C3C PBEM Tournament - Page 2

Rommel2D · December 22, 2003, 16:17

I'd suggest a 48 hour 'play clock'. If we can provide reliable refs for all games, they would play and send the turn on. Otherwise, it would be a disqualification, and a replacement would be drawn from the pool of players waiting for the next tournement, or it could be a second chance for someone already eliminated.

If we make all games 4 players on tiny, there's no need to debate land size, just wait for enough participants to join and fill all available slots (16?). Having one outright winner and a second, point based qualifier, we would have a 3 round tourney of 4 player games. Winners could be 'seeded' higher and be given preference of Civ choice over point qulaifiers.

I'm not sure I understand your point about barbarians either Sir Ralph. Are you talking about different advantages between Civs (ie, free slaves for Mayans, no goodies for expansionist)?

CerberusIV · December 22, 2003, 17:41

This is getting complicated. Would someone (anyone) like to make a simple proposal we can all understand and go with?

GhengisFarb™ · December 22, 2003, 17:55

I agree with Sir Ralph. I think the Barbarian level should be the same for all games not random. It can have a far bigger effect on score than the other factors.

smellymummy · December 22, 2003, 18:40

why not random everything on a small map, 6 players, and whoever wins is the champion of the PBEM tournament?

we could start it right now.

alva · December 22, 2003, 18:48

Should we include 'locked alliances' ??

smellymummy · December 22, 2003, 19:00

aren't locked alliances for AI stuff? there's going to be no AIs i thought

E_T · December 22, 2003, 19:36

I think I'll take a stab at this.

I vote for Raging Barbs and standard Map all across the board. Should this Map be Set up and approved by Whomever the judges turn out to be??

/me thinks a Tournament requires judges...

Also, NO EXPLOITS!!!

E_T

rogerurb · December 22, 2003, 19:41

so how much players still missing?
i think we should get past the rules phase more fast.....

alva · December 22, 2003, 20:40

Quote:

Also, NO EXPLOITS!!!

Define exploit ?!

Adagio · December 23, 2003, 07:02

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I agree with Sir Ralph. I think the Barbarian level should be the same for all games not random. It can have a far bigger effect on score than the other factors.

Yes, barbs can have a great effect on scores, but how can this hurt in the games between?

If one games players gets these scores:
1048
776
518
175

And in another game they get lower scores because of low barb activity they get:
423
185
111
100

But how can this hurt the tournament?
The winner from each game goes into the finals, not worrying about how much score the other players in the other games got...

Btw, I've got a huge problem... since I reinstalled WinXP yesterday, I can't get Conquest working... could someone please take a look at my thread in the help section? Otherwise I have to get out of the tournament

Here's the thread:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...38#post2583516

Rommel2D · December 23, 2003, 11:39

Quote:

why not random everything on a small map, 6 players, and whoever wins is the champion of the PBEM tournament?

We have more than 6 players who want in.

Quote:

Would someone (anyone) like to make a simple proposal we can all understand and go with?

The simplest, fairest tournement structure would be four 4-player 'qualifiers', a single winner from each one competing in the championship 4-player final. Why mess around with points at all?

Quote:

ADG
alva
GhengisFarb
Sir Ralph
notyoueither
smellymummy
Paddy the Scot
Rommel2D
rogerurb
Tarquinius
CerberusIV

E_T

Is everyone still interested? Can we drum up 4 more players? How about refs/judges?

Is there anything we can agree on yet? :-/

Adagio · December 23, 2003, 12:08

Let's start with the first vote: Tournament or not?

Should we have it this way:
4 games, 4 players each game (# of players to be discussed)
The winner of each game will go to the final (The winner is the first player to get a victory of some sort, based on Civ-types of Victory). The final is played by 4 players... the winner of this game is the ultimate C3C PBEM player

Vote now: Yes/No

My vote for Yes

smellymummy · December 23, 2003, 14:26

yes

GhengisFarb™ · December 23, 2003, 14:41

Yes/No

CerberusIV · December 23, 2003, 17:54

Yes (I think)

Rommel2D · December 24, 2003, 07:21

Aye

Harovan · December 24, 2003, 07:49

I will join the tournament if all three of the conditions below are met:

- In each particular game play at least 4 players
- The default player limits apply (4 on tiny, 5 or 6 on small, 7 or 8 on standard)
- No AIs

smellymummy · December 24, 2003, 10:55

looks like theres enough players now to start.. should we just post our emails now and someone could start the game?

Rommel2D · December 24, 2003, 17:28

We have 6 people that agree (more or less) on a four-player game, two round, single elimination tournement. We still need 10 more players to fill in all the games, plus perhaps someone to referee/judge.

We also need to agree on game specifics before starting. I haven't seen any objections to the following:
>Tiny world
>No AI
>Random settings for everything except land mass and barbarians

Points to hammer out:
>If random is no good for barbarians, what would be best?
Raging sounds like a good way to have some computer opponents without any diplomacy exploits.

>What victory conditions will we have?
Would there be any problems with the default rules?

>How do we determine land mass?
Different land masses would probably produce differently paced games. It would be best to have all first-round games finish as close to the same time as possible. I'd suggest all four should be Pangea. (This could be changed for the championship game.)

>How are civs picked/assigned?

>Play-what-you-get starts, or multiple starts with a group vote?

>?

Adagio · December 25, 2003, 08:17

And as mentioned earlier... I'm still not ready to begin any tournament... nobody has any clue on what could be wrong with my installation...

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel2D
>If random is no good for barbarians, what would be best?

I still go for random... this doesn't change the overall tournament anyway

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel2D
>What victory conditions will we have?

Just default...

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel2D
>How do we determine land mass?

I'd go with random, but pangea is fine with me

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel2D
>How are civs picked/assigned?

Not sure... random would probably be too unbalancing I guess!?!

E_T · December 28, 2003, 20:15

lets start...

Let's get someone to make a tiny Map, have them look it over for fairness and then we all use the same map for the first round.

I say Raging Barbs....

And I can deal with a Random Civ, as long as everyone else is also random....

And Pangea is fine, too.

E_T

Octavian X · December 28, 2003, 20:25

If you guys still need a judge/ref., I'd be willing to volunteer.

E_T · December 28, 2003, 20:50

Fantastic, Welcome Aboard OctX. Yes, we need a judge/ref for this.

E_T

Soltz · December 28, 2003, 21:32

If you need another player, I'm willing!

I can easily play one turn a night until the summer anyway (then work committments and holidays kick in).

I like raging barbarians, otherwise any rules are fine with me.

Rommel2D · December 28, 2003, 21:45

Quote:

If you guys still need a judge/ref., I'd be willing to volunteer.

Thanks Octavian. Have you played enough Conquests yet to have a good feel for the new Civs? If you generate a map on a tiny pangea, pick four roughly equal Civs, and make sure starting points and resources look Ok, we could use it for all four first round games.

I wouldn't mind random barbs, but I'd slightly prefer raging.

Most people don't seem very eager to make suggestions and/or comments about the tournement. Maybe everyone's distracted by the holidays? Hopefully if we start it, they will come...

We have:
smellymummy
GhengisFarb
CerberusIV
Rommel2D
Sir Ralph
E_T
[edit:] Soltz
ready for games, with ADG's status pending technical problems.
[edit:]One more will give us enough for two games.

Octavian X could pick four random players, or we could go with the first four to respond now. Anyone want to give more input?

rogerurb · December 28, 2003, 21:57

Count me in too mate!
Roger Urb [/email]rogerurb@netvisao.pt[/email]

Wittlich · December 28, 2003, 21:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel2D
[edit:]One more will give us enough for two games.

Is it too late to join up with you guys? If not, then yes, I would be interested in this.

smellymummy · December 28, 2003, 22:01

if my email is needed here it is

sm at inethighway dot com

when can we start?

Adagio · December 29, 2003, 07:14

Wittlich >> Seems like you'll be joining the 3rd game... and hopefully I will too

Here's the players for the first two games:

Game 1:
smellymummy
CerberusIV
Sir Ralph
Soltz

Game 2:
GhengisFarb
Rommel2D
E_T
rogerurb (GMT)

From which timezone are you guys?

rogerurb · December 29, 2003, 07:16

so my timezone is GMT=00:00