Maybe we should set up a world championship

[Alexander's Horse]

It should be too hard to organise - we just vote by region and leave it to the selected players to sort out a format. They report the result and we have our champion.

[deity]

Re: Re: Great idea but...

Originally posted by markusf


You know damn well why i quit. I considered what you did blatent cheating. Out of the hundreds of big games i have played its the only one i ever quit.

That is old and untrue as adjudicated by the other players in that game (Makeo and Hydey) and the Tourney organiser (cavebear). In fact you quit BEFORE you made up those accusations of unit ceding as cheating!

The NEW point I'm trying to make in this thread is that players like you Markus, no matter how good, are missing out on the BROAD CHALLENGES that civ offers. Think about it. If you'd played out that game it may have been your most enjoyable.

You said recently that you hadn't played for 6 mths because there was no challenge but when confronted with an in-game serious challenge you quit. You quit because Hydey took your Wonder city. Then you looked at the saves and made out that unit ceding was not allowed - disproven by the other players. Unit ceding had NOT been banned. Most games allow it and at the beginning of that game you even thought that city bribe was OK.

[Deity Dude]

why not do it in a bracket system and let everyone in. it still wouldn't determine the best player but only the tourney winner but it could be fun. it could be set it up like the NCAA's basketball tourney. you could break it into regions with the final 4 being one from each region.

it shouldnt take that long - with 32 players that would be a total of five games

[deity]

I nominate Deity Dude to set up Tourney 2002!

Originally posted by Deity Dude
why not do it in a bracket system and let everyone in. it still wouldn't determine the best player but only the tourney winner but it could be fun. it could be set it up like the NCAA's basketball tourney. you could break it into regions with the final 4 being one from each region.

it shouldnt take that long - with 32 players that would be a total of five games

You're it

Start a thread and lets go... LOL

[Deity Dude]

Re: I nominate Deity Dude to set up Tourney 2002!

Originally posted by deity


You're it

Start a thread and lets go... LOL

So does the LOL stand for Laughs out Loud or Lots of Luck.

[Ming]

Re: Re: I nominate Deity Dude to set up Tourney 2002!

Originally posted by Deity Dude
So does the LOL stand for Laughs out Loud or Lots of Luck.

Probably both

[Hydey]

Re: I nominate Deity Dude to set up Tourney 2002!

Originally posted by deity


You're it

Start a thread and lets go... LOL

I second the nomination.

I'm sure Deity dude will be fantastic at organising this.

[markusf]

I am playing in the european final tournoment.

4 players and one ref in the game.
1. Rules are clearly defined at the start.
2. Ref decides all conflicts in the game.
3. Each player is giving a private forum while the game is in progress (ie not finished) and they can post pictures, stratagies etc and talk to the "fans" The administrator of the site sends user accounts and passwords to the "fans". So that the other players can't peek.

[oedo]

he most funny thing on this tournament is that the only non-european is probably going to win this championship

did you already start the finals?

[cavebear]

It is very difficult to organize a tourney that includes "the best" and "worldwide" players *and* a range of playing conditions. If anyone wishes to give it a try, I wish them luck (and that is not sarcasm but an honest wish for success). I will even send them copies of the records-keeping templates I developed for the previous tourneys (once they are seriously organizing one).

The major difficulties are:

1. Arranging participants so that their schedules are compatible.

2. Keeping players in the game (life happens, losing players get discouraged, etc).

3. Selecting game settings that players will agree on.

4. Handling allegations of cheating.

5. Resolving complaints about unanticipated strategies.

6. Trying to establish rules in any detail sufficient to deal with 4 and 5 above!

7. Providing maps that permit a fair start.

8. Determining how to award points.

9. Avoiding having the same people play each other in multiple rounds.

10. Determining "victory". Must it be SS, Civ score at some date, Powergraph chart, what?

11. Time between rounds. Some games go fast, some slow. You lose participants when they have to wait a month for another group's game to finish.

I've probably forgotten a few of the things that have to be considered.

I would suggest that any future tourneys limit their scope. I tried to have mine determine the "best overall Civ2 player". I tried to have a mix of settings and number of players in each game. That is probably not possible. Instead, perhaps limiting the game settings is the only way to go. You could have a "Duel, 2x2x tourney. Even then, however, you have to decide on something like "diety, raging barbs, continents" versus "king, village barbs, islands", etc. Or you could try for 4-person MP games (and the same other considerations of settings apply). The possible tourney settings are numerous.

But, still, limiting the settings, and then seeking participants would probably help a lot. Duels would be easiest, using the "RAH rules" would help, and providing "fair start" maps would also be important. An elimination tourney would be easiest, but a modified "round robin" would be most accurate.

To determine the players, people should self-nominate, then the list of interested parties should be evaluated (I found that many of the group-nominated "best players" were either not interested or could not be located) by 2 secret panels of experienced players. Then the "top 10" list from each should be evaluated by the Tourney Director and the players chosen to participate. Regular public voting tends to favor claimed reputations and/or those with lots of friends.

Another possibilitry would be to hold an elimination round or two, and then bring the winners into the actual tourney. But that could have consequences of eliminating someone who really should be in the tourney.

I will certainly admit that I would like to see another tourney tried (and successfully completed.

[CapTVK]

If we decide on this it should indeed be small in scope. Better to do something small that can be completed then do something big fizzle out halfway. Sure, there's pleny of excitement at the start but when you get down to the sessions things start to fray at the edges. Cavebear pointed that one out already.


So keep it small, clear (victory conditions, rules) and to the point...

[Alexander's Horse]

My original idea I thought was very simple - one game with players voted on by the regulars here. Best of 3 maybe but that's it.

Apply the KISS principle.

[cavebear]

Decide the settings first. Do you want a duel contest or a real MP contest...

Surprisingly (or maybe not), that will determine most of who is interested.

[Alexander's Horse]

No - that's the point - DON't decide the settings first! Just nominate the players and let them sort it out!

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
No - that's the point - DON't decide the settings first! Just nominate the players and let them sort it out!

I totally disagree. Anyone not included would have a VALID claim that they could have won. Anyone included would only prove they won an opinion poll. I much prefer the NCAA basketball system to the NCAA football system. I would rather have the players compete then have the pundits vote. But ff that is the way you wanna go, why even play any games? Lets just vote on the champion. After all, who wants to bother with all that messy stuff like playing the game.

Seriously, does anyone here really think that we could agree on a list of the top 3, 5, 12, or 27 players. Why not just let everyone in who wants in and let the game decide?