Conquer Club

Hi,

This is a really detailed and well explained event. I have 3 concerns/questions though.

1. You're asking all 256 players for choices, but I didn't see how you were going to allocate the choices to games. The players will be ranked, so I guess for the first 2-player games, players 1,3,5,etc in the list will play their choices, for the first 4-player matches it will be players 1,5,9,etc?

2. I'm concerned about this stalling. The 2-player games should be fine, but with each round containing five 4-player and 8-player games, and a round cap of 50 turns, it could take several months to get through the first round if a few players choose no spoils. It would take just one slow game in each of those multiplayer rounds to add potentially a couple of months. I would suggest allowing the game schedule to overlap and only re-rank at the end of a complete round. I understand why you've gone the way you have and re-ranking only at the end of a round would mean rethinking how the 11 games are allocated, but should reduce the event length and drop out rate. Have a think.

3. 256 players is indeed ambitious. The maths would still seem to work with 64 or 128 players and I'd like to think that if you got 64 or 128 people signed up you'd still go for it to avoid disappointment among those signing up.

I bring all this up because you've put in a great deal of planning so far and I'd like it to succeed. I'm also a sucker for nice tables.

sonic

sonicsteve wrote:Hi,

This is a really detailed and well explained event. I have 3 concerns/questions though.

Hello! I'll try to answer your concerns:

sonicsteve wrote:1. You're asking all 256 players for choices, but I didn't see how you were going to allocate the choices to games. The players will be ranked, so I guess for the first 2-player games, players 1,3,5,etc in the list will play their choices, for the first 4-player matches it will be players 1,5,9,etc?

The choice is made by the LOWEST player in each game. Why the lowest? Because I think it's more fair. Acording to the tournament concept, player 1 is supposed to be better than player 2. So, player 2 chooses the game to balance things a little bit. For player 1 it would be easier to stay up if he only played his settings, but as he has to play player 2's settings, winning means that player 1 is really better than 2.

How is this choosen? If you look at post 2, I have the list for the first 6 players. In my Tournament Excel I have all player's settings, and the same Excel tells me which games I have to create. I have already done it for the 2011 Adjacent Attacks Tournament and for the Adjacent Attacks Swiss Style Tournament. I can send you the Excel files if you are interested.

So answering your question for the first game will be players 2,4,6,8... for the secong game players 4,8,12,16... etc.

sonicsteve wrote:2. I'm concerned about this stalling. The 2-player games should be fine, but with each round containing five 4-player and 8-player games, and a round cap of 50 turns, it could take several months to get through the first round if a few players choose no spoils. It would take just one slow game in each of those multiplayer rounds to add potentially a couple of months. I would suggest allowing the game schedule to overlap and only re-rank at the end of a complete round. I understand why you've gone the way you have and re-ranking only at the end of a round would mean rethinking how the 11 games are allocated, but should reduce the event length and drop out rate. Have a think.

The thing is that is you accept freemium players then there is not much difference. For my 2011 AA tournament, it is supposed to have one game each 2 weeks. But the truth is that I can only make one or at most two games simultaneously. 2011 AA tournament is way behing schedule now due to this. So based in my experience I thougt it would not be much difference. And on the other hand I am not going anywhere. I have to stay here at least until my map gets published. And in case I had to leave and the tournament had to finish earlier, then the top player at that moment would be declared winner.

Reranking at the end of a complete round would not make much sense. The purpose of the tournament is to implement the Swiss System. Instead of having to do a complete round robin against 256 players, you only have to do 11 games. So despite it seems like a lot of time it's in fact a lot shorter than it would be in a complete round robin. For those games to make sense, players need to be correctly ranked. If not, then it's like all the other tournaments. Players would be supposed to fight against 255 other players, but in fact they would fight the same players again and again.

I know this could take a lot of time. But again, I am not going anywhere. And even if it spawns a lot of time in the calendar, it ocuppies a very short time in everyday's taks. So the conception of this tournament is something that is slowly going on, occupying a short space (1 game at a time) and slowly progressing. Is not a full-time commitment tournament.

About people who abandon the tournament. Well, they just choose not to continue playing. It's their choice. Maybe they get tired of the tournament or they find something more interesting to do. I can't fight against that. The only thing I can do is preview it and say in the rules that each time a player does not join a game he is ranked last in that game.

If I had to introduce changes, I would prefer changing those 11 games to 7 games. I think 11 games is more fair, but if there is no other choice... 7 games could do despite I prefer to stick to 11.

sonicsteve wrote:3. 256 players is indeed ambitious. The maths would still seem to work with 64 or 128 players and I'd like to think that if you got 64 or 128 people signed up you'd still go for it to avoid disappointment among those signing up.

Yes. I know that aiming to get 256 players it's maybe a bit ambitious. But what can I say? I do this for fun. And what I really want to do is a 256 players tournament. I am already hosting two other tournaments, with 36 and 32 players. And they are great. Specially because they feature the Adjacent Attacks rule. The only reason because I am willing to host a non adjacent attack tournament is the chance to be able to reach 256 players so the Swiss Style can perform at its best. I think I could do it with 128 players. But less than that... I don't have much interest. Sorry if that was not the answer you were expecting.

I already was hosting a 256 players tournament once. And everything was great... until my hard drive crashed I could never recover from that. All the detailed information I had about the tournament was lost and despite I tried to rebuild it was too much. But I learned the lesson. Since then I have an automatic backup software in my PC (in fact I installed it to backup other information that I had problems to recover after the crash, but it also backups CC files) so if the worst happens I will be able to continue with the tournament.

Will I still here long enough for the tournament to end? Well, no one knows what will happen in the future, but I have been around for some time now and have not dissapeared until now. Also, if you are looking for sings that let you know I will stay, I am very involved in the Foundry (I am not allowed to say much about it yet, but it's not the type of compromise you make when you are thinking about leaving) I have fought to push my map for 2 years now against all odds and I am fighting to see Adjacent Attacks implemented in the site (I am confident I will see the day that happens! ) My plan is to stay for long time, and that's the reason why I make a long tournament.

If you want some insught at how my other two active tournaments are going, you can look at viewtopic.php?f=91&t=137505 and viewtopic.php?f=91&t=143914&p=3207420#p3207420

I hope I answered all your questions. If you have any doubt of comment, feel free to ask

OliverFA wrote:
If I had to introduce changes, I would prefer changing those 11 games to 7 games. I think 11 games is more fair, but if there is no other choice... 7 games could do despite I prefer to stick to 11.

You don't have to change anything; I should make it clear that I'm only offering some advice based on my own experience of build games in one of my tourneys. This is your event and you don't have to follow any suggestions I make.

Thanks for the clarifications on the other questions I raised.

I'm in, I'll come back with maps etc

nice boards im in

count me in and i hope it does fill---its worth a shot. ok so settings would be
karthdog1
world2.1
flat rate
chained
sunny
same for all games

Hi Oliver,
Please count me in

- My name Paul Poyser

-My chosen map for 2 players games Arms Race

- My chosen map for 4 players games England

- My chosen map for 8 players games Conquerman[/color]

- My settings for all games [color=#4040FF]Flat rate - Chained - Sunny

Paul Poyser

in please

just because i like to see my name at the top of your tables
2p and 4p france auto chained sunny
8p first nation NA auto chained fog

my maps will be

2 player arms race
4 player map new world
8 player map fuedal epic

my settings for 2 and 4 player will be auto, chained, SEQ, foggy, no spoils
8 player auto chained SEQ foggy and ESC.

thank you for the invite.

If this ever gets over 200, PM me, I'll probably join then. I don't want to join now, seeing as I'm a freemium in several tournies already

In Please
2P - Woodbro - Standard, Auto, Sequential, No Spoils, Adjacent, Fog
4P - Egypt Upper - Standard, Manual, Sequential, No Spoils, Chained, Fog
8P - Europe 1914 - Standard, Auto, Sequential, Esc, Chained, Sunny

I have updated now the player list with setting for everybody. You can see it in post 2. If you see any error, feel free to tell me.

Sounds like a great idea - and a different tournament structure! Please count me in.

2p map: USA
2p settings: Standard, Manual, Sequential, Flat, Chained, Foggy
4p map: Dust Bowl
4p settings: Standard, Manual, Sequential, Escalating, Chained, Foggy
8p map: Route 66
8p settings: Standard, Manual, Sequential, Escalating, Unlimited, Foggy

In

2 player: Oasis, No Spoils, Foggy, Automatic, Sequential, Chained

4 player: Feudal War, Escalating, Foggy, Automatic, Sequential, Chained

8player: Peloponnesian War, Escalating, Foggy, Automatic, Sequential, Chained

Thanks rjhankey and neanderpaul14. You both are in now

Count me in;

2p map: Classic
2p settings: Standard, Manual, Sequential, Flat, Chained, Foggy
4p map: WWII Europe
4p settings: Standard, Manual, Sequential, Escalating, Chained, Foggy
8p map: World 2.1
8p settings: Standard, Manual, Sequential, Escalating, Unlimited, Foggy

PereiroSaus
2pm - Europe 1914
2ps - Sequential, Automatic, No Spoils, Adjacent, Foggy
4pm - Flanders 1302
4ps - Sequential, Automatic, No Spoils, Adjacent, Foggy
8pm - Imperium Romanum
8ps - Sequential, Automatic, No Spoils, Adjacent, Foggy

Thanks Didacus ans PereiroSaus. Players list now updated

In plz, all are auto-seq

2p map-Clandemonium-ns,chained,foggy
4p map-Feudal War-esc,chained,foggy
8p map-Nordic Countries-esc,chained,foggy

callmecommander

classic
flat rate, chained, sunny

treasures of Galapagos
no spoils, unlimited, foggy

world 2.1
no spoils, unlimited, sunny

In please!
Malevolous
2 p map: Eastern Hemisphere
2 p settings: Standard, Auto, No spoils, Chained, Sunny
4 p Map: Forbidden City
4 p settings: Standard, Auto, Flat Rate, Chained, Fog
8 p map: Supermax Prison Riot
8 p Settings: Standard, Auto, Nuclear, Unlimited, Fog

in please.

manchild1

2p: British Isles, standard, auto, flat rate, chained, fog
4p: New World, standard, auto, escalating, chained, sunny
8p: Supermax prison riot, standard, auto, escalating, fog

in

uckuki

map for 2 players games: Poison Rome
settings: auto, seq, nuclear, adjacent, foggy

map for 4 players games: Atlantis
settings: auto, seq, escalating, chained, sunny

map for 8 players games: Random
settings: auto, seq, nuclear, chained, sunny

tx

In please

Doodle Earth
Sequential, Automatic, Nuclear, Chained, Sunny
BeNeLux
Sequential, Manual, Escalating, Unlimited, Sunny
Middle Ages
Sequential, Automatic, Flat Rate, Chained, Foggy