Season 12 ~ MAJOR LEAGUE ~ 3 Strikes Knockout Tourny

[Skippy B. Coyote]

1 hour ago, Jasonhrb said:

If we get a scenario where a round that was "guaranteed" to get someone to three strikes barring tied scores, and we end up with nobody on three strikes because we have all rolled a game, I can't help thinking that  we would have reached a point where nobody should be coming away from the tournament with "nothing". We could still use the "regular season rank" tie breaker to decide who gets gold and give us an overall winner

 

if we did end up in that scenario, we could then just have a multi game week (perhaps over more than one week) to give everyone who "tied" for the lower medal a game choice next season.

 

What do the rest of us @AtariSphinx  , @Skippy B. Coyote and @kermit73(and @Vocelli who is in charge of course) think ?

 

I would be 100% totally fine with that! We've all played our very best, you in particular having fought your way through the tournament with two strikes in the first round and still managing to get some absolutely amazing scores and hang on until the very end, so I would have no problem at all sharing a rank and a medal pick round so we could all choose a game next season. There's no one in the final Top 4 who doesn't deserve a prize for their extraordinary efforts if you ask me 

 

[kermit73]

Given the effort and skill everyone has demonstrated, going out in 4th place and getting nothing for it at this point would kind of suck.  To be perfectly honest, that's why I focused my attention on Wizard of Wor first since rollage guarantees I don't go out in 4th this round.

 

I support not going to a 5th round and giving all four of us a game choice next season with rankings based on the game play that has occurred by the end of round 4.  Ties can be broken by number of strikes and then regular season rank.  I recognize that since I have the top seed from the regular season, that gives me an advantage in some tie-breaking situations, so I understand if others have concerns with this and want to do a tie-breaker week.

 

A challenge with allowing an additional player to choose a game is its impact on the overall game selection process for the next season.  I think there is good reason to limit the number of players with this much influence to ensure the season can maintain a theme and that there are enough weeks in the schedule for paddle games, homebrews, and other specific categories.  If we allow all four of us to pick games, I suggest that 1st/2nd and the paper medal winner from the minor leagues get to pick one primary game and optionally one bonus game.  The 3rd/4th place players only choose a primary game (no option to pick a bonus game) and both these games are scheduled the same week.  This could be accomplished without interfering with the rest of the season schedule.

 

I've wondered if the 2 week/3 game format might work better for the regular season.  I think adding that second week increased the competitiveness of this post-season, and I think there was more competition during the season when there was more than one week for homebrews and the holiday break.  Adding that second week allows more time to learn/master a new game, plus it gives folks with busier schedules more opportunity to play and post a score.  If the 3-game format is considered for the regular season, I suggest having 1st/3rd share one round and 2nd/4th share another round.  This still allows 1st/2nd to pick two games (or one game plus a bonus) and 3rd/4th to pick one game.

 

[AtariSphinx]

I am also fully in favor of not having a 5th round.

 

Definitely the effort and skill everyone has shown has been impressive and very competitive.

 

If I understand correctly we are talking about the specific situation that Jasonhrb is referring to where he gets no strikes this round and several of us tie him with 2 strikes and no one gets 3 strikes.   I am also fine with that proposal to share metals and each have game selections while ending the season rather than one person being on the outside/go another round.

[kermit73]

Stratovox: 59400

 

The difficulty switch for this one was not specified.  Is everyone playing this with the difficulty on B?  I didn't think it mattered on this game, but I still had the switches on A from Wizard of Wor and noticed that the game starts by giving you two sets of three aliens which won't happen on Difficulty B until you are a few boards into the game.  I must say that this game is much more fun with Difficulty A since the first several boards are a bit of a grind with Difficulty B. 

 

The game below was played on Difficulty B since I'm assuming that is correct for this round. 

 

[Jasonhrb]

7 minutes ago, AtariSphinx said:

I am also fully in favor of not having a 5th round.

 

Definitely the effort and skill everyone has shown has been impressive and very competitive.

 

If I understand correctly we are talking about the specific situation that Jasonhrb is referring to where he gets no strikes this round and several of us tie him with 2 strikes and no one gets 3 strikes.   I am also fine with that proposal to share metals and each have game selections while ending the season rather than one person being on the outside/go another round.

That's exactly my thought. If someone gets to three strikes this round, then so be it. Finishing fourth would still kinda suck, but that's the nature of competition to an extent. But my proposal is that if we're still in a position where nobody is at three strikes at the end of this round (when such a scenario would have seemed very far fetched when this round was set, and is still relatively unlikely now), we set positions based on the end of this round rather than forcing the issue with a further round.

 

I think we should still have an overall winner (which is clearly not going to be me ?), and so using the regular season scores as a tie break seems fair here. But for Silver / bronze, I am proposing going for "shared positions" in  the event of a tie in number of strikes, without a further tie breaker. If we do that, I guess it raises a  question as to whether if there is a tie on strikes for silver, fourth becomes bronze (which may mean giving a "medal" to someone with three strikes), but personally I haven't thought that far ahead

 

As an aside I don't think giving everyone a game choice needs to be an issue for the season length. If we're really tight for time, we can always make bronze (or silver if that's where the tie is) medal a "2 game / 1 week" scenario so it doesn't extend the season. Or alternatively, we just add one more week to allow for a "two games two weeks" scenario in the medal round with a tie

[Jasonhrb]

12 minutes ago, kermit73 said:

Stratovox: 59400

 

The difficulty switch for this one was not specified.  Is everyone playing this with the difficulty on B?  I didn't think it mattered on this game, but I still had the switches on A from Wizard of Wor and noticed that the game starts by giving you two sets of three aliens which won't happen on Difficulty B until you are a few boards into the game.  I must say that this game is much more fun with Difficulty A since the first several boards are a bit of a grind with Difficulty B. 

 

The game below was played on Difficulty B since I'm assuming that is correct for this round. 

 

For what it's worth, I was also playing on difficulty B. The round in homebrew week specified B, so in the absence of a suggestion otherwise, I went with that

[AtariSphinx]

3 minutes ago, Jasonhrb said:

For what it's worth, I was also playing on difficulty B. The round in homebrew week specified B, so in the absence of a suggestion otherwise, I went with that

I also used difficulty B based on the homebrew week setting. 

[kermit73]

10 minutes ago, Jasonhrb said:

That's exactly my thought. If someone gets to three strikes this round, then so be it. Finishing fourth would still kinda suck, but that's the nature of competition to an extent. But my proposal is that if we're still in a position where nobody is at three strikes at the end of this round (when such a scenario would have seemed very far fetched when this round was set, and is still relatively unlikely now), we set positions based on the end of this round rather than forcing the issue with a further round.

 

I think we should still have an overall winner (which is clearly not going to be me ?), and so using the regular season scores as a tie break seems fair here. But for Silver / bronze, I am proposing going for "shared positions" in  the event of a tie in number of strikes, without a further tie breaker. If we do that, I guess it raises a  question as to whether if there is a tie on strikes for silver, fourth becomes bronze (which may mean giving a "medal" to someone with three strikes), but personally I haven't thought that far ahead

 

As an aside I don't think giving everyone a game choice needs to be an issue for the season length. If we're really tight for time, we can always make bronze (or silver if that's where the tie is) medal a "2 game / 1 week" scenario so it doesn't extend the season. Or alternatively, we just add one more week to allow for a "two games two weeks" scenario in the medal round with a tie

Thanks for the clarification.  I was clearly overthinking the situation.

[AtariSphinx]

15 minutes ago, Jasonhrb said:

That's exactly my thought. If someone gets to three strikes this round, then so be it. Finishing fourth would still kinda suck, but that's the nature of competition to an extent. But my proposal is that if we're still in a position where nobody is at three strikes at the end of this round (when such a scenario would have seemed very far fetched when this round was set, and is still relatively unlikely now), we set positions based on the end of this round rather than forcing the issue with a further round

I fully agree.

 

6 minutes ago, kermit73 said:

I think we should still have an overall winner (which is clearly not going to be me ?), and so using the regular season scores as a tie break seems fair here. But for Silver / bronze, I am proposing going for "shared positions" in  the event of a tie in number of strikes, without a further tie breaker. If we do that, I guess it raises a  question as to whether if there is a tie on strikes for silver, fourth becomes bronze (which may mean giving a "medal" to someone with three strikes), but personally I haven't thought that far ahead

This would essentially do away with the regular season rankings and focus on particular round performance.  I definitely think the way this final tournament is now set vs before is much better and more fair.   But do agree some improvements based on the learnings is needed.   I am suggesting a point system for the final round with strikes counting as negative points.  And perhaps regular season rankings also give certain points.  This way if there are ties then like in normal rounds you just share.  This way everything gets factored in.

 

Maybe we need a rules committee ?.    Kidding.   Thanks Vocelli for running a great season!

 

 

 

 

[AtariSphinx]

14 minutes ago, AtariSphinx said:

This would essentially do away with the regular season rankings and focus on particular round performance.  I definitely think the way this final tournament is now set vs before is much better and more fair.   But do agree some improvements based on the learnings is needed.   I am suggesting a point system for the final round with strikes counting as negative points.  And perhaps regular season rankings also give certain points.  This way if there are ties then like in normal rounds you just share.  This way everything gets factored in.?

 

 

 

 

One one rule we had in the old system was when you fell out of the gold/silver/bronze you got to compete in the paper medal rounds which gave that higher ranked player one more opportunity to get 4th, metal, and game choice. It also had the two groups at least tied in someway.  Definitely another angle to think about but I would assume for next year. 

[Vocelli]

I read everyone's comments.

Thanks for all the input!

 

First off: Use Difficulty B on Stratovox

 

Secondly: There will NOT be a 5th round. (Tie Breaker Round). 

We will stick to these tie-breakers:

A) Number of Strikes

B) Regular Season Rank

 

We will have 3 Winners.

 

Next Season, I will analyze the 3 Strikes Tourney and make changes.

I like to keep things simple and easy to understand.

 

Thank You everyone... You Guys/Gals are great!

[Jasonhrb]

On 6/11/2022 at 4:24 PM, Skippy B. Coyote said:

 

I would be 100% totally fine with that! We've all played our very best, you in particular having fought your way through the tournament with two strikes in the first round and still managing to get some absolutely amazing scores and hang on until the very end, so I would have no problem at all sharing a rank and a medal pick round so we could all choose a game next season. There's no one in the final Top 4 who doesn't deserve a prize for their extraordinary efforts if you ask me 

 

Cheers Skippy, I really appreciate that. I've absolutely loved the new format, but in one sense I have found this tourney frustrating. Because of the switch in format, I'm in the unique position in the remaining field of having two strikes, having only been in the bottom half of the table once. I did raise this with @Vocelli at the time, and suggested that when we changed the format, we should have also made the first round 1 strike per game to to make things fair for everyone. However, he decided against this.

 

In most cases , the decision not to align the first week with the rest of the tourney hasn't made much difference. Everyone else with two strikes from the first round got at least another two in round two (on a one strike per game basis), meaning they would have been eliminated in round two anyway (although those with two "double strikes" from round one would I'm sure have liked to play at least one more round). But we're now in a position where medal positions are potentially being decided on that anomaly, and I wouldn't be being honest if I didn't say that that feels unfair.

 

But hey, trying to run a setup like this for everyone is always a tricky task, and I think the tournament format overall is a big improvement. I really appreciate the work that Vocelli does running this (it's a time consuming job and I know I couldn't do it), even if I'm a bit frustrated with how this has panned out on a personal level. 

 

Anyway, that's enough of me whinging. Here's a score on Raptor. Another big improvement from my main round score, but I suspect it's not going to be enough to get me in the top two ?

 

 

[Skippy B. Coyote]

1 hour ago, Jasonhrb said:

Cheers Skippy, I really appreciate that. I've absolutely loved the new format, but in one sense I have found this tourney frustrating. Because of the switch in format, I'm in the unique position in the remaining field of having two strikes, having only been in the bottom half of the table once. I did raise this with @Vocelli at the time, and suggested that when we changed the format, we should have also made the first round 1 strike per game to to make things fair for everyone. However, he decided against this.

 

In most cases , the decision not to align the first week with the rest of the tourney hasn't made much difference. Everyone else with two strikes from the first round got at least another two in round two (on a one strike per game basis), meaning they would have been eliminated in round two anyway (although those with two "double strikes" from round one would I'm sure have liked to play at least one more round). But we're now in a position where medal positions are potentially being decided on that anomaly, and I wouldn't be being honest if I didn't say that that feels unfair.

 

But hey, trying to run a setup like this for everyone is always a tricky task, and I think the tournament format overall is a big improvement. I really appreciate the work that Vocelli does running this (it's a time consuming job and I know I couldn't do it), even if I'm a bit frustrated with how this has panned out on a personal level. 

 

Anyway, that's enough of me whinging. Here's a score on Raptor. Another big improvement from my main round score, but I suspect it's not going to be enough to get me in the top two ?

 

 

 

Oh believe me, I'm frustrated too. I've played my very best this entire season, rolled the score in Wizard of Wor, and set a new record high score in RAPTOR. And even though I'm going to finish the tournament with only two strikes (because I know I can't make the top 2 in Stratovox so I'm definitely taking a strike in that game this round) I'm still going to lose and get knocked out if you end up taking first or second in RAPTOR because I was ranked 4th overall in the main season. It's really frustrating and doesn't feel fair, making it through the entire 3 Strikes tournament with only 2 strikes and losing anyway on basically a technicality. But, that's probably enough of my whining too.

[Jasonhrb]

13 hours ago, Skippy B. Coyote said:

 

Oh believe me, I'm frustrated too. I've played my very best this entire season, rolled the score in Wizard of Wor, and set a new record high score in RAPTOR. And even though I'm going to finish the tournament with only two strikes (because I know I can't make the top 2 in Stratovox so I'm definitely taking a strike in that game this round) I'm still going to lose and get knocked out if you end up taking first or second in RAPTOR because I was ranked 4th overall in the main season. It's really frustrating and doesn't feel fair, making it through the entire 3 Strikes tournament with only 2 strikes and losing anyway on basically a technicality. But, that's probably enough of my whining too.

Yeah, I hear you. Personally I'm not a fan of the "regular season score" tie break (and I say that as someone who potentially benefits as you point out). It's one of the reasons I suggested shared ranks. If we're determined to have individual positions, I'd actually personally rather play out to the end on a 1 week / 1 game / 1 strike basis to determine the positions as  this seems a more open way of settling things

 

But the "regular season score tie break" is at least an objective measure that applies to us all equally, even if to me it doesn't feel right as a way of separating people at this stage, if only because it has been introduced so recently (I'd be a lot more comfortable if this was stated as being the tie break at the start of the season, and would have no issue with it being used on this basis next time round). The situation I'm in is a little different, in that my strike for super breakout counts double relative to  a strike for any other week, based just on when it was incurred. It's the lack of consistency there that gets me if I'm honest, rather than a system that applies equally to everyone, that I happen to think isn't the best way forward.

 

I think that the new format is great, and @Vocelli has done a great job both in thinking it up and implementing it. I definitely see this format as the way forward, and we shouldn't lose sight of that. But the way that we have (perhaps inevitably) adjusted this as we go means that it has created some inconsistencies and unfairness unique to this particular tournament (the crinkles will hopefully be ironed out by design next time around, as the lessons can be learned). 

 

While I get where Vocelli is coming from in terms of things being straightforward and easy to understand, it's even more important that they need to be fair. And at the moment, I don't think they are. This is something that even at this late stage should be looked at again imho, as it is very easy to fix this in a way that is both fair to all players and has minimal impact on next season's competition (I actually think I have a solution that works for everyone). At the moment we have a situation where two of the four top players (both by regular season score and this tournament) are unhappy with how this is ending, and that can't be right.

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Jasonhrb

[Vocelli]

I can see where you are coming from.

Just keep posting scores and I will come up with a solution.

 

Next Season the rules will not change as the Tourney is happening.

 

Thanks for the input.

[AtariSphinx]

Stratovox (1 B/B): 62,900

 

Improvement!

[Vocelli]

I have made a decision:

 

I will stick to the lowest Strikes and best rank for the placement of all 4 players...

But all 4 players will be able to choose a game for next season.

 

Next Season I will make changes for the Tourney and stick with it.

 

[Jasonhrb]

6 hours ago, Vocelli said:

I have made a decision:

 

I will stick to the lowest Strikes and best rank for the placement of all 4 players...

But all 4 players will be able to choose a game for next season.

 

Next Season I will make changes for the Tourney and stick with it.

 

Cheers Vocelli. I don't think this fully fixes the problems that the changes mid season have caused, but it does mitigate them in a way that hopefully avoids anyone feeling a bit let down by the outcome. This will imho enable the surviving players to all feel that the effort to get to this stage was worthwhile, and just enjoy the last stage of friendly competition.

 

Thanks for listening to people's concerns and finding a way forward. The responsive way you address issues like this is a key reason why the HSC  is so much fun ??

[kermit73]

Stratovox: 85450

Raptor: 1120

 

I'm starting to have more of an appreciation for Stratovox now that I'm getting deeper into the game and seeing how much more difficult the game gets.  I think is the first game that ended because I ran out of ships rather than getting all the humanoids kidnapped.

 

I have some work to do on Raptor.

 

 

[Jasonhrb]

Improvement on Stratovox

 

 

[kermit73]

Raptor: 1320

 

[Jasonhrb]

An improvement at Raptor

[AtariSphinx]

Raptor (1 B/B): 827

 

Final post for this round.  Having trouble getting past the 1K mark.  Not sure if it is because of my controller.   This game (and Stratovox) don't work on my multicart on real hardware which means using emulation and a not so ideal controller.   I think this game though benefits from a joystick versus the DualShock3 that I am using.

 

In any case this score beats my previous personal best which I have been able to do for most games in these 4 major league rounds.    It is a testament to playing against great competition that forces you to push your limits further! 

 

@Jasonhrb, @kermit73, @Skippy B. Coyote you all are some tough competitors!  Definitely been great competing against you. I am happy to have been able to compete against all the great and very passionate HSC competitors this season!  Definitely been intense and pushed me to my Atari limits.

 

@Vocelli, thanks for running another great season. 

[Jasonhrb]

Another improvement in Raptor

 

 

[+jgkspsx]

This last round has truly been a clash of titans. Amazing playing, everybody!