Medal Round

[Jensen]

Hi everyone,

I now have access to the results file so I will be updating it as Round 3 and 4 games conclude. Games may conclude early if there is a solo or an agreed draw. Draws must be accepted in the Status menu, it’s not sufficient to simply say “I agree” in the Public Press. If a game doesn’t finish early, I will score it once it reaches the 1912 Build Phase, and it will be deemed concluded for the purposes of the tournament. I don’t care if the players continue playing.

Once all qualifying games have concluded I will begin setting up the Medal Round. At this point in time I am assuming that anyone currently playing a round 3 or 4 game is going to participate in the Medal Round, so I’m planning for Top Board + 3 extra boards. If you do not wish to participate in the Medal Round or are willing to sit out to make a multiple of 7, then please let me know. If enough players drop out, I will drop down to 2 extra boards instead of 3.

For those who made the Top board, I will request 2 preferences lists from you, 1 for preference of selection order, and a second for preference of power. The top ranked player will get their first preference of selection order and 2nd through to 7th get their highest available preference. I will then use the selection order to allocate powers with each player receiving their highest available preference.

For the extra boards, you will be randomly allocated to a board and receive a random power.

A reminder that Medal Round games are DIAS, points are doubled for the Top Board results and there is no end date. The site has procedures for ending a deadlocked game. However, for the purposes of the tournament, if the same distribution of SCs occurs 3 times after Spring 1913, I will deem the game concluded and score it.

That’s all for now, please feel free to ask questions if anything is unclear.

Thanks,
Jensen

[XPatriot11]

A question has come up about the scoring. My apologies if this has been answered before, but do all 4 rounds get included in final score or just the top 3 rounds

Thanks

XPAT

[Jensen]

All 4 qualifying rounds will be used to determine the top 7 players who qualify for the Top Board. All 5 rounds will be used to determine final placings.

[Pootleflump]

I think it's a shame that the final board is not a clean slate and a level playing field. Personally I think scores should have been used to determine the Top 7. Then everyone goes in with a blank slate for a good game on a level playing field. The game will quickly become one of naval gazing. Working out who everyone is and what score they need to win over other players in the 7. Just my tuppence worth, but the game becomes a different game to diplomacy and much more about the meta.

[boldblade]

I'm probably dumb but where are the standings for this?

[Jensen]

Malarky set it up in a different thread called PCO / ODC IV STANDINGS:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

[boldblade]

Oh I saw that but thought it was old because I didn’t realize rd 3 was still in progress.

[Tanjian]

Agree with Pootleflump to change the original scoring system for the Medal Round.

Original scoring system generates weird dynamics.
In order to play for win:

7th place needs solo
5th-6th place two way draw
etc.

I suggest we use power preference list to determine powers. Starting with highest ranked player.
In case of multi way tied draw, top ranked player wins.

[Conq]

For what it's worth: I agree that the current scoring system would make for a gnarly final board.

I would suggest that the scoring system listed be used to determine everyone's tournament rank, with one exception. Whomever tops the final board should be the tournament champion.

I also suggest that powers be assigned using the Paris method.

[Jensen]

Hi everyone,

To be clear, we are not changing the scoring system for the medal round. I don’t agree with changing rules mid tournament, and it would be inappropriate to make changes based on opinions of players who are still live in the tournament. Regardless of the scoring system employed, each option will favour or not favour different players from both a points / victory perspective as well as an enjoyment perspective. So it is not tenable for a tournament director to say “I agree with X, we’re changing to their suggestion” regardless of how logical or convincing their argument is.

That said, the discussions and opinions shared here are valuable because the main stakeholders in these tournaments are the players themselves. So of course this community should run tournaments that increase the participation and enjoyment of players and the best way to achieve that is to share our thoughts. But changes and improvements are for next time, not this time.

I do have some questions and commentary, based off the comments from Pootleflump, Tanjian and Conq.

Do others support the clean slate philosophy? Personally I think those who qualified in a higher position should gain an advantage in the final. It needs to be an advantage greater than mere power preference but limited in that 7th place can still win. Our current ODC rules fit this condition as even 7th place can win the tournament regardless of the qualifying points.

In the clean slate scenario, who wins in the case of a draw result? If 1 player has more SC’s, arguably them. But if that’s the rule, players would aim for an equal SC draw, in which case, how do you split them? Is it a tied victory or is it the higher ranked qualifier? If higher rank, the victory requirements are somewhat reduced to the current ODC situation. In order to win, players can only afford to draw with those ranked lower than them (unless SC count is sufficient different that you can leapfrog someone on Sum of Squares points).

Tanjian, we are effectively using the method you suggest for power preference with the exception that players can elect to drop down the ranking order if they want.
Conq, it’s effectively a blind Paris method since players must choose their selection order without seeing what those before them have chosen. In Super Pastis 2019 there was also the extra rule (and I don’t know if this is part of the Paris method or used in conjunction with it) that in the case of a tie, whoever picked later, wins. Personally I don’t like this rule because it does not necessarily follow that whoever had a more limited choice of power played the better game.

Cheers,
Jensen