Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Jun 2014, 1:36 pm

I am not sure the Chapel Hill tournament this year is indicative of ftf tournaments generally in the US It's a World Dip Con tournament--the stakes are higher. There were quite a few participants from Europe and that means a substantial investment in money and time, raising the stakes involved. Someone coming over from Europe for 5 days or so, and spending a grand, isn't likely to do so to play a few games for "fun". They came to win. And just the collection of a lot of good players makes everyone want to do well. Also, the reason the scoring scoring system had a tendency to get on people's nerves is that there was no time limit on games, so anyone can veto a draw and drag the game on and on. People get tired and cranky (and on the second round you could actually prevent other players from playing in the 3rd round in the evening by not agreeing to the draw and having the game extend past the start time for the 3rd round). Those two factors--higher than normal stakes involved and an ill-advised no time limit on the games--combined to fray tempers at times.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jun 2014, 1:50 pm

freeman3 wrote:I am not sure the Chapel Hill tournament this year is indicative of ftf tournaments generally in the US It's a World Dip Con tournament--the stakes are higher. There were quite a few participants from Europe and that means a substantial investment in money and time, raising the stakes involved. Someone coming over from Europe for 5 days or so, and spending a grand, isn't likely to do so to play a few games for "fun". They came to win. And just the collection of a lot of good players makes everyone want to do well. Also, the reason the scoring scoring system had a tendency to get on people's nerves is that there was no time limit on games, so anyone can veto a draw and drag the game on and on. People get tired and cranky (and on the second round you could actually prevent other players from playing in the 3rd round in the evening by not agreeing to the draw and having the game extend past the start time for the 3rd round). Those two factors--higher than normal stakes involved and an ill-advised no time limit on the games--combined to fray tempers at times.


If I had my way we'd never have time limits. :eek:

I rather like the proposal "Fleet Moscow" made: 7 games, play every country, no limits. I don't care if it takes a week!

Then again, that's just me.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Jun 2014, 2:59 pm

In theory, it would be preferable to have no time-limits--let the game result be decided without artificial limits. But in a situation where you are trying to get in 4 rounds of diplomacy in 48 hours, it's completely impracticable. People need to able to get adequate amounts of sleep, they need to eat, take a break, whatever. You start a game at 6 p.m. with a 930 game the next morning, you need to have games end by 12 a.m. or so. You could start the tournament on Friday morning and have the games go from 9:00 a.m-12:00 a.m.(15 hours)on Friday and Saturday But I'm sure there would be concern about turn-out on a Friday and people done early on Saturday would rather have an evening round. Yes, time limit games are artificial, but no time limit games are more aggravating.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jun 2014, 3:08 pm

freeman3 wrote:In theory, it would be preferable to have no time-limits--let the game result be decided without artificial limits. But in a situation where you are trying to get in 4 rounds of diplomacy in 48 hours, it's completely impracticable.


No argument from me on that. I think a WDC should probably not be limited to F-S schedule.

I know the Euros do it via C-Diplo. I seriously doubt I'm going to like that, but I think I've got to try it at least once.

People need to able to get adequate amounts of sleep, they need to eat, take a break, whatever. You start a game at 6 p.m. with a 930 game the next morning, you need to have games end by 12 a.m. or so. You could start the tournament on Friday morning and have the games go from 9:00 a.m-12:00 a.m.(15 hours)on Friday and Saturday But I'm sure there would be concern about turn-out on a Friday and people done early on Saturday would rather have an evening round. Yes, time limit games are artificial, but no time limit games are more aggravating.


In Vancouver, I ran into this. I think, but would not take an oath on it, that it was a Saturday. I was on 17 and very likely had a win on the board. However, the next round was about to start. I was not going to win the tournament with just the one win. So, I took the 17 centers. I think that turned out to be a major mistake.

As an aside, I like situations wherein players are super tired or drunk. Why? Because I'm less likely to make a mistake than most. I focus all the more to not do that in such situations.

Of course, I've had games ruined by drunks too. At the NADF Invitational (a great event, btw), I was in a great spot, but the guy I needed to hold back Edi Birsan was so drunk he was passing out while writing orders. Ultimately, I had to simply negotiate for second place.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Jun 2014, 3:17 pm

I actually think the variable length rule used at Denver (basically the same rules at Chapel Hill EXCEPT that after 1906 for each year thereafter the number of scs needed to win is reduced by one) is better thàn arbitrarily stopping after 1908 (say) or the Chapel Hill scoring system.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jun 2014, 3:30 pm

freeman3 wrote:I actually think the variable length rule used at Denver (basically the same rules at Chapel Hill EXCEPT that after 1906 for each year thereafter the number of scs needed to win is reduced by one) is better thàn arbitrarily stopping after 1908 (say) or the Chapel Hill scoring system.


I might agree with that as long as it doesn't mean that a 15 center "win" gets the same value as an 18 center win.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Jun 2014, 3:57 pm

Makes sense--18 center wins should always receive a good deal more points than any other result.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 24 Jun 2014, 8:45 am

C-diplo does this. For the 100 point version I played, an 18 point win will score 100, and a 17 point win would score 38 + 17 + 1 = 58 points.

I get the problem with fixed length games, in that people play to the clock. But on the other hand it does make planning tournaments a lot easier for TDs and players. We had 5 rounds at the weekend from Friday to Sunday, with everyone guaranteed 3 games and those not playing knew how lonh they had to play other games.

Perhaps a random length within a range would be the ideal.

We also did talk about the 7x7 idea. It would be great to do that, one time.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Jun 2014, 10:48 am

danivon wrote:We also did talk about the 7x7 idea. It would be great to do that, one time.


It would certainly bring clarity to who played the best, wouldn't it? There will still be the "luck of the draw" element, but you can't really fix that.

I played three really rough boards at WDC. My "easy" one had the tournament winner and the 6th place finisher on it. I'm not complaining; I had a great time. I'm simply saying I don't think too many players had more "degree of difficulty" than I did.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 25 Jun 2014, 4:34 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
theshrizzz wrote:Interesting article to read, especially from the point of view of someone who has never played FTF (but has played PBEM on and off for about 10 years now). FTF seems much more difficult, and intense - the obvious main differences being that you have to think quickly, and be able to be convincing, lie, apologize, whatever to people's faces and not just to a computer screen.


You've just summarized why it is 100X better than PBEM. Thanks!


Yeah, that's why I'm interested in trying it sometime.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 5854
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 25 Jun 2014, 6:41 am

The World Boardgaming Championships includes a Diplomacy tournament. That's coming up in August in Lancaster, PA. I'm guessing that's a bit less intense, although Steve would know.

Well, looky there - who won this tournament waaaaaay back in 1997?!

http://www.boardgamers.org/yearbkex14/dippge.htm

I'm trying to go for a few days but not to play Diplomacy. They've got over 100 boardgames to choose from.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: 12 Jul 2001, 3:11 pm

Post 25 Jun 2014, 7:18 am

SLOTerp wrote:I'm trying to go for a few days but not to play Diplomacy. They've got over 100 boardgames to choose from.


Going to play Championship Formula Racing!?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Jun 2014, 7:39 am

theshrizzz wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
theshrizzz wrote:Interesting article to read, especially from the point of view of someone who has never played FTF (but has played PBEM on and off for about 10 years now). FTF seems much more difficult, and intense - the obvious main differences being that you have to think quickly, and be able to be convincing, lie, apologize, whatever to people's faces and not just to a computer screen.


You've just summarized why it is 100X better than PBEM. Thanks!


Yeah, that's why I'm interested in trying it sometime.


Well, if you want to PM me, I'll try to point you in the right direction. There are some "under the radar" events--it's not just a major tourney or bust.

In fact, one off the ways guys are organizing games and clubs these days is via Meet Up. One of my "teammates" in Chapel Hill lives in the San Diego area. He's begun organizing games that way and thinks, after very little effort, he'll have two boards for an upcoming event.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 5854
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 25 Jun 2014, 7:41 am

That would be high on my list (it's under the Avalon Hill title, Speed Circuit) as I'm rusty on most other games.

Chris (in our race) is the GM for the event.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Jun 2014, 7:49 am

SLOTerp wrote:The World Boardgaming Championships includes a Diplomacy tournament. That's coming up in August in Lancaster, PA. I'm guessing that's a bit less intense, although Steve would know.

Well, looky there - who won this tournament waaaaaay back in 1997?!

http://www.boardgamers.org/yearbkex14/dippge.htm

I'm trying to go for a few days but not to play Diplomacy. They've got over 100 boardgames to choose from.


I haven't been since they moved it. I love VITP. In fact, I've not lost yet in the tournament there. Not like there's a huge sample--I think I've played about 4 games. I'd sign up for VITP knowing I was going to bail for the Dip tourney.

I also played Colonial Dip there. That's where I discovered that I'd wasted my money on it. Of all the variants to publish, that was a sad choice.

Winning AvalonCon (as it was known then) was one of the high points for sure. Still, it's not DipCon. I've come agonizingly close to winning that (had it at PrezCon a few years ago, only to see someone in the last game going break a stalemate line for no good reason).

WBC is probably the best, in terms of boardgaming environment, of any major event I've ever been to--and that's saying something.

I don't just say Diplomacy is better ftf. It is--by far.

I don't know if Orange has played ftf, but he's the one guy I would love to see do it. I've played Riaz and he's good. However, I'd say he's better (so far) pbem. Some of what Bobby does is so deeply psychological, I wonder if he could pull it off on a live board. I would not bet against him.