Tournament Finals and Seating Selection

> kschaefer wrote: > Have higher seed only affect seating. > After questioning this for about fifteen years, I've still yet to see a compelling argument for why seeding has any effect on seating in the final round. I understand the logic that players should be rewarded for doing well in preliminary rounds, but...getting to the finals at all is the reward for playing well in the preliminary rounds. Having the final round's seating be determined by (for a "completely hypothetical" example) the results of preliminary rounds - which were themselves determined by who was lucky enough to have easy opponents on those preliminary tables - has always struck me as weird. If final tables are meant to be a competition among the five players who did best at the tournament, why is seating there determined by prior wins, rather than in the same random fashion that determined their seating in the pre-final rounds?

> Kushiel wrote: > > > kschaefer wrote: > > Have higher seed only affect seating. > > > After questioning this for about fifteen years, I've still yet to see a compelling argument for why seeding has any effect on seating in the final round. > > I understand the logic that players should be rewarded for doing well in preliminary rounds, but...getting to the finals at all is the reward for playing well in the preliminary rounds. Having the final round's seating be determined by (for a "completely hypothetical" example) the results of preliminary rounds - which were themselves determined by who was lucky enough to have easy opponents on those preliminary tables - has always struck me as weird. > > If final tables are meant to be a competition among the five players who did best at the tournament, why is seating there determined by prior wins, rather than in the same random fashion that determined their seating in the pre-final rounds? > Agreed. On one hand it's interesting strategically to choose your position, on the other there's no real reason to have that choice in the first place and it induces other things like lurking etc.

> Orpheus wrote: > Agreed. On one hand it's interesting strategically to choose your position, on the other there's no real reason to have that choice in the first place and it induces other things like lurking etc. > It's quite strange to me that the climatic finish of a series of VTES games is the one time when the random seating rule of every other VTES game is violated.

> Kushiel wrote: > It's quite strange to me that the climatic finish of a series of VTES games is the one time when the random seating rule of every other VTES game is violated. > Tournament seatings are not random. Archon actually follows a very deterministic table to determine seating out of what I understand is order of registration. Personally I would much prefer if the seatings were properly random, since it would most likely create less issues. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Kushiel wrote: > > It's quite strange to me that the climatic finish of a series of VTES games is the one time when the random seating rule of every other VTES game is violated. > > > Tournament seatings are not random. Archon actually follows a very deterministic table to determine seating out of what I understand is order of registration. > > Personally I would much prefer if the seatings were properly random, since it would most likely create less issues. > Not true. The order players are inserted into Archon can be randomized, thus making the seating on first round random. The rest of the rounds follow Archon's matrix of ideal swapping of people from table to another based on number of rounds and amount of players. Prince of Tikkurila, known as Teemu P in Lackey CCG

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Kushiel wrote: > > It's quite strange to me that the climatic finish of a series of VTES games is the one time when the random seating rule of every other VTES game is violated. > > > Tournament seatings are not random. Archon actually follows a very deterministic table to determine seating out of what I understand is order of registration. > > Personally I would much prefer if the seatings were properly random, since it would most likely create less issues. > I beg your pardon? Having twice (or three times) the same deck as a prey or predator, starting the three rounds with 1 transfer, playing only 4 player tables when you could play some 5 players table are real issues that the archon manage to solve. Random seating "creating less issues" is completely absurd. Unless you are talking about the final table? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Khalid1988 wrote: > > > Bloodartist wrote: > > > > > Kushiel wrote: > > > It's quite strange to me that the climatic finish of a series of VTES games is the one time when the random seating rule of every other VTES game is violated. > > > > > > > > Tournament seatings are not random. Archon actually follows a very deterministic table to determine seating out of what I understand is order of registration. > > > > Personally I would much prefer if the seatings were properly random, since it would most likely create less issues. > > > Not true. The order players are inserted into Archon can be randomized, thus making the seating on first round random. The rest of the rounds follow Archon's matrix of ideal swapping of people from table to another based on number of rounds and amount of players. > Exactly. There are ways to randomize the Archon preliminary registration. Back at the 2000's when I was a Prince, I noticed that introducing the players in Archon strictly following the order of arrival could be very problematic. So, I adopted the following procediment: 1st - At every tournament that I run, I waited till the majority of players arrived and the limit time for registration (in the first round) have expired. 2nd - I get all the players to row D20 or D10 dice. And introduced the players into Archon respecting his respectives dice results. 3rd - Any late arrival would be registered observing the order in wich that players made to the tournaments place. And in any case that could not be made a clear distinction. Thase late arrivals would row dices too. This avoided any attempt of table positions combined between players, that would travel together. May be that is not the best solution. But worked very well for me through many years. And the players never complained about that. And to be true. Me and my friends used the dice solution even before we began to play in official tournaments. Was only a matter of returning to the basics as son as the "order of arrival" thing presented a possibility to generate problems. Priest of Rio de Janeiro My blog: Portal Distant Kingdoms Facebook: Distant Kingdoms Youtube: Distant Shore

1st round seatings must be randomised, as per the Archon instructions: 7 Enter all Player information into the "Methuselahs" sheet. - 'Player #' = From 1 to N, where N is the number of players in the tournament. Assign a random number to each of the players. This number will be used throughout this program to track the players' ratings, monitor the players' tournament ranking, and determine table seating positions. This is a required field. The remaining rounds should follow the best seating recomendations - some of the reasons why this is a good idea have been exposed in Ankha's post. The odds of getting a random seating that conforms to all of the seating recommendations are actually pretty low (like 1 in several thousands low...), that is why the optimal seatings tables have been pre-calculated into the Archon. Yes, this actually means that any player can know who he will face in the 2nd and 3rd rounds just by learning the full seatings for the first round. But this is a minor issue compared to the ones that the optimal seatings solve, and it should not matter anyway because you will have to play-to-win in every round regardless of your results in previous/latter rounds. Now in regards to the topic, I'm conflicted - on one hand I think the current seating procedure for finals gives a big advantage to the top seed, a disadvantage to players who do not know/have not played other finalist decks, it's confusing to the players (eg: only the top 3 seeds actually have any choice in the seating order), and it may be contributing to finals timing out. OTOH it's a cool metagame for the finalists, and a random seating risks putting the top seed in a unwinnable position, which seems unfair. OTOOH, the nature of VtES and random seatings in previous rounds mean that luck contributed to the top seeds getting to that position, so why should they get a further advantage in the final? Maybe it would be best if we just do away with finals altogether...

Pick one: Players pick seats based on ranking or Ranking breaks ties Please not both. Huge advantage to higher seed which is often separated by tournament points.

I agree with skimflux. Its not and easy issue to solve. Back when I was trying to help players who wanted to be competitive, I stressed the following points from my years of VtES (when I was fortunate enough to play in high level play): - Many times the Final is the 4th game in a row, after hours and hours of exhausting mental exercise, one or two meal breaks, lateral talks, etc.. Many times in noisy atmospheres. Players cannot be in peak mental and emotional stamina. This can only be changed by players practicing long game sessions. Or going to a lot of tournaments (not easy in small communities). Answer: play more. -Finals have a particular context that, for the many reasons that were said here and in the Facebook thread, makes players be more careful and conservative. We all have personal feelings towards this, but I think there are MANY other aspects of the game we can focus our effort. I was mocked in my country for trying to play the "final seating game" that the sweds created. Ignorance is a factor here as well. I think the answer here is for players to be aware of the particularities and be ready for the changes a Final requires, both in play-style, as in seating choices. Should decklists be public? We can build them easily with Amaranth. I think if we provide certain sub-par strategies with better tools, the game will speed up and that will also help to speed up Finals as a result.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > Pick one: > > Players pick seats based on ranking > > or > > Ranking breaks ties > > Please not both. Huge advantage to higher seed which is often separated by tournament points. > Agree completely, with the caveat that I think tiebreaking is a much better reward for seeding than choice of seats. A question for people who like the current system: Do you see it as a feature of this system that players whose games in prior rounds ended quickly get an advantage over those whose games didn't (regardless of how well they did in those games)?

> Kushiel wrote: > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > Pick one: > > > > Players pick seats based on ranking > > > > or > > > > Ranking breaks ties > > > > Please not both. Huge advantage to higher seed which is often separated by tournament points. > > > Agree completely, with the caveat that I think tiebreaking is a much better reward for seeding than choice of seats. > > A question for people who like the current system: Do you see it as a feature of this system that players whose games in prior rounds ended quickly get an advantage over those whose games didn't (regardless of how well they did in those games)? > In what way? Being able to watch other tables and effectively scout decks is some advantage, but every round beyond the first has that happening. Also, the 5 finalists typically discuss seating and what each is playing while choosing seats, which is legal as long as all 5 players are present. Of course, due to current rules, stealth bleed decks in finals often stand a greater chance of entering as top seed, thus an outcome where 3 different players get vps and the game times out typically goes better for them than some Carna wall at third seed. But that's just by VP allocation, outside of tables going quickly by happenstance.

> Ankha wrote: > I beg your pardon? Having twice (or three times) the same deck as a prey or predator, starting the three rounds with 1 transfer, playing only 4 player tables when you could play some 5 players table are real issues that the archon manage to solve. > Random seating "creating less issues" is completely absurd. > > Unless you are talking about the final table? > No I am not. The corner-case scenario you describe has very low chance of actually happening and I would much rather be willing to risk it than use the current archon system. Several times just this summer we have had tournament tables where only one person changes in a table between rounds, thanks to the deterministic Archon seating. This is a major issue because of contesting crypts. Even if the first round seating is random, the following round seatings are not, and its really starting to irritate me. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > I beg your pardon? Having twice (or three times) the same deck as a prey or predator, starting the three rounds with 1 transfer, playing only 4 player tables when you could play some 5 players table are real issues that the archon manage to solve. > > Random seating "creating less issues" is completely absurd. > > > > Unless you are talking about the final table? > > > No I am not. The corner-case scenario you describe has very low chance of actually happening and I would much rather be willing to risk it than use the current archon system. Several times just this summer we have had tournament tables where only one person changes in a table between rounds, thanks to the deterministic Archon seating. This is a major issue because of contesting crypts. Even if the first round seating is random, the following round seatings are not, and its really starting to irritate me. > That is correct. After a couple of smaller tournaments where seatings were semi-randomized I am thinking twice attending those kind of tournaments anymore. The problem lies in smaller tournaments with 2 rounds and a final.

> Bloodartist wrote: > Several times just this summer we have had tournament tables where only one person changes in a table between rounds, thanks to the deterministic Archon seating. This is a major issue because of contesting crypts. Even if the first round seating is random, the following round seatings are not, and its really starting to irritate me. > Perhaps you should offer real examples of how the Archon is failing you so that it can be remedied. Having some events use the Archon and some events not use it is simply bad.

Indeed, and tell us another "better" seating you have in mind. Frankly, since ALL seatings for less than 25 players have been generated and evaluated by a program to keep only the "best" (according to the criterias visible in the Archon on the 2R+F seatings sheet), you won't find better ones. Unless you drop some criterias (such as never twice the same prey or predator), so I'm opened to any concrete suggestion. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Bloodartist wrote: > > No I am not. The corner-case scenario you describe has very low chance of actually happening and I would much rather be willing to risk it than use the current archon system. > Mathematically, you'll have at best a similar seating, and at worse a worse seating. When there are not enough players, you sometimes can't have great seatings. What was the size of tour tournament, and how many rounds, and we'll do the test if you want. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Indeed, and tell us another "better" seating you have in mind. > Already did. Full randomization. > > Unless you drop some criterias (such as never twice the same prey or predator), so I'm opened to any concrete suggestion. > I would drop all of those criteria in a heartbeat if it was up to me. If for some reason my meaning has been unclear despite multiple times I have posted about this same issue. > Ankha wrote: > When there are not enough players, you sometimes can't have great seatings. What was the size of tour tournament, and how many rounds, and we'll do the test if you want. > No. The problem is that archon CONSISTENTLY provides a worse seating with a certain amount of players. It is consistent because it is deterministic. First round seating is irrelevant. For reference you can use all TWD reports of Finnish tournaments this year other than Ropecon/GP. This is a persistent problem. If there was a 50-50 chance of getting a worse seating or a better seating, it would already be an improvement. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

For instance www.vekn.net/event-calendar/event/8983 12 players in 2R+F? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Bloodartist wrote: > Already did. Full randomization. > Full randomization can result in: - no players moving between tables (but possibly rearranging on the same table) - tables staying exactly the same - tables staying exactly the same, except table one and table two swap places - player A preys on player B in every (non-final) round - player C starts with one transfer in every round(*) - player D goes fifth in every round - players E and F using the same Scarce vampires ending up on the same table every round, even when there are sufficient players and sufficient rounds for that not to happen (*) LSJ's point of view on this was, as I recall, that it didn't make much difference, but some players really don't like it a lot. These sorts of things tend to generate a lot of complaints (hence the pain-staking creation of the Archon seating charts), and full randomization does not stop them happening. Some of them will, of course, happen rarely, but with lots of fairly rare corner-cases possible, some of them will turn up. If you would filter out some of the worst of these things from happening, that's understandable - but it's also not full randomization.

They will answer against: "I am willing to take the risk". The problem is that they don't realize that it is hopeless: optimal seatings are optimal, you can't find something better by chance. That is why I want to focus on a real example. I am waiting for them to tell me if we can take the last finnish tournament as an example. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > They will answer against: "I am willing to take the risk". > The problem is that they don't realize that it is hopeless: optimal seatings are optimal, you can't find something better by chance. > That is why I want to focus on a real example. I am waiting for them to tell me if we can take the last finnish tournament as an example. > What information do you require exactly? There is a tournament here on next sunday, although its looking to be a small one (~8 players) Also we seem to have differing opinions on what is "optimal". Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > They will answer against: "I am willing to take the risk". > > The problem is that they don't realize that it is hopeless: optimal seatings are optimal, you can't find something better by chance. > > That is why I want to focus on a real example. I am waiting for them to tell me if we can take the last finnish tournament as an example. > > > What information do you require exactly? There is a tournament here on next sunday, although its looking to be a small one (~8 players) > > Also we seem to have differing opinions on what is "optimal". > You said: "Several times just this summer we have had tournament tables where only one person changes in a table between rounds, thanks to the deterministic Archon seating. This is a major issue because of contesting crypts. Even if the first round seating is random, the following round seatings are not, and its really starting to irritate me." I want a real life-example of a tournament where the seating looked bad to you. Just give me the link, or the number of players + number of rounds. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I will be get back to this when I'm not as busy but here are some. www.vekn.net/forum/event-reports-and-twd/76803-twd-riihimaeki-anarch-salon-7-7-2018 In Riihimäki the start of the tournament was actually delayed for a long while when people discussed alternate seating methods. This was to no avail since no alternative method to archon could be found. The delay led to the highest seeded player (two table sweeps) having to drop from the tournament before the final since he had timetable issues (had to attend a birthday party). www.vekn.net/forum/event-reports-and-twd/76465-twd-6th-hiekkaharju-nightmare-10-03-2018-vantaa-finland#85874 Here we had the unfortunate case of a returning player coming from a long hiatus, being loaned a stanislava deck, and having to contest that Stanislava in two back-to-back tables with a person who travelled a long distance to the tournament. ps. noteworthy: both tournaments had 15 players. If I'm not mistaken, 15 players will always result in a table where only one person changes between rounds. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

All the work and results about optimal seatings are in this post for 2R+F: www.vekn.net/forum/generic-v-tes-discussion/67154-optimal-seatings-changes It appears that for reasons I can't explain, the 1.5f archon is still using the old seatings instead of the latest seatings, that is for 15 players: 4 8 2 6 1 | 10 3 5 7 12 | 15 9 14 11 13 instead of 9 13 7 11 1 | 14 5 12 6 2 | 15 4 10 8 3 With the first seating, we can find 12 pairs of players that meet each other twice: 1 and 2, 1 and 4, 2 and 4, 6 and 8, 3 and 5, 7 and 10, 11 and 13, 11 and 14, 11 and 15, 13 and 14, 13 and 15, 14 and 15. With the second seating, we can find 6 pairs of players that meet each other twice: 7 and 9, 11 and 13, 2 and 5, 12 and 14, 3 and 4, 8 and 10. That is the reason why you feel the seating is wrong. Nevertheless, even with the second optimal seating, you will still have pairs of players. You can convince yourself by building tables where players would never meet twice. First you seat 1, 2 and 3 on different tables because we don't want them to meet twice: 1 x x x x / 2 x x x x / 3 x x x x Now that you have seated 3 players, where do you put players 4 and 5? You can't seat them without creating two pairs of players seating twice together: 1 4 x x x / 2 5 x x x / 3 x x x x Now do the same for players 6 - 10: 1 4 6 x x / 2 5 7 x x / 3 8 x x x Once again, you have to create pairs: 1 4 6 x x / 2 5 7 9 x / 3 8 10 x x And the last 5 players (11-15): 1 4 6 11 x / 2 5 7 9 12 / 3 8 10 13 x Once again, 2 players will have to meet another player twice. That's why you can't get below 6 pairs. I'll create a new version of the archon that uses the latest seatings found. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director