Alternative full-press tournament?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Before the VGFP tournament started, I posted a message on the VG board
asking why some of the top players that had participated previously were not
participating. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of answers, but the ones
I did get either had to do with the format, or with the fact that previous
VGFP games seem to have been lower quality than what some people were
looking for. The quality complaints are now being echoed by participants in
the tournament (I'd have to include myself among them), and so the question
becomes what could we do to make for a better tournament?
It seems like Dip is naturally suited to tournament play since there's so
many FTF tournaments out there, but there really only seems ot be two big
tournaments for full-press PBEM diplomacy, the Vermont Group one and the
Worldmasters tournament. I can see a lot of reasons why tournaments are
more difficult for PBEM. The games require constant attention, rather than
just one or two days. The games also last a lot longer, making
participating in one a much bigger commitment, a problem that is compounded
by the need in a tournament to have multiple games. But a tournament also
has some potential advantages. I've played in several "invitational" games
involving players that were highly ranked or had a strong reputation, and
those games have far exceeded any others I've been in for quality of play
and enjoyment of the game. A tournament consisting of a bunch of games like
this would not only provide a great venue for those who participated, but
also provide a great "goal" for people who are new to the hobby to strive
for.
So my question is, do people think there's a way such a tournament could
be pulled together? What would it take to make it happen? How would
participants be selected, or what would the requirements be? What kind of
parameters should be used for the games? What kind of scoring system?
Obviously there's going to be disagreements on this, but I'm interested in
hearing different opinions. My own experience has always been with Judge
play, but I'm open to other methods as well.

Brent

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Brent,

Have you considered having a near-RT tournament?

Along the lines of… half-hour deadlines (strictly enforced, maybe even
NMR) for a few hours each day/couple of days/week/whatever, at an
agreed time. That way, the game would require much less time than a
standard VGFP game, and you don't have the timezone problems that are
an issue in any PBEM game (like what I face, in Australia).

You could even say "Play will continue for 12 scheduled hours (but
this could be anywhere from 24 phases up), after which standard FtF
game-stoppage rules will apply."

Having never played in an FtF tournament, I'm sure the quality of game
varies a lot. With PBEM, it's just a heap easier to distance yourself
from a game if you're not as enthusiastic about it - plus, real-life
stops during a FtF tournie - it doesn't during a PBEM one. But that's
where the scheduled times would come in.

I'm curious about whether people ever play Diplomacy using Msgr
systems such as Yahoo, AIM, or MSN Msgr. There used to be an ICQ
group, but that's now defunct. I'm sure you'd get a good quality of
play with those, because the 'discussion' concept applies a bit more.
Or perhaps chat-room Diplomacy…?

RobF

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Having watched all that has gone on with the various tournaments
on E-Mail over the years, I would say that you're asking the
wrong question. The first key is finding a happy idiot who is
willing to do all the hard work to form and keep an E-Mail
tournament together. This has a tendency to burn out good
Tournament Directors (a little less in Judge tournaments because
of the assistance and consistency that the Judge brings to the
table). That's why there aren't more of these tournaments.

Any more good TD's out there with countless hours of time and
infinite patience? If so, go for it, the rest is the details.

Jim-Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

I don't know. I might be willing to run the tournament if I was convinced
that there was interest and that it would actually be a high quality
tournament, not just a poor clone of the VGFP, which I think already does a
fairly good job. The lack of responses to this thread seems to indicate
that there isn't a whole lot of interest though. Maybe I should just stick
to organizing individual games.

"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:clqvpq$98c$1@pcls4.std.com...
> Having watched all that has gone on with the various tournaments
> on E-Mail over the years, I would say that you're asking the
> wrong question. The first key is finding a happy idiot who is
> willing to do all the hard work to form and keep an E-Mail
> tournament together. This has a tendency to burn out good
> Tournament Directors (a little less in Judge tournaments because
> of the assistance and consistency that the Judge brings to the
> table). That's why there aren't more of these tournaments.
>
> Any more good TD's out there with countless hours of time and
> infinite patience? If so, go for it, the rest is the details.
>
> Jim-Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Brent:

I did not consider the VG tournament because I was so busy and kind of
burnt out from tournaments. I never paid enough attention to notice the
format. Many of the good players have been involved in tournaments, so
maybe they were also ready for a break?

At any rate, I view a tournament game as a variant. There is a scoring
system, so people play to that scoring system. There is nothing wrong
with it, it is wise play. But sometimes you just want to play a game of
diplomacy and not worry about the things beyond it.

Here is a crazy idea, hold a tournament with no scoring system. Let the
players decide who advances to the next round

The other alternative is to just stick to game with good players, taking
turns running them.

Roger

Brent Warner wrote:

> Before the VGFP tournament started, I posted a message on the VG board
> asking why some of the top players that had participated previously were not
> participating. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of answers, but the ones
> I did get either had to do with the format, or with the fact that previous
> VGFP games seem to have been lower quality than what some people were
> looking for. The quality complaints are now being echoed by participants in
> the tournament (I'd have to include myself among them), and so the question
> becomes what could we do to make for a better tournament?
> It seems like Dip is naturally suited to tournament play since there's so
> many FTF tournaments out there, but there really only seems ot be two big
> tournaments for full-press PBEM diplomacy, the Vermont Group one and the
> Worldmasters tournament. I can see a lot of reasons why tournaments are
> more difficult for PBEM. The games require constant attention, rather than
> just one or two days. The games also last a lot longer, making
> participating in one a much bigger commitment, a problem that is compounded
> by the need in a tournament to have multiple games. But a tournament also
> has some potential advantages. I've played in several "invitational" games
> involving players that were highly ranked or had a strong reputation, and
> those games have far exceeded any others I've been in for quality of play
> and enjoyment of the game. A tournament consisting of a bunch of games like
> this would not only provide a great venue for those who participated, but
> also provide a great "goal" for people who are new to the hobby to strive
> for.
> So my question is, do people think there's a way such a tournament could
> be pulled together? What would it take to make it happen? How would
> participants be selected, or what would the requirements be? What kind of
> parameters should be used for the games? What kind of scoring system?
> Obviously there's going to be disagreements on this, but I'm interested in
> hearing different opinions. My own experience has always been with Judge
> play, but I'm open to other methods as well.
>
> Brent
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Brent Warner wrote:
> Before the VGFP tournament started, I posted a message on the VG
> board asking why some of the top players that had participated
> previously were not participating. There didn't seem to be a whole
> lot of answers, but the ones I did get either had to do with the
> format, or with the fact that previous VGFP games seem to have been
> lower quality than what some people were looking for. The quality
> complaints are now being echoed by participants in the tournament
> (I'd have to include myself among them),

A fair number of the "big names" didn't join due to "tournament
fatigue". The quality complaints come from the fact that most
Vermont Group members tend to be NoPress players due to
busy schedules, so there always seem to be one or two people
on each board of the vgfp who just don't write enough.
Additionally, the only qualification for joining the VG is a
willingness to not resign, so it's hardly fair to compare the vgfp
to the "over1200" or "gusty" series.

> I've played in several "invitational" games involving players that
> were highly ranked or had a strong reputation, and those games have
> far exceeded any others I've been in for quality of play and
> enjoyment of the game. A tournament consisting of a bunch of games
> like this would not only provide a great venue for those who
> participated, but also provide a great "goal" for people who are
> new to the hobby to strive for. So my question is, do people think
> there's a way such a tournament could be pulled together? What
> would it take to make it happen? How would participants be
> selected, or what would the requirements be? What kind of
> parameters should be used for the games? What kind of scoring
> system?

In my opinion, the scoring system really doesn't matter all that
much. A scoring system like the one Doug uses in the vgfp that
is intended to minimize the impact of the scoring system on the
play of the game is a good idea, but you have to accept that
tournament Dip is a variant, and the existence of a scoring
system will impact play to some extent. An "invitational"
tournament would probably be high quality, if enough of the
top players accepted the invitation. If you were to take Doug's
Top-100 Active Full-Press Players list, and perhaps the people
who got into the draw in the finals of the past vgfp tournaments,
and invite them, that would presumably give you a tournament
full of high-quality games. I think the structure of the vgfp is
probably ok, but I would put a bigger delay between the start
of the first game, and the start of the second.

--
Eric.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Dipworld in Yahoo runs annual team tournies & is running an indivual 1 this
yr. No where near as big as World Masters but can grow. Judges not favored
nor should they be. The team tournuies have had over 100 folks. Still have
NMR issues but that is the nature of PBEM.
"Brent Warner" <bwarner34@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10o0e0p5vr1a3a6@corp.supernews.com...
> Before the VGFP tournament started, I posted a message on the VG board
> asking why some of the top players that had participated previously were
not
> participating. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of answers, but the
ones
> I did get either had to do with the format, or with the fact that previous
> VGFP games seem to have been lower quality than what some people were
> looking for. The quality complaints are now being echoed by participants
in
> the tournament (I'd have to include myself among them), and so the
question
> becomes what could we do to make for a better tournament?
> It seems like Dip is naturally suited to tournament play since there's
so
> many FTF tournaments out there, but there really only seems ot be two big
> tournaments for full-press PBEM diplomacy, the Vermont Group one and the
> Worldmasters tournament. I can see a lot of reasons why tournaments are
> more difficult for PBEM. The games require constant attention, rather
than
> just one or two days. The games also last a lot longer, making
> participating in one a much bigger commitment, a problem that is
compounded
> by the need in a tournament to have multiple games. But a tournament also
> has some potential advantages. I've played in several "invitational"
games
> involving players that were highly ranked or had a strong reputation, and
> those games have far exceeded any others I've been in for quality of play
> and enjoyment of the game. A tournament consisting of a bunch of games
like
> this would not only provide a great venue for those who participated, but
> also provide a great "goal" for people who are new to the hobby to strive
> for.
> So my question is, do people think there's a way such a tournament could
> be pulled together? What would it take to make it happen? How would
> participants be selected, or what would the requirements be? What kind of
> parameters should be used for the games? What kind of scoring system?
> Obviously there's going to be disagreements on this, but I'm interested in
> hearing different opinions. My own experience has always been with Judge
> play, but I'm open to other methods as well.
>
> Brent
>
>