Community Tournament (Congratulations Alvendor on 1st Place!)

ArtNJ · 07-28-2012, 12:57 AM

(07-28-2012 12:13 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote: What do you all think about this:

For each match, two games are played simultaneously, with each player starting 1 game apiece. If the record is 1/1 after this, then the lower seeded player will choose the map for the third game, and the higher seeded player will start the game.

I think this is the best of all worlds.

Except that it will take double the time per round because there are sure to be at least a few ties. If a slow player has a tie, could be bad.

**Harti** · 07-28-2012, 01:02 AM

Both players start a game on the same map. If it's a tie:

tiebreaker #1: Who had more base health
tiebreaker #2: Who won earlier
tiebreaker #3: Whose units had more total value
tiebreaker #4: Who had the most units
tiebreaker #5: lower seed wins

ArtNJ · 07-28-2012, 01:08 AM

(07-28-2012 01:02 AM)Harti Wrote: Both players start a game on the same map. If it's a tie:

tiebreaker #1: Who had more base health
tiebreaker #2: Who won earlier
tiebreaker #3: Whose units had more total value
tiebreaker #4: Who had the most units
tiebreaker #5: lower seed wins

This looks fine to me, although I might reverse 1 and 2. Solves FTA.

I would also let the person pick the map in the game they go first.

GreatGonzales · 07-28-2012, 01:21 AM

(07-28-2012 01:02 AM)Harti Wrote: Both players start a game on the same map. If it's a tie:

tiebreaker #1: Who had more base health
tiebreaker #2: Who won earlier
tiebreaker #3: Whose units had more total value
tiebreaker #4: Who had the most units
tiebreaker #5: lower seed wins

Interesting, but this requires both players to agree on a map. I would rather give each player the option to play on their favorite map. Or, we could choose the map for all players to use.

Harti, are you entering?

Alvendor · 07-28-2012, 01:21 AM

I really liked the idea of not allowing the first player to do anything on the first round and can't see any drawback with it. Is the objection that it is not how the game is usually played?

GreatGonzales · 07-28-2012, 01:26 AM

(07-28-2012 01:21 AM)Alvendor Wrote: I really liked the idea of not allowing the first player to do anything on the first round and can't see any drawback with it. Is the objection that it is not how the game is usually played?

So, the merit of this suggestion is that this is a means of giving one player FTA, while the other (who starts the game but takes no action on the first turn) gets to pick the map. Yeah, I think this could work, too. I just worry that people are going to take an action and the other player won't be aware. Difficult/impossible to enforce. But maybe that is a silly worry?

Alvendor · 07-28-2012, 01:32 AM

It would reduce the FTA quite a lot as player 1 would have a disadvantage in movement initiative but a (slight) advantage in wits. I have no idea how it would affect the fun factor of the game but it will no longer force you to play defensive as the second player which I think is a good thing.

GreatGonzales · 07-28-2012, 01:39 AM

(07-28-2012 01:32 AM)Alvendor Wrote: It would reduce the FTA quite a lot as player 1 would have a disadvantage in movement initiative but a (slight) advantage in wits. I have no idea how it would affect the fun factor of the game but it will no longer force you to play defensive as the second player which I think is a good thing.

So, game creating player gets:
1. Map choice
2. No actions on first turn (but they will have 10 wits to play with on their second turn)

Second player gets:
1. First action

I'm thinking about this...wondering if this will work on a map like Sharkfood. Well, what do we think about this option, folks? This would mean matches could be best of 1. My issue with this option is that giving the creating player a glut of wits kind of changes the game in unforeseeable ways.

**Harti** · (This post was last modified: 07-28-2012 01:58 AM by Harti.)

(07-28-2012 01:21 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote: Interesting, but this requires both players to agree on a map. I would rather give each player the option to play on their favorite map. Or, we could choose the map for all players to use.

I'd go for choosing the same map for everybody.

Quote:Harti, are you entering?

Nah not at these busy times, I don't want to make anybody wait. I'll be abroad Aug 26th - Sep 15th and I pretty much know that the time before and after that will be packed with university projects.
I'll try to run my beta testing stuff and feedback during that period of time but I don't think I can take organizational stuff like finding out who my opponent is, which map I'm allowed to choose and whatnot.

Also - no offense intended - I'm not entering a tournament with a "weak ruleset" (that hasn't been tested yet). If Player 1 wasn't allowed to act during the first turn, not only Player 2 will get the original FTA positioning, there could also occur imbalances we haven't seen yet, like a turn 5 (3rd P1 turn) special (turn 3 doesn't work really often as you have to get your wit spaces) or something.
The best balance is still having two games on the same map because both players get to enjoy the FTA and both players have to suffer the conditions of going second. If there's a clearly better player in the matchup, they will usually win both matches, and if it's two equally skilled players, the tiebreakers will often decide. And, @ArtNJ, I do think that base health is more important than the turns it took.

phrenikos · (This post was last modified: 07-28-2012 02:20 AM by phrenikos.)

(07-28-2012 01:54 AM)Harti Wrote: Also - no offense intended - I'm not entering a tournament with a "weak ruleset" (that hasn't been tested yet). If Player 1 wasn't allowed to act during the first turn, not only Player 2 will get the original FTA positioning, there could also occur imbalances we haven't seen yet, like a turn 5 (3rd P1 turn) special (turn 3 doesn't work really often as you have to get your wit spaces) or something.

IMO the goals of this tournament is to set a base of future tournament and how they can be improved. There are no real rewards (unless OML sponsors a t-shirt or something), so winning and balance is important, sure. but being able to set up a better tournament in the future with a beta tester's experience would be helpful and of higher importance.

Edit: Also, I vote for a simple best of 1, same map, and FTA given to the higher ranked player to advance the earlier matches quicker..(championship game could be structured to be a bit more fair..)