Tournament of Champions (Season 5) for AA 50 Anniversary '41 version
@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.
@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?
nopainnogain last edited by
@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".
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,
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.
@Raville though it would be interesting to play both Axis and Allies against the same player, I find it superficial to assume that a player can be very good with one side without knowing what to expect by the other side, and therefore how to play it.
As everyone likes a fast tournament, we'd better skip the double games.
@nopainnogain with the exception of a few OOLs needed during a game, a PBEM game really doesn't need to be any slower than a live game.
The slower game I had in TOC4 was with a player asking to play live, except he couldn't post his PBEM moves in 36hrs!
So if you are at your keyboard, just post your move in 10mins...2mins...whatever you take to play live, chances are the other player is still at his keyboard and will post an other turn shortly after too
@Deltium I suggest we could actually reduce the time for a turn to 24hrs with 3x24hrs allowed delays in a game and 1x7days vacation delay in a tournament
Handsome last edited by
Hi, I have never played AA50 Anniversary '41 vs another human beeing. This sounds like a very good opportunity to learn it the hard way. I would very much like to join this tournament:). Please sign me up!
I personally appreciate the double-elimination tournament approach, as this gives me as a newbie, at least two matches to enjoy. I can't wait to get beaten twice in a row:)
@Handsome - thanks for joining. However, please do try to play some lobby games live to sharpen your skills a bit, and keep practicing against the Hard AI. Cheers, Deltium
nopainnogain last edited by
@icelander the few times I did join a ToC (revised), I indeed made some fast PBEM games. My issue is that it turns into some kind of addiction for me. I wait desperately to receive the savegame and return it fast. Everytime spending extra time and ressources on reviewing the game fearing that I miss a small thing because I could not trace the opponents moves live. I just learned, that I sleep better, if I can finish a game at once or maybe in two or three online meetings instead of having a game that takes over my mind for 3-4 weeks
@nopainnogain I probably understand your point, though the current TripleA version features a very nice "Post Turn Summary" button which gives a complete but very easy to read report, listing all the moves and pointing out EDITs if any.
On the other hand, I feel playing live may show to your enemy something about your future plans that would better remain CONFIDENTIAL during war time
@Icelander This is my point, what I mean is that there are different strategies in gaming both Powers as KGF, KJF, and so on in the case of Allies; Attack, defend and other options in the case of Axis; so a good gamer should have to know the game in full with all its possibilities, skills and strategies as well. I don’t think it’s superficial at all as you have to win in both sides. Some people just game one side and known it well feeling comfortable with that position but don’t do it in the other side, even knowing that TA system allows gaming and be skilled in any side.
I agree reducing time to obligate a most agile game and not to make it a turtle one and waiting for arbitration. As @Deltium said, double elimination allows gamers to a second chance.
About last paragraph, I don’t know if the following suggestion can be possible: instead of two brackets of winners and losers could be one of Axis and one of Allies with all participants gaming one side (different settings by aleatory seed) in both brackets as a single-elimination tournament each (regular bid 13 Allies, both side games should be done in 30 days), finalist and sub finalist of each bracket game (bidding) to the final championship and 2 other positions (could also be that both bracket winner is just one gamer and not need to challenge finals), so participants need to game one as Axis and one as Allies game, instead of double elimination and also it could make ToC quicker. It allows all participants to have 2 games and not to be out in just one. As mentioned, I don´t know if the system permits this way and how many participants can be in.
Banfus last edited by
I'd like to partecipate
@Banfus - thanks for joining !
@deltium @ deltium this is going faster than I thought I think you should be able to use the tourney section by the time we start
Wasp last edited by
sign me up please
@wasp k boss
added glhf bro
@raville been thinking about your proposal, it doesn't actually prevent playing always the same side. Assume a player always playing and winning with the Allies, he loses the Axis bracket, then wins the Final with the Allies again.
If we really want to force a player to change side along the tournament, we could introduce an "Allies Index" attached to each player.
Each player starts the tournament with "Allies Index" = 0.
Players get +1 to their Index for each game won on the Allies side and -1 to their Index for each game won on the Axis side.
For each new game, the bid is modified by adding to it the "Allies Index" of the opponent and subtracting to it the player's own "Allies Index".
Let's assume in the third round of the tourney two players face each other, one is very good with Allies, he won both his previous games with the Allies and therefore his Index = 2, the second player is very good with the Axis, his Index = -2.
Now they must be very careful with their bidding process, as the Allies lover gets a -4 modifier if his bid is lower, while the Axis lover gets a +4 modifier for "accepting" the Allies.
Now the effect of introducing this index is very interesting and probably goes beyond that of forcing players to swap sides during the tournament.
By winning with the Axis, in fact, you are actually building a small bonus to play Allies next. This will most likely lead to an average increase of the bids to play the Allies, which will on turn give way to some unprecedented scenarios
@Icelander the idea is to make it simpler as possible and not to change side along the tournament but to game the opposite side at least once; it could be done if half of participants are as Axis and other half as Allies in one brackets and the opposite in other bracket at first round (13 bid to Allies). After this, all other rounds could have a normal bidding system following @Deltium recommendation as fundamental. Furthermore all participants will have 2 chances and should game both sides once; also as you pointed it, isn’t quite good to have a loser’s bracket and could better be having both brackets with winners making the procedure as simple as possible. Thanks for your idea and system that looks interesting (maybe for a Ladder) but implementation details should be done by @Deltium, @Prastle as well perhaps of approval or suggestions by other participants.
@raville my proposal is to add the "Allies Index" to the "Double Elimination" method. It would ensure that the winners have not won all their games on the same side. I see you want each player to try the other side at least once, regardless if they win or loose. Could be done, just me I don't like the fixed bid.