Intermezzo Championship
Hello Pajada,
Thanks for organizing this tournament. If a player runs out of time do we need to inform you? From what I understand of the rules if a player times out at any point of the game they get 0 points and the other two players will get 5 points and 2 points respective of their position in a 'two horse' race.
pajada Hey Pajada, thanks for gettting back to me. My opponent managed to make his/her move with a couple hours of timebank to spare. Maybe they are having similar problems as myself? I don't seem to receive push notifications for when it's my turn to move when I'm connected to my home WiFi? I'm playing TTA through an Android phone.
Thanks a lot for arranging this tournament! I have a question about sportsmanship. I know you are not allowed to help other players (obviously), but what about intentionally reducing a league rival's score in an individual game? If I know who my rival is for promotion in the league and I am in a losing position in an individual game it is often possible to play kingmaker and deny my rival 1st place, which could be better (in league standings) than claiming 2nd place. This can be done in many ways, some more subtle than others. I could tailor my card picks to deny him important cards (even though it hurts my own game), I could declare war against him even though a war against the third player would make more sense in the individual game, and finally I could do really dirty things like purposefully losing a war against the third player to hand him first place (ranging from outright disbanding my military to just not optimizing my defense). All of these things I would do to win the league myself, no collusion at all. Personally I do not like these strategies at all as they often ruin a lot of the fun of the game. But just to be clear I would like to know if tournament rules allow them or to what degree they are allowed.
Thanks for organizing!
SpartacusImperator This has been discussed before in the International Champ thread with tournament organisers.
There's no hard or fast rules, just a policy to consider whether something is generally 'fair play' within the context of a competitive tournament. You of course are allowed to do things to deny a rival a chance at promotion - but do not go beyond the limit of fair competition - into unfair conduct that destroys the integrity of the game.
Some actions that are generally considered 'fair' play:
- 'hate' drafting cards to deny another person (even at the expense of your own game)
- seeding impacts that might be bad for you, in order to hurt another player more, or benefit a third player
- choosing not to take a beneficial action that results in player A claiming that benefit, to the detriment of player B (ie choosing not to build a stage of red cross, which in turn allows another player to build it and take the benefit - or choosing not to bid for a colony that you would otherwise win)
Prohibited actions that are considered unfair and ruin the integrity of the game:
- Declaring a war you can't win for the purpose of boosting another player's score (and/or disbanding your units in response to a war), or generally doing anything to intentionally weaken yourself to the benefit of another player
- Choosing to not defend an aggression (when you are able to) for the purpose of benefiting a third party.
Just think if what you are doing is 'tough but fair' and in the spirit of a very competitive competition - or just plain unfair.
WanderingWolf Thanks a lot for answering my question! I like this approach.
WanderingWolf As an organizer and a member of the Player committee I agree with WanderingWolf. You will not be investigated/banned if you do 'fair' actions from his list and on the opposite side you will be investigated if you do something from 'prohibited'.
I personally would not do the third thing from 'fair' actions (not building step of International Red Cross or not bidding on a colony), but everyone has the line elsewhere.
As it is hard to describe all possible scenarios we rely more on deliberation of players than strict rules describing everything.
- Edited
We are experiencing a bug in Wood 22 game 6 where the game is stuck on player Chixx's turn. Game says "check the game" on the status field and doesn't advance even though they say they played the turn many times. Any ideas?
Jusaz in case of bugs always contact support@czechgames.com (I have done it for you in this case already).
SpartacusImperator Ha, I'm enjoying the games Spartacus... Good of you to double check the integrity of some of your sneakiest plans 
I think you'll win the league easily though, well played.
Attrill20 I agree on both accounts.
Attrill20 Thanks I'm enjoying the games too, but let's see who wins when the dust settles 
I really do prefer to play without the "metagame tactics" described above, but I wanted to know if I could expect them to be used against me and for them to be allowed within the tournament rules. If that had been the case then employing them would probably have been almost necessary in order to win consistently. But as a result many individual games would run the risk of degenerating into non-games. I much prefer it this way.
- Edited
I'll throw my weight behind what SpartacusImperator said, as well. I'd also prefer to play a tournament without the "metagame tactics" part being such a large factor. Watching opponents purposefully defend against wars "less," seed Impacts that don't benefit them at all, and even playing Armed Intervention while the Olympic Games are up, just to hurt the perceived "leader" of your specific league rather bother me, since it's outside the bounds of what a "reasonable" move would be, in a normal game of TtA.
What's worse, is that it makes the games take so much longer! It's strategically to my advantage to take as much time as possible on my turns, so that I have a better understanding of everyone's league ranks before making my decisions. I've had to "wait out" my opponents before in order to know what Impacts to seed, for instance. It also puts a lot more weight on the Military part of the game, pushing you towards more interactive Military plays since it may be more important to deny a specific opponent 1st place (even if it gets you 3rd) than to secure your own 2nd place spot in a game.
I understand that it's not possible, right now, but I'd prefer an option for the tournaments where overall standings are invisible until all of the league's games are concluded. Sadly, it will take away from some of the "unfolding drama" of a tournament season, but I feel it would also create for a less metagamey and a more focused series of game.
Just my opinion.
I think the meta-gaming is basically unavoidable in a promotion-relegation tournament with multiple games per league. In Intermezzo the effect is especially strong since 60% of each league will be promoted or relegated. Almost nobody ignores the league standings while playing out the last few games.
Other tournament types are better suited if meta-gaming is to be limited. One example is a ladder system, which is basically a promotion-relegation tournament with just one game per league. I believe there are already (smaller) ladder tournaments organized here. Another example is a Swiss system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament), which would suit large tournaments like Intermezzo and International quite well. Both ladder and Swiss would require that all games in a round finish before the pairings of the next round can be made though. Good for 2p and short time limits, but with the time control as in Intermezzo/International the tournaments would take forever. (On the other hand, you could start new seasons before old ones finish).
Not defending to save your defense cards is a viable reason to allow an aggression to pass, I would put it on the same level as not building the stage of the red cross.