There is a topic in the SFBOL Tournament section for the Platinum Hat tournament, which is taking sign ups almost right now (you can pay the 10 bucks, but we still need a link to the SFBOL signup page).
Everyone should sign up and play some tournament games in what could be a great online tournament.
No info
Anyone else find it outright bazaar that after repeated requests on the BBS they won't give a head count?
I have long been registered and would play regardless of the count, but with so many asking it is odd they won't just give a number.
Yeah
and list the names too so we can beat the bushes. Hard to know who we should be hassling otherwise!
Paul Franz?
Presumably he is getting the info when people sign up on SFBOL? Lets hassle him! Leanna might not read the BBS, and there may be no one who does who is willing to bother with it.
I Don't Think It is a Matter Of Bazaar.
I think it is a matter of a bunch of different people all doing different things and not getting around to it. I suspect Leanna has one number, and Paul has another number, and they need to focus their efforts and post something.
OK, yes it's weird. I will
OK, yes it's weird.
I will admit to a certain sense of dread, which goes something like this: RATs have been run successfully for the last 30-something tournaments. New format, new judge (in fact, who's the judge? Who's "in charge" of Platinum Hat?), ADB seems to be out of touch with how previous OL tournaments are successfully run (example: who's signed up to date? Can someone let us know?).
So while, I'm optimistic and hope for the best, I'm a little worried. In addition, I'd be disappointed if Platinum Hat took the place of the next RAT (nomad: big hint, how about we start taking signups for next RAT?)
Petrick is the Judge
I think that was the case anyway. He has no online judging experience, I guess, but he is a fantastic judge at Origins, so I am going to have faith that it will go off fine in that department. I am worried about the format. FFaC has me completely uninterested from the 3-4 months that pass between each round.
I think I'd like to see it not replace the RAT as well, but I would like to see it treed up before the next RAT sign-ups go off.
Platinum Hat Participation
I would think that Platinum Hat participation would at least be as good as world league 2011, which had 36 participants. Of course, there has been some attrition of participants in WL, so that will have to be handled in the hat tournament too. I suspect the more signups the more it will tend to be "iffy time-wise" persons on the fence about having enough time.
If all the posters on this thread are participating, there are at least 6 participants. :)
Quite honestly, I suspect this could be the largest national championship in years - which is why I think everyone is concerned about beating the bushes for players. On the other hand, if apathy sets in and fewer sign up for a RAT or WL, that would be a bad sign or an embarrassment - take your pick. Again the concern.
There is a $10 fee, which could affect things one way or another. It might discourage participants, but the amount seems kind of token. It does provide for prizes. People may be encouraged not to drop out once started to protect their sunk cost. Now FFAC had a fee too-didnt seem to help there-, but that was a donation so maybe psychology different.
I Suspect That:
A) Not a huge ton of people have signed up, due to the fee (as modest as it is) and 'cause without having seen the list of people, the various rabble rousing types haven't roused all the rabble.
B) Of the two people who know who have signed up one way or the other, one isn't at all involved with the BBS (Leanna, who gets the payment) and the other seems semi-MIA of late due, presumably, to being busy (Paul). Between these two factors, the "let's get the list of people signed up on the BBS" is going slower than is a good idea.
Hopefully, (B) will be resolved soon, which will help with (A).
Responsiveness on the ADB BBS
Peter,
I think (B) is probably the dominate factor.
Also, as anecdotal observation, I think SVC and SPP are not responding to the breadth of posts on the BBS as they may have in the past. And Jean Sexton seems to have taken over as company contact/cheerleader. Mind you, this is IMHO a good thing - as getting bogged downinthe minutia of BBS posts can take a lot of time at best and at worst has resulted in poor PR. However, if the community is used to instant access to someone "in the know" (and Jean doesn't know) the delay is somewhat disconcerting.
On the other hand, this is also a promotional event and there should be cheerleading to the maximum. And apparently the expectaction is for a level of involvement higher than the lower key approach. Now maybe the lower key approach is working just fine and the question is "why are all you guys flipping out?"
(B)
Yeah, indications are completely that:
A) Leanna has one list, and doesn't read the BBS.
B) Paul has another list that may or may not be the same as Leanna's.
C) Paul is apparently very busy or something and not being fast on the uptake.
So eventually, something will happen. For my money, I'd like to see something happen sooner rather than later, but, ya know, here we are.
SVC just posted there are currently 27 signups
SVC just posted that there are currently 27 signups, which sounds like a typical RAT turnout. He didn't post names. He mentioned that he wanted to cap it at 32 and keep the deadline the 10th. I suppose to keep it from having to accomodate 40 people, for example, and a lot of 1st round byes. I suppose if we can scare up 30 more in the next 3 days it might go to the next size up. So I guess if any of the usual suspects have been slow, they may be out of luck.
Very Cool
It is back up to what it was when I last attended Origins (2008) or maybe even a little more. Very nice to have the National Tournament at a serious level again.
Semi-Professional SFB Players
Via ADB web with 28 players tentative prizes would be:
1st: $200 cash
2nd: $100 cash
3rd-4th: $50 gift certificate
5th-8th: $20 gift certificate
with 32 a little more.
Now if you get 256 like back in the day...
...prizes would be about $1000 for first place. Time to file the 1040 as a semi pro.
32 Is A Good Number
Yeah, we have 27, we'll probably get a few extras, and we'll probably have a couple re-entry slots (i.e. play your game fast for a chance to re-enter in R1 :-)
Seems good to me. We were never going to get 64. I think 40 is probably the upper limit of reasonable, which would have been a huge re-entry field, which would have been a drag. Having somewhere between 28-30 with a couple re-entries is totally the way to go.
I've signed up at adb but
I've signed up at adb but didnt on sfbol because I have not picked my ship yet.
I still would like to see a couple of people get a "bye"
Gregg
BYE
Yeah, given an optimal world, we'd have, like, 56 players, allowing:
A) A bunch of people to re-enter.
B) A few, like, Fleet Captains or whomever a bye into R2.
But given about 30, I really think the best plan is have a 32 player tree, have a couple spots for re-entry, and make everything move nicely.
Keep in mind that this will be a very solid field of players--30 or so people who are invested enough in the game to pay some cash for a hardcore tournament. So it should be good.
I think
only Fleet Captains who have not totally sucked it up in a recent World League should be allowed BYEs.
Paul wrote
Paul wrote: "I think only Fleet Captains who have not totally sucked it up in a recent World League should be allowed BYEs."
I think Paul "Dale Carnegie" Scott is suggesting we need a Platinum Hat trash talking topic.
:)
Carl. Dude.
Carl,
I realize that you get inordinate joy out of being a pain in SVC's ass and all, but really, could you just let the Platinum Hat tournament run happily without badmouthing it at every possible instance?
Yes. It isn't being run in the most optimal possible way, according to all possible game theory. But it is running, has a good turn out of good players, and will likely go off nicely. And yeah, you rabble rousing and kvetching about the format and about the non existent guarantee that all players would get to play two games isn't going to destroy anything. But really. Please. Could we just get a nice, peaceful tournament full of fun, good players going into it with a good attitude? Please?
Peter
I get what you are saying, but really, when an engineer writes that he finds something as simple as double-elimination or swiss "insanely complicated" you really do need have to chuckle at least a little, don't you?
Oh, Sure.
I'm not, like, saying that I don't know where Carl is coming from. I get it.
But really, this is a tournament that could be a fun, successful event that could snowball into a funner, more successful event. And I think it is in everyone's best interest to, regardless of how one feels about SVC personally, to just give it the benefit of the doubt, work with what is there, and make it good. And Carl taking every possibility to get stuck in SVC's craw is the exact opposite of that.
I think you can have both
;)
It made me chuckle and Steve did not seem to get bent out of shape about it.
I think Cole's new format, fwiw, looks kind of fun. It is very clearly more difficult to judge than either either DE or Swiss, but it does look fun. I would, of course, insist on playing out the last game if I made to the finals against myself.
EDIT: I really should not lump DE and Swiss together. Swiss is cake to run. Much easier than any other format, even single elim in many cases. I judged one online DE tournament, and even with only about 30 players, it was still a pain. Steve's new "play twice" format looks to be about on par with DE in terms of pita on the judge.
Ouch! -- Gregg
Ouch!
-- Gregg
SVC and Swiss
While both Jean and SVC are wrong about Swiss, and Jean's answer in particular is very off-base, as I have explained several times before Swiss handles drops seamlessly in a way that no other format does, I found Steve's ultimate answer to be completely satisfactory.
I get it. He tried it before and experienced problems with it. He doesn't want to spend his time revisiting that decision. Seems like a frank and honest answer to me. Much better than just insisting that it doesn't work well.
I love Swiss and would certainly play in any that someone ran, but I won't be bringing it up as an original topic anymore for tournaments that Steve is directly involved in.
Truthfully, I wish more of his answers were in the form he gave tonight.
Paul
I agree, I think this was always a matter of preference by the sponsor of the tournament. Single elimination is ok, nothing concretely wrong with it; and preference for it doesn't really have to be justified too much; just like justifying liking the color red isn't too meaningful or necessary.
I think
that it is, and always has been asinine to purposely pit lesser players against aces in the Gold Hat, and now the Platinum Hat tourney. All it does is perpetuate the shark tank phenomenon and helps ensure the same few people win it every year.
Droid
I respect your concerns, but I'm worried that any argument I might advance in agreement at this particular juncture would be undermined by the timing and be easily dismissed. The horse has left the barn, so to speak.
More optimistically, I believe the whole field is very strong-- enough so that most players should not overweight the challenge of playing a "usual suspect."
I agree with both Droid, as
I agree with both Droid, as well as AdmiralDZZI.
Yes
The horse has left the barn, but SVC made a few comments about rearranging the tree for aces, and it got me annoyed.
From personal experience, I really enjoyed all three of my trips to Origins back in the 90s, but all three times I walked in and got assigned immediately to some top level ace (twice with Vince Weibert, once Peter Bakija I think), and was of course bounced in the first game. I can accept if that happens randomly (especially online nowadays), but to purposely do it shows a lack of respect to the less accomplished player. I am not a person who gives up easily, so like I said, I went and played Patrol and enjoyed myself for the rest of the weekend, but I suspect there are dozens of players who did not appreciate that experience back in the day.
And now we dial it forward fifteen years when we are struggling to maintain a player base, and we are doing the same damn thing with a field of 32. Yes it is a strong field overall, but if you peruse the tree, you will see some matchups purpose made to have one player advance and the other player (perhaps) left to decide if he wants to continue playing.
I am now good enough to beat anybody, so I have no personal gripe here, but I know how it feels and I don't think its good for the game.
While I Completely Agree
That pitting non Ace vs Ace early in a tournament, by design, is a bad idea for any number of reasons, I'm pretty sure that the (original) intention is to keep "top" players from eliminating each other early in the game (like how they seed tournaments in, uh, basketball? What the hell do I know about sports...) rather than letting sharks eat people.
I realize that it is a very small difference, and the end result is the same, but I suspect that in terms of "why is this happening?" logic, the "Let's not have Paul and Bill kill each other in R1" is the main issue.
Indeed it is, but again the
Indeed it is, but again the focus is on the wrong thing. Keeping the top players happy should not be a top priority. That another is reason why Swiss excels; everyone know a better player will always advance but the lesser player can with that format play to improve his result from one tourney to the next. Right know only winning matters, and that is pretty stupid.
Obsession.
Are you a Swiss expat living in Sweden?
Discussion Venue/ Comments
Here is where the open community excels, as this would be a topic that probably shouldn't be discussed over on the official BBS for several reasons, among them:
a) historically there seems to be evidence that lobbying the tree resulted in BAD KARMA. VERY BAD JUJU.
b) we are (mostly) all competing in the Plat. Hat and I feel, at least I would undermine my credibility as a contestant on that BBS as discussion there tends to have the character of an "official" request; I don't want to do that.
This is an important discussion, but one we should all recognize that we are easily pigeonholed into biased caracitures by others and even those here (so proceed with tolerance):
a) "top" players (real or imagined) players trying to preserve seeding for a possible advantage
b) "average" players whining about imagined disadvantages
c) "clueless" ADB staffers
d) etc.
I am not posting these ideas to "squash" discussion, just suggesting to be ready for any possible negative consequences and probably (at least in the short term) ineffective influence.
tree discussion
SVC said "Petrick showed me a tree when I got here today, and I pointed out that he had both Rom TFHs in the bottom half of the three and three of the four Romulan TKRs in the upper half of the tree. I told him to find a non-ace for each of them and swap them and release the tree."
I don't see anywhere where it says they are rearranging the tree for aces.
I believe they were trying to make a balanced tree, keeping the number of "aces" balanced on each side, and by moving a non ace for a non ace it preserved that balance.
Gregg
The Seeding Issue Is Also Not Only FC vs. FC
The semi-formall "that looks about right" w/some guidelines seeding process might have an outsized influence in the SFB tournament for other reasons than just a guideline to avoiding first round fleet captain-v-fleet captain fights.
Note that a formal guideline to not pit previous fleet captains vs. one another does not preclude a subconcious tendancy to "rank" players and pair them off "perceived ace" vs. newbie as well. This has been recognized already, but while official statements tend to imply only a limited consideration for a handful of "aces" for this, it is likely much more widespread a subconscious influence.
But perhaps more importantly is that there are most certainly real (and definitely subjective) rock-paper-scissors (RPS) advantages between ships. There are additional guidelines that play into how the RPS odds will influence advancement in the tournament. Among these guidelines (formal or subconsious influences) are:
a) don't match identical ships
b) don't match ships from the same empire
b) don't match ships from the same food group
Regarding food groups, the formal groups in T2000 are:
Drone Zone (ZIN, WBS, KLI, LYR*, LDR*)
Plasma Pack (GRN, RFH, RKE*, RKR, ISC*)
Wild Bunch (ORI, WAX, AND)
Direct Dudes (FED, HYD, THA*, THN*, SEL*)
I've noted those by "*" who I think are no longer catagorized "informarlly or subconciously" in the same food group - I propose the defacto grouping employed by judge think is:
Drone and Disruptor (ZIN, KLI, WBS)
Big Plasma (GRN, RFH, RKE)
Wierdos and Outliers (ORI, WAX, AND, THA, THN, SEL, LDR)
Unpopular Direct (FED, HYD, LYR)
It seems to me that the BP group has a RPS advantage over the DD group, and Wierdos and Outliers and Unpopular Direct have an advantage over BP. While the Wierdos and Direct guys are disadvantaged vs. the DD guys in a strict RPS sense, they would either face a favorable BP opponent OR (in the case of Aces) a non-ace DD opponent (mitigating the RPS disadvantage). This could tend to sort the tournament to: BP beats DD in early rounds followed by Wierdo/Direct beat BP in the later rounds.
In least in theory, if the RPS matches stacked up correctly, a statistically minded player could game the seeding process by choice of ship. Or it could happen fortuitously.
Now I'm not saying for sure-for-sure this really happens, but it is another objection against the current system that seems plausible. It is another reason to think that the semi-formal seeding gives a lot of power to the judge to influence the outcome.
As such, I'm considering if I would prefer something like SVC's proposed "double entry single elmination tree" but with completely random seeding without regard to ace or type of ship. Two entries would tend to distribute the aces and non aces, and make it less likely any one person would have 2 civil war matches.
Well...
I think it should be random with the proviso that mirror matches be avoided. Some folks don't even mind the mirror match. If Bill plays Paul then so be it. If Bill plays an inexperienced player, then so be it. Just don't set it up that way on purpose.
Gregg,
Either you are giving him too much credit, or I not giving him enough. In the tree, I see the top-tier players pitted against the least experienced players almost without exception. I am just wondering what the upside of that is.
I am not arguing with anyone here, please don't take it wrong. I am just seeing what I am seeing, and commenting here, as it's the only possible place to do it without repercussion.
Analysis of Platinum Hat Tree Using Schirmer NK Ratings
*IF* you give full credence to the Schirmer NK ratings system (I think it exagerates somewhat, but never the less is credible)
Then the distribution of predicted winning percentages for the advantaged players of the matchups (including ship effects) are:
7 matches >85% chance
set includes 3/5 fleet captains
2 matches 85%-75%
set includes 1/5 fleet captains
7 matches 50%-65%
most (6 of 7) of this group are largely average players 2000-2400 on both sides
set includes 1/5 fleet captains in only match where two high ranked players are fighting
this group includes me, FWIW
Conclusions:
Nearly all of the lowest ranked and highest ranked players are matched in the 9 of 16 matches which are substantially uneven. Except for 1 fleet captain vs. higher ranked match up, there are really no other high vs high or low vs. low "even" matches. All the even matches are between more average players.
My analysis would tend to confirm Droid's assertion, that the seeding by perceived player skill was very effective.
Even so, I would like to point out that I think that those on the "wrong" end of the Schirmer ranking are by and large very skilled players, and that I think the system somewhat exxagerates, and *DONT* let it psych you out.
BTW I doubt ADB Actually Looked at the Schirmer Ratings
BTW I doubt ADB Actually Looked at the Schirmer Ratings.
More likely, active players, well known on the BBS for many years, with known names, are correlated with high ratings vs. those lesser known names.
ADB sees you name every month for past 20 years = high seed
ADB may remember you sort of = average seed
ADB has no clue who you are = low seed
This ranking might have essentially the same effect.
David Wrote:
>>*IF* you give full credence to the Schirmer NK ratings system (I think it exagerates somewhat, but never the less is credible)>>
I'm pretty sure that ADB avoids Schirmer's ratings by policy.
I don't think that they are opposed to it existing as an independent entity, but I'm pretty sure that they don't want to get involved with an ELO kinda rating system (i.e. what Schirmer is doing), and consequently don't want to endorse one, and thus specifically avoid any interaction with it.
It looks like
they just made an effort to give known aces easy games ala the antiquated Gold Hat "seeding" system. I am pretty sure they are blissfully unaware of the NK ratings.
Fwiw
I would rather (e.g. I would find the game easier) play against an ace in BP than a "novice" in D&D. So to the extent ADB intended on giving me an easy game, they failed.
They should make everyone happy and start me out ageist Peter's Gorn. ;)
Paul said
Paul said: "I would rather (e.g. I would find the game easier) play against an ace in BP than a "novice" in D&D. "
Is your opinion mostly determined by your choice of a THA in the Plat Hat? Or would you also hold that opinion if you were playing a RFH? or KLI? vs. a WBS(BB)? Would you like to face the ace BP if you were flying the ZIN or would you like another DD to fight with the ZIN?
"So to the extent ADB intended on giving me an easy game, they failed." FWIW Schirmer RPS does agree that the adjustment for you match favors the WBS strongly (compared to most adjustments) over the THA. However, are you stating that the ship RPS is more predictive than the player Schirmer score? This would seem to be implied if you think ADB failed.
FWIW
I would rather not play against a player I played in world league last week who beat me with him running the same and me running a similar ship. :)
Gregg
Gah.
Paul wrote:
>>They should make everyone happy and start me out ageist Peter's Gorn. ;)>>
Gah, I say. I'll wait till, what, R3 for that?
:-)
Yeah, it does look like that is what happened. Although, again, for what it is worth, I'm pretty sure their intention is "keep the top players from eliminating each other early in the event" rather than "give the top players easy games early on". Which, again, is mostly an academic difference, but I'm willing to give them points for intention.
For example, doing it the way they are doing it, the "top" players are less likely to eliminate each other till rounds 3 or 4, meaning that the top end of the tournament is very hard core. If, hypothetically, they had, say, (in an absurd extreme) the 16 "top players" all matched up and then the 16 "novice" players all matched up in the first round, after the first round, half the "top" players would be eliminated, half the "novice" players would be eliminated, and then R2 would all be 8 more "top" players pitted against each other and 8 more "novice" players pitted against each other, again, seeing 4 "top" players killed and 4 "novice" players getting killed. Until the final is a "top" player vs (the best) "novice" player. Which is likely an anti-climactic end result.
The advantage to the above example is that "novice" players get to have a reasonable chance in the first few rounds. The disadvantage is you have fleet captains eliminating each other in R1, leading to artificially "easy" games later in the tree. Which is a toss up, in terms of which is a better plan; one is better for attracting newer people to the event, the other is better for the "integrity" of the tournament. I'm not picking sides, however.
dave
Yes. I know I am in the minority on this, but RPS in extreme cases is more important to my prediction of the outcome of a game than is player skill.
This is likely the result of my particular strengths, which lean stronger towards understanding game mechanics and interactions thereof than in reacting to specific situations. That is to say, more of my skill lies in planning and thinking than in playing and reacting.
More Tournament Seeding Thoughts
I have no trouble with a single elimination tournament beeing seeded by a ranking of player skill (as long as it not mixed with the "food groups"). The issue I think is more with the process of ranking and seeding. IMHO a process of ranking (for the purposes of seeding), IMHO, will be perceived as fair if it is open, periodically revised, and rigorous.
Open - everyone understands how it works, everyone can participate to improve their ranking.
Periodically revised - rankings are updated from time to time, and recent rankings count (much) more than past.
Rigorous - there are no ad hoc processses or subjective decisions.
The objection is not that ADB intended to seed by ranking (in some manner). Using the Schirmer rankings we can see the result was pretty good.
The problem is that the process clearly fails to meet any of the criteria I proposed. The process is weaker than it would be if it did, if only from a public relations point of view.
If ADB does not use the Schirmer rankings, then what else other than subjective opinion is their for ranking? Using previous winners of *the same tournament* as the main or only ranking criteria seems to me to invite criticism of being "closed" and "preserving the old guard."
Mind you, I love to talk about things theoretically. I am really not actually bent out of shape about this or anything. This is more of a preference. I am not concluding SVC, SPP, or ADB did this wrong in a way that mathematically invalidates the results. They were open that Fleet Captains would get some sort of preferential treetment (initially byes). It is a matter of preference of public relations about some points. The winner will still have to win 5 games to get the "Hat" and I respect that.
It is possible a "qualifying round" could be held to create the order of seeding; say hold an open "NK" like series of games for the purposes of creating a (new) Schirmer ranking for each player each year. I could understand why ADB wouldn't want to mess with that. But that would meet my 3 criteria. Otherwise, random seeding does as well.
Part of the charm
and part of the advantage, in my opinion, of online tournaments is random seeding. It also eliminates imputing bad motives to the people running the tourney.
It's just my opinion. Regardless of what the intent was in the tree setup, it seems we got a worst case scenario where most of the novices are likely to be killed off in the first round. That doesn't seem like a good set up to foster enthusiasm.
I think...
This is just one of those times that "its the internet" and ADB is doomed to critisism.
I know of no other game/sport/etc that takes its National Championship and makes its best players / teams play each other early in the tournament.
The only time I can think of an example like that is the NHL expansion in 67/68 where all the exansion teams were in one division, and all the other original six teams were in the other division, with the divisions only meeting in the stanley cup finals.
(Which the Boston Bruins swept the St. Louis Blues both times) proving that it was anti-clamatic. (Unless of course you were an expansion team fan, and then it was exciting - but do any sfb players have fans?)
So... I'm not sure it was intentional, but if it was, I think they got it right.
Gregg
David wrote:
>>If ADB does not use the Schirmer rankings, then what else other than subjective opinion is their for ranking? Using previous winners of *the same tournament* as the main or only ranking criteria seems to me to invite criticism of being "closed" and "preserving the old guard.">>
If they are using anything, it is the list of Rated Aces, which they have a list of. They know who is an "ace" and who isn't. Granted, the number of people who got ace status in the last, like, 5 years or so is pretty slim, relative to 10+ years ago (a handful from Origins, 2-3 RATs a year, 2-3 FtF tournaments a year), but they have all the records. Looking at the list of players, I can, off the top of my head, pick everyone who is an "ace" and who isn't, with, like, 95% accuracy, I'd imagine.
Paul Wrote
"This is likely the result of my particular strengths, which lean stronger towards understanding game mechanics and interactions thereof than in reacting to specific situations. That is to say, more of my skill lies in planning and thinking than in playing and reacting."
A downside of being well known and publishing your tactics articles is that this exactly how I pre-evaluated you prior to our WL game.
I intentionally did a few things in our WL game to get you to wonder about what was going on. I think you reacted to those tactics, and the rest of the game very well. So maybe frome time to time when you do something you are self critical of that is what you find to be criticize. But you are a *very* experienced player. Not too much new under the sun. So it is not too often.
So I figured I proved the subconcious power influence of playing a 5 time Fleet Captain - if it got me, a pretty logical guy, to get off of my game by trying "mysterious" things, then shame on me - but benefit to you. So I would posit, until you go "Tiger Woods" and start losing, you'll still have a psychological intimdation factor against many.
So let me hypothesize something maybe controversial. This paragraph is a wild eyed idea. I think psychological intimidation factor (along the lines of "everyone thinks this player is better than me" - NOT making loud noises during the game -) is a more predictive than ship RPS in some cases. Why? SFB is a game of *extreme* mental stamina. After 6 turns of the intense thinking required of SFB, most are mentally exhausted. Their subconcious is crying for the game to be over but the concious mind is thrashing the brain forward. It is looking for any excuse to stop thinking. Please stop thinking. To the subconcious, facing a "better player" is the perfect excuse to give in and stop thinking. Its hopeless, right? Time to give up? Its like when you have not slept for 24 hours you find any excuse to go to bed. The Rich get Richer.
Hey, this is no criticism of Paul or any other Fleet Captain. It just is what it is. No need to be embarrased. I don't think it is anyone's fault. Nor is it wrong. The trick is to contol it. (Don't play exhausted!)
SFBOL should mitigate against that
To, frankly, my detriment as well. I don't play mistake free (Tom is about the best I have ever seen in that regard) but adverse physical conditions don't effect my game much either. I have played more than a few games exhausted and either drunk or badly hungover - one particularly memorable one at Gen Con where I barely lifted my head off the table in a round of 16 game.
SFBOL should mean, however, that fatigue is rarely an issue. Tried (or drunk)? No problem. Save the game and play when rested and alert. Unlike a Con, if fatigue is effecting your play there is only one place to look for blame.
Whether that is good or bad (that is whether stamina should be regarded legitimately as a skill) is another matter.
Paul is right
SFBOL mitigates the fatigue factor. At least physical fatigue. I was thinking something more psychologically subtle. And I use it to my advantage all the time. Don't get me wrong. Still...there often comes a point when the other player gives up, but is still playing. He may not even know that he gave up. But he has.
But Paul is proving my point. :) If he truly does play as well drunk as sober :) How can you possibly figure out how he does it? Might as well give up. :)
OK, this is close to having to be transfered to the "trash talk topic" LOL! :)
I remember ...
One Origins where Paul was out pretty late, and when it came time for us to get up and go to the final 16, he refused because the RPS matchup was pointless. After pleading with him, he finally groggily made it down to the game - where he proceded to win, and go on to make it to (I think) the finals. :)
Gregg
I think that was '95 in
I think that was '95 in Philadelphia. It was, amusingly to this thread, me in the ATC against a Kzinti. I won that, then beat a Gorn, then barely won ageist a Klingon before losing badly to Tom in his Klingon. I hate the D&D fights in the ATC.
I was
there in 95. I remember none of this...because i dwelt in the underworld of sfb at that point.
Origins '95
I spent most of the time showing off my DOS F&E program......
Joe
I remember that and thinking how great it would be if we could get that game on a computer.
Heh heh heh.
I remember that too, and remember thinking how great it would be if we could get that game on a computer that was smaller than a cargo van. Ah, the time before laptops :-)
First Platinum Hat Result
Congratulations to Ron Brimeyer (captainron) in a WBS (B1) who do defeated Fleet Captain Jason Gray (Sir_Hood) in a RKR.
This match had the highest total Schirmer NK ranking between the players, and was among the smallest difference, and was the only match where a Fleet Captain was not favored by the NK rankings (captainron would have been favored by a slight 64%).
Based on these criteria this fight would be expected to be the round 1 heavyweight match, amongst highly skilled and well matched opponents.
The match lived up to the expectation of being a tough, creative, intelligent fight. It was both entertaining and instructive to watch.
BP ships typically dictate the opening initiative vs. a drone and disruptor ship. Jason Gray openend somewhat unconventionally by not executing an EPT ballet, but by launching 2 pseudos on turn 1. A turn 2 real S launch drew an ED and eventual ww by the WBS. The KR aggressively closed for a high-stakes R5 S-F bolt attempt, missing with both and losing his #1 in return. By the end of turn 4, the KR had turned back in to R9 of the WBS. Faced with the cost of loading an S EPT, a regular S and an F, the KR was not speedy in turn 5, and the WBS closed through the 60 EPT to start a knife fight. The KR offered his down #1 to the WBS to launch 1S and 2F in the same stack. The WBS tried to close some more but the KR HET'd to bring the #3 to bear (IIRC). The WBS fired sufficient disr and 1 P1 and all P3s (note holding back 6 ph1) at the the KR, bringing down the KR shields prior to 70 pts of torp impact. The KR could not follow up with phasers as he was facing a drone wave. At this point, KR had suffered 15 or so internals to the WBS 55 or so. But the WBS cleverly recognized that the single volley would only destroy 3P3 and 1 P1 at most. The WBS then set up a withering Mizia phaser attack on the KR's down shield (having noted the KR was turn mode restricted). The turn ended with both ships at R1. The WBS had suffered nearly 60 internals to the KR's 40 or so, but the KR had been significantly stripped of phasers and was out ot torps. The WBS heftier number of internals and the WBS Mizia attack was key. The next 2 turns saw a close knife fight, ending with a KR fastload F on2 repaired batteries just not being enough - the KR had no power and the WBS about 7 and a few weapons.
Very, very close.
Grrr
Plasma is not supposed to lose before meeting me.
Another Shark Lives
Paul, heh, heh, I see your plan. BP wipes out DD in the early rounds, ATC wipes out BP in the later rounds. Maybe I can kill another KR for you. :) -Dave
I wish you
...the worst of luck. ;)
Yaa For Ron!
I mean, Ron isn't the best possible R2 opponent for me or anything, but the prospect of avoiding a TKR fills me with a sense of, well, better than not.
Eleven of Twelve
By a quick calculation, eleven of twelve (>91%) matches so far were correctly predicted by the Schirmer NK rating system. I could not find a NK rating for the thirteenth completed match. If this trend continues, we may have 1 more left column winner and 2 more right column winners. While correlation does not prove intent, the fact that the "left" side of the tree has had more victories could be explained by a bias of NK rating points to that side. The one non-predicted match was pretty close ratings-wise.
I am a little surprised, and perhaps a litle dismayed by the high correlation. Although I will go out on a limb and say as the skill level is compressed in round 2+, the correlation may decrease.
Average Round 1 NK Rating: 2188
Predicted Round 2 NK Rating: 2439
The fact that the round 1 NK rating was > 2000 suggests and underparticipation by those who have a NK rating < 2000.
Duh
When you know you have no hope of winning (or even making it past the first round) why bother entering?
It's why I stopped playing SFB at local (Denver) conventions. When you get thoroughly stomped by someone much much better than you, there isn't even a learning experience. You just lose.
The opportunities
are there to get better. It will take some losing though.
How are you measuring correlation?
Just on/off or are looking at overall correlation based on the probabilistic model?
Saaur wrote:
"When you get thoroughly stomped by someone much much better than you, there isn't even a learning experience. You just lose."
I think the opposite is true. It is always easier to move from terrible to average than it is to move from good to very good. Do you discuss your game with your opponent after such a loss? If you are getting completely crushed, chances are you are doing something so completely against your interests that a short conversation would probably reveal it. If you have not noticed it, your opponent almost certainly did.
The games that are hard to learn from are the close games, since 1: you may have done nothing wrong if the game was close (could have been good tactics and bad dice) and 2: even if you did, analyzing a close game for better tactics is most often subtle.
Paul
I am using "correlation" in an ad hoc layman's fashion, not to imply I calculated a statistical correlation; or estimated any significance using a Student t-test or some other manner. Hmm, so flipping a coin would give us 6 of 12 and the binomial distribuition, IIRC, and I'd have to refresh myself on the expected variance of that (the null hypothesis). Digging up notes...this looks similar to a binomial probability of detection study...SO... for this *particular* distribution of players to a 95% confidence level, I calculate that the NK rating system predicts the winner with 92% +/- 5% accuracy. And no guarantees I just didn't do that horribly wrong. The lynchpin, though, is the distribution of players. We already knew that 9/12 of those matches were favored >>85% towards 1 player. OK, got to go back to work, and I think I mangled that a bit.
Saaur
I think Paul made some very good comments.
I also respect that it is not easy, in the state of dissappointment, to ask your opponent for a debriefing.
I think that many of people on SFBOL are quite helpful, and in my return to play, my tactical thinking has been improved by both watching and picking people's brains from time to time.
Sadly, the day of big ftf tournaments is probably over. My recollection of origins is that I learned the most from my own games, and not as much from talking to others - perhaps this was my own fault- perhaps because I was playing so much, it was hectic, or I had a "big head". I always thought that the SFB tactics seminar was held at a bad time (after the tournament was over !) and wasn't as instructive as it should have been.
Improvement
I think I moved from terrible to average pretty quickly. And I agree that I learn more from a loss than I do from a win.
The problem is that around here moving from average to above-average is difficult because of the number of very good players who inhabited the convention tournament scene (when there was one).
Also, I didn't have the time or money for an SFBOL account, so I'd show up having not played a torunament game in six months or so (my home group mostly plays campaigns, not tournaments), and not be familiar with the matchups.
I know my chosen ships well, but don't know the opposition much, so I could formulate what I wanted to do, but have no clue how to counter what they wanted to do. The predictable result is they'd look at my opening, know what strategy I was using, and counter it without even consciously deciding to. They could no more explain how they beat me than I can explain to my son how to add 2-digit numbers in his head. You just do it.
I can explain both
For two-digit (or any number of digits) number addition you need only understand that adding them in your head is identical to the process used for adding them on paper. However, since you lack the use of paper to record all your steps of addition, you must instead remember. The important thing to understand is that pencil and paper are not part of the process, they are simply a means of remembering what you just did.
The process,by paper or "in your head", is the same. Start by adding the right-most digits together. This will either form a two digit number or a single digit number. Place the left most digit in memory as the left most digit of your final answer. The right most digit now gets added to the next set left most digits from your original numbers. This process is repeated for however many digits are in the two numbers. Now, that text will undoubtedly be confusing to a child, but if you combine it with pencil and paper examples, you can explain it. You can finish the explanation with an assurance/prediction that if you do this process over and over in your head eventually it will become second nature (i.e., your above "you just do it.").
Again, the critical "why" element is the explanation that pencil and paper have nothing to do with addition and are only tools used to remember.
The same is true for SFB. Yes, some things are patterns that have been repeated so frequently that they no longer require active thought, but that does not mean I do not remember the active thought that created them in the first-place. If I play someone and defeat them easily, it is because they have some simple misunderstandings about why the game works. If they ask, I can always easily explain the problem they are facing. It is impossible to me that I could defeat someone in just a few turns or in a very lopsided game and then be unable to explain to them what problem they have.
Teaching / SFBOL Advantage
I would agree with Saaur that not all SFB aces are equivalently expert teachers or as forthcoming with tactical advice. Although, perhaps, not with his reasoning that they find it unexplainble second nature, but rather the ftf tournament environment just may not be conducive to such communication.
Secondly, I would also agree that a person who is active on SFBOL has an advantage over someone who is not. I believe Paul Scott himself has recognized this and wrote about it in one of his early "Victory at Origins" articles.* Of course, in the ftf only days, a really good local group coud (and did) serve as a reasonable substitute. But, indeed, SFBOL may have served to publicize the "shark tank". Of course, if you are comparing SFBOL to a ftf attendance of origins, SFBOL is far cheaper.
*It would be an interesting thought experiment, to imagine a Pauls Scott who never played on SFBOL face a SFBOL trained shark tank (imagine a time machine) in the mid/late 90's. Maybe he could speculate on how well his ftf only trained self would do?
Heh
I used the math example because I don't do it the same way in my head that I do on paper, (I can't explain the in-my-head process well, but it goes left-to-right, not right-to-left). That's a totally different subject though.
Not all aces are created equally, especially when it comes to passing on their knowledge. I know at least one person in the Denver area who flatly refuses to play SFB precisely because they tried to learn from one of the local aces and got nothing but frustration. This is an otherwise intelligent, tactically-mided Trekkie who's forever lost to the SFU because of one person.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand: I'm doing ok in Flying Deuces, so maybe I'll try stepping up to the next real tournament when it comes around. Maybe I just don't fly well in a convention setting, and even if I lose, it sounds like I'll be able to get a better analysis of WHY in this format.
The last of the FtF Tournaments
Quick plug...
Council of Five Nations XXXIV is about ten weeks away (October 7-9). Plenty of time to get the best deals on flights if you're too far to drive to upstate New York. The economy hotel option, where many of the SFB guys stay, is about $85 per night. Post here to find roommates and share the cost.
Council is the best and largest Face-to-Face tournament in the whole wide world. There is near-universal opinion that the SFB crowd at Council is a great group of friendly guys, most of whom will happily discuss tactics with you to help you improve your game.
We'd love to see each and every one of you there. We are virtually guaranteed to offer at least one Ace Card. Two Ace Cards (32+) is a real possibility if we get several new first-timers.
More info here: http://swa-gaming.org/SFBatCouncil
Even more info to follow on this web site over the next few weeks.
I am about 50/50
on attending this year. If not, 2012 will be a near certainty for me again. I wish you would fly out here and host conventions in LA :)
Hey!
Let's do a convention in a centrally located city, like Columbus! Oh. Wait...
WYN-O-RAMA
So far, the record for the WBS is 4/5, and with one more unplayed game, it will be interesting if it can push 5/6 or retreat to a less significant sounding 4/6.
The record for the WAX is not as compelling, standing now at 1/2 but may still rise to 2/3.
We are currently guaranteed 4/16 round 2 spots to be held by the WBS.
If both the WBS and the WAX win (wyn?) out, the Wyn will hold 7/16 round 2 slots.
This opens the possibility for up to 2 WBS/WAX civil war games in round 3, and 1 WBS/WBS civil war game in round 3. The last would be a (Ba) vs. (BB) matchup, which would be interesting, as the ADD would seem to favor the Ba version in the early turns.
FWIW, while there is one WBS in my bracket leading into round 3, I am in the only part of the tree where a round 3 Wyn civil war is not a possibility.
Should there be only 1 or 2 civil wars, it would be interesting to know if the judges would show any pre-dispostion to shuffle the tree. Given the nature of RPS, it would seem to me that "tree shuffling" may come at the expense of the the other matchups.
re: learning from failure
I attended 1994 Origins in San Jose, and proceeded to get hammered; I was 1-11, although I did put 4 ships up on the "And I still won!" wall.
Fortunately, most of the people that beat me were kind enough to tell me where I'd gone wrong...opportunities missed, times when I was aggressive and should have run, etc.
At Origins 1995, I improved to 4-4. Again, I was given a lot of advice from others, and I took it.
After the "interegnum", my attentions shifted away from SFB and more and more towards F&E (already was big on F&E, but now I eneded up playing exclusively F&E), so my progression stopped. But, I nkow that if I'd kept at it, I'd have improved. Don't know that I'd ever have been a champion, but I know that with the assistance of others, and a lot more practice, I'd have been a much better player.
Joe
Cool, I was at Origns '94 myself. Played Kzinti, but crapped out in 3rd round of Captain's tournament. I remember that game vividly (the loss), but don't remember other games from '94 or '88-86 as much.
Dave wrote:
>>This opens the possibility for up to 2 WBS/WAX civil war games in round 3, and 1 WBS/WBS civil war game in round 3. The last would be a (Ba) vs. (BB) matchup, which would be interesting, as the ADD would seem to favor the Ba version in the early turns.>>
The general consensus seems to be that the GBS and the WAX are different enough ships that no one ever considers them fighting to fall under the rubric of "Civil War" (i.e. they aren't two of the same ships fighting). I suspect that people building tournament trees try and keep Lyrans from fighting LDR, Archeo from fighting Neo, and Romulans from fighting Romulans where they wouldn't really go out of their way to keep a GBS from fighting a WAX.
A WYN-WYN Proposition
Michael Johnson advances to round two in his WAX (HHBB) - congratuations.
While the WBS and WAX may be different enough to consider a fight between them "a civil war", we are likely to see some Wyn matchups in round 3 anyway.
Currently, it is remotely possible that 3/4 round 3 games are WYN vs. WYN
In the first round 2 victory, Majead Farsi WBS(BB) defeats Ken Lin in his ZIN - congratulations and condolences. So already 1/6 WYN have advanced to round 3.
With Tim Tedford and his WBS(11) dropping out to be replaced by Chris Propers RKR, the WBS has a firm 4/5 victory record. This also ensures that games 2.7 and 2.8 as well as game 3.4 don't go to a WYN. With this current tree, only 3/4 players in Round 4 can be WYN, althought it is still possible that the finals may be a WYN-WYN matchup.
Mike is HHDD
not HHBB
And so he is
Sorry, Mike, bad eyesight. HHDD. Either way, congrats! GL to Mike an Paul in the game.
2 Upsets!
Not to in anyway, shape, or form belittle Mike or Majead's abilities, but certainly on paper, they were the underdogs in their two respective games versus Paul and Ken (I expect that the Schirmer ratings bear this out as well). And they both won, beating Fleet Captains.
Interesting stuff!
On the Chinese calendar
it must be the year of the Wyn :)
No offense taken Peter, and since I have only a vague idea what my Schirmer rating is I'll take your word on that one :)
Schirmer Rating
The Schirmer Rating is that data that Dave was talking about above. Robert Schirmer (who runs NetKill) keeps data from all NK games and uses them to create ELO style ratings that go up and down as you win and lose games (you may realize all of this already but just didn't know that was what I was calling a "Schirmer Rating"). Your NK Rating is your Schirmer Rating. For example, Paul's NK rating is about 3000. Yours is about 2300. As a result, on paper, it looks like Paul is favored to win a match up between the two of you.
Schirmer Ratings and the Upsets
There are (at least) two Schirmer ratins for each player, the first is a quarterly overall rating which includes all online tournaments + netkill; the second is netkill only which is updated more frequently. The overall rating is based on more games (of course) and tends to be 100+ pts higher for the "best" players than the netkill alone rating, perhaps indicating that the best players try harder to win RAT tournaments than netkill games.
For the players involved in the upsets, their overall rating is in parenthesis.:
The_Rock, THA, (3261) vs. Sir_Akira, WAX, (2446), raw delta is 815, but is adjusted -111 due to the RPS advantage the WAX has over the THA to 704, or about an 85% predicted win probablility for The_Rock.
Old_School, ZIN, (3007) vs. Devil, WBS, (1960); raw delta is 1047 is adjusted upwards (for the ZIN) by 78 pts to 1125, or about a 96% win probability predicted for Old_School.
The Schirmer ratings suggest that the Old_School vs. Devil matchup was the bigger upset, and I wouldn' t be surprised if a polling of the SFB tournament community agreed with that conclusion. Personally, I think the Schirmer ratings distort the odds for players >2500 pts. So I think neither Akira nor Devil overcame quite the extreme odds the Schirmer system predicts.
Never the less, *both* players, Akira-Mike, and Devil-Majead should be congratulated on their good play and their victories, which I think deservedly indicate that their current rankings are too low.
Mike played an excellent
Mike played an excellent game, but I don't think you can come to much conclusion on ratings from one game. You could just as easily predict my rating was simply too high.
More likely, the rating reflect overall expectations and not the expectations in any one game. I made two mistakes, bot significantly contributing to my loss.
The first was not using a 4-hex web on turn 1. The second was, after a very long break between turns, forgetting Mike fired on impulse 31 and not 32 of turn 2.
Even with those mistakes, if Mike does not hit with every HW he fired (2 Disruptors at 1-4 and 2 HB at 1-9 - an overall probability of 97% that at least one of those weapons misses), the result is probably very different.
Mike's rating will increase (and mine will decrease) as a result of this game. His rating will be "deservedly indicate[d]" as too low if he continues to defeat people with significantly higher rankings - and then the system will reflect that. My rating will, in turn, be too high if I continue to lose to people of significantly lower rankings - and then the system will reflect that.
Individual Games - Individual Captains
Indeed, Paul correctly points out that each game is an"individual". Of course, it is the player, not the rating that plays the game. The ratings only reflect the past. Which as they say in those investment disclaimers, may not reflect future results.
The NK ratings provide some basis for whether you might think a result is an "upset" or not. Such are the tools of sportscasting and punditry, which at times may both serve to amplify and diminish the accomplishments of sportsmen (and tournament game players). Likewise, ratings may be a blessing or a burden for those who hold them.
A few messages back I posted about how the NK ratings were doing a great job in predicting the outcome of the Platinum hat tree. That more or less went out the window in round 2. Also, as was pointed out previously, I hadn't bothered to compute whether the correlation (or in this case anti-correlation) is statistically significant.
Furthermore, as I think Paul alluded to, a slight increae in rating after a victory is useless to a player as a learning tool, as it describes nothing about the individual game that can be use in any tactical sense whatsoever.
Peter- yeah,
I knew what you were referencing. I just didn't know for sure what my rating was, sort of had an idea it was around 2000. I feel better knowing it is higher than that, but considering Paul is over 3000 I have some learnin' to do yet.
FWIW Mike
FWIW Mike, your rating and mine (AdmiralDZZI, 2564) are almost identical. Ratings typically have +/- 100 pt error stated or more.
Dave wrote:
"A few messages back I posted about how the NK ratings were doing a great job in predicting the outcome of the Platinum hat tree. That more or less went out the window in round 2."
And it will continue to "go out the window" as 1. ratings get closer (and therefor error associated with each game increases) and 2. sample size gets smaller.
The problem is not the predictive value of the ratings, but how they are being used. On/Off does not described properly the baysian system employed. The P-value is what it is and probably reasonably predicts the outcomes of large numbers of games. Judging it against one or small numbers of games is the mistake.
As one example, this specific matchup me in ATC opponent in WAX, I have played a few dozen times. I can remember two losses - this one and a "for fun" game against Doc Pundy during Origins in 1996.
The Schirmer rating are akin to clinical population studies. You have a T, based on the P-value you set for specificity. By definition, if you take that to an On/Off analysis it is going to "get it wrong" in some portion of the cases. The smaller the sample size, the more likely the system is going to appear to "fail".
FtF Counts Too
FYI to the community,
Mr Schirmer also factors the results of FtF games in to his rankings. Every year, after Council, we send him the results of both the Patrol phase and the finals tree.
-DC
Yeah,
I know that Robert collects data from every single game that he can get the records to (well, he certainly used to)--he collected data from FtF tournaments, RATs, NK, pretty much anything, and used that data to construct the ship vs ship rankings. I don't know that he uses the FtF ratings for people's NK rating. But he might.
Well, regardless of Schirmer
Well, regardless of Schirmer ranking, Majead played better than I did and deserved to win. Well played, great job Majead.
Regarding some of the comments earlier in this thread, maybe this will make some SFB players think twice about "Well, I won't even bother entering since I have zero chance of winning."
Exactly Ken
It was sort of my point above talking about the ratings. In any one game things happen without respect to established earlier records. Mike played better than me in our game. I made two serious mistakes and Mike capitalized on both. I have always thought the "shark tank" thing was disproportionate to its actual effect. This year, someone who has never won before will be in the final game.
Paul Wrote:
>>In any one game things happen without respect to established earlier records.>>
Oh, sure. I was just pointing out upsets as they are exciting (and refer back to the earlier discussion about the way the tree may have been seeded), not 'cause they prove or disprove anything. The Schirmer ratings are a convenient indicator to point to, but I could have just as easily made a case for upset on the grounds of "Mike is a very good, very solid SFB player; Paul is a multi-fleet captain and possibly the best player in the world..."
:-)
I Second Ken's Comment
The Platinum Hat is wide open, with a really good chance that there will not be a repeat win by a former Fleet Captain. So as Ken pointed out, everyone should play in future RAT's and Plat Hats. As Paul pointed out, all three former Fleet Captains in the top half of the tree have been eliminated, so one half of the finals will *not* be a former champ, and the 6 remaining contenders are all excellent contenders and will provide a really tough match for their side. For those looking for new blood in the victor's circle, and considering how it was pointed out the FC 1st round matchups on paper tended to favor the FC (via ratings), this is a pleasant change of events.
On the bottom half, both Bill Schoeller and Gregg Diekhauss remain, but at best only one can make the finals. There remain several scenarios where both are eliminated prior to the finals as well (for example if I win out, but there are several others).
Regarding the Wyn winning, Mike Johnson and Majead will have a 3rd round WAX-WBS match. Two more Wyn ships might advance to round 3, so there is a significant chance that a Wyn will make the finals in the upper tree.
In the lower tree, only Sky_Captain's WBS remains, with Scott Moellmer's exit vs. Clayton Kruger recently. As a Kzinti, I am glad I don't have to face Scott's WBS(Ba) combo, though I sill must face the ADD on Bill Schoeller's Klingon next week.
Big Plasma Gettin' Whacked.
So the tournament started with 10 of 32 ships as Big Plasma (Romulan and Gorn). 11 of 32 (i.e. over 1/3) if you count the ISC. And now there are 2 in the top 8, with one more Romulan (of the two in the R1 match up) advancing into the top 16, and possibly into the top 8.
Man. Plasma isn't doing so hot. Well, although if one of the Romulans filters into top 8, they'll again be more than 1/3 of the bracket. So actually, BP is doing fine, I guess :-)
So far, the top 8 has 4x disruptor/drone ships (well, 2xWAX, 1xGBS, 1xKLI), 2x BP, and 2 open slots, of which one will certainly be another D+D ship (GBS or KLI) and the other will either be BP or Hydran.
Just, ya know, running commentary.
Direct Fire Guys Absent
Peter wrote that the Big Plasma guys are getting whacked.
I think the tournament composition may look funnier as well, because of a near abscence of direct fire ships and odd balls other than the WYN: FED, HYD, THA, THN, LYR, LDR, SEL, AND, ORI. Except for the one HYD, the few others were eliminated in rounds 1 and 2.
Plus as a victorious round 2 Gorn...
Peter has not so much to complain about :).
Well,
yeah, I am pleased by the lack of Romulans making it up the tree. But the number WAXs out there don't fill me with glee :-)