Tournament of Champions (Season 5) for AA 50 Anniversary '41 version
-
Please sign me up. I won't deny the juicy opportunity to defeat me :crying_face: :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_smiling_eyes:
-
@icelander added glhf bro
If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future! Sir Winston Churchill
-
please register sneakingcoward.
-
@sneakingcoward added glhf bro!
-
Please register me, thanks, Raville
-
@raville added GLHF Bro!
-
Sign me up!
-
In! Thxs for organizing
-
You are both registered, thanks for joining !
-
@prastle - thanks for donating some prizes!
...and we definitely want you to play as well, so you are officially registered ! :winking_face:TripleA Tournament Director
-
Hi Deltium, Prastle & all,
I consider that to really be a good gamer we should show our skills as both powers (Axis & Allies), so my proposal is to game this way with each opponent, if games are even should be a third game to decide winner. One point is time, but thinking that within 30 days (one month) should be enough to make those two or three games (not 45 days that is too long as last ToC took more than 9 months…); this is a tournament and could have a compromise to all to enjoy gaming, to be in shape, to game and finally to win. Maybe this can be lighter if we don’t go as a double elimination system or keep it as you wish.
Please think about it and if it could be possible, if an 80% participants agree it should be implemented; we could follow this Ladder rule:
Rules Changes
A player may submit a proposed rule change to the administrator. The proposal will be open for every member for discussion and voting in the "suggestions" topic of the war club forum. If a majority of the players voting agree to the proposal within 14 days of the posting, the proposal can become a new rule.
Thanks for your attention, GLHF to all in this ToC 5, cheers,
Raville -
-
@raville The major problem with the TOC is the non enforced pbem time limits, Sadly this would require strict judgements on all games if they failed to meet the time requirements. I do 100% agree that it should be a tourney involving playing both sides and bid for the final game if needed... The sad part is this would make it a longer toc I fear than the previous 9 month one. Just my two cents feel free to add opinion @everyone
-
Dear @Deltium,
Thank you for organizing. Would you consider to divide the players in PBEM and PBF?
I would love to participate in this TOC, but I do not have the patience to do PBEM.
If a PBF player advances to point where next opponent is from PBEM group the standard TOC rules shall of course apply.
I realise it will mess with the seeding, but it may be possible to attract more players.
This structure could also be combined with @Raville comment about settling each match as "best out of 3 games". With PBF you have time for 3 games, whereas PBEM games could still be decided by only 1 game. The last comment is just and idea. I do not feel strongly for the "best out of 3 games", but I really hope you will group PBF players.
Looking forward to your reply.
Brgds NoPainNoGain
-
@Raville - first of all, thanks for joining the tournament, and thanks as well for your constructive input !
Of course, my #1 priority is to ensure that everybody enjoys the tournaments as much as possible, and I am CERTAINLY willing to modify the format if there is unified support to do so.
In response to your specific requests / feedback:
-
I do generally agree that the ability to play BOTH the Axis and Allied powers is an important skill to have, but as Prastle stated correctly, it will seriously elongate the tournament. Let's make a few assumptions, in that each game takes only 30 days, AND that only about 25% of the time, players need a third game to decide the winner of their match-up. The issue is that ONE single delayed game in a bracket, delays the ENTIRE bracket for all the participants in the ENTIRE set of games thereafter. Let's further assume that we switch to a single-elimination tournament (also, more on that below), and let's also assume we have 16 players. If only of the match-ups in Round 1 needs a 3rd game, that means that at LEAST ONE of their Round 2 opponents needs to wait an EXTRA 30 days before he/she can begin playing. We run the further risk that this happens to their Round 2 opponent, when their Round 3 opponent has to wait an additional one month to begin their game, meaning that they have waited at least 60 days to begin their game. This really slows down the entire tournament.
-
The reason for bidding is very fundamental, and that is that at SOME bid both players can agree WHICH side that they would like to play. As you are in 100% control of what bid you make, it implies that EACH person is optimizing their bid to play the STRONGEST against the other opponent. For example, if I am very keen to play the Allies, then I will bid extra low to ensure that I play the Allies to gain the greatest competitive advantage against the other player. This ensures that the bid is not only fair, but that each player plays their strongest game, and hence, increasing the chance to play their best against the other player.
-
On a related note, I opted for the double-elimination format for the tournament for several reasons:
(a) a big challenge for me in running tournaments is that we have a lot of "new" players with no previous track record, and seeding becomes very difficult. It would be really unfair, for example, if an expert player is matched against a new player who is really an expert, and loses the game, and hence, is removed from the tournament.
(b) furthermore, a strong intermediate player or expert may just have a really bad set of dice, and yet doesn't have a chance to recover and take a shot at winning overall. A double-elimination tournament eliminates the statistical "noise"of the best player not advancing far.
(c) as a final point, I want the new players, beginners, and intermediates to play a 2nd game to meet and play against people at their own skill level. In other words, I don't want a beginner to get crushed in Round 1 and then get eliminated. I want that player to play against another beginner (at least one more game) and get to know another A&A player in the Triple A community, and have fun.So, to summarize, I will certainly change the rules if there is a strong opinion to the contrary, but I have really thought about this deeply and believe that this is the best format for all of the players.
That being said, I like your rule change idea, and would suggest something similar, as follows:
Rule Changes: Any player may submit a proposed rule change to the TripleA Tournament Director for consideration. The TripleA Tournament Director will consult with the Admins, and if appropriate, shall allow all members to vote on the requested change over a reasonable period of time. If there is substantial support to change the rule, the rule shall be changed accordingly.
OK, hope this addresses all of your points @raville.
Cheers, Deltium
-
-
@nopainnogain - thanks for your comments as well !
First of all, I really like the PBF (play by Forum) feature at TripleA.
When I first joined years ago, I was not familiar with PBF, as I had only played live before, and mostly PBEM.
However, one of the founding members of TripleA (Verqyn) taught me that it was a good way to allow transparency and visibility to the games at TripleA and I continue to believe that it is a good format.
That being said, the tournament is setup as either PBEM or PBF, with the default being PBEM if the opponents cannot agree.
Therefore, all you have to do is to convince your opponent to play PBF and it will be just fine. I emphasize, of course, that PBEM is just as easy, and takes about a similar amount of time to finish a game, so hopefully you will try to learn how to play PBEM too?
Cheers, Deltium
-
@deltium Thanks you for your reply. I am sorry to admin that I mixed up the terms.
What I really wanted to say is to divide players in "live games" and "PBEM/PBF". -
@Deltium thanks for your kind answer @prastle thanks for your response too,
Furthermore to game both sides (A&A), an important part of my proposal is to delimit time to the most as possible, I really believe that 30 or 45 days for 3 games is enough to all participants, a live game can be finished in a day or two and a PBEM or PBF game could take maybe a little more than a week, certainly if there is interest and a compromise to game in a Tournament. (Last Revised ToC 12, took only 6 months and Revised ToC 11 only 4 months; ours ToC 4 v341 lasted 9 months, even that this map and movements are more efficient usually due that there aren’t stacks).
In this ToC 5 rules, game was set as: Hard Deadline for every game: 45 days; Hard Deadline for each turn for every opponent: 36 hours. This is too much, as a round will be 36 hrs. x 6 (7) powers/turns = 216 hrs. it’s more than a week or 9 days for a single round! So, under this scheme a PBEM or PBF game needs 45 days to have just 5 rounds when a game can be done in some hours as a live game! I think that time should be me much more restricted and quite strict to be enjoyable and fun. Also, some parts of the game can be done as PBEM and some parts in live time to make it agile as you once suggested; otherwise somebody can use that long time to see if an arbitrage could help him.
If ToC 5 could be set 45 days for 3 games, each gamers in concern should settled their games as the best they can to end their commitment (usually 2 games in 15 days each will be normal, getting another 15 days if is needed for a third game), if they don’t finish they will be out or go to arbitration if one of the gamers was committed to do the games. First 2 games could be set normal (13 bid to Allies) and the last one a bid game as you proposed.
You and I have gamed PBEM and in a little more than a week we had finished our games without problem. But it’s needed to have a compromise and to be interested in gaming and the tournament.
About double elimination I agree to have a second chance to game another player and that will be fair to all.
These are just suggestions to improve our ToC 5 and to have a better experience; If could be possible, would like asking other participants to give their opinions, views and what they think about all this matter.
Thanks Deltium and to all with greetings,
Raville
-
I've made a mod called "WWIIv3 1941 Move-Buy-Move", you can find in "WW2v3_Variants" (Experimental), that I believe makes games a bit easier/faster, as it allows you to Combat Move each unit either before or after Purchase. But you have to follow a few restrictions detailed in Notes, not to do some stuff that would be rules changing from the original. Just for info.
p.s.: @Raville The powers are 7, but the turns are 6, since Americans and Chinese share a same turn.
-
@Cernel thanks for you opinion I did adjustments about time. "Move-Buy-Move" to me it takes more time than a normal one as having an extra movement before Combat and Non Combat Movement, so don't see it really can help.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login