Forum Wars - The Ultimate Challenge

[Googlie]

Keygen has put forward an interesting idea for consideration.

Each of the three smac/x forums (Apolyton, ACOL and CGN (the Civilization Gaming Network) to put forward their best pairing for a six-player three forums challenge game, winner takes bragging rights.

One suggested pairing to represent Apolyton is Misotu, as the current leader in the Tau Ceti tourney competition, paired with big_canuk, the current leader in Solver's Ladder rankings.

But we have many fine players here, as do the other two forums. And Keygen too deserves a voice (as the contest was his idea originally)

I suggest preliminary qualifying heats, or, in other words, playoff games for the honor of representing Apolyton in Forum Wars .

Three teams of 2 will be in each game, with only the winner advancing until there is just one winning pair left, who will then carry our banner into the fray.

To capture the broadest possible participation, it will likely be SMAC.

I have volunteered to CMN the Ultimate match, and would also be willing to do the honors for these qualifying games (and thus will be ineligible to compete)

Thoughts everyone? Comments? Should we just vote Mis and big_canuk our reps and throw the challenge to ACOL (Mark13 has already commenced the process of finding a worthy pair to represent CGN)

Express yourselves here

G.

[Keygen]

I would say let's make 2-3 teams each site.
I guess there are more than two great players in each site.
I am pretty confident that those teams that will lose will want a rematch, which would be impossible in PBEM. But having more than one game running between the three sites would give them the chance .

I will participate in the one team while Misotu and Big_Canuk could assemble a second team. I would recommend a third team also.

[This message has been edited by Keygen (edited May 19, 2001).]

[Qantaga]

I am new to this forum and know nothing about the other two sites, so this is certainly only a suggestion. I would like to build on Keygen's point above. Maybe you could do something more like a Ryder Cup competition rather than just one game with only two players from each site.

Since each site has more than just two superb players, you could identify the top 5 solo players and the top 3 teams on each site. Then, you could have Single Player games 1 through 5 (each with one player from each site) and Team Games 1 through 3 (each with a two-player team from each site). Each site would have a captain, who is responsible for setting who plays each game beforehand, but all games would start at the same time. The winner of each game would receive 1 point. The site with the most points wins the title. In case two sites tie, there could be a sudden-death game put together by agreement of the two tying captains.

I would think this would give a little better indication of which site has the better players than one game with six players. Again, just a suggestion. Best of luck to Apolyton in the challenge.
[This message has been edited by Qantaga (edited May 19, 2001).]

[Misotu]

This seems a very good proposal Qantaga. There are certainly enough players with proven skills around to fill these slots. What do you think would be the best way to identify the players?

[Qantaga]

Ah well, Misotu, there's the real challenge, isn't it?

Being new to the forums, I wouldn't dream of trying to throw out any names. Maybe the best starting point would be to appoint a Captain (or even a committee) from the site. You would all know who has the best handle on identifying talent around here.

The Captain or Committee could probably identify 2 or 3 top names and teams right off the bat. The rest of the spots could be filled by a challenge game (or games).

Of course, you could also raise the number of spots per site to try to include all the elite players. Even if it turned out to be, for example, 10 solo players and 5 teams per site. That could be negotiated by each site's Captains to try to be fair for the size of each community.


[This message has been edited by Qantaga (edited May 19, 2001).]

[Misotu]

That sounds reasonable. I'd have thought a committee would be better than a single person - a 3-way decision has more clout than one (possibly subjective opinion) and it's less stressful for the committee, since they can all back each other up.

Mind you, it relies on people being willing to do it ... I suppose Googlie might consider getting a triumvirate together, since he is the author of this thread and, besides which, has been around for long enough to know something about most of the players here ... Tau is similarly experienced. Don't want to presume though.

Alternatively, I suppose we could have a poll but that's probably a lot more work in the end and perhaps not so effective unless people really participate ...

I think people should have the right to challenge for a place, through a one-on-one play-off. It'd have to be a fast match though, or we'll be trying to decide on teams this time *next* year

[mark13]

First up, thought I'd better post a link to the CGN thread and the ACOL thread...

It looks like playoff games are going to happen, at all three forums. Seeing as there are only two slots for each forum, and a varying number of applicants, I would advise that the foums each independently decide the format of their playoffs. We should also set a final entry date, to make sure none of them take too long.

Thoughts?

[mark13]

Great....we have the playoff stuation sorted over at CGN, and here at 'Poly, we've decided on a different format....typical....

Still, a Ryder Cup-style tournament is a good idea - the only main problem being that we don't have the sort of strength in depth at CGN that you have here at Apolyton. Six players is absolute tops for us, at the moment, unfortunately.

[Keygen]

We may start with 3 team and a couple non-team games with equal number of participants from the 3 sites, 2 players each site, each game, team and non-team games. If all the sites come up with more players then some additional team or/and non-team games could start after.

[buster]

Hi - as I will be running for the opposition (CGN) and do my best to annoy everyone here by bringing the trophy elsewhere - I will stay out of the discusison on who runs completely.

Besides this there are a few other issues to sort out however such as rules and settings.

Personally for a tourney thing I prefer a tourney style map (that is prepared and equal for all).

Also on CGN the idea seemed to be that there would be playoffs internally and then a champ vs champ end-game. Here the drift seems to be electing representatives and going directly inter-forum.

Another point to consider is with 6 factions on one map it should be SMACX or there will a lot of arguing about faction choices.

Finally I find it worth considering if setting up 3 games with all teams meeting all seperately is preferable to 1 game with 6 factions.

[big_canuk]

One way to avoid having to ask for a vote, is asking the question "Does anyone object to...?"

So the question could possibly be, "Does anyone object to the trio of Googlie, Tau, and Misotu, putting together our Ryder Cup Team?"

While this is not nescessarily *the* best question, it is IMO certainly one of the best. Among those three, you have great game players, great game knowledge, knowledge about the playing abilities of most of us, diplomats, and skilled communicators, and I think all other skills nescessary for the job. Is there any skill anyone else can bring that is not already embodied it these three? I think not. What do you think?

[This message has been edited by big_canuk (edited May 20, 2001).]

[Keygen]

quote: Originally posted by buster on 05-20-2001 06:53 PM Finally I find it worth considering if setting up 3 games with all teams meeting all seperately is preferable to 1 game with 6 factions.

I am not sure what you mean but we are talking for the possibility of starting 2-3 games, 6 factions each with a team from each of the three sites playing in all the 2-3 games.

[Misotu]

I think Buster is talking about a "round robin" format, Keygen. In other words, instead of having one game with 3 teams (6 players), he is suggesting that 3 games with 2 teams (4 players) might be better. So the 3 games would be Acol vs CGN, Acol vs Apolyton, Apolyton vs CGN.

The suggestion has merit, in the sense that it is purer. 3-team games tend to be more complex. On the other hand, a 3-team game will tend to favour the weaker teams, since they will band together for the first part of the game (if they have any sense!)

[Keygen]

I see Misotu...
Well, it would be a solution but better stick in the three teams per game, at list the one I am going to join.

The problem is that we have only 4 players willing to join so far.
CGN has already 6 players available and from the very best probably .
ACOL haven't gathered more than us yet, only 3 so far.

We can start a couple of games as soon as ACOL finds one more player and when more players are found we can start 1-2 more games.

[Misotu]

Hold up a bit! Believe it or not, a lot of people are reluctant to come forward crying "I'm one of the best so put me on the team!"

That's one of the big advantages of having a captain/committee to draw up a short-list and then approach players to see if they would be willing to participate.

Regarding Big_C's suggestion, I don't mind being the third member of a committee, if that would help. If there's someone better suited than me, then that would be fine too, I've only been around just over a year so there are older hands than me here, like TigToad and Flo.

Googlie, Tau, would you guys be willing to do the committee thing?