Can a tournament be designed so that more than 2 players can compete in a ~100 game match?

I'm not talking about 4, 8, or 16 players in a bracket.

I want 5 players (for example) all playing the same 100 games. The tournament result would be something like

Player 1: 16 wins
Player 2: 19 wins
Player 3: 24 wins
Player 4: 9 wins
Paayer 5: 32 wins

At the moment, no. One of the simplifications I made in order to get tournaments functional was to say that all matchups are 1-vs-1. However, the underlying structure is intended to allow for multiple people in a matchup. It shouldn't take too much work to make that happen.

Sometimes you have these tournament rounds that all dice fall into place, sometimes you have these tournament rounds where every decision you take is the losing one.

lolvariance

As in life, gaby, as in life.

have a look at the score in the dogfloss-Gaby match in random octet. 10-2 ?

GL NP in teh finals !!

It scored the games played as doubles. So your score is 6+(2x2).

So if you're winning 4-0 in a 9-game match just quit and you'll win 8-5 Wonder what it would do if someone was winning 3-0 in a 9-game and quit. Win based on cumulative score?

Yeah, looks like it's double counting. Probably when the round times out and again when the games time out. Shouldn't be too hard to find and fix.

lol tournaments
I have 35 games pending now

Happy I do not play the 100game HU match TH10 and Paul are doing

$/"$%?&(*&?%$!/$ Usually, i don't play games in order, like i play 3-7-9-2-1 ect... i had an early 4-1 lead and i managed to lose the last 4 games. GGs Gaby.

For the official tourney I've incorporated some of Paul's suggestions. Here's what we'll go with:

Triplechain Tournament #4

Qualifiers
- Four qualifiers, played in sets of two.
- Randomly seeded, best of 7 (I'm sticking with this. Some randomness is ok and the more casual players will probably enjoy the reduced time commitment).
- The winner of each qualifier advances to the final four.
- If the same person wins both tournaments in a set, the 2nd place finishers play a 7 game game 1 v 1 tourney to decide who gets the other berth.
- The players who advance out of the first set may not play in the second set.

Final Four:
- Best of 15, played in timed mode.
- The winner of qualifier 1 plays the winner of qualifier 4.

Predictions
Brackets would be tricky, but I think this will be even more fun.
- We'll do predictions peehs style:
- Everyone chooses 4 players for their team (sent to me privately).
- Players earn points based on the furthest they advance
-- Champion: 13 points
-- Runner-up: 8 points
-- Final Four: 5 points
-- Runner-up in a qualifier: 3 points
-- Final Four in a qualifier: 2 points
-- Elite 8 in a qualifier: 1 point

The point value is then multiplied by how uncommon they are:
- more than 50% picked the player: 1x modifier
- 25-50%: 2x
- >10% but < 25%: 3x
- more than 1 person but <= 10%: 4x
- unique pick: 5x

Only players who are registered for at least one qualifier 48 hours before the first set starts are eligible to pick and be picked (anyone can still play, but won't be counted in the prediction results). All picks must be submitted before the first set of qualifiers starts.

I encourage everyone to recruit as many people (new and old) as they can.

I'll create the qualifiers soon, but there will be a nice long registration time. Probably a couple weeks.

N00b. 62 + 90 pending atm.

Feature request: Could the tourney statuses be added to the tourney main page?

Here is an example with two statuses added:


About the official tourney. Kind of feels like it is made for more hardcore players, you need to play a lot of games over a longish time period, so might be too much of a commitment for some of the casual players. Also having multiple chances to enter supports this view.

If the qualifiers are played in two sets, they could take about a month altogether, which is quite a long time tbh. But having all start at the same time might prevent some entering if they are preoccupied at that time, so that isn't good either.

I don't see how having same person win 3 is a problem, can just play A-B, B-C and A-C HU matches with the three 2nd place finishers, with the one who loses both missing out, using games/scores as tiebreakers if needed.

I DEMAND A REMATCH WIS TREEP

http://www.triplechain.net/tournaments/261

ROBBERY!

i just won my first tournament.

i'm also done with 7 and 9 game games. Too much like hard work.

Look good! Only comment is that, given that probably less than 20 people will submit brackets, <10% is exactly the same as unique pick.

Also, are we allowed to announce who we've picked?

Finally, another feature request Zac; currently tournaments you've entered are coloured yellow, and tournaments in which you need to play are green. Could there be a third colour for tournaments you're still in but don't need to play in (e.g. you won your semi but the other semi hasn't finished)?

I disagree. If a seasoned reg like Gaby is put off by having 35 games pending, I don't think it's wise to demand everyone who wants the best chance in the official tournament to have 28 games pending simultaneously.

Also, I just played an incredibly unusual game in my match against dogfloss in 48 Hrs.

Congrats.

Clearly.

Not sure what you are trying to disagree with. I didn't say anywhere I thought it would be a good idea for all the qualifiers to start simultaneously, did I?

Maybe something like start a new one every 3 days could work?

I assume you mean this one.

Played 4 tourney finals today, one is waiting for opponent, lost the other three. One was a flip in a best of 1, happens, no big deal. But the other two losses were through making completely idiotic mistakes.



Is anyone else interested in having detailed tourneys stats from their tourneys? I think I've fixed most things in my spreadsheet, but I haven't done actual testing, too lazy for that. I've just fixed things when I've noticed them (well, one known bug is yet to be fixed, again laziness ). So I figured if someone is interested, I could upload it somewhere, and it could be used. This way I could get feedback if there are things that don't work as they should, new eyes might see things that I've missed.

Oh OK. I prefer sets of 2 but this is an option.



Yes. Maybe I misplayed Round 3, it's tough. Pretty ridic though that that's the difference between the games when my third chain kills hers so badly.


Probably cba to actually do this, but why not, couldn't hurt!

Round 7: http://www.triplechain.net/reconstruct?chain_id=2992025

I found this incredibly tough. Wtf. Some one solve this please with reasoning.

uggh, just lost a major essay about your choice of the central 4 in round 3, and the 5/3 split in round 6, and their impact on the round 7 problems.

it seems to me you have a 60% chance of snaking something as played, versus roughly a 40% chance (20% each of 4s and 5s) if you play differently (i.e. put the 4 in the RHS but low rather than high). So i dunno, i guess you choose right, but you really need to try to work out what alternate strategies are likely to be scoring to try to guess what you need to score to win, and thus whether you need to gamble. I have no idea how to do that.

2 left zone
2 middle zone
6 bottom zone
4 right zone
3 upper zone left

Snake Charmer with bonus 3 is very rare!

If you are the only one, I don't need to find a place to upload, can just email it to you.

Here is the situation:


I think I have an option, but need to check if it makes sense. Will do that later, first I need to go buy some food.

You know if you write a long post, press enter and it goes to the login page, you can just click the back button and you get your post back? Or you just login and it posts it. Or if you take ages writing a post, just highlight and copy it before clicking enter.

I don't see what could possibly be wrong with my central 4 in Round 3. I'm also not convinced that playing the 5 to top zone could be good. I guess there is an argument (if 455xx Round 7, or if the Round 7&8 scenario that occurred plays out), but I don't think it's strong enough, because the bad scenarios aren't very likely. Could be wrong.

Yeah I sat there in-game for ages working things out, and in the end sorta went with instinct. Pretty much every sensible play loses like 30-50% of the time, but the ones that lose less often lose more value. There are 3 main possibilities as I see it;

4 top of right zone
4 bottom of right zone
4 left of top zone.

Then there may be some choice wrt 6/2.

You mean top left corner of the middle zone? Where in the right zone? Reasoning?

The 6 play seems suboptimal compared to mine; if there is no 6 in Round 8, you have a disconnected 6.

Pretty annoying that I keep ending up facing TH in normal tourneys; I've got quite enough matches vs him already!

Actually, I think I have it. My instinct tells me my play was correct, as snaking 4s + 3-zoning 5s is worth more than 4-zoning both 4s and 5s. So it only loses if Round 8 contains two 5s or contains 445. I think this percentage is small enough compared to the loss % of the other plays that it overrides the amount lost when 55 comes in.

Round 3: playing the 4 high in the centre rather than low in the centre means you need an extra 4 to snake 4s but you retain the bottom space for a round-4 6 or 5 which would be vastly more flexible (because when you have to put a 5 in the middle-top as you did, you're set up for the 5 snake and the 4 snake to inevitably clash, as they did, plus rolling a 6 in round 4 is useless in your system, but great with the 4 played middle-high in round 3).

Round 6: the 5s and 4s are inevitably going to clash in round 7 - playing the 5 in the bottom square in round 6 leaves both chains 2 from a snake but I think that this flexibility is somewhat illusory, since in round 7 you have to pick one or the other, so you've not got a pure 'two 5s from 10 dice' situation. Playing the 5 high instead means you need three 4s to snake the 4-chain now, but you retain the possibility of snaking both more easily.

But look at my place in today's DC, and wiegh my opinions accordingly.