new tournament rule disscusion

[sean_west]

First, I would like to say, that I am disappointed that this could not be sorted, and that I want to fix this os we can get back to what is important, having fun.

Ok

I have read all your arguments from the forum, and......

You both have valid points (in my opinion)

RSE is right with regards to 1 on 1 with a clear winner.
Yes this makes it harder for noobies, but I was a noob to mp a few weeks ago, and I am happy with this idea.

Flocke I agree that the maps are sometimes unbalanced, with say 3 empires in one cornerand the other2 spread out.

So here is what I propose:

I will moderate the tournie since I am neutral.

I will create several balanced maps with empires in each corner and one in centre.

I will random assign players to a partner (trying to keep time zone as close as possible), and races to a player.

Settings will be :
1 on 1
small
T5
Few Minor
No Randoms

Once teams have be issued, you arrange the time, I will give the host the link to download the map shortly before their game.
Once the game is over, the final auto.sav will be emailed to me to varify who won.

each following round will proceed like wise, until we have one winner.



Bear in mind before screaming at me, that I am trying to end this war of words, and restore the BOTF community.
On a side note, I am desperate to play a tournie, but I am willing to forgo playing, if we do it this way - that is how much I want this to work.

The needs of the many out way the needs of the few or the one.

[RSE_Chris]

A diplomat

I like your idea with the map; it would certainly make that aspect fair.

One problem I see is the allocation of race. Some races are not good against each other, so you would just have to be careful with which races you allocate.

The other problem is that because it is a tournament it should be varied, as botf is not just about T5 and small map, so maybe this should be varied for each game too? (Again, with the varied tech’s you would have to make sure the playable races are comparable.)

I do prefer the tried and tested way of a tournament as I have posted on my thread, as the game should retain some randomness, however this might be a good balance for people who feel they are not quite ready to do it that way.

A good idea.

[sean_west]

Ok, how about I do up a dozen maps, T3, T4 and T5.

The players can either decide which level they like or they can get a random one and not know until they start.

This will give you your variation, but still giving a fair map.

races could be grouped, i.e feds/ferengi or Cardies/Klingon/Rom

[RSE_Chris]

Ok, how about I do up a dozen maps, T3, T4 and T5.

The players can either decide which level they like or they can get a random one and not know until they start.

This will give you your variation, but still giving a fair map.

races could be grouped, i.e feds/ferengi or Cardies/Klingon/Rom

Yea a dozen would be better.

The maps/techs can't be random because different races are better at different techs, so they would have to be known beforehand and carefully selected.

[Flocke]

That's what I call a proposal
No reason to scream at you *hehe*

But that's not solving the problem as long as you have one major human playable race at center.
The center one should be AI.

As I've said I'll rethink about, but currently my interest in that tournament is gone after all these troubles and unpeleasent behaviour.

I would have liked going on where we stopped with an proposal to change, that would have been fine.

Also I respect you, sean_west for offering, you would need many time to create such many good balanced maps and I don't want to ask you for.
Having a few different maps all will play would be fine, as it was proposed originally. But that means more restrictions.
And RSE doesn't want these restrictions cause they are not rse old time tourney compatible.
I don't like having different settings in tournament cause they are not comparable between each other.

I would have liked having a fun afc tournament not really meaning as a strong tournament fight but for getting people together, but the goal has been changed now and that's not what I'm after.
That's more a kind of principles I will not accept than game rules.
Game rules never were that important to me, but here definitly is going something wrong I don't want to be in.

[sean_west]

RSE_Chris agrees with the idea of maps,

Using UE, I can create a dozen balaced maps in about 20 minutes.

This is no hardship for me. If we can get enough support, can we get all you guys on board, if only for the greater good?

How about use three put our heads together to create a "template" I will create new maps based on this idea.

[RSE_Dissy]

First of I'd like people to stop talkin about RSE in a group sense, the two highest active RSE's me and Chris do have different ideas on things so please try and distinguish between us.

Second of alll, I'd like to point out the immaturity of thunderchero and many of these problems may not of arisen if he hadn't deleted/cancelled various posts.

Third, although I was discussing the rules, this was constructive arguement as the rules I believe were quite silly, it seems my arguements were not welcome and thus caused cancellation of the tournie, for this I'm sorry to those who wanted to play.

Fourth, this discussion on tournaments is getting us nowhere.

Here are serious points to be considered for the tournament

1) Fairness
2) Accessibility for new players
3) Structure

1) Fairness. To be honest your idea of faffing around with pre-edited maps is bogus. BOTF gives us random maps, that's the way of the game. There are tons of random elements in play and to remove and insert a standardised map would destroy some of the fun.

NO to standardised anything

YES to playing vanilla botf with maps created by botf.

Game fairness? I pointed out many games which are far:

1v1

Card v Kling (no cloak no intel t5)
Fer v Fed (all techs all sizes)
Kling(no cloak) vs Rom(no intel) t5
Rom v Card t5
etc

2v2

Kling/Fed vs Rom/Ferg
Card/Ferg vs Rom/Fed t5
etc

If we structure the tournament around these base game types it will be fair.

2) Accessibility for new players

If you make the tournament 2v2 and pair a new player with an experienced player this would be good for increasing their accessibility. Granted, in a 1v1, a noob would stand no chance vs me, but those who have played me know after I beat people I tell them how, and they learn from it. I narrate how to beat them while I'm doing it...(if it seems they are new) So 1v1s will help new players to become more accessible to the game regardless of whether they loose or not.

3) Structure

This is to be discussed, many suggestions have been forwarded;

Thunderchero had tons of silly rules with THREE 3 people games - this will simply take too long. Thunderchero new this and probably cancelled the tournament to prevent him from swallowing his pride and changing the stats.

One other structure would be straight 2v2 all the way, or straight 1v1 all the way.

And my suggestion for structure (which was deleted by Thunderchero[thx dude]) was this:

Start , for example, 6 four player games. 24 players to start with.

Each 4 player game is FFA, with the parametres to develop into a 2v2. The 2 players which win in each of the FFA games will go head to head with another 2 winners in 3 2v2 battles.

After this second round we will have 6 players left.

All 6 of this players go into 1v1 situation with three games

oh now in the final round we have 3 players where ideally we want 2 players hahha

well that was my idea for structure anyway.

Comments?

[sean_west]

Ok here it is.

I will make this tournament happen, I just need your support, please post here your AFC Name, and you timezone.

I will be open to SUGESTIONS on balancing the maps.

I want this to work, and so do you all by the sound of it. If this fails, we will start to loose people, so lets all pull together.

[RSE_Chris]

Dissy I understand what you say about preset maps, I like the element of randomness too, however I think it might be a good idea to start with as a balance. Mayber newer players will be more willing to play if they knew the map was very balanced too.

However we should move on to having random maps, but for this round I agree. Put my name down.

[carcher]

@Sean west
I think you've come up with a good plan sean.I like the idea,especially the maps to even things out ,i always liked the idea of t5 small map,simply because it's faster,i'm thinking of family things here and work etc...there were quite a few of us,on this side of the pond,up till at least 3am this morning,i could'nt do that on a school day
Good plan sean

count me in bud

[Flocke]

@sean_west
a dozen in 20mins?
Ok, I've thought you would do more than swapping systems around and changing dil, but ok, if maps get fair enough that way...

I can't agree on that right now, for me this tournament is gone for about a month. I'll rethink about and maybe, if a special feature is missed, i might even think about adding that to UE, cause I think I know enough about UE to try that and I definitly know enough about saves to add alot.
Maybe something like adding/removing systems or stuctures.
But I would need some time for this.

And I still don't like the current proposal of 1vs1. For an end game or with many players for 2 rounds ok, but else I would prefer 3player+ games.
2vs2 would be ok as I proposed already for the old tournament, but 3 player ffa would be easier for getting noobs in.
And as far as I've seen most people have been not very experienced in mp so far.

we'll see, now I have to do something different. Have not much time this week - I'm quite busy.

[RSE_Dissy]

ok sean got me convinced, let's play with sean's maps.

But structure, sean are we doing 1v1 or 2v2? and we need an ideal number of players so we can seed it..

like i said, um 1v1 all the way all we would need is even multiplies of 2, with 2v2 in early rounds sum1 has to figure out how many ppl is ideal number to play

/me backs sean as long as it's not 3 player games

[stardust]

I'm not to worried about the randomness to be honest.
if i'm drawn against a veteran MP player then so be it.
If i get drawn 3 sectors away from my opponent then so be it.
If my starting systems have no dilithium, so be it.
If the surrounding stars have no dilith, so be it.
If i get conquered in 20 turns so be it.


whatever happens i'm in

[sean_west]

The map will be fair, you will have a few large systems around you. One will have dilitium. The human player will be the furthest player from you. The AI will be in between, you will have to conquer your way to your opponent. Please send me your sugestions

[ruthlessferengi]

ok... here is my 2 cent worth... i am not sure you have the number of players participation to allow knock out policy here... with race and opponent selection left to chance, a bunch of folk will be eliminated at each round - which is ok if you have a ton of players - which we don't...

so, to keep the initial intent of the tourney going - i.e. create more of a fest - why don't we let every single players to play each other....

Say, 10 players play 10 games 1:1, they get a score - either in game score or 1:0 kinda thing - everybody gets to play several games - and then tally up the score to id the screwdriver that rules the tool box, if that's what people want... My thinking - get rid of the score altogether - it's not a matter of who is the best...

you may say, it would be hard to coordiante that many games - but in reality - if we have less then 20 players - wiling players - that's not a problem. I

with this, you don't really need to modify maps, etc etc - just play the game as it is... use bop - tested in mp for dilithium distribution etc - if necessary. why re-invent the wheel?