Finals are boring. Pt. 1: Slow Play

Jeff wrote:

I would say it is "reasonable" to award the highest seed the victory. It does not necessarily follow logically. Alternate tournament victory conditions could also be valid.

KevinM wrote:

I think this is well-said. But, may I ask: if awarding the highest seed the victory in the final in case of a tie does not necessarily follow logically, then to you, something else must. What is that something else, specifically?

Many other things could follow logically, including our current tournament default.

In many professional sports, there is an elimination tournament after the regular season to determine a single champion. The regular season standings may determine some seeding or home-field advantage for the tournament, but they don't play into it beyond that. None that I know of allow for this final game to be tied at the end of regulation time. There is always overtime, extra innings, or some type of shootout.

I would like to see VTES tournaments follow something more like this model. The top seed gets pick of seating. But, since ties are allowed in regular V:TES games, I don't see a problem with allowing a tie game if no one person has more VPs than the others at the end of a V:TES tournament. That may seem contradictory to what I said above, but I think that any advantage gained from the "regular season" ought to be removed once the game begins. This might make divvying up prizes more difficult (and perhaps especially for the Spanish events which have great trophies and artifacts at stake), but that does seem more fair to me than providing an incentive for the top seed to stall.

I'm open to any ideas on this regard. I would be keen to have alternate tournament scoring procedures sanctioned. A change to the final table standings wouldn't affect any bids to continental championships, though there could be some impact on the nascent ratings system.

Jeff wrote:

Jeff wrote:

I would say it is "reasonable" to award the highest seed the victory. It does not necessarily follow logically. Alternate tournament victory conditions could also be valid.

KevinM wrote:

I think this is well-said. But, may I ask: if awarding the highest seed the victory in the final in case of a tie does not necessarily follow logically, then to you, something else must. What is that something else, specifically?

Many other things could follow logically, including our current tournament default.

In many professional sports, there is an elimination tournament after the regular season to determine a single champion. The regular season standings may determine some seeding or home-field advantage for the tournament, but they don't play into it beyond that. None that I know of allow for this final game to be tied at the end of regulation time. There is always overtime, extra innings, or some type of shootout.

I would like to see VTES tournaments follow something more like this model. The top seed gets pick of seating. But, since ties are allowed in regular V:TES games, I don't see a problem with allowing a tie game if no one person has more VPs than the others at the end of a V:TES tournament. That may seem contradictory to what I said above, but I think that any advantage gained from the "regular season" ought to be removed once the game begins. This might make divvying up prizes more difficult (and perhaps especially for the Spanish events which have great trophies and artifacts at stake), but that does seem more fair to me than providing an incentive for the top seed to stall.

As has been said MANY times before, the top seed CANNOT stall, because it's illegal. tbh I'm surprised that you even mentioned it.

Jeff wrote:

I'm open to any ideas on this regard. I would be keen to have alternate tournament scoring procedures sanctioned. A change to the final table standings wouldn't affect any bids to continental championships, though there could be some impact on the nascent ratings system.

What alternate tournament scoring procedures are you keen to have sanctioned, specifically?

Kevin just change the phrase to stall to 'top seed may play at different speeds at different times'

As i'm sure you're aware it's pretty hard to judge ratioanlly on anything that is subjective such as 'slow play'.

So, should we add overtime to finals? Or at least to finals that would time out and tie a player with vps at the final and the top seed?

I'm not sure if its a great idea or not but I understand some logic in it. tying for one player shouldn't mean winning, because just sitting isn't maximizing vps.

Squidalot wrote:

As i'm sure you're aware it's pretty hard to judge ratioanlly on anything that is subjective such as 'slow play'.

It is indeed, and it's an issue that has to be judged on a sliding scale. Both of these situations occurred in finals I judged.

Case 1. I timed a players time between actions. Over 3 turns, it steadily increased (more than doubling), was consistent between actions and reached 1.5 min when I intervened. At the same time, the opposing player exhibited a modest increase in time between actions.

I know the player in the winning position wasn't deliberately stalling. He was just really trying to avoid mistakes. But the effect was the same and it was actionable.

Case 2. This time, the two remaining players BOTH played measurably slower. Since the relative increase (and absolute elapsed time) per action was the nearly identical for both guys, I couldn't point to the player in the winning position as doing anything outside the normal flow of that game.

I'll tell you though, that EVERY turn I was itching to step in and had to justify my inaction to an equally frustrated spectator after the game.

D.

Jeff wrote:

...but that does seem more fair to me than providing an incentive for the top seed to stall.

KevinM wrote:

As has been said MANY times before, the top seed CANNOT stall, because it's illegal. tbh I'm surprised that you even mentioned it.

Just because it is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Irrespective of any judge's willingness to enforce the rules, I actually mentioned that this would reduce any *incentive* for the top seed to stall. Such an incentive does exist and is in fact part of the tournament rules:

3.7.5 Final Round Scoring
In the event of a tie, the players' rankings at the end of the preliminary rounds will be the deciding tiebreaker.

KevinM wrote:

What alternate tournament scoring procedures are you keen to have sanctioned, specifically?

Personally, I think the best way would be to have "sudden death overtime." If the game is tied at the end of regulation time, a new rule is imposed (you cannot transfer down to zero pool), and each time a victory point is earned, the game may end if it is not still tied.

Alternately, as I mentioned, I don't see any problem with a final ending in a tie if no one has a clear VP advantage. I also mentioned that pool remaining could also be used as a tie-breaker, but others thought that would lead to more king-making and conservative (keep your pool high) play. Perhaps it would.

Allowing flexibility to score final tables won't change the only real reward that requires tracking by the V:EKN: Bids to continental championships.

But, if you allow tournament organizers a choice of ways to determine a final winner, then some might actually try things differently and find a better way. Most won't, but even fewer will do so unless given the opportunity.