OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Tuidjy:
I.e. I would rather have a N-1 games against each
opponent, rather than some crazy and
uncontrollable mix of free for alls.

Well, with a game played against each opponent, how the hell do you determine who wins? By sheer win count? Ratio? It's all very indeterminate. Much more decisive with everyone in one game...where there can be only one. The one who claws his way to the top of the heap is clearly the winner.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
The one who claws his way to the top of the heap is clearly the winner.

Not really. In a FFA the winner is determined by who allies for the express purpose of having only a single player win.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Not really. In a FFA the winner is determined by who allies for the express purpose of having only a single player win.

I have never observed this behavior. It usually tends to work the other way around, that everyone allies against the guy who is winning, usually too late to stop it from happening.

Besides, I don't see why diplomacy can't be considered an important element of the game. The alternative tournament structure would be something to the effect of single or double elimination, which would take even longer than a single big match.

[Tuidjy]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuidjy:
I.e. I would rather have a N-1 games against each
opponent, rather than some crazy and
uncontrollable mix of free for alls.

Well, with a game played against each opponent, how the hell do you determine who wins? By sheer win count? Ratio? [Snip]

---

Well, win count and ratio will have the same
meaning in this case, and yes, this is exactly
what I propose using.

This way:

1. Everyone will get to play at worst his second
best race. I.e. no rush for Ermor, Caelum, or
whatever the best race-du-jour is.

2. No one will be screwed by initial placement.
I.e. no Marignon finding itself next to Abysia.

3. No metagaming tactics. I.e. no pregame teaming
up, or in game heap ups on the leader.

4. Plain damn fairness. How can one complain when
most of the randomness is eliminated?

5. The total time of the tournament will be
reduced. I.e. a two person game on a small
map Lasts fewer turns than a ten players game
on a huge map.

6. The total number of games played will be
higher - MORE FUN FOR US!

Hell, if I wanted to engage in diplomacy and
backstabbing, I would send my papers for the
next 'Survivor' show or something. The only
way to play free-for-all and keep some
shade of fairness is to enforce the 'contact->war'
rule, but even then some people end up being
screwed through no fault of their own.

Petar

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Tuidjy:
5. The total time of the tournament will be
reduced. I.e. a two person game on a small
map Lasts fewer turns than a ten players game
on a huge map.

We can't really guarantee this will actually be true: It takes a lot of time to organize games between people who otherwise have no contact.

6. The total number of games played will be higher - MORE FUN FOR US!

I'm not sure repeatedly starting new games is what I'd call "fun". Not to mention that you're merely substituting the assumed shortness of one game for quantity of games.

The only
way to play free-for-all and keep some
shade of fairness is to enforce the 'contact->war'
rule, but even then some people end up being
screwed through no fault of their own.

I don't really think this is an enforceable rule. Contact doesn't necessarily mean war, if nobody actually attacks the other. Eventually, the parties in question simply indicate a desire for peace through action alone. If nobody wants to fight, there's not going to be a fight, even if they're "at war" by that rule.

[Tuidjy]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuidjy:
[qb]5. The total time of the tournament will be
reduced. I.e. a two person game on a small
map Lasts fewer turns than a ten players game
on a huge map.

We can't really guarantee this will actually be true: It takes a lot of time to organize games between people who otherwise have no contact.

---

Oh, that's why we call it a tournament :-)
The organizer starts the game, and those who do
not take their turns fall behind and lose.
I should not be on to talk, given how easily I
accumulate stale turns, but hey, fair's fair.

quote:

---

6. The total number of games played will be higher - MORE FUN FOR US!

I'm not sure repeatedly starting new games is what I'd call "fun". Not to mention that you're merely substituting the assumed shortness of one game for quantity of games.

---

Yes, I am aware that I am in a minority as to
liking short and agressive games. But there is
no assumed shortness. A game on 'Clash' is
decided by turn 30, usually. Not over, but
decided.

quote:

---

The only
way to play free-for-all and keep some
shade of fairness is to enforce the 'contact->war'
rule, but even then some people end up being
screwed through no fault of their own.

I don't really think this is an enforceable rule. Contact doesn't necessarily mean war, if nobody actually attacks the other. Eventually, the parties in question simply indicate a desire for peace through action alone. If nobody wants to fight, there's not going to be a fight, even if they're "at war" by that rule.

---

You are right, it is not easy to enforce. But
I have seen it enforced in some games. Anvils
were falling on the heads of the Barons who
were at peace when by the game's universe rules
they should have been at each other's throats.
But it was in a heavily GM'd game.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Tuidjy:
You are right, it is not easy to enforce. But
I have seen it enforced in some games. Anvils
were falling on the heads of the Barons who
were at peace when by the game's universe rules
they should have been at each other's throats.
But it was in a heavily GM'd game.

I don't really think you can force people to attack each other. Wars cost a lot of money, and if you don't have the money to fight one....you don't. And if neither of you can afford to fight one, there's not going to be a war.