Ticket to Ride 20th Anniversary World Tournament

[Rwain]

It could have been that, indeed, but finally, it would only save them for a game, they would have 5 more to win after to qualify. And for now, only one player really tried to recover his eligibility, and he did it before knowing what could happen in his second game tournament (only one of his game was launched, the other was a by).

[speedypuzzlement]

It could have been that, indeed, but finally, it would only save them for a game, they would have 5 more to win after to qualify. And for now, only one player really tried to recover his eligibility, and he did it before knowing what could happen in his second game tournament (only one of his game was launched, the other was a by).

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to organize a backup tournament? Invite every unique non-qualifier eliminated by a duplicate player and take X winners where X is the number of duplicates removed from the original qualifiers.

[Rwain]

I understand the reasons for such a tournament, but it's just impossible for us to set it up.
First, the timing : such a tournament could last three or four weeks, we don't have so much time between the qualification phase and the semi-finals.
Then, there will be many reasons for legitimate semifinalists not to attend the semifinals as Days of Wonders will check that every player who gets his ticket respects the semifinal conditions. (Players who cannot travel to Paris for the final for instance). Checking all this will take time, and there is clearly no spare time for another phase in this world championship.

And I might repeat myself, but I clearly don't see where the unfairness stands in our terms. Duplicate players are part of the rules. They have the right to be in your tournaments. Being defeated by one of them is not unfair. If you want to be a semifinalist, you have to win, that's all.

[penguin65]

If we are playing against someone who is registered in multiple timezones (and therefore is ineligible for qualification to the next round) is there an option to report it?

[speedypuzzlement]

And I might repeat myself, but I clearly don't see where the unfairness stands in our terms. Duplicate players are part of the rules. They have the right to be in your tournaments. Being defeated by one of them is not unfair. If you want to be a semifinalist, you have to win, that's all.

Suppose player A has a duplicate opponent on their final qualifying game. Either A wins and qualifies by merit or loses and qualifies by replacement. Suppose player B has a strong duplicate opponent on their first game. If that opponent had not enrolled, player B would have an easier path to qualification. I will not name specific examples, but some B-players must face duplicates capable of beating 700 Elo players while some A-players never need to face a player over 400 Elo.

Since the advantages for A-players and the disadvantages for B-players are not in players' control, duplicates increase the role of luck in qualification. I do not consider it desirable, but it may be fair. (After all, one might still lose fairly if not a single locomotive appears after drawing to 44 cards).

Unfortunately, the number of duplicate entries (542) is much higher than I expected, so perhaps asking duplicate players to gracefully withdraw from all but one tournament is the only realistic solution. Other than this issue, I think you did a great job organizing the BGA tournaments.

[daedin28]

Hi Rwain (and everybody),
I have a questions about semifinals, it was thought for 40 players, but now we have 60 players, so, it will be possible to increase the number of rounds to 8 or 9?
A Swiss of 7 rounds with 60 players has not sense, is not really a Swiss, the ideal would be 9 rounds, but at least 8.
And thx for the organitzation of the tournament!

[kinchow]

Each qualifying tournament winner will receive a Ticket to Ride product bundle.

I would like to clarify whether only the first winner receives the prize, or if all 8 (or 4) players who reach the semifinals also receive it. Thank you!

[Rwain]

@speedypuzzlement : you might think I'm stubborn (which I really am) but I don’t agree with you. Your points would be entirely right if playing in several tournaments was forbidden, but it’s not. Duplicate players are not cheating, so playing (and losing) against one is not unfair.
About the luck to lose against one duplicate player just before the quarter final, it’s part of the draw, such as getting a by in the first round, or having an opponent that encounters a personnel problem and cannot connect frequently enough to end his game in 5 says, or to fall against a very very strong player who do not play much on BGA and whose ELO is underrated. Single elimination tournaments cannot avoid this, that’s part of the game.

@daedin28 : 60 is the maximum number of semifinalists, you're right. I will transmit your proposal to Days of Wonder. It depends on the calendar imperatives.

@kinchow : only the winner receives a prize.

[speedypuzzlement]

@speedypuzzlement : you might think I'm stubborn (which I really am) but I don’t agree with you. Your points would be entirely right if playing in several tournaments was forbidden, but it’s not. Duplicate players are not cheating, so playing (and losing) against one is not unfair.
About the luck to lose against one duplicate player just before the quarter final, it’s part of the draw, such as getting a by in the first round, or having an opponent that encounters a personnel problem and cannot connect frequently enough to end his game in 5 says, or to fall against a very very strong player who do not play much on BGA and whose ELO is underrated. Single elimination tournaments cannot avoid this, that’s part of the game.

I think many of your points are valid. Perhaps I am not communicating my beliefs well. I have no objections to the fairness of entering multiple tournaments (in fact I never spoke on fairness). I accept that this situation is covered by the rules (disqualification for the next phase). I accept that luck plays a role in determining who will qualify to the next stage. Even so, I think that if the purpose of the qualifiers is to select skilled players, anything that increases the role of luck is undesirable, and duplicate players clearly do so.

I hope this does not come across as disapproval of your approach - I think you did the best job possible with the circumstances. I simply found the topic interesting, made a suggestion (backup tournament), came to realize it was not feasible (too many duplicates), and now my opinion is that duplicate players ought to withdraw gracefully.

Of course, I also think it would be awesome if all the qualifiers got prizes

[Aventurero21]

Thanks for your comment, you're right, that's what happens in case of a tie. I've checked the rules but missed that point. I modify it immediately.

Bonjour Rwain,

Tout d'abord merci pour ton organisation !

J'ai quelques questions concernant le timing de jeu :

J'ai vu en observant certaines parties que certains joueurs avaient un écart de chrono conséquent. Cela peut bien sur s'expliquer par le temps que met un joueur à jouer son prochain coup. Toutefois, certains joueurs jouent certains coups en dehors des heures prévues (22h01 - 09h59). Je me demande si un coup joué à 00h par un des 2 joueurs par exemple fait perdre 10 heures au chrono de son adversaire ?

Peux-tu m'éclairer sur ce point stp ?

Enfin, si la partie n'est pas terminée au bout de 5 jours, qui est déclaré vainqueur ?

Merci pour ton aide