Possible Survivor 2 tourney...

[geoschmo]

So I was thinking about doing a Survivor 2 tournament. I want the idea to be basically the same, but with some differances. What do you think about this idea for a tourney format?

We take everybody that want's to join and put them in one big game. If there are more than 20 players we split them up into "tribes". Each round will progress until one player is eliminated, and then everybody left will move on to the next round. If we have tribes, then both games will eliminate one person each until we are down to 20 total and then you will all be thrown together in one big game.

This will be a little wierd so some people will not like it. In some games you may not even get into the action before a player gets eliminated on the other side of the quadrant. For that matter technically it would be possible not to even meet anybody before one player gets eliminated.

How you go about eliminating someone will be totally up to you. Two or three of you could try and gang up and wipe out one player and quickly end the round. Or you could play more defensivly and just try to ensure you don't get eliminated and thus move on.

It would be very cut throat I think. Players with reputations as strong players would be huge targets in the early rounds I would think because the other players would try to gang up on them early and give themselves a better chance to ultimately survive. This tournament could literely be won by anybody becasue of that point.

Things will move quickly becuase I will set the time limit at 36 hours, and that will be strictly enforced. If your vaction happens to fall during a round, you will have to get someone to take over for you till you get back, or just hope the AI manages to survive till you get back or you will be eliminated. Unless you go off for two weeks or more though you are only talking about 7 to 10 turns, so that should be too much of a problem.

And we won't have to waste time seeking replacments and stuff cause if someone just flat abandones the game they will be eliminated and everyone else will move on to the next round. We will come up with some definition of what constitutes abandonement. I am thinking five consecutive missed turns (that's a week) without posting a notice in the game forum or something.

Typically I don't like large games, but the strict turn time limit and the fact that the games end when the first person is out should counter that effectivly I think. And later rounds would not be such large games.

Whatcha think?

Geoschmo

[Puke]

i think people would keep themselved from being eliminated by droping a mine in a corner of the map, or colonizing some little moon that is protected by one of their stronger allies.

there would have to be some sort of arbitrary 'you are dead' clause that kicks in if someone drops below 50K points or something.

[Alpha Kodiak]

I agree with Puke on needing a "You are dead" clause, perhaps just not owning any planets would suffice. Checking score probably wouldn't be good because in the early game scores vary quite a bit depending on a persons expansion methods and what type of planets are around.

The format sound quite fun to me, though. I'm definitely interested.

[ June 14, 2002, 18:24: Message edited by: Alpha Kodiak ]

[geoschmo]

Well in survivor one it never came up, but I was sort of prepared for that. The rule was to be that if you had no more planets, and no colony ships that could establish a colony you were eliminated.

We could go beyond that even and say you must not lose contact, then the colony ships wouldn't be enough. You'd have to have at least one planet somewhere to remain in the game.

As far as allowing your ally to hide on a protected moon or something. That could be considered a bit cheesy. I would hope something like that would not happen. What would concern me most about something like that is if the protected player were then assumed to "owe" the other guy where in a later round they would maybe take a dive. That would be definate collusion. But two players agreeing to band together in an alliance and help each other out until they were the only two left would be ok I think. Although they might not be in a position to help each other in every round. Helping an ally survive is OK I think, where laying down so an ally can advance without you is not.

I would hesitate to make a strict rule there though cause where do you draw the line? Is one moon not enough, but trading a whole systems worth of planets for one that is on the other side of your allies territory ok?

And what of the legitimate case where the empire happend to colonize that planet and it happens to be the only bastion of their empire left, but is well protected. There they weren't really manipulating things intentionally, it just worked out that way?

Also, I didn't say this, but if two empires were eliminated on the same turn I would just drop both of them, instead of trying to split hairs and try to figure out which one went first. That DID almost come up in Survivor I.

Geoschmo

[ June 14, 2002, 18:43: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[geoschmo]

The other nice thing about this is we don't have to worry about disallowing surrender. That was a BIG sore spot in Survivor I.

Since each round ends as soon as one player is eliminated, there is no reason not to allow surrender. You won't be forced to play on to the bitter end if you don't feel like it. Although you would be wise too cause all you have to do is hang on a turn longer than at least one other player. And who you surrender to is unimportant too since the game ends at that point.

Geoschmo

[rextorres]

Cool! Count me in. When do we start.