 |
|
ColdWizard
|
|
a nomination thread would have to come first, with a rule against self-nominations. then a poll to decide the 6-8 players that will participate. and at some point a discussion on the maps and settings to be used...
sounds like a great big pain in the ass, good luck to whoever decides to organize it (if anyone does)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
deity
|
 |
Parrot Towers, Killcare Heights, NSW, Australia
May 1999
time: 14:18
|
|
I love this sort of thing but it rarely works out.
Cavebear brilliantly organised the Year 2000 Tourney that Nappy won but this was the only time it ever worked out. And even then half the players did not make it to the final round due to personal life getting in the way!
The Year 2001 Tourney, again organised by Cavebear, never finished Round One. The events that triggered this are amazing but typical ... After months of playing our game my ally, Markus, quit because Hydey took out his Wonder city - ONE city. It was due to the treachury of me that allowed this to happen. I did a deal with the enemy (Hydey) because Markus I felt had betrayed me. In pure civ terms all this is fine and part of the game of course so I found it incredible that Markus, a player I would regard as one of the best in the game, a player who has said to me that he's not played for 6 mths now (since this game) because there is no challenge anymore, would just quit like that!
The point is there was challenge in that game but he quit out. Once it's not about super growth/trade some players's games fall apart and they lose their nerve to take up the serious challenges that the real civ game offers!
Had to say this. I still think Markus is one of the best players around but it's sad that he and others have missed out on the brpoad spectrum of challenges that civ offers. Too many players quit out when things look hopeless. Usually they honourably concede the game but there is no fun in that. I believe in playing to the loser video! And in the only game I've properly lost I saw that freaking video for the first time ever!!
I'll support you AH but you can't just throw up a post like this and ask some other galah to organise it! You crazy?? Only cavebears do that sorta thing... LOL
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrFell
|
|
I'll join a tourney if someone sets it up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by deity
I did a deal with the enemy (Hydey) because Markus I felt had betrayed me. In pure civ terms all this is fine and part of the game of course so I found it incredible that Markus, a player I would regard as one of the best in the game, a player who has said to me that he's not played for 6 mths now (since this game) because there is no challenge anymore, would just quit like that!
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
 |
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
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?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-03-2002 05:17
j/k
, i hope i can be that fast when i'm that old 
|