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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
I took a look at each game and did a mean guess.. Looks like they are up in some and we are up in others.
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
Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?
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
Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?
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
Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?
I don't get your point here, are you saying tiebreakers should be another 60 games? Whats wrong with 7 game tie breakers?
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
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
Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?
I don't get your point here, are you saying tiebreakers should be another 60 games? Whats wrong with 7 game tie breakers?
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.
Highest position #5 (18 Nov 2010) General 4,380pts (11 Dec 2010)
Chariot 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.
that could be right, i guess we will have to wait for him
Chariot 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.
that could be right, i guess we will have to wait for him
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.
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.
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.
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM
Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
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
Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?
I don't get your point here, are you saying tiebreakers should be another 60 games? Whats wrong with 7 game tie breakers?
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.
Incandenza wrote:Makes the tiebreaker game(s) that much more of a spectator sport.
I forgot we were all about the drama here. My bad.
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.
Incandenza wrote:Makes the tiebreaker game(s) that much more of a spectator sport.
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.
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM
Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est