought it was instructive to have in non-anonymous. I know that I personally didn't team up on the "big names." If anything, I talked to them more because I wanted to learn. By having the names there I could even talk to some of them about past games I had played with them and generally about how to be better.

I just worry that if it were anonymous, a lot of that would be lost.

uclabb, if we encouraged EoGs, presumably that would go quite a way towards improving the situation re anon?

True.

Also, as I mentioned a while back, I am not going to be directing tournaments next year. Is there anyone who could take over the Masters?

It is a relatively trouble free tournament to run.

I might be able to help out with the tourney, especially if nobody else is interested, but I'll think on it.

Another recommendation is to rename it The TGM Masters, rather than TMG, since TMG left.

and I always wondered what TMG stood for ;)

Take his trophy away, Ghost, you can't just go around winning things you don't even know about, it's a disgrace!