[TASK] New Seating Chart for 2 Rounds + Final

For your examination, I was chatting with Robyn at Origins about number of rounds per qualifier, whereby she mentioned that statistically there are more tourneys holding [2 rounds + Final] than [3 rounds + Final]. That being the case, wonder if there shouldn't be a seperate seating chart for the 2+F format to maximize randomness. The current charts are based on 3+F, and therefore may not be suitable for 2+F play. Per LSJ, anyone with such a seating chart is welcomed to submit it for inclusion in the Archon to the maintainer of the Archon. Anyone else want to tackle this? BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

<berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message news:3d29bb20...@netnews.attbi.com... > That being the case, wonder if there shouldn't be a seperate seating > chart for the 2+F format to maximize randomness. The current charts are > based on 3+F, and therefore may not be suitable for 2+F play. I haven't managed to think too deeply about this yet, but is it possible to make a better two-round seating chart than what you would get by using the first two rounds of the existing three-round seating charts? If so, please explain what would be better about it - off the top of my head I don't see what the advantage could be. Is it possible to face more different opponents if you don't have to worry about who you'll be facing third round, or something? Josh in brief

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > <berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message > news:3d29bb20...@netnews.attbi.com... > > > That being the case, wonder if there shouldn't be a seperate seating > > chart for the 2+F format to maximize randomness. The current charts are > > based on 3+F, and therefore may not be suitable for 2+F play. > > I haven't managed to think too deeply about this yet, but is > it possible to make a better two-round seating chart than what > you would get by using the first two rounds of the existing > three-round seating charts? If so, please explain what would Yes. > be better about it - off the top of my head I don't see what > the advantage could be. Is it possible to face more different > opponents if you don't have to worry about who you'll be facing > third round, or something? This is the primary one, yes. Evening out starting transfers is another consideration. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D2B77D2...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > <berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message > > news:3d29bb20...@netnews.attbi.com... > > > > > That being the case, wonder if there shouldn't be a seperate seating > > > chart for the 2+F format to maximize randomness. The current charts are > > > based on 3+F, and therefore may not be suitable for 2+F play. > > > > I haven't managed to think too deeply about this yet, but is > > it possible to make a better two-round seating chart than what > > you would get by using the first two rounds of the existing > > three-round seating charts? If so, please explain what would > > Yes. > > > be better about it - off the top of my head I don't see what > > the advantage could be. Is it possible to face more different > > opponents if you don't have to worry about who you'll be facing > > third round, or something? > > This is the primary one, yes. > Evening out starting transfers is another consideration. OK, I see what you mean. For a 4-player table, two-round seating should, I think, be: 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 (these are the same as first and third round seating on the existing chart - second round has a predator/prey repeat so you wouldn't want to use it in a two-round tournament.) For a 5-player table, two round seating: 1 2 3 4 5 4 2 5 3 1 (same as first/third round but rotated to equalize starting transfers) For 8 players: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 1 8 2 3 5 4 6 (same as first/third round) for 9 players: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 3 6 1 7 5 8 4 2 Tthis is somewhat new I think - it is slightly less even in starting transfers than rnd2 of existing chart, but it seems to me that it's more important to not repeat relative position group (i) (adjacent) than to be 1 transfer more even. Though perhaps I should advocate reordering of the criteria before using them in a different order. :-) My thinking is, the people you sit next to are the ones with the most immediate effect on your game. Thus, it's almost as bad to sit as predator then prey to someone as it would be to be predator both times (or prey both times). Anyway - it makes my brain hurt to try to figure out these charts, and I suspect that there won't be any where you can get many more opponents with a two-round chart than the three-round until there are more tables involved, so I'm going to stop for now. Anyone else interested is more than welcome to pick it up and run with it, or correct my charts if they're bad. :-) Josh in uncharted waters