Moderator: Clan Directors

The score is 0-0, there are only 20 active games of 60 total, and you predict 1 win for each side so 1-1 and you already think it is going to come down to the wire?Bruceswar wrote:Looks like KORT will score the first point with the city mogul quads. Though from what I can see Incandenza has a slight lead in the monsters singles! All others are too early to tell much other than it looks like it is gonna be down to the wire.
trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.

Chuuuuck wrote:The score is 0-0, there are only 20 active games of 60 total, and you predict 1 win for each side so 1-1 and you already think it is going to come down to the wire?Bruceswar wrote:Looks like KORT will score the first point with the city mogul quads. Though from what I can see Incandenza has a slight lead in the monsters singles! All others are too early to tell much other than it looks like it is gonna be down to the wire.
I hope you are right because I want to see a great match, but it seems a little hard to tell that from the results so far.

Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?Blitzaholic wrote:trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.![]()
if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.
another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official
Because I think the finals is 60 games minimum.jakewilliams wrote:Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?Blitzaholic wrote:trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.![]()
if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.
another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official

I don't get your point here, are you saying tiebreakers should be another 60 games? Whats wrong with 7 game tie breakers?jakewilliams wrote:Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?Blitzaholic wrote:trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.![]()
if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.
another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official
He is saying why not make it a 67 game challengepmchugh wrote:I don't get your point here, are you saying tiebreakers should be another 60 games? Whats wrong with 7 game tie breakers?jakewilliams wrote:Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?Blitzaholic wrote:trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.![]()
if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.
another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official

that could be right, i guess we will have to wait for himChariot of Fire wrote:I think he was jokingly suggesting that, as it looks tied in the best-of-60, you discount all those games and simply go straight into the seven game decider and save yourselves a lot of time. At least that's how I interpret it.
yes.ljex wrote:that could be right, i guess we will have to wait for himChariot of Fire wrote:I think he was jokingly suggesting that, as it looks tied in the best-of-60, you discount all those games and simply go straight into the seven game decider and save yourselves a lot of time. At least that's how I interpret it.

It's a fair point, but I think most people would rather just play in the home/away framework, and deal with a tiebreaker if and when. Makes the tiebreaker game(s) that much more of a spectator sport.Snowgun wrote:I still don't understand why we don't make these things an odd number of games off the bat. OK, maybe it's due to each clan giving an equal # of map preferences, but you could easily sneak 1 or 3 or 7 random maps (w settings both clans agreed on) into the fold right off the start.

Dako wrote:Tiebreakers are very rare. I've seen like 5 of them in 50 wars here.


ljex wrote:He is saying why not make it a 67 game challengepmchugh wrote:I don't get your point here, are you saying tiebreakers should be another 60 games? Whats wrong with 7 game tie breakers?jakewilliams wrote:Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?Blitzaholic wrote:trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.![]()
if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.
another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official

Chariot of Fire wrote:It certainly makes for better drama if a tiebreaker is called for later rather than having it buried in the cluster of home & away games.
I forgot we were all about the drama here. My bad.Incandenza wrote:Makes the tiebreaker game(s) that much more of a spectator sport.

HAHA... mad props for the Dodgeball reference!Snowgun wrote:
I forgot we were all about the drama here. My bad.![]()
Too bad they don't broadcast them on the "Ocho"

Don't encourage him. Good luck to those of you I like.jj3044 wrote:HAHA... mad props for the Dodgeball reference!Snowgun wrote:
I forgot we were all about the drama here. My bad.![]()
Too bad they don't broadcast them on the "Ocho"

You should've seen the game chat in the tiebreaker we had against Nemesis... I'd wager it was one of the most-watched clan games ever, at least at the beginning. A little actual drama (as opposed to bickering-style drama) is no bad thing.Snowgun wrote:Chariot of Fire wrote:It certainly makes for better drama if a tiebreaker is called for later rather than having it buried in the cluster of home & away games.I forgot we were all about the drama here. My bad.Incandenza wrote:Makes the tiebreaker game(s) that much more of a spectator sport.![]()
Too bad they don't broadcast them on the "Ocho"
