Maybe we should set up a world championship

Alexander's Horse · March 20, 2002, 20:17

I notice Ming's thread mentions lots of good players from different parts of the world.

Maybe we should stage a playoff to determine the "world Champion"? I thought we could vote for one or two reps per region (Europe, USA, Australia, any others?). Make it best of three games, perhaps do a duel and a teams event, a diplo...............

Someone might volunteer to organise it?

Flatlander Fox · March 20, 2002, 20:28

Why don't you go join the ladder!?!

Those are the best players anyway?

j/k

Alexander's Horse · March 20, 2002, 20:30

Nah - the ladder sucks - its too formal. The best players are here anyway.

Ming · March 20, 2002, 20:33

Somebody (was it cavebear) tried to set up some MP tournaments a ways back. I think the early rounds got played, and then it was never completed. If somebody else wants to try... fine. But a major question would be... on what settings, and what rules. As we've seen in the past, most people can't agree on these

ColdWizard · March 20, 2002, 20:34

didn't somebody already try a best player tourney, only to have the whole thing collapse?

Ming's fast

, i hope i can be that fast when i'm that old

, too bad i'm likely to slow down

Flatlander Fox · March 20, 2002, 20:40

Was being sarcastic before, and now my real answer:

Won't work...

Unless somebody sets it up, with rigid rules, and anyone who wants to will sign up... Then they will be the champ of that tourney...

Otherwise we will have to be satisfied to compare a$$ wuppins from different players as a guage of how good they are

.

Alexander's Horse · March 20, 2002, 21:17

Cavebear's thing was great (thanks to him) but my idea is keep it real small, just the best of the best as voted by their peers. No more than say 6-8 players duking it out.

Maybe we could get Mark to give the winner a special title (but someone else would have to suggest that - Mark never grants my requests).

Ming · March 21, 2002, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Mark never grants my requests).

Gee... I wonder why

ColdWizard · March 21, 2002, 00:02

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)

Ming · March 21, 2002, 03:10

Sounds like too much work...

Anybody stupid enough to volunteer?

Hydey · March 21, 2002, 05:39

Perhaps the different timezones could play games between themselves to determine there champion, eg .The aussie group. and after that then have the various champions organise games to find the true champ or chump .

deity · March 21, 2002, 06:40

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 · March 21, 2002, 18:22

I'll join a tourney if someone sets it up.

deity · March 21, 2002, 19:02

Maybe there needs to be a control mechanism so that you don't get a player quitting out after you've played for months.

A penalty is needed.

No one plays a tennis match and walks away without going to the 5th set. So, I reckon we need to penalise those that are judged by the 'democratic group and organiser' (say) as stepping out of line. If a judgement is made, like in tennis that the ball was out (!), then the players must stick with the decision no matter which way it goes. If someone quits out as a result then we need Apolyton's powers to penalise the player (no access to the forums or something).

Hey, it sounds Draconian but all serious sports and passtimes have these controls...

markusf · March 21, 2002, 19:20

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.

Alexander's Horse · March 21, 2002, 20:43

It should be too hard to organise - we just vote by region and leave it to the selected players to sort out a format. They report the result and we have our champion.

deity · March 21, 2002, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by markusf

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.

That is old and untrue as adjudicated by the other players in that game (Makeo and Hydey) and the Tourney organiser (cavebear). In fact you quit BEFORE you made up those accusations of unit ceding as cheating!

The NEW point I'm trying to make in this thread is that players like you Markus, no matter how good, are missing out on the BROAD CHALLENGES that civ offers. Think about it. If you'd played out that game it may have been your most enjoyable.

You said recently that you hadn't played for 6 mths because there was no challenge but when confronted with an in-game serious challenge you quit. You quit because Hydey took your Wonder city. Then you looked at the saves and made out that unit ceding was not allowed - disproven by the other players. Unit ceding had NOT been banned. Most games allow it and at the beginning of that game you even thought that city bribe was OK.

Deity Dude · March 22, 2002, 23:17

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

deity · March 22, 2002, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Deity Dude
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

You're it

Start a thread and lets go... LOL

Deity Dude · March 24, 2002, 02:22

Quote:

Originally posted by deity

You're it

Start a thread and lets go... LOL

So does the LOL stand for Laughs out Loud or Lots of Luck.

Ming · March 24, 2002, 04:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Deity Dude
So does the LOL stand for Laughs out Loud or Lots of Luck.

Probably both

Hydey · March 24, 2002, 06:30

Quote:

Originally posted by deity

You're it

Start a thread and lets go... LOL

I second the nomination.

I'm sure Deity dude will be fantastic at organising this.

markusf · March 24, 2002, 12:33

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.

oedo · March 24, 2002, 13:18

he most funny thing on this tournament is that the only non-european is probably going to win this championship

did you already start the finals?

cavebear · March 24, 2002, 17:10

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.

CapTVK · March 24, 2002, 17:41

If we decide on this it should indeed be small in scope. Better to do something small that can be completed then do something big fizzle out halfway. Sure, there's pleny of excitement at the start but when you get down to the sessions things start to fray at the edges. Cavebear pointed that one out already.

So keep it small, clear (victory conditions, rules) and to the point...

Alexander's Horse · March 24, 2002, 18:17

My original idea I thought was very simple - one game with players voted on by the regulars here. Best of 3 maybe but that's it.

Apply the KISS principle.

cavebear · March 24, 2002, 20:46

Decide the settings first. Do you want a duel contest or a real MP contest...

Surprisingly (or maybe not), that will determine most of who is interested.

Alexander's Horse · March 24, 2002, 22:36

No - that's the point - DON't decide the settings first! Just nominate the players and let them sort it out!

Deity Dude · March 25, 2002, 03:24

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?