Tash-Kalar official CGE World series 2015

[Morlimar]

I placed 8th and so of course I am disappointed. There were lots of no -shows and I didn't have an issues with the site or the format during the tournament - but now with the change of rules mid event, it does seem a bit, uninformed.

In store events draw crowds to play - and the more slots available the better ( for the store owner) participation is the key ingredient of any sanctioned ( or casual) event. Players come to take part and not (necessarily) to win. You had a ton of people show up for the first qualifier,look at this as virtual foot traffic. how many of these folks were new to the site? Changes like this lose new players and work against a positive reputation.

Strict competitiveness and firm rules are necessary in events like this. but also I think ( in the Beta test tournament format) is flexibility and inclusiveness.

I'll try to win the next one I guess.

Andrew

[MeatAndBreath]

As another person who had a technical issue*, I think in general it's hard to take this tournament seriously. It's being run using a beta implementation of the swiss tournament system and the tournament organization is clearly a little seat-of-the-pants. I'm not terribly upset by this. I had fun playing, had hoped to move on, but am fine with whatever shakes out. It was a fun, casual tournament. My only complaint is that this being billed as the "World Series" of Tash-Kalar, including prizes. It seems like it would have made more sense to shake out the bugs in the tournament system (and maybe do a better job estimating interest) before running an "official" tournament.

And to the person who said that knowing how many people will qualify doesn't affect play style, I completely disagree. Having won my first two games, I took the third game much less seriously than I took the first two, believing that I'd pretty much secured my spot. Now, I obviously still tried to win, and we could argue about whether or not I should or shouldn't have taken that attitude, but I did, and I suspect others did, too.

Anyway, thanks to CGE and BGA for organizing this. I did have fun, all problems aside. I hope it runs more smoothly the next time around (which I assume will be next July).

* http://en.boardgamearena.com/#!bug?id=3396

[Trociu]

I was expecting this, I'm 9th so I'm a bit dissapointed, was hoping that you will make first 10 people go to semis.

I understand what you are trying to achieve with this move, but it really doesn't sound right. It looks like you aren't prepared for such event. I'm happy that you have such support from huge publisher (CGE, I love their games), but it was really too soon. I hope that you will work now with those errors and make tournaments out of beta mode.

[xxerox]

I had no fun, and im dissapointed. I am never buying the game. Switz tournaments are unfair to begin with. Only countries who want unfair challenges use them. 7th place, and here we go , i can not participate tommorow.

At least if you guys said it sooner, i would try in another tournament. But i didnt. Because you said you will disqualify me if i participate more than one, if i am top 20 in any of the games.

[glitter and doom]

Switz tournaments are unfair to begin with. Only countries who want unfair challenges use them.

I don't think Swiss tournaments are that bad. In fact, it is a very good format for tournaments with large numbers of participants (i.e. 100), in many ways better (and more fair) than single-elimination format. However, there is no sense in playing just 3 rounds. Minimum number of rounds for Swiss tournament should be at least equal to the number of rounds for single-elimination tournament (number_of_rounds = log n / log 2, rounded up, n = number of players), and optimal number is even higher. In other words, for a tournament with 25 players there should be no less than 5 rounds, and I would suggest 7 as optimal.

[glitter and doom]

It is unacceptable to change the rules during a game/tournament.

I agree. It seems a bit unusual to change the rules after the tournament.

[RogueM]

Every single game I can think of that has a tournament format gives full points to a player who's opponent fails to show up. You want to punish a person because their opponent failed to show?

No, but it would be trivial to automatically re-pair the players with no opponents right after their game has been canceled, so that at most one player can gain points without playing a match. Build a buffer of 10 mins between matches and job done, though I recognize it takes someone competent to run the event in the first place, which clearly is the problem here.

[lvasilr]

I do not see any official response. I would really like to see one.

Thank you

[Babyrhinorainbows]

Tangential other concern: you guys need to enforce time limits in these kinds of tournaments. If a player runs out of time they should lose the game immediately. In a competitive environment the timer is an important resource. The way it works now can also stall the tournament from progressing if several players are really slow.

[xxerox]

Tangential other concern: you guys need to enforce time limits in these kinds of tournaments. If a player runs out of time they should lose the game immediately. In a competitive environment the timer is an important resource. The way it works now can also stall the tournament from progressing if several players are really slow.

I do not agree with you. People have the right to think as much as they want to -.-