OFFICIAL TOURNEY : Map discussion

[Gandalf Parker]

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

[Tuidjy]

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.

[Norfleet]

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

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.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
The one who claws his way to the top of the heap is clearly the winner.

Not really. In a FFA the winner is determined by who allies for the express purpose of having only a single player win.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Not really. In a FFA the winner is determined by who allies for the express purpose of having only a single player win.

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.

[Tuidjy]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

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

Well, with a game played against each opponent, how the hell do you determine who wins? By sheer win count? Ratio? [Snip]

---

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

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Tuidjy:
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.