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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 470
Joined: 05 Dec 2008, 11:29 am

Post 13 Jan 2012, 6:14 am

Very nice Randy. Thanks for your work compiling this.

I'm game for both the TOC and R3 when they're ready to go.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 470
Joined: 05 Dec 2008, 11:29 am

Post 13 Jan 2012, 6:22 am

An idea for R3...

Seed boards based on R1 and R2 performance. 1 2 3 and 4 captain four boards, 1 gets 5 and 28, 2 gets 6 and 27, and so on until you get the following:

Game 1:
1, 5, 9, 16, 20, 24, 28

Game 2:
2, 6, 10, 15, 19, 23, 27

Game 3:
3, 7, 11, 14, 18, 22, 26

Game 4:
4, 8, 12, 13, 17, 21, 25
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 13 Jan 2012, 7:50 am

I'm up for both TOC and R3, and even a "best of" tourny if you want that too. Might be tough on Darren if you do it based on best of for each round. Maybe offer him the option of playing either or both. If he declines one, offer the second place finisher from the other round his spot.

BTW, King of Swords was best Russia R1. You have it marked as Sassenach, but they're one line apart so probably just at typo.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 13 Jan 2012, 9:46 am

Well, I am in for round III in the second division.

I am curious as to how the standings were decided in the case of a tie. Grant (28), Patrick (29), myself (30) and Freeman (31) all have 14 pts yet Grant made it into First Division while Patrick, Freeman and I are in the Second. Not complaining mind you, just curious.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Jan 2012, 11:48 am

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:More to follow on the schedule for Redscape Games III soon. For now those players shown in the grey field above have qualified for the First Division. The Second Division will be made up of those players shown in the blue field along with any new participants. Players appearing in the yellow field abandoned games and will need to appeal to The Redscape Games committee for reinstatement.
Great news, Randy. Sorry that tech-troubles hit at just the wrong time, and thanks for working to get things back on track.

I just want to clarify the situation going forward - we play one game each per round, but what will be used for the scoring? Is it:

a) points for that round alone?
b) a running total since the start?
c) the points from the last X rounds (such as the last 2 if we can get about two rounds in a year)?

There are arguments for all approaches, but it's not explicit from the way the rules are written.

The top seven players on the list above qualify fo the Tournament of Champions game. There may also be a Best Nations Chamionship for players receiving Best Nation awards if there is sufficient interest the idea.
I assume that if one of the top 7 does not opt to join the TOC, their place would be offered down the table until the game is filled?

As for a 'Best Nation' tourney, I'd like to pass this time. I've played England twice in a row in RG, and would like a break from it (as I was also England in at least one other game on line in the past year as well).

ARJ - I think this bit of the rules applies:
4.4 Tie-Breaking Procedures

If there is a tie in scoring regarding promotion and relegation positions, total supply center counts of the most recent season’s games will be compared. The player(s) having the higher total of supply centers will qualify for promotion/avoid relegation. If more than one player is still tied for a promotion or relegation position, the total accumulated lifetime RG points will be used. If there is still a draw, the players will participate in a penalty kick shootout, or a name will be drawn by one of the tournament committee members, whichever is easier to organize.

Does that explain it?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 13 Jan 2012, 11:58 am

A few more notes:

1) The greatpintoski is slotted higher than he should be. He should be 25th.

2) Danivon and Mabbas both finished with the same number of points as "Best England". Mabbas had more centers, but Danivon was best on board (by himself). Is one of those a tie-breaker over the other for something like this?

3) If we were to use Bobby's idea of the board creation, then we would probably need a tie-breaker for determining rank within each section and not just for promotion. There are two ties within the top 20 that could affect how the boards are determined.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 13 Jan 2012, 1:28 pm

danivon wrote:ARJ - I think this bit of the rules applies:
4.4 Tie-Breaking Procedures

If there is a tie in scoring regarding promotion and relegation positions, total supply center counts of the most recent season’s games will be compared. The player(s) having the higher total of supply centers will qualify for promotion/avoid relegation. If more than one player is still tied for a promotion or relegation position, the total accumulated lifetime RG points will be used. If there is still a draw, the players will participate in a penalty kick shootout, or a name will be drawn by one of the tournament committee members, whichever is easier to organize.

Does that explain it?

I thought this was the rule. However, the part I bold seems to imply that both Patrick and I should have seeded higher then Grant. We both ended with 6SC's in RGII and Grant ended with 0.

If we include RGI as part of the current season Grant ends with 4 SC. However, this would also put Freeman as seeding higher because he ended RGI with 6SC. I thought perhaps I missed something.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 470
Joined: 05 Dec 2008, 11:29 am

Post 14 Jan 2012, 6:15 am

Definitely nice to see so much interest in this from everyone. I was afraid this RG concept might die a slow death before it even got going...especially after the break between R1 and R2.

Best country: I was wondering this myself, as I tied Sharur for best Russia. However, he reached his score in 6 years compared with my 11, so I can see why he would get the nod. Looks like we tied for most dots (15).

Danivon: You have definitely shown an aptitude for playing England over the past two years. I can understand getting burnt out on it, but I too hope that you will reconsider. It would be interesting, to me at least, to see if you can consistently make a particular strategy work, or if you're able to excel even while using vastly different approaches.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 14 Jan 2012, 12:46 pm

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Tie Breaking Revistited: Excellent observation Russ. Both Archduke Russell John and Roadkill finished with six centers, while Ace of Spades had zero. Freeman did not play in R2, so he also has zero points. I will make these adjustments as well, and begin arrangements for the penalty kick shootout. I had to be a wise ass and put that in the rules, and now it's going to determine place 28 from place 29.....


Thanks Randy.

I will gladly defer to Patrick as 28 seed in order to get round III started up as fast as possible. Besides, I was actually quite shocked I finished as high as I did. I did not think I had a very good game at all.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Jan 2012, 1:38 pm

GMBobby wrote:Danivon: You have definitely shown an aptitude for playing England over the past two years. I can understand getting burnt out on it, but I too hope that you will reconsider. It would be interesting, to me at least, to see if you can consistently make a particular strategy work, or if you're able to excel even while using vastly different approaches.
Yes, but I do far better when France plays like a lunatic. :smile:
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 14 Jan 2012, 2:16 pm

danivon wrote:Yes, but I do far better when France plays like a lunatic. :smile:


I will agree that our game was by far the stangest French play I have ever seen. I am a little disappointed Vince didn't do an EoG because I would have loved an insight into his strategy.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 14 Jan 2012, 8:02 pm

Randy, I would support leaving the fastest to Best Nation score as a tiebreaker (and not just b/c it's a tiebreaker that favors me in this instance :razz:). Prioritizing number of centers over finish bonuses seems kind of arbitrary within the context of a single game. But fastest to the same score does mean a higher trajectory for that nation, which should be worth something.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 18 Jan 2012, 8:32 am

Ah, I missed the established tie-breaker for Best Nation. Sorry about that. Still, there may be a need to clarify there, as you say. There are arguments for both sides, and honestly, I'm not even sure which side I'm on. Todd has already pointed out a good reason for fastest scoring. I would also point out that, in a case like this, Danivon finished first on his board while Mabbas finished tied for first. This may add extra weight to the fastest reached approach.

However, there's also good arguments for highest center count. Danivon's trajectory seemed higher, but with the game ending early, its impossible to know how the trajectory would have played out. It's entirely possible that the entire board could have turned on him, or a critical NMR from an ally or himself could set him back and leave the door open for another nation. I'm not saying he or anyone else are prone to NMR's, but there are too many variables in play to say that he would certainly have a better finish had his game played out as long as Mabbas' did.

Ultimately, I think the consistency of tie-breakers that you brought up, Randy, may be the best approach. If the first tie-breaker is always center count (and ultimately the primary goal of Diplomacy is to get as many centers as possible) then there's no room for discussion as to when a tie-breaker is used under what circumstance. It's always the same.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 364
Joined: 12 Aug 2000, 3:11 am

Post 29 Jan 2012, 2:47 pm

Randy wrote: "Darren would have the option of playing Germany or France or both"
Tee Hee.. that's so cool... I'll play both... it will be like the war of the Spanish Succession all over again :-)

On a serious note. How about we play the TOC on Otto and anonymously so we don't know who we're playing against. I think that might make the game more fun.