C3C PBEM Tournament - Page 8

Harovan · January 9, 2004, 10:20

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
Yep, it was backslash I ment... isn't backslash = / ???

No, these are slashes.

GhengisFarb™ · January 9, 2004, 10:45

Yeah my email is me at msn or yahoo .com

Wittlich · January 9, 2004, 12:47

Like Sir Ralph stated:

A Slash (or Forwardslash, if you will) is "/"
A Backslash is "\"

And I too am not to sure about this whole ftp thing. I ADSL so I'm not bothered with download times.

Adagio · January 9, 2004, 12:53

It's not the download times that's annoying (On a 1024/512 myself), it's the clicking: To download a file, click here, wait some more, click here, wait some more, click (bla bla bla), click here then finally you may download... and basicly it's the same with sending a file...

Adagio · January 9, 2004, 16:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Octavian X
I'd go for 1.12 for the moment, as it's proven to be bug-free, more or less. Thoughts?

I haven't installed any patches... the only patch I can find is a 1.12 beta
Is that the one?

BigFree · January 9, 2004, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
It's not the download times that's annoying (On a 1024/512 myself), it's the clicking: To download a file, click here, wait some more, click here, wait some more, click (bla bla bla), click here then finally you may download... and basicly it's the same with sending a file...

If you are using web based email, that may be true for some. I for one don't. My email is fast and convenient.

Wittlich · January 9, 2004, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG

I haven't installed any patches... the only patch I can find is a 1.12 beta
Is that the one?

Yep. That's the one.

predesad · January 9, 2004, 19:12

I also prefer the email in attachment (or should that be attachment in an email) instead of the ftp

i have a yahoo account, cable internet, & find it's not too much of a problem to attach or download an attachment, yea, maybe it is a 4 or 5 step process, but at least w/ my own email i can handle the saves like all my other games, i prefer consistency

Rommel2D · January 9, 2004, 22:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
How secure is the FTP site from others opening your files?
I do not remember actively using one.

That's what the passwords are for, right? BTW, does anyone know if they ever fixed the bug that lets you into the next player's turn without the password?

Somewhere, my point about the ftp site was lost. Turns should be sent and reported just like any other PBEM game. The issue here is making the turn available to the ref in the event of a player going AWOL. Once someone points out that a player is past their 24 hour limit, the previous player must resend the turn to the ref. We're talking about a lag noticing the current players tardiness, a lag notifing the previous player, and a lag for the ref to receive and play the turn. I'm guessing a 24 hour limit will probably result in a 48 or 72 hour delay after all this.

Sending a copy of every turn to Octavian X will eliminate the middle step. Uploading to a website would do the same, plus allow for someone else to take care of it for Octavian if he's unavailable. I was thinking it would be better to just establish a method to promote a faster pace of play and make it routine from the start, but perhaps we should just play and see how bad the problems we actually have with delays are?

I'd prefer a third party doing the refing. It would be more 'professional', along the lines of Sir Ralph's suggestions for scenario setup. From what Octavian last posted:

Quote:

The final map (all sizes were set to tiny ) is complete.

I'm not sure if we are using the same map for all games or not. If it is just one, we obviously can't use players from other games.

Beta · January 10, 2004, 00:00

I read the start and the end of this thread. Not sure if you have a full slate of players yet.

If not - I am interested.

Adagio · January 10, 2004, 12:30

MAYBE we can get a 5th game up, making the final a game with 5 players!?!

But that requires 2 more players...

What do you other gues think? Should we do this or not?

smellymummy · January 10, 2004, 12:35

it would have to be four players for a tiny map like the others

Adagio · January 10, 2004, 12:47

Yeah, but didn't someone else earlier also ask if there were any more spots?

EDIT:

Yep:

Quote:

Originally posted by SAMUEL2904
Hi, can I play?

predesad · January 10, 2004, 12:48

i say keep going & adding games as players come along. if the final ends up w/ an odd number of players then it would probably need to be on a small instead of tiny map. But who knows, maybe enough players will keep joining that we'll end up doubling the size of the tourney (to 32) and add a complete round. Perhaps we should try recruiting some players to make this possible.

Adagio · January 10, 2004, 12:54

Fine with me

Wittlich · January 10, 2004, 13:01

Sounds good to me too.

Rommel2D · January 10, 2004, 16:02

[ADG, you might want to copy the game brackets into your first post to give new readers an idea of where we stand.]

Ok, now I'm getting lost. The tournement seemed to be floundering with too many possibilites so we settled on the all 4 player games idea. It should make for relatively quick games (emphasis on relatively) without losing the flavor of multiplayer Civ.

As it stands, we have to wait for all 4 first round games to finish before starting the final. I'll be suprised if we finish that before Civ4 is released. Since the whole tournement will move at the pace of the slowest first round game, I don't really want to have a fifth or sixth late-starting game added into the mix.

If we ever actually get this started and it proves to be fun, more people will no doubt continue to show interest. We can start a second, concurrent tournement at any time, building on the experience from this one. But how about keeping the first one simple and seeing if we have a shot at finishing it?

BigFree · January 10, 2004, 16:19

I'm sorry, but if we wait long enough to get this started, then we could end up playing with 100 entrants.

Beta, SAMUEL2904 and whom ever else asked, I don't think it's wise to keep adding in players. We need to have a deadline here. I do not have the final say in any of this and I will go along with what the others want. (others=majority)

GhengisFarb™ · January 10, 2004, 16:37

So is this now dead? What happened I thought we were just waiting on Donut Boy to start up the games and email them to the first players?

Adagio · January 10, 2004, 16:50

The start wont be pushed back because we might get more players into the game. The first 4 games will start whenever Octavian X gets the time to start them (He was still missing some passwords for two of the games).
IF we get enough players for a 5th game, this game will start at that point. A few weeks after the 4th game has been started, no more submissions will be accepted.

Oh, and something else: What should happen if a player who's close to winning one of the games, but has to get out of the game, then he has to get a replacement, but what if the replacement wins? Should the replacement go to the finals? -Or the player who ended on 2nd place (With score)?

Adagio · January 10, 2004, 16:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel2D
[ADG, you might want to copy the game brackets into your first post to give new readers an idea of where we stand.]

Done

Harovan · January 10, 2004, 17:07

My vote is: Let players join till the first games are in the AD's (later would be bad). Let the new players wait till a tiny game (4 players) is complete and then start. After the player list is closed (games entered the AD's), we decide what to do. I'd say, if it are 4 games, make a tiny final for place 1-4 and a final for place 5-8. If it are 5 (or 6) games, make a small final for place 1-5 (or 1-6), and a small final for place 6-10 (or 7-12). When 7 or 8 games, make standard finals. I don't think there will be more than 32 players (8 games), but if there will, we'd have to introduce semifinals then.

Adagio · January 10, 2004, 17:11

Semifinals would probably be a bad idea, otherwise we wont have the finals before Civ4 has been released

predesad · January 10, 2004, 18:10

civ4 will be a long time away, lets not worry about it interfering in our tournament and just enjoy this tourney

what i proposed about doubling the size of the tourney would not work anyway because the final game would have only had 2 players, we'd have to get 64 to get another whole round.

instead, why not try starting a second tournament, this one is starting right now, consider it closed. When / if additional players want to join put them in a second tournament set up the same as this one. to ensure that there will be enough players to complete this second tournament, allow players who have been eliminated from the first tournament in the first round to join it.

Rommel2D · January 11, 2004, 01:36

Quote:

Originally posted by predesad
civ4 will be a long time away, lets not worry about it interfering in our tournament and just enjoy this tourney

My concerns about Civ4 were meant to be more figurative. If we make this 3 rounds, most people will probably lose interest long before it gets near the end, whatever the reason. These programs become dated fast.

Quote:

instead, why not try starting a second tournament, this one is starting right now, consider it closed.

Seconded...

Rommel2D · January 11, 2004, 01:53

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
The start wont be pushed back because we might get more players into the game.

The start of the first round won't be, but the final might. Also, the more players in the championship game, the longer it will take.

Quote:

Oh, and something else: What should happen if a player who's close to winning one of the games, but has to get out of the game, then he has to get a replacement, but what if the replacement wins? Should the replacement go to the finals? -Or the player who ended on 2nd place (With score)?

I think a replacement is a replacement. If they win, they win.

How will we find replacements? Keep a waiting list of players who show interest after we start? With 16 or more players, its pretty likely a few won't make it to the end of the first round. Or should we just take whoever responds to a forum request first at the time?

[edit: grammar clarification]

predesad · January 11, 2004, 01:57

Quote:

My concerns about Civ4 were meant to be more figurative.

yes, of course, it was not intended to be a totally serious remark, but it does have a valid point. it seemed for minute some people were getting a little agitated by the possibility of yet another delay, your comment about civ 4 was not the only one, i was trying, albeit rather feebly, to make some light humor and say 'lets just play'

CerberusIV · January 11, 2004, 06:54

A 16 player, 4 games and then a final tournament is possible in a reasonable time. So let's get on and do it. More than that is too complicated for PBEM.

As for replacements - a simple proposal, if the game is past 10AD you have to resign. Up to then someone can replace you. If someone drops out in the final the player who came second in their first game is offered the chance to take over. After 10AD in the final it should be no replacements - you have to resign.

Does anyone have a problem with doing it that way?

Conqueror · January 11, 2004, 07:37

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
but we need two more players for a 5th game.

Only one now

I'll offer myself as third guy in game 5.

Quote:

Game 5:
Beta
SAMUEL2904

Harovan · January 11, 2004, 07:56

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
As for replacements - a simple proposal, if the game is past 10AD you have to resign. Up to then someone can replace you. If someone drops out in the final the player who came second in their first game is offered the chance to take over. After 10AD in the final it should be no replacements - you have to resign.

Good solution.