Preferred Tournament Format

[LtDan]

Here's a discussion topic: What is your favorite gaming tournament format? What kind of scenarios do you like to play at a tournament? Do you prefer known scenarios or unknown / new? Do you like to pick your own or have a limited choice? If you know which scenarios are going to be played at a tournament, do you practice them beforehand? If you don't go to tournaments or don't like them-- why?

 

[Pitman]

Personally, I prefer open or pickup gaming to formal tournaments. I'd rather just be playing someone than worrying about my ranking.

 

[Bernard Howell]

I would say that I prefer CGs or HASL the most. But you did not ask that did ya. :wink:
I prefer new scenarios the most. After that, a choice between two or three different scenarios each round would work. Perhaps each with an Aussie balance...

 

[Anonymous]

"What is your favorite gaming tournament format?" - Three rounds in a day

"What kind of scenarios do you like to play at a tournament?" - Obviously, 'tournament sized' ones. If there are three rounds, I like two 'standard' scenarios (German-Russian, German-American) and one special (e.g. PTO, night, strange weather).

"Do you prefer known scenarios or unknown / new?" - No preference.

"Do you like to pick your own or have a limited choice?" - Limited choice (maximum 3 to choose from)

"If you know which scenarios are going to be played at a tournament, do you practice them beforehand?" - I usually check the board setup, VCs, and SSRs and try to get a defensive setup (to speed things up).

"If you don't go to tournaments or don't like them-- why?" - I like them, but I don't go that often (4, to date). Nothing is really close and convenient (Kansas).

 

[Jeff Leslie]

I agree with Pitman, I've been to ASLOK twice, and never got involved in the tournament. It's nice to go there and just do open gaming. I probably wouldn't attend a tournament that didn't have any open gaming.

 

[Doug Kirk]

 

[Doug Kirk]

tourneys

I like the standard format, three scenarios a day. I strongly prefer a list of 3-5 scenarios per round. Open gaming in a structured tourney format does not work. If left to open gaming, some players will undoubtably take an hour+ to pick a scenario or will pick some scenario they couldn't possibly finish in the alotted time. It is up to the tourney director to ensure the scenario list contains scenarios that can be reasonably expected to be completed in the alotted time. Beyond that, balance is my next criteria obviously. Also scenarios must have options, which usually means combined arms or at least a somewhat mobile defender. I personally like unknown scenarios, like the old March Madness tourneys in KC, but you can run into playtest/balance issues here. If new, unknown scenarios are not a possibility, then the standard prepublished list of 3-5 per round is the way to go and even with this I really like when there are lesser known scenarios on the list, such as some CH, SP, HOB or Canadian scenarios. I like being given the chance to play something new. If a scenario list only included MMP/AH scenarios I would be very inclined not to go. I don't want to play Panzer Graveyard or Urban Guerrillas again, as I have played each one 5 or 6 times at various tourneys, but I suspect I am in the minority here, as most people like known entities.

 

[da priest]

Re: tourneys

If new, unknown scenarios are not a possibility, then the standard prepublished list of 3-5 per round is the way to go and even with this I really like when there are lesser known scenarios on the list, such as some CH, SP, HOB or Canadian scenarios. I like being given the chance to play something new. If a scenario list only included MMP/AH scenarios I would be very inclined not to go. I don't want to play Panzer Graveyard or Urban Guerrillas again, as I have played each one 5 or 6 times at various tourneys, but I suspect I am in the minority here, as most people like known entities.

Agree with Doug here(except for the reference to CH ).

Open Gaming? Just invite the guys to your house, or wait til you're eliminated from the tourney--about one round for the pitman i guess :lol:

 

[John McDiarmid]

Aslok format is the best.

Basically play what you want, when you want, and if you are in contention you are playing a little faster.

I don't like structured times for 3 reasons:

1- Some players are slower and cannot finish
2- Some games end way too fast and you have time to burn
3- Strict limit as to what scenario you can play. Small ones can be dicier

My preference for scenarios is large, bloody and I don't really care if I have played it before.

John

 

[mglouie]

I think that the ASLOK 'open gaming' tournament style was the best, BEFORE the glut of the mini-T's was established. The last few ASLOK's I attended, I found myself waiting around much to often for someone with a similar record to play against. This was never a problem in the early days (first 10 years or so) of ASLOK, there was always someone waiting to play, a wait of a half hour was considered 'long'.

The success of any tournament style is greatly influenced by the number of participants. ASLOK 'open' style works best with larger numbers (50 or more). I attended one 'open' style tournament with 21 guys. On the second day I waited 7 hours to play.

I believe there is room and need for all different types of tournament styles. I'd hate to see them all the same.

 

[Brien Martin]

I'm a bit biased here, but I think that if you can combine the best elements of existing formats and have an entertaining event, you've done something pretty nice for your players.

At Winter War, we use a combination of ASLOK and ASL Open elements. The ASLOK element is that you pair up as you like against players with the same record. The ASL Open element is that there are timed rounds and that there is a set scenario list (we also use their scoring system to resolve ties, if there are any).

I've not heard many complaints in my two years running the event (that's not to say that there aren't any ... just none that have been directed to me, personally), so I think that, in and of itself, speaks volumes.

As to what I prefer when I'm *not* running the show ... I must admit that I do enjoy the ASL Open format, even if that means I may not play anyone I know personally. That's OK, because part of my reason for going to the ASL Open is to: 1) see old friends, 2) meet new ones, 3) play scenarios I've probably never seen before.

 

[Keith]

I have only been to the NW tournaments (Seattle & Portland) so my experience is somewhat limited compared to the big time tourneys. I like to have a structured but not rigid tournament with new scenarios. The last thing I want is to sit down to a game and my opponent say "This scenarios is great. I have played it 12 times and the Germans win every time if they do this, this and that." This does run the risk of having some unblanced games but I am usually just there to play. I go to play as many games as I can in three days (I got in 9 at Wild West Fest in August in Portland). As soon as I lose and am knocked out of the tournament than I just play whoever is available and we play whatever we want to. I don't go to tournaments to win at all costs and be real serious. I go to enjoy our game with all of its flaws and strengths.