SpielByWeb Forum Index SpielByWeb
http://www.spielbyweb.com/
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   Find a UserFind a User   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 Your GamesYour Games   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Hacienda League feedback
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SpielByWeb Forum Index -> Hacienda
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kanga



Joined: 27 Oct 05
Posts: 1503

Location: Moe, Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:54 am    Post subject: Hacienda League feedback Reply with quote

Now we are into the penultimate round of the first attempt at a Hacienda League, I'm starting to think about what to do differently in the next season.

I'm not asking at this stage for expressions of interest in playing next season, more in format changes.

Amongst the questions I'm hoping for feedback on are:

1. timeframe for games.
I used 1 week initially in this season, then reduced that to about 9 days on average because some players were finding it too hard to keep up. Of course others were now finding it a bit slow..... Smile

2. Format of matches. I quite like the 3 games on the same map against each opponent, but am willing to consider other options.


3. choice of maps: I've actually learned quite a lot about map choice in 2 player tournaments. I plan to avoid the maps that always end up in land buyouts. These maps are those in whom all the markets can be reached without coming close to using all the animals. In this League, the maps used in Round 3 - map 187, and Round 7 - 179, both had that happen routinely in the games played on them.

It's a strong personal preference of mine to avoid these maps in 2 player (they are both good maps in multiplayer). 40 round games make the tournaments drag on too long and reduce the result to a larger portion of luck of the draw than I like. However feel free to express your thoughts if you disagree!


4. Number of players per League:
I used 10 this time round, obviously it depends a lot on the precise number of players signed up. However what do people think would be optimum?

5. Promotion / relegation / adding in of new players to league:

Given that not all the players from this season will stay on I probably wont be able to do a pure relegation / promotion as discussed. Also we may end up with different numbers of players in each league (see point 4). What I propose doing is ranking players based on their finishing order this season. So the League A players would be ranked 1-10, League B 11-20 and so on. The top two in League B would exchange rankings with the bottom two in League A, and so on.

New players who join in are more problematic. I'll use their performance in previous Hacienda tournaments to rank them and put them in at a best guess location.

Feel free to add in any better suggestions, I've quite literally just made this up as I typed.


Anything else that you want to comment on, feel free.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Send e-mail
cpsof95



Joined: 31 Mar 06
Posts: 177

Location: Finland

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. Timeframe is good.

2. I'd prefer playing on different maps against each opponent.

3. I agree.

4. 10 is good.

5. Sounds good.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
tlc



Joined: 12 Nov 06
Posts: 95

Location: Austin, TX, but my heart will always be in Boston

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally I like the 3 games on one map.

Everything else sounds great.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Visit poster's website
t_o_m9



Joined: 14 Apr 06
Posts: 318

Location: Lakeville, MN

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the 3 games on one map
current timeline is good, 1 per week works nicely
2 player maps are critical, just like land buyouts, some maps have definite starting advantages over the other if taken
10 in a league might be alot
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Send e-mail
GamesOnTheBrain



Joined: 14 Jun 07
Posts: 191

Location: Cleveland, OH

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have no preference for the maps. 8 per league might be better.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Visit poster's website
Early_10



Joined: 14 Mar 06
Posts: 270


PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kanga wrote:
not sure what happened there

TMJJS is actually 0 wins 6 losses.

Anytime there is an extreme score like this, you have to question the brackets.

I'd like to see more divisions with fewer people in each.

Symmetrical maps are better for tournament style play. It takes away any advantage starting position would give.

I like the 3 games on the same map.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
spearjr



Joined: 11 Nov 05
Posts: 206

Location: Southwestern Michigan

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is what I don't like about the 3 games on one map against the same opponent: I don't have a chance to learn from the first game and apply it to any of the other games as they are all progressing at the same rate. So if:

week 1 was normal games against opponents 1,2, & 3 on maps A,B & C,
then:
week 2 was variant one games against opponents 1,2, & 3 on maps A,B & C, finally followed by:
week 3 was variant two games against opponents 1,2, & 3 on maps A,B & C. I'd be happy.

This works out then that 10 people to a group, 9 rounds/weeks nicely.

If this is the format for the next league, I'll join up again.

(I also find the three games against the same person on the same map with the different variants all at once boring, but I appear to be alone in this.)


Last edited by spearjr on Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Early_10



Joined: 14 Mar 06
Posts: 270


PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spearjr wrote:
Here is what I don't like about the 3 games on one map against the same opponent: I don't have a chance to learn from the first game and apply it to any of the other games as they are all progressing at the same rate. So if:

week 1 was normal games against opponents 1,2, & 3 on maps A,B & C,
then:
week 2 was variant one games against opponents 1,2, & 3 on maps A,B & C, finally followed by:
week 3 was variant two games against opponents 1,2, & 3 on maps A,B & C. I'd be happy.

This works out then that 10 people to a group, 9 rounds/weeks nicely.

If this is the format for the next league, I'll join up again.

Yeah I agree with this...split up the play per opponent would feed those who like different maps as well as those who like 3 on the same.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
IBX



Joined: 22 Jun 07
Posts: 214


PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like a variety of maps which require a variety of strategies to win. I realize this may be 'non-traditional,' but I appreciate the challenge of having to alter my play to fit the map...so I'd love to see play on maps that end in a land run, plus some that are water heavy, or market heavy, or more of a chess match...many of the maps selected seem to have the same strategy involved, because I think Kanga has a pretty strong preference on how he likes a game to progress and those are the maps that make his top map list.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
Wildfire2099



Joined: 20 Aug 07
Posts: 122


PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the format as it is, actually... I think it worked really well.

As to ranking people going forward... I might do something more like this:

Div A gets 4 pts per win, Div B get 3 points, Div C get 2, Div D gets 1...

that way the players that did well in their group have a small chance to be ranked ahead of those from the bottom of the one above... otherwise, you wont get alot of movement in either direction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SunLion



Joined: 29 Jun 07
Posts: 53

Location: Gloucestershire, UK

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd like to put in a request for retaining the 9 days between rounds, possibly making it 10. The reason is that very few of my opponents are anywhere near the same time zone as me and when you only have a small proportion of any one player's waking day when the other player is also awake, things are unavoidably slowed down. At one point early on when you were trying to keep to 7 days between rounds, I was playing 3 rounds at once and that was really too much.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Visit poster's website
NoMoreCheese



Joined: 05 Jan 08
Posts: 230

Location: Madison, Wisconsin

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also have enjoyed this format very much.

The most debatable point is definately which and how many maps to use, probably because either system would work equally well. Two quick points in favor of current system:

1) three different maps for each match-up is a whole lot more maps Kanga (or others) would have to pick through

2) current tourneys already use different maps for each game. as this is an alternative to regular tourneys, why not have alternative map use also?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
t_o_m9



Joined: 14 Apr 06
Posts: 318

Location: Lakeville, MN

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spearjr wrote:
Here is what I don't like about the 3 games on one map against the same opponent: I don't have a chance to learn from the first game and apply it to any of the other games as they are all progressing at the same rate. So if:

week 1 was normal games against opponents 1,2, & 3 on maps A,B & C,
then:
week 2 was variant one games against opponents 1,2, & 3 on maps A,B & C, finally followed by:
week 3 was variant two games against opponents 1,2, & 3 on maps A,B & C. I'd be happy.

This works out then that 10 people to a group, 9 rounds/weeks nicely.

If this is the format for the next league, I'll join up again.

(I also find the three games against the same person on the same map with the different variants all at once boring, but I appear to be alone in this.)


I understand this point, however I try to use this to my advantage, where if I see a spot on the map that is advantageous I try to grab it in all 3 spots. If we play one at a time, it gives the opponent time to learn and change strategies for the next game. Plus if one opponent wins the first 2 games the 3rd is pointless, if you play them one at a time. That could be a way to speed up the rounds though.
The plus to playing one at a time is, I won't get confused as to my color changing in each game, confusing next moves on one map when I'm thinking about another, and letting you focus on one variant at a time. It would be like a sports playoff system - best of 3. In that case the 3rd game would be more intense, which would always be the V2 game if we followed the same pattern (which could hurt V2 experts). If we moved to this way I would like to have 3 rounds going at the same time.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Send e-mail
spearjr



Joined: 11 Nov 05
Posts: 206

Location: Southwestern Michigan

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

t_o_m9 wrote:
I understand this point, however I try to use this to my advantage, where if I see a spot on the map that is advantageous I try to grab it in all 3 spots. If we play one at a time, it gives the opponent time to learn and change strategies for the next game. Plus if one opponent wins the first 2 games the 3rd is pointless, if you play them one at a time. That could be a way to speed up the rounds though.

I see your point about grabbing the spot on all three maps. Personally I can't stand doing the same darn thing on each map. For me, that's mind-numbing to be trying the same strategy on all three at the same time. Plus I want my opponent to present me more of a challenge the 2nd and 3rd games. Lastly the 3rd game still matters for purposes of tie breakers. (Right now it is still possible for 1 of the 3 games to last longer, but I doubt anyone is just giving it up if they lost the first two.)

Anyways, If I'm the minority opinion here, that's ok too.
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Dobinator



Joined: 18 Jul 07
Posts: 383

Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What if we had the no-variant game on a pre-determined map, picked by Kanga or whoever, and then each player gets to choose his/her own map for one of the variants?
Back to top
View user's profile BoardGameGeek Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SpielByWeb Forum Index -> Hacienda All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group