Veldrin
Lord of the Nazgûl
Posts: 1,305
|
Post by Veldrin on Jan 11, 2005 12:01:04 GMT 1
I have been trying to create a bidding systemt to decide which side you will play in a tournament game.
Here is my idea:
1 Both players write down the side they want to play
1A If you write down the Shadow you also write down how many Victory points you think you can take in order to win (Minimum 10).
1B If you write down the Free Peoples you write down at how much Corruption the Ring will take control of Frodo (Maximum 12).
If the players write down different sides they get the side they picked and the game is played with the normal rules
2 If the players wrote down the same side the player bidding highest (for the Shadow) or lowest (for the FP) will get to play that side with his/her bid as the Victory condition, the other player gets the other side with the normal Victory Conditions (i.e. 10 VP or 12 Corruption)
2A If the players wrote down the same side and bid the same a die roll will decide who will play that side with the bid as its Victory condition (1-3 player X, 4-6 player Y). The player not getting the side he/she wanted gets to play the other side with the normal victory conditions.
What do you think?
[glow=green,2,300]Veldrin[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by cheup on Jan 12, 2005 11:04:51 GMT 1
I think, one would hardly ever want to play the Free Peoples in a tournament game. So, I think, the case that a player writes down FP with even a lower corruption boundary than 12 is very unlikely.
Nonetheless, it is a nice idea.
IMHO, it would be better if there would be a limit for the FP corruption points of, perhaps, 15. Because in this way, it would be more risky to choose the Shadow, since the opponent may have chosen the FP with 14 points and therefore would have a good chance of winning.
|
|
|
Post by darkman on Jan 12, 2005 17:40:34 GMT 1
From reading this and other forums (and from my own 10+ plays) , it seems that the game is considered well-balanced and can be completed by experienced players in 2-2.5 hours. Theoretically, a player at the tournament level should be able to win with either side.
Therefore, in my opinion, a bidding system is not needed. Rather, tournament rounds could be set up to be 4 hours long. Each round would consist of two games with each opponent playing the FP & SP.
What would be needed (and what might be useful even in casual games) is a system to ajudicate the winner if time runs out.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by nigel on Jan 26, 2005 18:26:49 GMT 1
From reading this and other forums (and from my own 10+ plays) , it seems that the game is considered well-balanced and can be completed by experienced players in 2-2.5 hours. Theoretically, a player at the tournament level should be able to win with either side. Therefore, in my opinion, a bidding system is not needed. Rather, tournament rounds could be set up to be 4 hours long. Each round would consist of two games with each opponent playing the FP & SP. What would be needed (and what might be useful even in casual games) is a system to ajudicate the winner if time runs out. Any thoughts? Problem with back to back games running 4 hours is it's going to make for a long tournament and players could deliberately stall once they were ahead - better just to have 1 game per round. One way is to divide the players into FP and Shadow (based on preference, random, whatever) and the 'best' FP players advance as do the 'best' shadow, with the final deciding between the top 2. Alternatively a bidding system can (and does) work, but usually where one side is generally perceived as being stronger. I think having less VPs (or more) or the final corruption total is something that needs to be remembered, which isn't so great in a tournament with lots of strangers. How about, Each player writes down a sealed bid on Fellowship starting position and corruption:
ie. What position (hidden) you want the fellowship marker to start on the track (0,1,2, ...) and with what starting corruption (0,1,2, ...) Player who 'bid' the lowest starting position gets the FP with the corruption set at the bid level - in the case of a tie for position, player who bid the most corruption gets the FP. So now you can start the fellowship at 3 with 2 corruption if you want, but if your opponent 'bids' 2 or even ties with a 3 but with more corruption you'll be playing Shadow with the fellowship advanced a bit already ... Of course if the perception is shadow is crap and the fellowship always win this should still work as you can bid zero for progress but with some starting corruption. Likewise if the shadow is too good bid a higher starting position for the fellowship with less (or no) corruption. Beauty of this system (IMHO) is you just mark it at the beginning and then play the game as per the rules, no final values etc to remember. Of course you can still get a 'tie' for the blind bidding (eg. two players both bid zero/zero) then just set the Fellowship at the bid value and both players roll 4d6 the highest roller gets the FP loser the Shadow [4d6 to try to reduce the chance of getting tied results meaning more dice rolling] Might need to introduce a rule that the FP player can't declare the Fellowship in the first turn - otherwise a positon of zero with 1 corruption is meaningless (just declare in Rivendell and heal ...) but as long as all players realise this 'trick' it should be okay What do you think? Nigel
|
|
|
Post by nigel on Jan 27, 2005 16:14:36 GMT 1
I've thought some more about 'tournaments' and personally I don't like the elimination format - especially for a game of this length. Say you have 8 players turn up, after the first round you're down to 4, then the final - and chances are the other players are going to wander off and do something else I prefer a round-robin format where players accrue 'points' and play for the whole tournament with the highest score winning overall.
Each game has 10 points to distribute, subtract the FP victory points from the Shadow Victory points to get the modified VP score for the Shadow: Shadow wins with a military victory: - SP gains TP equal to the MODIFIED VP (max 10)
- FP gets 10 TPs minus TPs earned by SP
FP win with a military victory: - SP gets 0 TP
- FP gets 10 TP
FP destroy the ring: - SP gets TPs equal to half the MODIFIED VP round down (minimum 0)
- FP gets 10 TPs minus TPs earned by SP
Ring corruption win: - SP gets TPs equal to the MODIFIED VP plus 1 (maximum 10)
- FP gets 10 TPs minus TPs earned by SP
Examples: Merry wins with a ring destruction, Bert had 9 VPs as Shadow, but had lost Moria (2 VPs for FP). Modified VP = (9-2) = 7 Bert gets 7 /2 (round down) = 3 TP Merry gets 10 -3 = 7 TP Merry loses with a ring corruption, Bert had 5 VPs as Shadow (Merry no VPs). Modified VP = 5 Bert gets 5 +1 = 6 TP Merry gets 10 -6 = 4 TP Bert wins a military victory (10 VPs) but Merry managed to take Mount Gundabad (2 VPs for FP). Modified VP = (10 -2) = 8 Bert gets 8 TP Merry gets 10 -8 = 2 TP Of course this system will encourage the Shadow player to gain VPs (as a ring corruption win is a 'loss' if VPs are less than 4) so the game might play a little different to non-tournament games, but given the suggested bidding system I think this would work as both sides have the possibility to gain 1-10 TPs. FP Military Victory = 10 TPs for the FP, 0 for Shadow (shouldn't happen!) FP Ring Victory = 6 to 10 TPs for the FP, 0 to 4 for Shadow SP Ring Corruption = 0 to 9 TPs for the FP, 1 to 10 for Shadow SP Military Victory = 0 to 3 TPs for the FP, 7 to 10 for Shadow I think that this is better than a simple win/loss record as a close game (except FP military victory) will gain points for both sides. Needs to be a way of handling 'byes' (if you have an odd number of players or a player drops out). It depends on the number of rounds, but I suggest 8 TP for the player getting the bye in round 1 decreasing by 1 TP each round. Give the player in last place the bye (determine randomly for the first round). You could get the players to switch sides each round (play FP then Shadow, then FP etc) or keep to one side. As long as the players know & understand the system before the start of the tournament I believe this would work. Just a suggestion Nigel
|
|
|
Post by andypalmer on Feb 1, 2005 18:11:31 GMT 1
Nigel. I think your system changes game flow too much. As the SP, I often give up 2-3 VP worth of territory, if the FP is willing to spend the dice to take them (since its dice not used to stop me from winning).
|
|
|
Post by nigel on Feb 2, 2005 11:25:08 GMT 1
Nigel. I think your system changes game flow too much. As the SP, I often give up 2-3 VP worth of territory, if the FP is willing to spend the dice to take them (since its dice not used to stop me from winning). Sure these rules alter the way the game is played - as you're not just playing for a 'victory' but also to be the 'best' (or not lose too badly etc). It's necessary in a 'tournament' enviroment where you want to 'rank' players based on performance. If you play an elimination system it's not so necessary - winners move on losers go home, but for a game this length I personally don't like an elimination system, as the players playing each round obviously halve and it's hard to deal with an odd number of players, or even player numbers not a power of 2 ("sorry dudes you can't play we've got 16 and 18 is gonna give me a headache for next round ..."). If the turn out is small you can play round robin (everyone plays everyone) and keep a record of wins/losses. But I like a tournament where you have the players around for the whole thing and then the winners feel more achievement with everyone getting the final placings at the end. With elimination tournaments I've seen the final just involving the judge and the 2 players - everyone else has wandered off to play something else, get home early, get some food etc. I've organised a number of tournaments for the now dead Middle Earth CCG and player numbers etc is a big factor, most players are happy to play for a 'place' and only a few drop out if they do badly in the first game or two. I really believe that a points based system without player elimination gives the most flexibility, it can scale to any number of players and keeps all the players involved rather than just those that 'win'. You need some way of ranking winners and losers - a range of points is needed rather than a binary win/loss (1/0), but you don't want a system that relies on a judge having to arbitarily decide which players have done better than others. So yep it alters the game (as does the bidding for sides), but as long as the players are aware it should still work - you just have to modify your tactics (strategy?) from the non-tournament game. Other games play different in a tournament enviroment, it certainly gets more 'competitive' (even just playing with strangers rather than friends). Personally as the FP if I've 'lost' but got 3 VPs in Shadow city/strongholds I feel I've done better than if I've lost but have taken nothing. It also adds to the game in my opinion, now you can't be totally focused on the 'win' you have to consider the wider picture - so the FP can't just blitz for a ring dunk and ignore the defence of strongholds as each stronghold gives the Shadow player tournament points. Neither can the Shadow player ignore a stronghold defence as it 'doesn't matter' because now it does. It's probably going to increase the tactic of an early Shadow blitz on strongholds - but the bidding system will level this out by giving the FP advanced movement for the fellowship if shadow military blitz is the optimal strategy in this enviroment. Nigel
|
|
|
Post by John on Feb 13, 2005 21:40:31 GMT 1
Sure these rules alter the way the game is played - as you're not just playing for a 'victory' but also to be the 'best' (or not lose too badly etc). It's necessary in a 'tournament' enviroment where you want to 'rank' players based on performance. If you play an elimination system it's not so necessary - winners move on losers go home, but for a game this length I personally don't like an elimination system Just to be clear, it really depends on the environment you are running the tournament in. If this is an isolated event at a game shop or something like that, then elimination is pretty mean. People came out explicitly to play War of the Ring, so let 'em. However, if you are running a tournament at a convention (common enough, I would think), many players are probably happy to stop playing if they are out of contention for winning (which need not be after one round, depending on how you set things up). They can go do a million other things at the convention in this case, and maybe just thought they'd play some WotR while they were there -- they didn't come out JUST to play the tournament (probably). It's even reasonable to ask players up front what they'd like to do, once the players arrive, and decide then. Maybe everyone wants to play lots, maybe not. This should NEVER cause real problems until very late in the game. You can always have a winner play a loser in any particular bracket. This is a very old, very solved problem (the only time you 'need' to worry is if you want to do something like cut to top 8 or something, but it only matters right at that point). The only real headache from going from 16 to 17 players is adding one round of play to figure out who the 'winner' is, and that's a fine reason to limit tournament size (though obviously you want to not limit things if possible). Second part first here: Yes. That's true. You do? OK. I don't usually find that I need a way to rank players for most tournaments (for most games) other than winner and loser (for two player games, anyway). I guess if you explain WHY you need to rank them it would make more sense to me, but I just don't find your premise to be true for me very often. (OK, never.) It certainly changes the game in somewhat interesting ways, but I don't really feel the game is bad enough to need much changing, ESPECIALLY from what players are expecting when they show up. I try not to change the goal of the game on the players! But the first -few- tournaments would still be skewed, and you give your system a lot of credit if you think it will be widespread enough and popular enough for strategies like this to revolve around. Also, some players may want to concede before the game is done and leave, and this system can't really incorporate that very well. However, the thing that caught my eye MOST about the point system was it's possible applicability as an adjudication system for unfinished games. Here's my basic problem: You want tournaments to move along within a reasonable length of time. So I usually have some kind of time limit. How do you determine the winner of an unfinished War of the Ring game? Some of the metrics are easy: Military Victory Points, for instance, compared to what is needed (so SA with six points is 60% to his win condition, while FA with one point is 25%). Corruption CAN be done in a similar way, though pretty confusing. Dunking the ring is hard, though. Best I could come up with is how many dice would be necessary to dunk the ring, compared to the smallest number of dice (15), assuming no cards are played. (Cards screw up everything so I just ignore them.) This is not GREAT, and players will still be liable to mess with it and try to manipulate it, but only once it's clear that the game won't finish. Most of the players won't pay any attention to it, and if they do, it won't be until you are blowing that 15-minute warning whistle. =) Alternatively, something related to the point system here might be better. Thoughts? .
|
|
|
Post by The Cat on Feb 14, 2005 6:38:15 GMT 1
Hmm, some good ideas but the deeper it gets the more explaining you have to do and the more likely it is that you lose interest or understanding from some of the players. I'd be looking for as simple as possible a way of rating a victory, given that I agree with the round-robin format. Perhaps a little like a round of boxing; 10-9 for a close round; 10-8 for a not so close one. I would think that the judge (an experienced player) could look at the aftermath and determine the closeness of the contest by way of two possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by nigel on Feb 21, 2005 15:06:59 GMT 1
You do? OK. I don't usually find that I need a way to rank players for most tournaments (for most games) other than winner and loser (for two player games, anyway). I guess if you explain WHY you need to rank them it would make more sense to me, but I just don't find your premise to be true for me very often. (OK, never.) Depends on the tournament. Most of my experience running tournaments was for MECCG (Middle Earth Collectable Card Game) and at the end I'd rank the players rather than just have a winner & 2nd place, but those tournaments were non-elimination. Why bother? Well the players wanted to know where they'd come in the tournament (perhaps it's not common elsewhere but most people I know like to know where they've placed - rather than 'you didn't win ...' or 'didn't place in the top X') and we'd usually have a range of prizes rather than just 1 for top place. Nigel
|
|
|
Post by animalmother on Dec 31, 2006 16:15:45 GMT 1
A simple tweak for tournament bidding:
In the original game, Sauron needs 10 Victory Points, or 12 Corruption Points, to win. The simplest way to go is to tweak this so that Sauron needs an equal number of Shadow Victory Points OR Corruption Points to win, e.g., 11 Victory Points or 11 Corruption Points.
Players flip a coin to determine who makes the first bid. Player One declares, "I'll give you Shadow at 14," (or any other number), meanining he takes the Free Peoples, and offers to let Player Two, his opponent, play the Shadow if the opponent agrees to accept the high hurdle of gaining 14 Shadow Victory Points or inflicting 14 Corruption Points.
Player Two responds with, "I'll give you Shadow at 13." Player One responds with "I'll give you Shadow at 12," etc., until one or the other player agrees to take the Shadow Powers at the offered price.
In an elimination tournament, a player who in the first round got a pass may not make the first bid. That way, the player who won the previous round effectively gets to decide whether or not he wants to take ther Shadow at 11, as it's unlikely his opponent will accept Shadow at 12 or refuse Shadow at 10.
|
|
|
Post by kwojtasz on Oct 9, 2007 18:17:41 GMT 1
what about bidding action dice re-rolls? with the caveat that the same symbol isn't allowed to come up on the re-roll. (ie. if it does, just roll again till it doesn't.) A re-roll would need to be used right after the action from both sides are rolled before the FP chooses to take an action or pass.
so you would flip a coin or roll off for who bids first, then start the start player bids # of re-rolls to play a side. say, give 1 re-roll to play the shadow. (ie. the other player would get 1 action die reroll at the start of any turn in the game for playing the FP)
in this way the game itself isn't changed, but some re-rolls would be given to one side which could enable them to have a better % chance at getting a die roll they want on a re-roll if their action dice come up snake eyes. from my experiences, due to the FP lack of action dice, a bad roll can really screw up their chances. especially at the end game. so if the FP player saves some rerolls for the end, they could increase their chances from 1/2 of rolling a C/W to 3/5 on any M/A/E's that get re-rolled.
alternately, if the SP decides to forgo any Eyes and then doesn't roll any eyes... maybe the FP player decides to use re-rolls that turn to boost the amount of C/W's they rolled so they can move more spaces. (ie. if a SP wants a full DEW, he may lose due to a higher than average amount of C/Ws now possible for the FP, thus discouraging the vanilla blitz/run games, though not eliminating it as 1 eye could always be placed in the hunt box)
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on Oct 9, 2007 18:35:35 GMT 1
Interesting idea. Really fine grained, I think. My bid in the base game would be something like 6.
First Turn Aragorn would be maybe 50% with a single reroll. I'm not sayin' that's bad.
|
|
|
Post by kwojtasz on Oct 9, 2007 18:39:11 GMT 1
oh yeah, I am figuring on Twilight expansion too... for the re-roll idea.
haven't tried it yet, but I agree it could be granular, which is a good thing, but at some point the number would be prohibitive I would think.
yes, turn 1 aragorn could be more probable then. but then the SP player would know that if they are bidding too many re-rolls. since too many would give the FP a better chance at first turn aragorn, plus leave some re-rolls for the last few steps in Mordor...
albeit, re-rolling an Event action might yield a Muster or Army/Muster instead of a C/W... which is ok too, since it isn't automatic, just a better probability.
probably have to add in too that you can only re-roll a single die once in a turn. though if you have 3 or 4 re-rolls, you could choose to use them up re-rolling 3-4 different dice.
makes for an interesting dynamic too, if you see the SP dice and need a muster for instance, but didn't roll any, you could pick up a C to try and re-roll to get a M... (getting a 3/4 chance no less to get a Muster or W...)
|
|
|
Post by Goodgulf the Grey on Oct 9, 2007 19:34:30 GMT 1
I like the re-roll idea too. It is strategic without complete predictability. Makes for interesting decisions and is elegant since it doesn't change any fundamental rules.
I'm not sure what the breakpoint is but I would be willing to play the Free with about 5 re-rolls in the expansion -- maybe 7 in the base game...
|
|