I'd play. So long as it starts sometime after the 18th of April.

I did participate in the last tournament.

Not sure what would be changed - maybe the scoring system needs some tweaking. I think it made sense in the early rounds but I think either more games in the finals or less weight to solos might make things easier.

Shorter phase, this is still going on & seems to take forever to play. I will pass.

I'm game. Unfortunately, I didnt play in the last tourney, to my detriment obviously.

Graduation is May 1st. I'd love it to death if we could start after that.

I'd be interested.

I'd prefer a start time after May 13th (but it's not absolutely necessary).
I've never played in one before -- anything I should know?
N/A
This'll be a new experience for me. Any tips for a newbie?

The lowest phase length I could see agreeable by most is 25 hrs, which isn't much less than the 36 allotted now. Are there other ways we could decrease the length of the tournament?

I would definitely be interested. As far as timing, whenever is fine by me.
I also have never played in one of the tournaments, so my questions are similar to most: What should I know?

Something to consider is the way the rounds are set up. There's an opportunity to take more of a round-robin style tournament as opposed to the playoff style we used.

If it was set up like the Masters is then there wouldn't be so much waiting as games would start every week or two.

Of course, the playoff style made each game feel more important.

The only thing required would be a way of communication (likely email/PM) and a dedication to check it! Obviously some commitment to the tournament is necessary. There's nothing worse than having to find replacements.

Format would definitely depend on the number of participants, but I'd like to thoroughly give each player equal odds instead of hasten the tournament and leave too much to chance.

If we get 49 entrants, round-robin would certainly be a much nicer way to go. But if we get too many over (or too few) than we'll have to do bracket elimination.

Well, however you decide to do it, count me in. I heart gunboats.

I would play, I would like to promote the Sum of Squares scoring system. I think it would be really interesting in a gunboat tournament and encourage "Diplomatic" style play and allows a solo to be passed with 2 (pretty dang) good results. But those good results could both be 12 centers, so long as you kept 4 other players in in and a couple of players at 1 or 2 centers.

Not quite sure I understand you Gram. Would you mind ellaborating?

So, each country's supply centers are squared, then all added up. Each players score is their centers squared/ the total. The total will be a percentage, so a solo is worth 100 , which is catchable.

With this scoring system, you will score a ton if you're at 12 and everyone else is at 3. You'll score a lot less with a 17 17 draw. That's an extreme example, but you can score better at 12 centers and a very balanced rest of the board than with a two or three way.

I feel like it encourages playing the whole board so you can keep players in the game and keep the board as balanced as possible. It's still always in your interest to take centers if you can hold onto them, but it's better for you to keep a small player in the game rather than let them be gobbled up by a rival.

You don't think it would encourage even more draws? Ideally every game WOULD end in a solo, the only reason points are given at all for less than a solo is because the truth is far from ideal.

I argue that a solo is a failure of players to unite and resist, or recognize the threat early enough so ideally a game would never end in a solo.

If you had 7 perfect diplomacy players on a board, no one would ever solo.

By giving no points for a draw, removing any incentive for a stalemate, players would be pressed to never allow such a big threat in the first place. I argue that players give up on their own solo too often when another player has any sort of advantage.

But, it's not like this system encourages you drawing early and not taking someone's centers, it just encourages you to prevent other players from gaining centers. Which I think with a gunboat would result in more solos because if you need 3 players to effectively co-ordinate you're going to break through more often than if you're facing two players.

I think the things I would like about it is that it would encourage more fluid alliances. You would have to think, oh chips, my ally is at 8 I better stab him more readily.

I think you just find yourself dissapointed that a gunboat winner can be decided so early.

I think i'm starting to understand. You want the number of owned supply centres to carry a heavier wait so that people will think twice before considering an early draw.

I think the current scoring system in the tourny doesn't always encourage people to expand their empire to it's fullest extent, yes.

I'm very interested, of course.

Preferred start date of tournament: after 29th April
Participated in last tournament: Yes
Feedback from last tournament: Excelent
Other questions/concerns: I like the current scoring system. I just think that more games should be added. That would make a solo less definitive.

o.O A thought: Anonymous? Hehe.

" Ideally every game WOULD end in a solo, the only reason points are given at all for less than a solo is because the truth is far from ideal."

I also disagree with this. I think in gunboat, more than press, organizing a stalemate to stop a solo should be rewarded.

I think this sum of squares business is a good thing. It also helps prevent a strong 2-man alliance just hanging out and waiting for the big power to reach 17 and the pre-set stalemate.

Yeah, I think I only desired more solos because I hate the "ooh someone might win, quick, everyone stalemate." This sum of squares may help eliminate that nuisance.

The more I think about anonymous, the more I like it. Anyone else?

The current tournament is anonymous and i doubt anyone has any real desire to change that.

Oooh. Did not know that. >.<

Is it a single/ double elim tourney?

It all really depends on the number of participants and how many rounds we do.

49 player round robin @ 2 games per round would be 16 games plus finals. I dont even know that we can find 49 players willing to do 16+ gunboat games over a summer eh?