Author Topic: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th  (Read 60026 times)

Offline karandras_sh

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Mechanicus Terraformus
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2010, 03:11:51 PM »
Looks like I can make it this year, after not being able to defend my crown last time. I will also see if Sumaki, Overlord/smiff and Koss are able to come.
All Lies Lead to the Truth

Offline Kaled

  • Illuminatus Maximus
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 2132
  • Fabricator-General
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2010, 10:57:28 AM »
Here's a question for the mathematically minded among you, and I know it's something PO also struggled with, and that's how to optimise the games so that entrants play as many different people as possible. In the past players have found themselves playing some people more than once and others not at all.

Each game must have one GM plus 2-3 players.  Each entrant must GM at least one game (some may have to GM a second depending on numbers). Preferably each entrant should meet each other once and no more than twice.

It sounds easy, but turns out not to be - especially as I don't know how many people will turn up.

Any ideas?

 - Dave
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat

Offline Kaled

  • Illuminatus Maximus
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 2132
  • Fabricator-General
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2010, 11:15:36 AM »
Oh, and I should have said that there'll be four games.

Given time I can figure out something pretty good on a bit of paper, but on the day there won't be time to do that (and the more people turn up, the longer it'll take and the less time I'll have). I can bring a computer, so a spreadsheet or algorithm I can run would be ideal!!!
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2010, 02:57:09 PM »
Oooh, now that's an interesting puzzle.

I can try that. Aside from obviously needing to be able to handle late players (and, unlikely as I hope it is, leaving players), I think some of these would be nice:

- If there are any players who want to say they're less experienced, then try and avoid putting them at the same table, particularly if one of them is GMing.
- If people are at the same table as each other twice, try to make it so they're not both players both times (i.e. one of them is GMing in at least one of the games).
- Avoid putting any combination of three people together twice.
- If we have three person games, try and minimise the number which any one person will play in.

Quote
Preferably each entrant should meet each other once and no more than twice.
Now, here's the tricky question. Which of these is more important?

I was looking at last year's situation (eight people), and I can find solutions that mean that everyone meets everyone else at least once (and with people GMing the right games, I think it can be that no two people are both players at the same table twice*), and solutions where nobody meets each other more than twice, but I think it's impossible to do both at the same time.
*I can certainly manage two people never being players together three times.

It should be said that if we go past twelve people, it's impossible for everyone to meet each other. (Three other people at each of four games means at most twelve people you're meeting with in the day, and because of the way thirteen people would have to be split into games, it's not possible to get everyone to meet everyone.)
At that point, we have to make it "meet as many other players as possible".

But at the same time, more people means it's easier to find combinations that don't need doubles...
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 06:52:52 PM by MarcoSkoll »
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Kaled

  • Illuminatus Maximus
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 2132
  • Fabricator-General
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2010, 10:40:35 PM »
All good points. Personally I think it's more important that people get to play against as many different people as possible. But in some cases I don't think there is an optimal solution. I've struggled with this on and off for a while but not been able to hit on the perfect solution yet - or rather, I haven't been able to figure out what the perfect solution is. Earlier today I realised that also players wouldn't want to have to play on the same table over and over again.

I do have a plan B - and that's to assign GMs, give them a random table and draw lots for which players go in which game...
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #20 on: December 24, 2010, 12:58:23 AM »
Personally I think it's more important that people get to play against as many different people as possible. But in some cases I don't think there is an optimal solution.
Often, yes, I don't think there is an ideal solution.

There's certainly no magic "everyone meets everyone else exactly once", no matter how many people we get, because there's a crossover between too many people to get everyone to meet everyone, and too few to not have people meeting twice - despite that it sounds counter intuitive!

Quote
Earlier today I realised that also players wouldn't want to have to play on the same table over and over again.
True. But if the table itself is treated as if it were another individual which it's trying to avoid matching, that can be taken into account.
(Well, not exactly as if it were another individual, or then you'd get it doing something stupid like having two tables playing each other.)

Still, how big an issue this may be will depend on how many tables there are. How many are booked at the moment?

Quote
I do have a plan B - and that's to assign GMs, give them a random table and draw lots for which players go in which game...
Perhaps not elegant, but certainly workable. A random assignment should tend towards the mathematical average (in this case, the average is roughly the same as our ideal), but as we all know, chance is a fickle thing.

But I have to admit that random tables scare me as an idea.
I've already mostly written my scenario (Hell, I started typing back in January!), and while it's not too fussy about the type of table it can be played on, there are some tables where I'd have to make concessions or fall back on one of my "Plan B" scenarios.

With that concern (no doubt shared by others) in mind, my choice would be to let the GMs pick their preferred table at the start, then organise the games into their time slots to get as many of them that table as possible. From there, I'd assign people to those games, getting as many people meeting each other as possible (keeping the number of repeat meetings or times on the same table down*).
*And when these things do have to happen, not in consecutive games - if possible.

Letting the GMs pick their table gives the best chance of their game playing out well, and ultimately, I'm more concerned about enjoyable games than that the table was fairly assigned by random chance.
And while I can't speak for everyone, I wouldn't be as content in victory (in the unlikely event I win), if I felt I had won because someone else had lost out badly on their GMing score because of an unlucky table assignment.

I suppose the obvious examples are if a GM wants to run a vehicle scenario (or something else with a sizeable prop/objective) but gets a table where he can't actually fit it on there, or if he wants a horror scenario with short lines of sight but gets rolling plains.
At least some confidence they could veto really bad tables would allow people to be a little more inventive in their scenario design. You're a bit limited when you have leave in absolute flexibility for any terrain.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Sumaki

  • Interrogator
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #21 on: December 24, 2010, 01:24:43 AM »
This is Sumaki Reporting in. Should be able to come this time, already feeling anxious about GMing a game, but have a few ideas.
New models will need to be built and painted.. hmmmm  ;D
where did i put that holiday form?

Offline Kaled

  • Illuminatus Maximus
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 2132
  • Fabricator-General
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #22 on: December 24, 2010, 08:11:24 AM »
Perhaps not elegant, but certainly workable. A random assignment should tend towards the mathematical average (in this case, the average is roughly the same as our ideal), but as we all know, chance is a fickle thing.
The big advantage, for me anyway, is that it's not my fault if players meet over and over again - instead they'll have to blame it on fate, chance, luck, Tzeentch, or their deity of choice. It's definite not the way I'd like to do things, but it'll do if no one comes up with a better solution.

Quote
But I have to admit that random tables scare me as an idea.
I think I booked eight gaming tables, and we're unlikely to use them all so will be asked to give up any we don't use. I don't want to end up in a situation where we're hanging onto a table all day because someone has chosen to GM on it in the last game of the day. So, it's unlikely that there will be a completely free choice of table and so I may have players draw lots for choice of table. I may do a quick poll as to which tables we keep, and we'll want to keep a range of different table types, plus as usual I'll grab any useful looking terrain from the tables we give up so players will probably have some chance to move terrain around. It is worth saying that GMs will have to make their scenarios as flexible as possible as there will be no guarantees about what sort of table you get.

Also worth saying is that you don't have to be an experienced player to enter. I'd never GM'd a game when I first entered and I'd only played about four games. As long as you have a fair grasp of the rules then you're welcome to participate. Other entrants will be happy to help you out if need be, and although lack of knowledge about the rules may cost you a point or two, there are plenty of areas to pick up points.
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #23 on: December 24, 2010, 05:22:54 PM »
I think I booked eight gaming tables, and we're unlikely to use them all so will be asked to give up any we don't use. I don't want to end up in a situation where we're hanging onto a table all day because someone has chosen to GM on it in the last game of the day.
That's just down to the order the games are played in, so it should be possible to put any such games at the start of the day, then give up those tables at lunch time.
It shouldn't even be a challenge to get an algorithm to organise the games so that it could avoid leaving a table unused for two consecutive slots (thus stopping the table from looking completely unused and being asked to give it up).

That kind of thing is the easy part. Trying to optimise the assignment of players is where it gets tougher.

Quote
It is worth saying that GMs will have to make their scenarios as flexible as possible as there will be no guarantees about what sort of table you get.
Obviously there are never going to be guarantees, but offering the choice that's available means the players can have a bit more choice in what they do than the "There's a MacGuffin somewhere on the table which you're trying to find/get to first" routine.

Like I said, this year my approach to get around the table problem has been to write several scenarios, each intended for different terrain (and different variations of each intended for different warbands.)
It'd be a bit of a blow if I didn't get to do the one I really want to, and the downside is that I'm doing the work for several scenarios, but it means I can be more inventive.

Quote
Other entrants will be happy to help you out if need be, and although lack of knowledge about the rules may cost you a point or two, there are plenty of areas to pick up points.
Although, I'd sooner stress that, like Whose Line is it Anyway: "The points don't matter."

Not really, at least. Yes, it decides the ultimate victor and who comes away with the prizes, but let's be quite honest - we're all there to play Inquisitor, not because we particularly want to win.
Sure, I'll be trying to win, but more because that'd mean I'd contributed to making some really enjoyable games.

Unless you've actually made it so I'd prefer not to have played the game (for which you'd have to be a right jerk who seemed unwilling to learn the rules and didn't get the spirit of the game), then I'm cool with it.
Emperor knows that I wasn't an ideal player last year.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Kaled

  • Illuminatus Maximus
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 2132
  • Fabricator-General
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #24 on: December 24, 2010, 07:02:32 PM »
It shouldn't even be a challenge to get an algorithm to organise the games so that it could avoid leaving a table unused for two consecutive slots (thus stopping the table from looking completely unused and being asked to give it up).
To be honest, if WHW is busy then I'd rather give up tables instead of hanging onto them by using them on and off all day - if it's quiet then hanging onto them is not a problem. I think last year was the only time players were given any choice about which table they got to GM on, every other year they've just been assigned. So all I can say is when designing a scenario make sure it is flexible enough to cope with different terrain setup as well as being able to cope with either two or three players, as well as taking into account that players could bring anything from Astartes to ogryns.

Quote
Although, I'd sooner stress that, like Whose Line is it Anyway: "The points don't matter."
Ordinarily I'd agree with you 100%, but since players are being asked to pay to take part then my level of agreement is a bit lower.  :)
« Last Edit: December 24, 2010, 07:04:06 PM by Kaled »
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #25 on: December 24, 2010, 09:31:56 PM »
Ordinarily I'd agree with you 100%, but since players are being asked to pay to take part then my level of agreement is a bit lower.
The entry fee is probably way less than the journey for most people. Figure in the costs of preparing my scenario(s)* as well, even bagging the first prize would likely be a net financial loss.
Like I said, I'm trying for the top spot because I think I owe it to my fellow players to be the best player/GM I can be.

In my opinion, if anyone's considering not turning up because they don't think they'll win, they're doing a good job of cheating themselves of an enjoyable day with some of the most dedicated players out there. (Anyone who'll dredge themselves out of bed at early o'clock and make a several hour journey across the country to play is dedicated enough to be well worth playing with.)

*That's another thing to take into account. The upside to having several scenarios prepared means that if called upon to GM twice, I don't have to run the same game. However, as other people might not be thus prepared, make extra efforts not to give second time GMs the same players.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Offline Adlan

  • Inquisitor Lord
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #26 on: December 25, 2010, 09:55:50 AM »
Prizes are unimportant compared to the fun of the day. I'll try and be there.

Offline Hadriel Caine

  • Inquisitor Lord
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Its Grimdark up North.
    • the Ordo Pessimus
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2010, 05:56:59 PM »
I am very happy this is in march, I assumed i'd missed it over the winter break. I'll try to rope George and Mike in and see what my term dates are next year.

Really hope to be able to make it.

oh and MERRY CHRISTMAS btw :)
The Fall of Astraea
Astrean OOC- feedback thread

\'You have to lie to keep people happy\'

Offline Heroka Vendile

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1012
  • Lord Procrastinator-General
    • Design Portfolio
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #28 on: December 26, 2010, 02:15:57 AM »
but as we all know, chance is a fickle thing.
Like when PO spun the chamber on a nerf revolver with a single dart and still got Adam in the head with the first shot to choose him as the extra GM at one of our past events.

If a good system can be devised to make people encounter each other a minimum of times (especially warband v warband) that'd be a good thing all round, for one thing it helps the community mix more and prevents you from travelling all that way only to find yourself playing against your regular opponents.

I remember at the 2008 IGT, despite a fairly sizeable turnout (16 or so I think?), Ruaridh and I played against each other 1-on-1 twice in the 4 games, having travelled down together and being regular opponents in Glasgow at the time.
Don't get me wrong, they were great games (with amazing psychic rolls on my behalf and crushingly bad dice on Ruaridhs :P) and such things simply can't be helped sometimes, especially with lower numbers.

I seem to lost quite where I was going with this...

happy christmas?
It's all fun and games until someone shoots their own guy with a Graviton gun instead of the MASSIVE SPIDER.
The Order of Krubal
Rewards Of The Enemy

Offline MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Administrator
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Inquisitor Grand Tournament 2011 - March 26th
« Reply #29 on: December 26, 2010, 03:24:18 AM »
...prevents you from travelling all that way only to find yourself playing against your regular opponents.
... ah, now that's another idea. Telling a system it didn't have to try to match up regular players would be really easy. (Just tell it there was a game zero where those players had played each other.)

Still, there is the question of what's just too much gimmickry. Entering a ream of data at the start would be... pretty unspontaneous, and could take a few minutes - although, preregistrations could have been put in the day before or something to save time on the day.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles