Nominated Players Tourney, Round 3 (MP)

[cavebear]

Question:

Since we have 14 players, the MP games won't all have the same number of participants.

1. I can arrange them 5-5-4 or 4-4-3-3. 5-5-4 would be truer MP games, but would be harder to coordinate times. 4-4-3-3 would be easier to arrange times, but perhaps not as challenging.

2. Which are harder MP games? More players or fewer? Odd numbers or even?

[carnide_]

The more humans, the more dificult to join them all in a game.
I prefer 3, 4 humans at max games.

Keep on with the good work!

[finbar]

Yep, the more players in a game, the longer the odds of getting them regularly in the same place at the same time. Even for such an important event as this!

I'd vote for 4-4-3-3. I don't know what it does to the "everybody has an equal chance" theory. There's bound to be a mathematically-inclined philosopher out there somewhere who will tell us.

------------------
finbar
Mono Rules!
#33984591

[Curumbor Elendil]

I vote 4-4-3-3. BTW, my Round 2 duel with Nappy has no end in sight. It's neck-and-neck at about 1100 AD, and we both have very large empires.

------------------
Curumbor Elendil
jason.sorens@yale.edu
ICQ 56126989

[cavebear]

Oops! We are 15. I misremembered Curumbor's intent to stay with the tourney. My abject apologies, Curumbor!

So, it could be 5-5-5 or 4-4-4-3. Since there will definately be exactly (and only) 4 players who have 8 points each (won both duels), it will definately be 3 games of 4 players and one of 3 players.

I think I will reserve the game of 3 for any draws (the third player would be one with a higher score) or for the next-to-last (scorewise) MP game. That would actually make it 4-4-3-4.

That will guarantee that the top players will spread out a bit and also that 3 players will escape the "0" bracket.

[cavebear]

Curumbor - As I told Alexander and Finbar, "Que Sera, Sera". Your game will take what it takes. We are all more interested in a proper final outcome than in a fast result.

As my father always told me about playing golf, "Don't dawdle between shots, but don't be hasty on your turn, either".

[finbar]

What about improving your lie with a deft movement of the foot?

------------------
finbar
Mono Rules!
#33984591

[Alexander's Horse]

less players is more, taking into account timezones. I would like ai civs, but noone else will.

If there is a 3 player game, alliances should be banned.

Make barbs hoards - we seem to get just as many with bands and less money. Either that or just have huts.

[CapTVK]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by cavebear on 05-04-2000 06:35 PM</font>
Question:

Since we have 14 players, the MP games won't all have the same number of participants.

1. I can arrange them 5-5-4 or 4-4-3-3. 5-5-4 would be truer MP games, but would be harder to coordinate times. 4-4-3-3 would be easier to arrange times, but perhaps not as challenging.

2. Which are harder MP games? More players or fewer? Odd numbers or even?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

1.
I would take 4-4-4-3 (taking into account nr.15) but 5-4-3-3 would also be nice to try out. I take it the groups are organized on their wins/losses in the previous rounds?

Note: We must make clear by what rules a group will be playing!

2.
I prefer odd/even numbers, the 5-4-3-3 settings. I think that alliances should not be allowed, not that you can't attack the same enemy of course!

[cavebear]

Thanks for the excellent advice everyone. It really helps. I've continued to refer to this as a "Player's Tourney" for a reason; it *your* tournament. I just shuffle the cards and watch the blood flow... *s*

Now, about the next round: It looks like smaller is better, for both game play and scheduling. To a point, anyway; a 3-player game is likely to turn into a 2-player duel too fast, though.

I like the idea of no (formal) alliances (I didn't dare suggest it, but I'm glad some of you did), and I would make them all cut-throat 5's if I thought it would work. But, I want to keep identical scorers together (they are in groups of 4).

So, it will be 4-4-3-4, with no formal alliances (understanding that we can't *prevent* 2 players "just happening to" act in general concert). But formal "permanent strategic alliances" will be cheating (and it shows on the diplo screens).

I am making maps for these last 2 rounds, in the interest of fairness of starting positions. MP maps are actually easier than duel maps (for me, anyway). They will all be somewhat different (enough so that cross-game discussion will not reveal vital info).

About "cheats": Everyone knows the general things not allowed (far too extensive for me to try and list) in regular play. I encourage each group to work at particular variations among themselves for their game.

I will dredge up the particular world settings (age, landforms, barbs) later. They're in the original posts, I just have to go find them. There are 3 Round 2 games to be finished, so it isn't urgent yet.

[cavebear]

Finbar -

"What about improving your lie with a deft movement of the foot?"

My father would have a heart attack. He would "play it as it lies" from the paw of a grizzly! Old school type, and he taught me the same *G*

On the other hand, he knows the rulebook by heart, and might quote Rule 4(a) sec iii "Obstructions, Relief from..."

[cavebear]

KenThur - Don't feel too bad - I expect my AARP invitation in about 2 weeks! LOL!

The team idea must be the result of "a bit of bad meat in your gruel". Or maybe that Arena tourney you are losing dreadfully because you forgot you are entered in it.

I agree with you about the tourney. I certainly *hope* that everyone will give it their top priority (well, I'd be some kind of idiot to hope otherwise, wouldn't I?). But I understand your point.

Just as not every major chess tourney gets *all* the top players, some have passed on this Civ one as well. Still, it's darn near the best grouping I can imagine as achievable. I'm pleased with the participation; it will be a long time before such a stellar field is assembled again!

[cavebear]

Alexander - I agree with the "all or nothing" approach to barbs. The 2 MP rounds will alternate between Raging and (at most) Roving. I may change Roving to Villages only.

[Crustacian]

I vote no AI's,
Cutthroat,
No trading anything, and no co-operation..
Every player for their self as they would in a duel.
After all this is an individual player tourny in verying situations, rather than team tourny. True there is a natural tendancy to gang up on a player if they are vary far ahead, it is a risk a player takes to do so early in the game. But it should be individual efforts rather than coordinated.

Did I say NO MAP TRADING? LOL

I will of course play the way we agree, but those are some of my favorites.

Iliminate all huts... <-- is it possible?

[cavebear]

Eliminate all huts? What an interesting idea. I could put a pond square on all the huts...

Does anyone else want that?