Great idea tw, well done!

topkilla wrote:I think this is way more complicated than it needs to be.

As mentioned, this is way more complicated than it needs to be. There is absolutely no need for a “committee”. And there is absolutely no reason to give a arbitrary group of people imaginary powers of control. This ranking system is also overly complicated and I don’t really understand it. But it also has the effect making actually winning the tournament meaningless. Because it looks like pretty much everyone will be some sort of “Master”.

Either way, the concept is solid. But the way its currently laid out, It’s going to make people unhappy.


Anyways, as far as I’m concerned, the goal of “Tournaments” is to play some arranged games with like minded players (that are hopefully more active than what you’d find in a random game) for a little bit of imaginary glory. OR, to play the game in a slightly different manner than intended. (Like the 2v2 tournament Thunder put together.)

I think thats what you really want. Highly competitive “tournaments” (READ: Games) with high player engagement.


The easiest way to do the above is:

• Keep the barrier to entry as low as possible.
• Have 1 person in control of the tournament
• Who, has as put together a very structured, organized, and logical layout
• Also, someone who is going to stick to the rules of the tournament regardless if it will upset people.
• With an additional 1-2 volunteers to help out various tasks like organizing and stat tracking.
• And some kind of limitation on the amount of big tournaments. As a proper tournament is going to take 2-3 months to complete.

I agree with topkilla. Only a basic structure for regulation and setting up is needed.

For those who want a tournament score kind of thing, simple 1st, 2nd and 3rd person rankings is fine (ie 5pts to 1st, 3 to 2nd, and 1 to 3rd player). Person with most points at end of a season would win.

I'm in, I nominate myself as the first Grandmaster. I'll add it to my signature.

How does this look? I'm not sure I got the formatting right.

I, also, am not a fan of the ranking system and think that it seems way too complicated. I was thinking something more like just keep an up-to-date excel sheet somewhere with how many games played and tourney points each player has (could do #points/#games to make a top ranked system) but I don't think we need the "master" stuff. I would be down to keep tabs of the ranking system and excel sheet as well as make brackets and things like that

topkilla wrote:

topkilla wrote:I think this is way more complicated than it needs to be.

As mentioned, this is way more complicated than it needs to be. There is absolutely no need for a “committee”. And there is absolutely no reason to give a arbitrary group of people imaginary powers of control. This ranking system is also overly complicated and I don’t really understand it. But it also has the effect making actually winning the tournament meaningless. Because it looks like pretty much everyone will be some sort of “Master”.

Either way, the concept is solid. But the way its currently laid out, It’s going to make people unhappy.


Anyways, as far as I’m concerned, the goal of “Tournaments” is to play some arranged games with like minded players (that are hopefully more active than what you’d find in a random game) for a little bit of imaginary glory. OR, to play the game in a slightly different manner than intended. (Like the 2v2 tournament Thunder put together.)

I think thats what you really want. Highly competitive “tournaments” (READ: Games) with high player engagement.


The easiest way to do the above is:

• Keep the barrier to entry as low as possible.
• Have 1 person in control of the tournament
• Who, has as put together a very structured, organized, and logical layout
• Also, someone who is going to stick to the rules of the tournament regardless if it will upset people.
• With an additional 1-2 volunteers to help out various tasks like organizing and stat tracking.
• And some kind of limitation on the amount of big tournaments. As a proper tournament is going to take 2-3 months to complete.

These are not imaginary power of control, its similar in concept to the FIDE for chess (go search it up!)...

How will pretty much everyone be some sort of master? Only the top 3% will be projected to be one. And its still up for revision so nothing in there is final. If people think we need to change something then it'll be changed. I think it will create more competitive play for the people who are serious about Subterfuge (like me). Of course, looking at chess as an example, in my country you need to pay $20 to sign up for the official national chess federation (NZCF fyi), and they keep your rating updated and also sync it with the FIDE organisation, who awards Titles like these. And of course there are far more players who don't play chess competitively than those who do.

And yes of course the goal of tournaments is to play some arranged games, but many do not achieve satisfactory results because of some unforeseen problems. The STOC will also put together quick tips for Tournament makers as well as troubleshooting if necessary so that there are less of these problems and more tournaments that are created by unexperienced hosts are more likely to run more smoothly. In fact, the list that you've put up is a good list of quick tips but we could also include things like how to set proper formats for tournaments, how to make them fair, what to do if players drop out, etc.

Bigredsk10 wrote:How does this look? I'm not sure I got the formatting right.

If you were a GM it would look like:

GM Bigredsk10

tw2000 wrote:

topkilla wrote:

topkilla wrote:I think this is way more complicated than it needs to be.

As mentioned, this is way more complicated than it needs to be. There is absolutely no need for a “committee”. And there is absolutely no reason to give a arbitrary group of people imaginary powers of control. This ranking system is also overly complicated and I don’t really understand it. But it also has the effect making actually winning the tournament meaningless. Because it looks like pretty much everyone will be some sort of “Master”.

Either way, the concept is solid. But the way its currently laid out, It’s going to make people unhappy.


Anyways, as far as I’m concerned, the goal of “Tournaments” is to play some arranged games with like minded players (that are hopefully more active than what you’d find in a random game) for a little bit of imaginary glory. OR, to play the game in a slightly different manner than intended. (Like the 2v2 tournament Thunder put together.)

I think thats what you really want. Highly competitive “tournaments” (READ: Games) with high player engagement.


The easiest way to do the above is:

• Keep the barrier to entry as low as possible.
• Have 1 person in control of the tournament
• Who, has as put together a very structured, organized, and logical layout
• Also, someone who is going to stick to the rules of the tournament regardless if it will upset people.
• With an additional 1-2 volunteers to help out various tasks like organizing and stat tracking.
• And some kind of limitation on the amount of big tournaments. As a proper tournament is going to take 2-3 months to complete.

These are not imaginary power of control, its similar in concept to the FIDE for chess (go search it up!)...

How will pretty much everyone be some sort of master? Only the top 3% will be projected to be one. And its still up for revision so nothing in there is final. If people think we need to change something then it'll be changed. I think it will create more competitive play for the people who are serious about Subterfuge (like me). Of course, looking at chess as an example, in my country you need to pay $20 to sign up for the official national chess federation (NZCF fyi), and they keep your rating updated and also sync it with the FIDE organisation, who awards Titles like these. And of course there are far more players who don't play chess competitively than those who do.

And yes of course the goal of tournaments is to play some arranged games, but many do not achieve satisfactory results because of some unforeseen problems. The STOC will also put together quick tips for Tournament makers as well as troubleshooting if necessary so that there are less of these problems and more tournaments that are created by unexperienced hosts are more likely to run more smoothly. In fact, the list that you've put up is a good list of quick tips but we could also include things like how to set proper formats for tournaments, how to make them fair, what to do if players drop out, etc.

This isn’t Chess though… I don’t believe Subterfuge is even remotely similar to Chess either. And simply put, ELO ranking doesn’t work for 1v1v1…’s. And ELO doesn’t work for tournament playing either. And ELO ranking is extremely complicated.

I still think these titles are overly complex and devalue actually winning the tournament entered. I believe the simple number ranking systems is the best, and also the easiest.

Unforeseen problems are always a problem in tournaments no matter how well thought out they are. But these problems are relatively easy to figure out. From what I’ve seen so far, is most of the tournaments have taken the same basic rule set that I created for my tournament and slightly adapted it. Either to improve upon it a bit, or to alter the way the game is intended to be played. It’s safe to assume that anyone who decides to set up a tournament, will probably do the same thing.

I agree with topkilla. This is way too complicated. It would be nice to have someone organize tournaments on a regular basis but I dont think we need all the complications mentioned..