Optimal seatings changes
Because the more constraints we have, the less possibilities we have. And since possibilities are exponentials, having the tighest constraints is essential to achieve computation.Why that ?
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.
The rule "COULD potentially prevent" (emphasis mine) some better results. But maybe it doesn't. On 2R it doesn't change anything, I haven't studied 3R yet.
If you have some spare time, try to find one seating where the rule prevents a better seating. If it does, okay we may think about dropping it. If it doesn't, it's a easy way to reduce the number of possible seatings.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
So you will gain some time when checking your conditions and so deleting this rule which is redundant with the rule 7 every time when you have reach a number of player big enough to avoid infringing rule 7 (always for 2R+F as you have pointed out).
And for the few cases where you have to add some odd seatings which would have been already eliminated, I guess the additional compuing time is meaningless compare to the size of the data no ?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
If you inforce strictly rule 7 (7. A player doesn't play in the same seat position, if possible.), it cuts branches in the tree of possibilities.It is only a constraint of computing time ?
So you will gain some time when checking your conditions and so deleting this rule which is redundant with the rule 7 every time when you have reach a number of player big enough to avoid infringing rule 7 (always for 2R+F as you have pointed out).
And for the few cases where you have to add some odd seatings which would have been already eliminated, I guess the additional compuing time is meaningless compare to the size of the data no ?
For instance, when I must seat player 4 of a 10-players table, it removes 2 possibilities for 4. Let's say I have 5,6,7,8,9 and 10 to seat afterwards, I'm saving 2 * (5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1) possibilities (because there would be 5 possibilities for 5, 4 possibilities for 6, 3 for 7 etc.). A little less in truth because 5, 6, 7... also have constraints, but it's really a huge save.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
I'm starting to work on 3R+F.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
vekn.net/forum/9-event-reports-and-twd/69254
Used the latest Archon (1,5c) for the first time and I don't reacll if I ever encountered that before with the previous versions.
Not really optimal if you play all three games in the same table as one other player... :/
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Archon 1.5c contains the historical seating. The new seatings for 2R+F will be in the next archon.Last tournament we had (10 plrs with 3R+F) two players were on the same table the whole game. Apparently Marko's deck shut down Tom's pretty well in all of those so he wasn't exactly happy about it.
vekn.net/forum/9-event-reports-and-twd/69254
Used the latest Archon (1,5c) for the first time and I don't reacll if I ever encountered that before with the previous versions.
Not really optimal if you play all three games in the same table as one other player... :/
I haven't started to work on 3R+F yet, but with 10 players, there is a high possiblity that you are obliged to have 2 players share the same table the whole 3 rounds.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
If you only have two tables, each player has to play on one of them at least twice.
The only way to avoid this is more players then 10 so you get more then 2 tables.
David Tatu
V:EKN Scribe
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- david.tatu
- Offline
- Methuselah
- Posts: 203
- Thank you received: 75
R1: [1 2 3 4 5] and [6 7 8 9 10]
Consider player 1. On round 2, let's say he must be sitting with noone of the first table, so :
R2: [1 6 7 8 9] and the rest: [2 3 4 5 10]
Now consider player 6: he must sit with players others than 7, 8 and 9 so:
R3: [6 10 3 4 5] which gives as the last table [1 2 7 8 9]
So 7, 8 and 9 have shared 3 games.
Or let's say he sits with a player from the first round (eg. 2):
R2: [1 2 6 7 8] and [3 4 5 9 10]
Considering again player 6:
R3: [6 9 10 1 3] and [2 4 5 7 8]
So 7 and 8 have shared 3 games
Or let's say he sits with two players from the first round (eg. 2 and 3):
R2: [1 2 3 6 7 ] and [4 5 8 9 10]
Considering again player 6:
R3: [6 8 9 10 1] and [2 3 4 5 7] (8 and 9, 2 and 3 have shared 3 games)
or [6 8 9 10 2] and [1 3 4 5 7] (8 and 9, 3 and 4 have shared 3 games)
or [6 8 9 10 3] and [1 2 4 5 7] (8 and 9, 4 and 5 have shared 3 games)
or [6 8 9 10 4] and [1 2 3 5 7]
etc.
Or let's say he sits with three players from the first round (eg. 2, 3 and 4):
R2: [1 2 3 4 6 ] and [5 7 8 9 10]
Considering again player 6:
R3: [6 7 8 9 10] and [1 2 3 4 5] (7, 8, 9 and 10 shared 3 games)
etc.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Because right now the three games goes like this:
game 1: A is prey of B
game 2: B is prey of A
game 3: A is grand prey of B
I think it would be better as:
game 1: A is prey of B
game 2: B is grand prey of A
game 3: A is grand prey of B
...if possible.
Marko, Prince of Helsinki
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- You are here:
- Home
- Forum
- V:TES Discussion
- Generic V:TES Discussion
- Optimal seatings changes