Tournament Discussions / Ideas / Rules

[JackHall2003]

I know there was a thread on tourney discussions, but I can’t find it and some new up to date thoughts wouldn’t go amiss. Prompted by the fact that I prefer playing guys from the forum, but still like an ‘edge’ to the match rather than just a player match. Also to add, that it's to try and keep things moving along at a decent pace to compliment the longer running RR Tourneys and league.

I would like to bring forward the following for discussion: - King Titles, Cup Tourneys and the 'Best Civ' challenges.

King Titles
For a while, these were some of the most hotly contested, but lately, seem to have died down. Should it be a firm rule that if the title is uncontested for a period of time, the title becomes ‘open’ and any two players can play for it (I’ve seen mention of 2 weeks)?

Cup Tourneys
I like the concept behind these (knock out tournament), but think I aimed too high and kicked it off too soon. Once (if?) the Euro one gets completed, I think we should do the Asian one. I propose for this: -

Limiting sign up to 8 players and randomly splitting that into two groups of 4 for the qualifiers (play each other twice). It then moves straight to the ‘semi-finals’ Top group 1 plays 2nd group 2 and vice versa.

Best Civ
Once again, I’ve kicked one off without any firm rules in place and signed guys up for stuff they have not committed to. I think the Japan/Egypt would also be a bit of fun, but thoughts on best format would be appreciated.

Ideas for anything new?

Possibly, the majority are happy enough just getting the odd player match ect (without the ‘pressure’ of a tourney), which is fair enough.

Maybe I'll just need to get hold of a New Zealand passport and play Scottie 'n Mawpawk all day long

[Drunken Warrior]

Maybe a Game where you can only have one town, ie you cannot make your own settlements. Maybe if you acquire another town you simply produce nothing.(although you can station troops there)

[ScottieX]

King titles
we need a game played every so often not a title change otherwise it may result in arguments about people 'cheatng' when 2-0 down.
Im ok even if I am stripped of my title (better than just taking it off morte because then Id feel i was cheating him a little). maybe they all end up going up besides the one he and preyforme played for...

or maybe we just need a person who isnt the king to nominate that it should be considered abandoned and someone to second it without objection.. somthing like that - I just dont want to set up arguments tht might make a holder very uncomfortable...

Cup
we need to try to split people who cant play eachother due to time zone and due to connection issues - we should know who those peopel are and be ableto object to the pool wearein on that basis...

Best Civ
alternate hosts alternate civs - maybe it doesnt matter if some play more than others as longas it is balanced and not ridiculously out of kilter - the issue we hve is some peopel can play far more than others so you almost never get some peopel catching up wiht me u and mawpawk heh


Hey ill rent you my spare room so you just have to go "hey lets play civ!" to make playing 12hrs a day even easier!

[ScottieX]

we could also have a manditory challenger system like boxing where you default to them if you dont play them in a certain period of time and they are decided by some sort of playoff of eligable players (people who hvent recently challenged and maybe have some other reason why they are worthy of playing for the manditory challanger place)

or maybe im just getting it over complicated....

[ScottieX]

bump - lets have more input!

otherwise.. er maybe jack you can jsut challenge for one of the titles and we will declaire you the manditory challenger.... and anyone else reading this can do the same

[Sevendust34]

I always thought it would be cool to have a single elimination "Best of Civ" tournament. A field of 8 or 16 (8 being more realistic) would have to all use the same Civ to determine who is the best at each Civ. If you had 8 participants, you would just need two rounds...FFA for round one and H2H for round two (each winner of FFA). It would go pretty quick.

[ScottieX]

quick is good.. and to put FFAin it hmm also good. some good players will have to live with getting a rotten start and being eliminated. But cool Im in er.. well... other commitments allowing...

[Sevendust34]

quick is good.. and to put FFAin it hmm also good. some good players will have to live with getting a rotten start and being eliminated. But cool Im in er.. well... other commitments allowing...

Someone else would have to run with it because I don't really have the time to set this up, but I figured I would share my idea anyways. I figured it would be interesting for many reasons. The FFA addition would give it a different feel, although it may be more difficult to coordinate 4 people all being on at the same time. I really like the idea of using the same civ. I could see 4 Germans going at it in a race to Feudalism to upgrade their elite legions. I could see 4 Egyptians in a quick race to COL (although who ever starts with Colossus would have a major advantage). A lot would depend on a quick start. If someone wants to set this up, go for it. I envision one thread being dedicated to keeping track of who wins with each Civ and another to post victories and recaps.

[JackHall2003]

Maybe a Game where you can only have one town, ie you cannot make your own settlements. Maybe if you acquire another town you simply produce nothing.(although you can station troops there)

Cheers DW, those kind of games can be fun to challenge someone for a game or two, not sure we could run a tourney round it though. I believe it's know as the OCC (One City Challenge)

I always thought it would be cool to have a single elimination "Best of Civ" tournament. A field of 8 or 16 (8 being more realistic) would have to all use the same Civ to determine who is the best at each Civ. If you had 8 participants, you would just need two rounds...FFA for round one and H2H for round two (each winner of FFA). It would go pretty quick.

SevenDust, I like it, could be some mileage to be had from this. King of a civ instead of a tier. The FFA, although harder to set up would be good. FFA sure to be grossly unfair to someone, so will be a laugh. Could maybe add that the ai are untouchable in the FFA?

[Sevendust34]

Here is one more idea...

Tag Team Championship

* Start with two teams going at it (no Zulu, China, or America)
* Winning team is crowned the champs
* Anybody can challenge thereafter, creating whatever player pairing they would like
* Champions need to defend their crown
* Record is kept for who has held the championship the longest (based on how many times they have defended the title)
* The champions need to continue to use the two civs they originally won the championship with; once defeated, they could rechallenge with different civs.

[Mike H 31]

i would love to play some team tournaments! and i like the idea of a whole field being one civ too. a civ that can be played different ways i think would be best. spanish, indians have a couple of options. (who wins? one that gets aggressive with legions or one who expands right to oxford or tanks?) i mean if it were aztecs, winner of horse wars wins. zulu, winner of warrior wars win. even in a mirror roman match, 1 player using horses and the other legions would be interesting.

if u wanna add me seven dust ill play teams any time!

[JackHall2003]

Been having a little think about this and how last year the winners of groups 1-3 had to wait forever to get the champ group going.

Is there any mileage in cutting it down to 3 groups of 6 and having two go through? Group winner gets an automatic spot in the champions group and 2nd/3rd place play off for another spot. Should speed it up a bit and keep interest a bit longer for those that lose a few opening games?

Just a thought - comments welcome.

[ScottieX]

The problem always comes down to someone not being easy to find - probably because they expect to loose or because they have already been eliminated, but sometimes for some sort of personal reason (RL getting in the way). As long as those matches matter I think there would be a delay.

Fastest system would be to design it such that some games dont matter so dont have to happen.

Maybe you could have a system where winner is determined by rounds eliminating the lowest ranked (or equal lowest ranked's results) until its the H2H between the top 2 or 3 that matters. Ie hopefully those most likely to want to play.

So in the champions league you'd eliminate from the calculation glen at 0-8 and then thrasher and I are equal on 5. With just this we still need morte vs mawpawk to occur as mawpawk could be identical to thrasher.

But you could also give a bonus on draw for playing key games first. So whoever played (finished playing) me first between thrasher and mawpawk (thrasher) gets the tie break win (as by that stage only 3 are left in the elimination). This is because it is a small disadvantage in terms of civ choice to play first but also it is good for the speed of the tourney.

Not suggesting we do this to the champions league because I dont want to change the rules midstream and thus unfairly disadvantage one person. But just showing how it might work.

[danthechan]

don't like the idea of eliminating anyone's games except in extreme circumstances. better to find an agreeable fill-in to finish it out for them.
i really like jacks idea of a 3 grouped tourney, with the 2nd and 3rd playing off for a chance to go to the finals. also, in the finals, the 2nd and 3rd should play for the right to face the 1st in the finals of the final. with only 18 spots to fill, instead of 36, only commited and available players need apply please.

[danthechan]

no other thoughts on improving the round robin experience?

[ScottieX]

I'm not sure your strategy will help significantly...

let us say a tourney is being held up by two people with massive time differences (like morte and I - such that I need to be up at 5am to play him or he would have to do the same) and a player who has outright given up (like in one of the early round robins I think) and that these games are critical to determining places 1,2,3 & 4.

Is there a way around this we can suggest?

I'd like to hit the problem with a hammer so to speak and get tourneys that are much faster, partly as I see these issues getting more of an issue in the future.

maybe 1 month each and 6 mths for the final winner.
Rather than somthing like 4 months and a year and a half or so to determine the final winner.

[JackHall2003]

and a player who has outright given up (like in one of the early round robins I think)

Yes, this is a problem. New members come along looking for a challenge, realise it's not quite as easy as ranked and fade away. I don't know what we can do about this?

let us say a tourney is being held up by two people with massive time differences (like morte and I - such that I need to be up at 5am to play him or he would have to do the same)

Not sure morte is a good example to use tbh. He is notoriously difficult to connect with, I mean a couple of his titles are 6 months old, this is probably partly to do with only a few players feel they can take him on, but his track record in the RR's fares no better. ( and once again Morte, I'm not having a go, we all have lives/family/work to contend with, if you can't play, you can't play). We have weekends for time differences, It shouldn't be that hard.

I'd like to hit the problem with a hammer so to speak and get tourneys that are much faster, partly as I see these issues getting more of an issue in the future.

Agree

maybe 1 month each and 6 mths for the final winner.
Rather than somthing like 4 months and a year and a half or so to determine the final winner.

Time limits sound OK in principal, but again, what can you do if people just don't play?

[elthrasher]

I really think there's not very much you can do other than restrict admission to tournaments to those who have proven that they can get their games done in a timely fashion, which means you'll have a dwindling pool of players.

One option would be to create teams. You can play anyone on the team.

Another option is to admit these things take forever and just run lots of tournaments plus make up more king titles so you can always find something to fight over.

[JackHall2003]

Another option is to admit these things take forever and just run lots of tournaments plus make up more king titles so you can always find something to fight over.

You're probably right (as per usual). next cup anyone

I still like the idea of 3 groups with 2 going through though!

[elthrasher]

You're probably right (as per usual). next cup anyone

I still like the idea of 3 groups with 2 going through though!

The team thing could work out if we had enough players. You have a team captain who assigns the matches or just randomly let members from one team play the other team, but the point is you'd want enough people with different hours on your team that you can get them all in. You could also strategically pit players against opponents they will tend to do well against, but everyone on the team has to play. Or something.

Does that make some sense? I'm obviously not talking about the Teams format, though if you had two players from each team on at the same time, you could knock out two games at once that way. I think doing something like this could get it done rather quickly (meaning months, not years).

[ScottieX]

I really think there's not very much you can do other than restrict admission to tournaments to those who have proven that they can get their games done in a timely fashion, which means you'll have a dwindling pool of players.

Hmm well... It'd be tough to exclude someone because they "might" not play out their games in a timely manner. no one wil admit to that...

[elthrasher]

Hmm well... It'd be tough to exclude someone because they "might" not play out their games in a timely manner. no one wil admit to that...

Well, exactly.

[danthechan]

Hmm well... It'd be tough to exclude someone because they "might" not play out their games in a timely manner. no one wil admit to that...

no, but we strongly stress going in that they must finish their games in a timely manner regardless of their standing. we did fill ins in the original bracket when people dissapeared. it wasn't an issue. obviously someone in contention should be given every opportunity. in group 1 last year i picked up a 1-3 spot and made the final 2 (only to be crushed by mawpawk). for a player like glen in the finals a replacement should be ok as long as the involved players agree on the skill level of the replacement being comparable.

i'm suprised no one else likes jacks idea of the 2nd and 3rd in bracket playing off to meet the 1st. it would allow for many more meaningful games in each bracket.

[ScottieX]

i'm suprised no one else likes jacks idea of the 2nd and 3rd in bracket playing off to meet the 1st. it would allow for many more meaningful games in each bracket.

I have no issue with the idea if u guys like it

[Liam_Sutty]

Me neither and it gives players an incentive that can squeeze into third spot!

[JackHall2003]

Well, the RR 2012 tourney seems to be flying this time round and with me not able to play for probably another few weeks yet, I'll likely miss Group 6 too.

So, going forward, I think we should go with the 'Civ World Championships'* Series 1 ( then 2, 3, etc, etc) and move to the 3 groups of 6, top spot gets a place in the finals and 2nd/3rd play off for another spot in the finals. Means the champion group can be played faster for the winner of the first group.


*Credit Mawpawk

[glenneyre]

I think a mandatory title defense of your King title evey month is more than fair. I would also encourage any King title holder to make it a priority to put the title on the line if challenged, as opposed to being on and just playing "for fun" player matches.

I also would like to see some tweaks to the rules of what you can and can't do in the game that would freshen up the strategies you have to use. I always add the fast timer requirement when I have a King title. In the "Random Civ" title I started, I banned the production of horsemen, as to freshen up the game from the typical horsmen rush.

Some others off the top of my head:

1. You can not produce settlers other than the 100g one.
2. You can not claim artifacts.
3. You have to earn another type of victory other than domination.
4. Each player can only take out 1 other AI completely
5. You can not attack at all until a certain time frame. (0 ad?)

Some of these might not work but, we can probably come up with a few more that will.

[dukeblue1987]

I think a mandatory title defense of your King title evey month is more than fair. I would also encourage any King title holder to make it a priority to put the title on the line if challenged, as opposed to being on and just playing "for fun" player matches.

I also would like to see some tweaks to the rules of what you can and can't do in the game that would freshen up the strategies you have to use. I always add the fast timer requirement when I have a King title. In the "Random Civ" title I started, I banned the production of horsemen, as to freshen up the game from the typical horsmen rush.

Some others off the top of my head:

1. You can not produce settlers other than the 100g one.
2. You can not claim artifacts.
Good but make atlantis OK b/c you can get it on accident
3. You have to earn another type of victory other than domination.
Doesnt work. I kill you and surround your last city with archers. Then I win however I want. So basically prolonged domination.
4. Each player can only take out 1 other AI completely
5. You can not attack at all until a certain time frame. (0 ad?)

Some of these might not work but, we can probably come up with a few more that will.

I like the innovation. Many of these we have tried before and they have problems, see above. Good ideas though.

[Liam_Sutty]

If I see someone online and I own a king title I will offer it to them as mandotary.