OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

Hey folks !

We are currently discussing which map we should play. We need your feedback.

So please post which maps could be played.

The tourney map should be :

- small
- 1on1 , 1on1on1
- fair for all
- well tested

MAP SUGGESTIONS :

- Karan, 8 Players
- Urgaia, 1on1
- The Clash of titans, 1on1

[ May 19, 2004, 22:23: Message edited by: BF_Napoleon ]

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

We have 8 men. Karan is a classic favorite for this size of group.

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

Thanx for the feedback NORFLEET. I added the map to the list.

But 8 Players are to much. We need 1on1 and 1on1on1on Maps for the tourney.

A 8 Player map would Last too long in my eyes, dont you think so `?

Any other suggestions ?

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

Running a game of all 8-9 wouldn't really be any longer than running a gazillion games of every player vs. every other player. Given the pace of a Dominions II game, on 24h/quickhost, it'll be a month or two to reach resolution either way. The alternative being dangling tiny games, which won't really go any faster due to the fact that players come from disparate time zones. Running elimination would take even longer, since you'd have to wait for outcome of a game of two or three players against each other to conclude before you can even have a next game!

[ May 16, 2004, 09:51: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The Clash of titans map works for 1 on 1, as does Urgaia.

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

You would want a map where the .map file does no special assignments of things like sites.

I have a bit of a write-up on map sizes vs number of players at http://www.dom2minions.com/maps.shtml

You could also use one of the randomly generated tiny/small/medium maps for a tourney game. There would be no preplay advantage. They download quick. Might even be fun to say "You will be playing on tomorrows Small #4 so be sure to download it".

Or set something up to randomly create a map. Have the players download the .tga and keep the .map file on the machine that generates the game-start. The players dont even get a .map file to clean info from.

[ May 16, 2004, 14:52: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

So what does everyone feel is enough expansion for a Dom2 tournament? 5 provinces (basically the area surrounding your castle). 7? 10? 15?

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

I know I am in the minority here, but I have
always felt that strategy game tournaments should
not be decided by your social skills, or by your
reputation.

I.e. I would rather have a N-1 games against each
opponent, rather than some crazy and
uncontrollable mix of free for alls.

My suggestion (snowball chance in Hell) is that
the tournament is played on 1x1 maps, with both
players submiting a first and second race choice
for each match, and the tournament officials
rolling for first/second choice when the first
ones coincide.

That is the one way you will get the fuzzy stuff
out of the competion. Otherwise you will have
everyone pussyfooting it around the veterans,
people negociating and building up, waiting
for someone to start a war, and teaming up on
them, etc...

Hell, I'll play any way it ends up being,
but I would rather screw the diplomacy and get
on with the conquest.

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, with a game played against each opponent, how the hell do you determine who wins? By sheer win count? Ratio? It's all very indeterminate. Much more decisive with everyone in one game...where there can be only one. The one who claws his way to the top of the heap is clearly the winner.

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not really. In a FFA the winner is determined by who allies for the express purpose of having only a single player win.

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have never observed this behavior. It usually tends to work the other way around, that everyone allies against the guy who is winning, usually too late to stop it from happening.

Besides, I don't see why diplomacy can't be considered an important element of the game. The alternative tournament structure would be something to the effect of single or double elimination, which would take even longer than a single big match.

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, with a game played against each opponent, how the hell do you determine who wins? By sheer win count? Ratio? [Snip] </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, win count and ratio will have the same
meaning in this case, and yes, this is exactly
what I propose using.

This way:

1. Everyone will get to play at worst his second
best race. I.e. no rush for Ermor, Caelum, or
whatever the best race-du-jour is.

2. No one will be screwed by initial placement.
I.e. no Marignon finding itself next to Abysia.

3. No metagaming tactics. I.e. no pregame teaming
up, or in game heap ups on the leader.

4. Plain damn fairness. How can one complain when
most of the randomness is eliminated?

5. The total time of the tournament will be
reduced. I.e. a two person game on a small
map Lasts fewer turns than a ten players game
on a huge map.

6. The total number of games played will be
higher - MORE FUN FOR US!

Hell, if I wanted to engage in diplomacy and
backstabbing, I would send my papers for the
next 'Survivor' show or something. The only
way to play free-for-all and keep some
shade of fairness is to enforce the 'contact->war'
rule, but even then some people end up being
screwed through no fault of their own.

Petar

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">We can't really guarantee this will actually be true: It takes a lot of time to organize games between people who otherwise have no contact.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm not sure repeatedly starting new games is what I'd call "fun". Not to mention that you're merely substituting the assumed shortness of one game for quantity of games.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't really think this is an enforceable rule. Contact doesn't necessarily mean war, if nobody actually attacks the other. Eventually, the parties in question simply indicate a desire for peace through action alone. If nobody wants to fight, there's not going to be a fight, even if they're "at war" by that rule.

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">We can't really guarantee this will actually be true: It takes a lot of time to organize games between people who otherwise have no contact.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh, that's why we call it a tournament :-)
The organizer starts the game, and those who do
not take their turns fall behind and lose.
I should not be on to talk, given how easily I
accumulate stale turns, but hey, fair's fair.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm not sure repeatedly starting new games is what I'd call "fun". Not to mention that you're merely substituting the assumed shortness of one game for quantity of games.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, I am aware that I am in a minority as to
liking short and agressive games. But there is
no assumed shortness. A game on 'Clash' is
decided by turn 30, usually. Not over, but
decided.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't really think this is an enforceable rule. Contact doesn't necessarily mean war, if nobody actually attacks the other. Eventually, the parties in question simply indicate a desire for peace through action alone. If nobody wants to fight, there's not going to be a fight, even if they're "at war" by that rule. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are right, it is not easy to enforce. But
I have seen it enforced in some games. Anvils
were falling on the heads of the Barons who
were at peace when by the game's universe rules
they should have been at each other's throats.
But it was in a heavily GM'd game.

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't really think you can force people to attack each other. Wars cost a lot of money, and if you don't have the money to fight one....you don't. And if neither of you can afford to fight one, there's not going to be a war.

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't really think you can force people to attack each other. Wars cost a lot of money, and if you don't have the money to fight one....you don't. And if neither of you can afford to fight one, there's not going to be a war. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which is exactly what happens in most free for
alls. People do not start a war unless they are
in an alliance, or way ahead. And of course,
once you start a game against an enemy you can
handle, chances are someone else will jump you.
So the game gets decided, for the average player,
by diplomacy. Not many, and certainly not I, get
in the position of being so much ahead as not to
care about other people interferring.

On the other hand, in a two players game, it is
a lot more likely that there will be a fight as
soon as practical. Whatever floats your boat,
but as far as I am concerned, I prefer fighting
as soon as possible.

So maybe we should have two tournaments :-)

Re: OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion
 

Thanx for the many replies and the helpfull feedback.

Please give us some time now to view the suggestions.

Best regards !