webdiplomacy.net

Any rumors about this coming back to life any time soon? Pretty sure RJ wants a chance to defend his title...

Also, what if only the top 30 automatically qualify, and there are two spots granted to whoever... For example, maybe we could talk TheGhostmaker into playing...

I would have volunteered to host it, but I think I owe you guys a chance to dethrone me..

RoganJosh wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:08 pm

I would have volunteered to host it, but I think I owe you guys a chance to dethrone me..

Absolutely, you have to play, you’ve earned the right more than anyone else!

I don't intend to participate.
I'd be happy to organise it if mods agree.

CptMike wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:43 pm

I don't intend to participate.
I'd be happy to organise it if mods agree.

I think the tournament would be *much* better if you participated CptMike, so maybe think on that a bit... If you ultimately prefer to host, I’m sure many like myself would be very appreciative, and I think you need to read this to do it:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=223

MadMarx wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:00 am

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=223

Thank you. I had already read this some time ago.

Any modification to suggest with 2018 Champions League ?
My personnal view is that instead of playing a 3rd game in case of 1-1 we should add the centers that are controlled... Advantages are that tournament move forward faster and that there is not luck at all with the choice of countries.... But I don't want to impose an option nobody would share.

Using the sum of centers controlled as the first tiebreak would lead to some unusual incentives. Players with an insurmountable lead could sit on 17 centers for years and optimize their positioning to push for the largest possible victory. Players could also strategically time their option to concede.

Perhaps sum of centers controlled could be a second tiebreak behind year of victory?

I agree with 90kic regarding sum of centers as the first tie-breaker causing atypical play, so I vote against that. I don’t mind a third game tie-breaker especially in AvF, but if a quicker tournament is a priority I like the idea of the first tie-breaker being the faster victory.

I think it should be a third game tie-breaker. But let's skip the fourth game - which was in the previous rules - and maybe just do third game with F wins if it's a tie?

Faster victory seems like a good first tiebreaker. I don't see how that can be abused.

In fact, it would open up centre count as a second tiebreaker!

I won't be joining the tournament though, so don't count my vote.

I think "faster victory" makes sense if you are comparing Austrian victories, but I don't think it makes much sense for comparing French victories.

I like the idea of fastest victory but that's true that it makes much less sense when comparing French victories... There is also the issue of draw-draw.

What about :
1. In case of A/A : the fastest victory gets the global victory
2. In case of d/d, F/F or a tied A/A : we start a new game and A gets the global victory only with a win.

A good compromise between the different minds ?

If it's only the four of us then, sure. But if we actually get 36 players, then I think we should pick one tie breaker. Complicated rules are hard do communicate, and you want to avoid issues with misunderstandings.

On problem with fastest victory and with counting centers is that it is possible that both are tied. Then you need a third tie breaker.

When in doubt, leave the tie-breaker as it was, then when comparing tournaments over time there is consistency.

Then the problem still remains that these tournaments laaaaaast too long.

It took four months the last time? Groups + 3 playoff rounds. Each round will take at least two weeks. I don't think it will go much faster no matter what.

Groups were round robin, right ? Why not have all the group matches happen at once ? For example, if my group has 4 players including me, I would theoretically play 6 1v1's all at once.

Alternatively, maybe 2 1v1's at once instead of just 1 or all 6.

It used to be that we were supposed to play a minimum of two phases every day, though loosely enforced, but even only checking in once a day I’d finalize one set of orders (while my opponent had already finalized orders) and then I’d immediately finalize a second set of orders so my opponent could do the same, that would speed things up... That said, if it’s not a strict rule then it only takes one person to ruin the entire concept...

badivan1 wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:35 am

Groups were round robin, right ? Why not have all the group matches happen at once ? For example, if my group has 4 players including me, I would theoretically play 6 1v1's all at once.

The first round is six games at once, pretty crazy but it would often happen at least partly over Thanksgiving Week in the US which always helped me...