Scenarios

[Seth]

well yes and no. i changed things but wouldn't the pairings have changed to so the same people would not have play in rounds 2 and 3 or at least 3. i wish i could see the original pairings also unless i am missing them.

[Benjamin]

The original pairings should still be there on the far right.

The event would have had different pairings only in the third round. Clearly, that changes the result, since the third round is weighted the most.

[Seth]

ok they are the original i wasn't sure if those were the ones you added

[keithb]

Making later rounds be worth more only helps submariners.   It makes it easier for people who are a little further behind to leapfrog the people on the top 1-3 tables.  It makes it more advantageous to leave a few points on the table in round 1 or 2, to possibly avoid Bill S or Alex Fennell in Round 3.

My point was Jeff;s example RE: winning by moar is moar points, you have to be careful that it doesn't make a leads too hard to overcome.

[Benjamin]

Making later rounds be worth more only helps submariners.

Bill Souza is a submariner. Go on. 

It makes it easier for people who are a little further behind to leapfrog the people on the top 1-3 tables.  It makes it more advantageous to leave a few points on the table in round 1 or 2, to possibly avoid Bill S or Alex Fennell in Round 3.

I understand your point about sandbagging, but there's absolutely nothing in our current format that prevents the exact same strategy. It's more likely that the Bills and Alexes of the world are still maxing out points (or close to it) in the third round after they've maxed out Rounds 1 and 2, regardless of format.

I have the results from other BG tournaments and I'm going to keep grinding out retroactive results, probably for each tournament in 2012.

[Benjamin]

I feel silly posting this, because these results are exactly the same as the first weighted results.

What I did this time is very simple.

Round 1 * 5
Round 2 * 7
Round 3 * 8

Onward, to Google!

Like I said, exact same results this time as the first weighted results.

However, time was not wasted. This clearly shows there's an easier way for all to weight a tournament than I originally thought.

EDIT TO ADD:

I fixed the link to the October results. And I'm adding two more tournaments' worth now.

March Weighted

June Weighted

In both of these tournaments, I lost places by having bad third rounds. So this system is officially stupid and I hate it and anyone who likes it is officially stupid and I hate them. I take my Warhams super serial.

Nah, not really. I mean, when I have I ever done anything officially?

Further edited to add...

There were no draws/ties in the final results in all three revisions. So depending on how important that is, this is a way to reduce the likelihood.

[keithb]

Making later rounds be worth more only helps submariners.

Bill Souza is a submariner. Go on. 

It makes it easier for people who are a little further behind to leapfrog the people on the top 1-3 tables.  It makes it more advantageous to leave a few points on the table in round 1 or 2, to possibly avoid Bill S or Alex Fennell in Round 3.

I understand your point about sandbagging, but there's absolutely nothing in our current format that prevents the exact same strategy. It's more likely that the Bills and Alexes of the world are still maxing out points (or close to it) in the third round after they've maxed out Rounds 1 and 2, regardless of format.

I have the results from other BG tournaments and I'm going to keep grinding out retroactive results, probably for each tournament in 2012.

Except when they are forced to play each other.   Often tournaments are decided by which top guys get paired against which other ones in rnd 3.

[Seth]

that makes sense. the top 2 guys should play for the win. just like in almost any other competition. unless you wanted the top guy to play the bottom guy to guarantee a win.

[Chris]

I would try to use something similar to Magic's OMW%, in that the person that had the harder path gets the higher finish.  Maybe you could use your opponent's total points as a tie break.

I dislike weighting the later round, as your most difficult game could be game 1 vs Bill.  The weighting should be based on your opponents performance at the tournament, not what round you play them; though i still don't like weighting rounds different.

[Benjamin]

I would try to use something similar to Magic's OMW%, in that the person that had the harder path gets the higher finish.  Maybe you could use your opponent's total points as a tie break.

I dislike weighting the later round, as your most difficult game could be game 1 vs Bill.  The weighting should be based on your opponents performance at the tournament, not what round you play them; though i still don't like weighting rounds different.

I do like the Magic OMW. I don't know how it'd work out for 40k. In principle I agree, the harder path should garner the most reward.

The last tournament had to use strength of schedule as a tie-breaker. I'm assuming opponent's points were added up.

The random first match-up is really just that, random. It's a necessary evil. The more I think about it though, random should factor less in a competitive event.

What if the last two rounds are weighted equally? Something like 30%-35%-35%. I know I'll want to see numbers, but I've already started drinking wine...

[Loranus]

Seeded Matches at the Invitational .

[Benjamin]

I was going through the results I had done up and noticed an error in the calculations. One of the formulas added 3 instead of cell O3. Oddly, this affected almost nothing, which is why no one noticed. Go figure!

So revised weighted results for 25-35-40.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9uaJDE7Iqy1amRsc0FRMlVMYkE

And new weighted results for 30-35-35.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9uaJDE7Iqy1Q2pjTnM2U2hDblE

I like how the 30-35-35 weighs out the last two rounds slightly more. The one strange thing, is there was an improbable tie for 15th place. I expected ties if any at the top and bottom of the results. I think the tie here is just a strange coincidence of math.

[Benjamin]

I just had an idea for a scenario. It's one of those so-crazy-I-can't-tell-how-crazy things.

Have a set number of mission types and a set number of deployments. The winner of a roll off determines the mission type. The other player determines the deployment. Play the game as normal.

Here's an example of what I'm thinking. Player 1 wins the roll-off and chooses a mission from the following list: Purge the Alien, Relic, or Crusade. Player 2 then chooses between Dawn of War, Vanguard or Hammer and Anvil.

I really think I'm onto something. The scenarios themselves are not random, so the game would be legitimate. Just be ready for anything and everything.