Conquer Club

Chariot of Fire wrote:Can you name and shame the players/teams who lost their games by default? Such forfeits have happened before as well. Why not kick the team out and scrub all record of them, otherwise it lends a bias to games won/lost, overall points, and MVP standings.

You can see it all in the Game Rosters on page 1.

This time it was team Empire by virtue of Lord Voldemort (for the second time) and team The Drunken Monkeys by virtue of Genoke.

Since it is the second time that team Empire lost a round due to forfeits, the though crossed my mind to "scrub all record of them".

I'm still hesitant though, because it doesn't have any effect (so far) on the ranking of the top teams and the individuals in the team that do everything right would get punished because of one single player. Btw: Last time I did take the Team Captain title off that player. Maybe this time I should ban him from the tournament.

I never thought it would come this far.... Maybe I'll send out a poll to the Team Captains and see what the overall opinion indicates.

Lx

Chariot of Fire wrote:Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

Chariot of Fire wrote:Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

I totally see your point.

However, I would like to remind you (and everybody else) that the maps and settings have been posted on page 1 for a long time now. It would help me a much more if you would bring this kind of thing to my attention before a round starts.

I know I'm far from perfect and appreciate any help I can get to make this tournament a success.

Lx

Chariot of Fire wrote:Ah ok mate, thanks.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

Culs De Sac wrote:

Chariot of Fire wrote:Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

i second that motion..

sirron wrote:

Culs De Sac wrote:

Chariot of Fire wrote:Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

i second that motion..

ditto, it is a nightmare.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

dustin800 wrote:

Chariot of Fire wrote:Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

I agree, before my first turn I was down 30 troops

Rodion wrote:Lindax, I'm not sure whether you desire input in order to adjust maps for "fairness" up to the extreme or just to abolish extremely unfair scenarios.

I looked at round 19 games. Assuming you're not only worried about the extreme scenarios, I'd flip-flop Rail Africa with Cairns Coral Coast
(Rail Africa becomes Quads and CCC becomes triples). Rail Africa triples gives 13 territories per player, while Cairns Coral Coast triples gives 10. I'd also flip-flop Rail Australia and South America (Rail Australia doubles give 15 territories per player) for the same reasons. I always consider "fair settings" those that give around 8-11 starting territories per player.

Let me know if this is the kind of feedback you were looking for or if I crossed the line.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Sorry Rob. I think people are just responding to my post without reading on and seeing your comments about you 'getting it'. Plus I guess if I was the only one who posted concerns it would simply look like it didn't suit me and not a lot of others, so why should you change anything for just one person?

Anyway....of other games coming up:

Round 19 - Sydney Metro singles could be a prob. You could switch it for Galapagos (keeping the settings applied to each map)

Round 20 - NYC also doesn't suit singles. The biggest map yet the fewest players. Would be better switched with the small USA Great Lakes

Round 21 - Holy Roman Empire could be switched with either Feudal, Pelo Wars or Imp Romanum (each of which are far more suited to 1v1 than HRE).

Sorry again mate. I could have looked at all the maps ages ago but the problem didn't really become apparent until the WW2 Ardennes fiasco.

danryan wrote:As a matter of fact I'll take the dissenting view here - Ardennes is no worse than a number of other maps for 1 v1, including WW2 Europe, World 2.1, Rail Europe, and possibly even City Mogul, which all have a huge first turn advantage. It's just that 1 v 1 is heavily biased to whomever gets to go first. It's not like it was a random map, and no one knew what they were getting. For what it's worth, that's my take.

Chariot of Fire wrote:I'd never played Ardennes 1v1 before so hadn't appreciated how lopsided it could be. I sure as hell won't be playing it again lol. It's like entering a duel at 10 paces with shotguns.

But point taken re advice. If any other maps in future look to be wrong for the game type then either myself or others may drop you a line.

danryan wrote:True, it's unfortunate, but if a team "COMMITS" to play in this event, but can't bother a) reading messages and b) accepting invites, I think it's fair to penalize them.

SirSebstar wrote:thats going to make a nice boost to the brewery, although not a great impact i think, except they have already won this round by default.
Fur us its not going to make much of an impact, i was expecting the doubles to be won,
i could have used a quad here...lol