Moderator: Tournament Directors
Sad to see you guys exit without the games. I know we still would have had to earn this one against you. Until we meet again.hyposquasher wrote:I regret to inform that our team (angola, jetsetwilly and me) will be dropping from this tournament. The reason is that my premium expired recently and I don't plan on renewing soon. Partially due to my own lack of time for CC and partially due to frustration about changes to the site that always seem to diminish my enjoyment here, but that's a conversation for another time.
Congratulations to our adversaries in this round of the tournament (zips5000, jackal31, RKCVED). No one should feel that they got a free pass. They played incredibly well in the first half of the games and beat us 7 games to 2. We would need to win 8 of the next 10 to beat them. They could be replaced with cooks and dice alone might get them the 3 wins they need to advance. So congratulations to them on a deserved advancement in this tournament.
Good luck to all who are left, and remember to have fun
Yes, it's a typo. All games are triples.umbrellaman wrote:On the score page it shows the semi finals and finals as standard games. I'm assuming this is a misprint but thought I should check anyway.
How does your 10 games shortage make difference between percentage overall and percentage last round? In both cases it will be -10 games on your count which I guess will be counted as 10-0.jackal31 wrote:Given our team was shortened by 10 games, will it still go by percentage overall, or percentage last round?

You will play Josko. Jackal's team will play umbrellaman's team.hayesez wrote:I see that the tourney page has been updated. So it looks as if the seeding will be based on total wins given out of the total 46 games played? So the #1 seed (Josko et al) will be playing the #4 seed (umbrellaman et al)? Is that correct? Or are we just basing the new seedings on the previous round?
Okay, I guess I have to rescind that promise.Dukasaur wrote:All games in the previous set are finished. Next set due today or tomorrow.
You're welcome.jackal31 wrote:Thanks for the update Dukasaur.
With the notion that a team is down 13-3 after the first two rounds, will the last round even need to be played? Is this something we can bypass to fasttrack the finals starting?
Thanks for all your hard work and effort bud.
I brought this up with BW and he is agreeable to fast-tracking the final.Dukasaur wrote:You're welcome.jackal31 wrote:Thanks for the update Dukasaur.
With the notion that a team is down 13-3 after the first two rounds, will the last round even need to be played? Is this something we can bypass to fasttrack the finals starting?
Thanks for all your hard work and effort bud.
I meant to bring this up with BW but got distracted. It will be on my to-do list for this week.
And the following maps for the Finals:Dukasaur wrote:.
Special Gameplay: Approximately 50% of games will be fog
The procedure we've used for most of the tourney is that we have randomly assigned fog/sun to the games. However, BigWham wants to establish a tradition of having the Championships be a spectator sport. Thus, he wants the last round to be all sunny, so that spectators can watch the games as we head towards the end.Dukasaur wrote:Finals
- 2 Teams
- Best of 33 in 3 waves
Maps:
- Africa
Age Of Realms 1: Might
Age Of Realms 2: Magic
Alexander's Empire
Australia
British Isles
Cairns Coral Coast
Canada
CCU
Classic
Eurasia
Europe
Europe 1914
Feudal Epic
Feudal War
First Nations Americas
Iberia
Jamaica
Middle East
Midgard
Montreal
New World
North America
Northwest Passage
Peloponnesian War
Quad Cities
Rail Europe
Siege!
Stalingrad
Supermax: Prison Riot!
Tamriel
USA
World 2.1

That would change the dynamic of the finals a little too. I prefer to keep the randomness the same. I think to win on the conquest maps a preference is for foggy, but also a team/player should be versed on how to do it either way.Gilligan wrote:i'm not in this, but how about making conquest maps fog? those generally have a reputation of being played better in fog, and relies less on luck because you know where the other guy's stack is.
that takes up 7 of the 11 spots, anyway
Yeah, besides your response, I also got three PMs. One was strongly negative, and two were neutral. Nobody was very much in favour, so the idea is dead. I thought it was worth exploring, but without an enthusiastic response I'm not going to push it further.jackal31 wrote:That would change the dynamic of the finals a little too. I prefer to keep the randomness the same. I think to win on the conquest maps a preference is for foggy, but also a team/player should be versed on how to do it either way.Gilligan wrote:i'm not in this, but how about making conquest maps fog? those generally have a reputation of being played better in fog, and relies less on luck because you know where the other guy's stack is.
that takes up 7 of the 11 spots, anyway