1. Forum
  3. V:TES Discussion
  5. Generic V:TES Discussion
  7. Optimal seatings changes

file Optimal seatings changes

07 Nov 2014 14:04 - 07 Nov 2014 14:05 #67306 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes
Hmpf. I've rewritten a faster algorithm, and discovered that there was a better seating for

17 players: 9 16 11 6 10 | 13 3 7 1 | 4 8 2 14 | 5 12 17 15
Rule 2 KO.
Rule 3 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,5 => 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16 have 9 VP | 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 have 8 VP
(Current seating has a the same absolute deviation)
Rule 8 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,311418685121107 => 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 have 5 transfers | 15 have 6 transfers | 17 have 7 transfers
(Current seating has an absolute deviation of 0.93)

So it's the best of the two worlds.
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 07 Nov 2014 14:05 by Ankha.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Nov 2014 14:07 - 12 Nov 2014 14:07 #67367 by Timo
Replied by Timo on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes
I was looking for hese famous "rules" and was amazed to find that i was not allowed to have a player be twice in the 5th seat but nothing prevented a player to be twice in the 1st seat.

I don't understand he reason behind this rule.

What I understand in here that LSJ considered (back in 2002) that 5th was the worst place.

I disagree ! IMO, 1st is the worst case scenario 1 alone transfer is meaningless in most deck because you can't influence out a meaningfull vampire with only 1 transfer (I mean except in dedicated decks like LOP or DBR).

So why forbidding a player being 5th twice while allowing a player to be 1st twice.

And in the case of a 5 players tournament, we have player 2 being 1st twice and 2nd the 3rd time (for a cumulative total of 4 transfers in his firt turns) while player 4 have 12 transfers being 4th twice and 5th the 3rd time !!

I found this to be strange...

So what is your view of it ?
Last edit: 12 Nov 2014 14:07 by Timo.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Nov 2014 22:01 - 12 Nov 2014 22:05 #67375 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes

I was looking for hese famous "rules" and was amazed to find that i was not allowed to have a player be twice in the 5th seat but nothing prevented a player to be twice in the 1st seat.

Rule 7 prevents it:

7. A player doesn't play in the same seat position, if possible.

Interesting link anyway (I understand at least what "NOAL" means, thought it was something like "no alignment" :D)

Anyway, since the goal is to distribute equitably transfers, you can't be first then second for instance.

Being 5th is worse than being 4th. But I don't know if it's worse than being first. I remember lost game because I was always one turn late vs my predator.
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 12 Nov 2014 22:05 by Ankha.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Nov 2014 08:36 #67381 by Timo
Replied by Timo on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes
Ok, it is debatable if 5th is better or worse than 1st.

But actually, it IS debatable... Which also means that there is a criteria which prevent one of those starting place to be duplicated while the other can be (and is).

Why should it stay like that ?

Is it possible to review these "rules" ? (and maybe update them).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Nov 2014 08:43 - 13 Nov 2014 08:43 #67382 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes

Ok, it is debatable if 5th is better or worse than 1st.

But actually, it IS debatable... Which also means that there is a criteria which prevent one of those starting place to be duplicated while the other can be (and is).

No. If possible, seating positions can't be duplicated. Or I don't understand what you're saying.

Why should it stay like that ?

Moot because your premise is wrong.
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 13 Nov 2014 08:43 by Ankha.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Nov 2014 08:49 #67383 by Timo
Replied by Timo on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes
The rules I found in the link above are these ones :

1. No pair of players repeat their predator-prey relationship. This is mandatory, by the VEKN rules.
2. No pair of players share a table through all three rounds, when possible.

3. Available VPs are equitably distributed.
4. No pair of players share a table more often than necessary.
5. A player doesn't sit in the fifth seat more than once.
6. No pair of players repeat the same relative position[*], when possible.
7. A player doesn't play in the same seat position, if possible.

8. Starting transfers are equitably distributed. [NOAL]
9. No pair of players repeat the same relative position group[^], when possible.


And we have rule 5 who is considered more important than rule 7 which have an "if possible" in it.

I was speacking about that.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Nov 2014 09:42 #67384 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes

The rules I found in the link above are these ones :

5. A player doesn't sit in the fifth seat more than once.
7. A player doesn't play in the same seat position, if possible.

Currently (for seatings up to 23), rule 7 has never been violated: it was always possible to seat the player in another position.
This is also enforced by the fact that in order to have the best distribution of transfers, a player can't seat twice at the same position.

So, there's no need right now to change rule 7 or 5: rule 7 is a superset of rule 5 and the "if possible" clause has never been broken.

Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Nov 2014 10:20 - 13 Nov 2014 10:32 #67385 by Timo
Replied by Timo on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes
You are in your hunt for the best seating for 2R+F tournament.

But I was speaking of the seatings for 3R+F tournament where for 5 players tournaments, we have player 2 who play 2nd then 1st and 1st.

Without looking for extreme cases like 5 players tournaments, in 10 players tournaments, players 2 and 7 play twice in the second place and 3 and 8 twice in the 4th place.

EDIT : and in 15-players tournament, 3 and 8 play twice in the 3rd position

(I will not check furher because i is obviously less likely to happen and I do that "manually" checking the tables in the archon (1.5c which I downloaded yesterday here in vekn.net)
Last edit: 13 Nov 2014 10:32 by Timo.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Nov 2014 10:33 #67386 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes

You are in your hunt for the best seating for 2R+F tournament.

But I was speaking of the seatings for 3R+F tournament where for 5 players tournaments, we have player 2 who play 2nd then 1st and 1st.

Without looking for extreme cases like 5 players tournaments, in 10 players tournaments, players 2 and 7 play twice in the second place and 3 and 8 twice in the 4th place.

You're speaking about the current seatings. It doesn't mean there isn't a better seating for which rule 7 applies in full.
We must first search better seatings that enforce the current rules before thinking of changing them.
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Nov 2014 10:43 - 13 Nov 2014 10:45 #67387 by Timo
Replied by Timo on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes
Why that ?

If the rules are to be changed, I guess it is for the best to do it BEFORE looking for better seatings.

I mean : if after review, one decides to change the rules (I am no sure whose role it is to change them), it would be logical to check afterward the current seatings to look for better ones...

What I mean is that the rules which FORBID to have a player playing 5th in 2 different rounds could potentially prevent a better VP/transfer repartition while having no good effect.

(I state here what is my opinion that forbiding the repetition of the 5th place while trying to share evenly the transfer and to avoid if possible the repetition of any place is redundant while potentially bad)
Last edit: 13 Nov 2014 10:45 by Timo.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: Ankha, Kraus
  1. Forum
  3. V:TES Discussion
  5. Generic V:TES Discussion
  7. Optimal seatings changes
Time to create page: 0.123 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum