Suggestions for the 1v1 Tourney 2013

As said, i will start a the 4th AW 1v1 tournament in a while (i'm waiting until the current 2v2 or has some more progress). The setup will be different then previous tournaments, and i will present them here. This topic is to critisise and give other alternatives for the 1v1 tourney settings. Its good to keep in mind that this is a 1v1 tourney. So more then 2 players in 1 map will not happen, someone needs to create a other tournament for this.

The system of 2times knock-out will stay as it is, and people will get randomly drawn against each other. The difference are in the settings, as it will be a 'best of 3' match. In the first match, Player A can host the game, play on his chosen map and with his settings. In the second match, Player B will be the host and he can do the same. Some settings are fixed, others can be changed by the host of the game.

The settings to choose from:
Map(s): Europe, Europe+, Eurasia, Asia, Africa, North America, South America. (I can add some maps here, if its balanced and not too big (so no whole world). Also i can add custom maps, but i need to see/check them first. Post below if you want to add maps to the tourney
Funds: Between 3K and 15K
Turn duration: Minimum 2mins, maximum 4mins (I could add 1min too, but i think thats risky because of possible disconnects)
+100 cities: On or Off
Initial countries: Minimum 1, maximum 3

Fixed settings (non-changable):
Rares: None
Game duration: 50turns
Victory condition: Capture player capital and hold for at least 2 turns

Once both games are played, and the score is 1-1, there will be a final match in which de winner is decided. This will be on the Europe+ map, with different settings depending on the round we are in. For example: Getting a 1-1 score in the first round, will give you Europe+, 2mins, 5k. Getting a 1-1 score in the second round against a new opponent, will give you Europe+, 4mins, 15k. This will all be random for each round, but will be made public before the tournament starts.

With this idea, everyone could train on his own map, tactic and strategy. The game will become more allround and i also think we can see more suprising score's, as lower ranks might have a good chance on other maps.

Nice Sign me up when you can.

Double elimination and bo3 is too much!

I suggest this:

Very first round is single eliminations bo1

from second round on its double elimination bo1

in semi finals all match ups are bo3

only one big final event with bo5
(no 2nd final if the guy from loser bracket wins)

Sign me in if this comes possible

Ecrit par VRIL, 14.01.2013 at 10:34

Double elimination and bo3 is too much!

I suggest this:

Very first round is single eliminations bo1

from second round on its double elimination bo1

in semi finals all match ups are bo3

only one big final event with bo5
(no 2nd final if the guy from loser bracket wins)

The problem is; If you do bo1 and single elimination, you can be out very soon by just having a bad draw or making 1mistake in your first game. Also, playing 3games (with different maps and settings) will finally get the best 'all-round' player and not just someone who is good in Europe only (so more maps are played). And if you play 1 or 3 games, you can just play them after eachother, so you can finish them off quick. And last but not least; everyone can use their preferred settings in a game.
And best out of 5 seems somewhat too much for me.

Yes, but last time the players were seeded for the first round and there were hardly any upsets as far as i remember. And I see no need to prolong that procedure
unless you want this to be a training ground for low ranks. If you lose your match your in the first round you simply are not good enough to secure an "easy" win.

I could make a 'qualifying round' if i have more then 64players, which is single elimination and just 1 game with standard rules. You need to win that to qualify for double elimination. But from that point, i think its more fun to have double elimination and more maps/rules.

I am against other maps than EU+, they are not as interesting and they take far too much time to complete. This is just my 2 cents. I know we like diversity, but being expert in a narrow field (EU+) is actually quite a challenge. I would hate to be forced to play in South America just because somebody specialized in that and threw it on me.

If you allow all maps, then crazy world nutters will have the advantage, and it will not be attractive to attend, since you know that you "can't do your best" due to unfamiliarity with the maps that will be chosen against you.

I agreed both with VRIL and Mbuto. I very much like the idea of a bo3, but I just refuse to play a bo3 in any map other than Euro/Euro+ for obvious reasons.

In the spirit of getting more people involved in the tournament whilst keeping the tournament moving and assuring that players make as far as deserved. I suggest an open bracket of 32 players (single elimination) where the top 4 move on. The second phase being invitational of 12 players plus the top 4 from the open bracket. The second phase also being a bo3 single elimination or simply just double elimination. Total participants: 44. Players invited into the top 12 must currently be both very active in game and have proven they're skills. Top 12 to be decided by a group of Moderators, not all mods as there are too many now. If anyone where to whine and cry about not being invited or about some else who was invited, I'd gladly kick their whiny ass (i mean report to a mod who'd mute from chat/forum topic).

Only problem I see with a bo3 is that it will be so full of mind games by the 3rd game we'll likely see some crazy ass backward shit. Could be fun ... Could be.

Also, my support goes to the standard settings of Euro+ 10k 4min. I believe that it hold the most opportunity of skilled play.

I can agree on the maps. What about 'best of 3' where both players can set rules but not the map (the map will always be europe+)? And maybe a single elimination in the first round?

The other rules need to be changable i think.
10k became standard, after the 2v2 tourney started with 10k. Before that, 5k was standard. And if you read trough the forum now, you will even notice some players that think 15k should be the standard. This is the same with the time. 2mins used to be standard, later it became 3mins (because of turnblockings) and today its mostly even 4mins, which is the standard now. The opinions about this are endless, and it would be good to play a best of 3, with at least 1 game with your 'standards'.

Lynchski are you even serious. This is by far the worst idea i have EVER read in the forum. 'Top 12 chosen by mods and mute/ban if somebody complains'. You must either be ironic as hell or your understanding of fair competition is seriously flawed. And by seriously i mean you should never post in the forum again if you were serious about what you wrote.

Ecrit par Guest, 15.01.2013 at 07:57

Lynchski are you even serious. This is by far the worst idea i have EVER read in the forum. 'Top 12 chosen by mods and mute/ban if somebody complains'. You must either be ironic as hell or your understanding of fair competition is seriously flawed. And by seriously i mean you should never post in the forum again if you were serious about what you wrote.

Yes, I am serious. I think that an anonymous group of mods can sit down looking at previous tournament standings and can easily come up with 12 players who have proven they're among the best. the whole point of this open/invitational bracket system is get more people involved in the tournament while keeping the tournament interesting, fair and alive. Also running a tournament with 32+ people as a bo3 would be quite difficult.
If you'd really need to complain to someone about not making the top 12 you could do it in your pr or cln chats, but refrain from doing so in the public room chat or on the forum. It would be about as unneeded as your post here. A mute NOT a ban would be a fine deterrent imo.

I do like Hugosch's point about how standard always changes and support it as well.

If anything in this thread was unneeded then it was your suggestion. Anybody deserves the same chances, independent of his performance in previous tournaments. We got lots of new and decent players who have not played in former tournaments. There is no reason to let mods pick an 'elite' of players who justs start the tournament on a later stage. Also mods being anonymous doesn't make them less biased. And no I don't mean SRB-bias but the type of it nobody can notice at oneself.

@Cow & Lynschki
I'm glad you both posted your idea's about a new tourney. Lets not make it a personal fight, but just keep discussing a normal way. I already did a concession to both VRIL and Lynch by some changes in the original idea. Lets say: 1time knockout and and 1 game until the last 32. From the last 32 it will become 2times knockout, and from the last 16 we will play a 'best of 3' game with changable rules, where only rules can be changed (map will stay Europe+).

To all others who are reading this: This is the time to discuss. I'm trying to setup a 1v1 tourney that will satisfy most players. If you do not reply, then i don't want to hear any criticism when the tourney starts.

@cow
The thread is called "Suggestions for the 1v1 Tourney 2013" so stfu.

Your argument makes no sense. The open bracket will give the "new and decent players" good competition and will keep them involved longer (giving them tournament experience) because they will not be put up against people like Caul the first round. If those "new and decent players" prove they are good enough by making it through the open bracket then they will be matched up against the Top AW players in the final bo3 bracket.
This system not only assures that there is the best competition in the final rounds, but also gives the experience of playing and making it into the finals of a bracket to those new and decent players.

Let's hear what the thoughts and opinions of others are on this suggestion.


EDIT: I post this before I saw Hugo's latest comment.

The problem with one time knockout is that if you pair two very good 1v1 players one of them will have to leave the tourney even though he is stronger than people who aren't as good but were lucky in their pairing.
We have to come up with a solution for this.

So you argue that there is a degree of luck involved but burst into flame when I suggest to place the people who have proven they belong at the top in the final bracket? Lol

sorry for this comment Hugo

If you even have to excuse for your posts its really easy to estimate the value of your arguments.

I want to join .

So you can't argue with cow. Got it. My mistake.

@EAB there is no tournament yet pls read.

You can try it, but with every post of yours you risk to make a joke of yourself due to a lack of reasonable arguments.

Thank you for this pointless arguement. Now stop it please and try to be constructive. Hugosch is trying to work out the next big tournament with us here!

Lynchski knows quiet well what he was suggesting he is experienced with tournaments of other competitve online games.

Because of the strong censorship when it comes to the term of bias I will rephrase my previous post.
We had this discussion about the process of modselection already and I don't think that players would be pleased if an anonymous group of mods would chose a group of players as Lynchski proposed.
Instead I suggest that we have it so that in future 1v1 tournaments we guarantee the top eight of the previous one a sure place. The remaining 24 participants will be determined by a qualifying round of bo3, where players get paired randomly in every round. Meaning the losers of the first round will play somebody who won in the first round, somebody who wins twice gets a sure place, somebody who loses twice is out, and everyone else will play their final match against a random enemy with the same results.

Mods selecting tourney players is a terribad idea no matter the circunstances, sry Lyn.

Personally I think every round should be best of three. If that's too much time for a person to put into the tourney then they honestly shouldn't even be participating.

You guys are completely ruining the thread. Cow, you told 5times that you think Lynchski's idea is terrible, why? I'm deleting the future meaningless comments.

@others, please respond to the tourney idea

EDIT: I wasn't talking to you Acquiesce

Seedings

I think the seeding system in the tournament last time needs to be looked at, yes you do want the more able players in the latter stages of course, but they shouldn't be given more of a chance with easier draws etc. If it is going to be double elimination why shouldn't say a rank 10 be drawn against a rank 10 round 1? Surley with DE then they will still progress just in the lower half of the table if they are really skilled.


Maps

It seems that Euro+ seems to be the choice everyone is making here. Personally I would like to see greater variety in the tournament, not to say euro+ is not a great map it is, but you have to widen it out.

Mbuto's concern was that games would have crazy maps and that people will feel uncomfortable playing them. The first point I agree, there is no point playing maps that are too big or too uneven etc. The second point about being uncomfortable in a new map actually imo will separate the players that are skilled all round rather than those that just know Euro+ inside out.

I like the idea of each opponent choosing their map in a bo3, however I think we need to be realistic about the map choice. For example they can choose from a list of selected maps, Middle East, Euro++, Euro, Euro+, North America, Mediterranean would all be appropriate in my eyes. And the settings should also be their choice.

If there is a third match then the last game should be played on Euro+ 10k 4 mins, which is the most commonly used settings atm.

One thing i would say is that no matter what the settings are, it would be nice if the admins made a game mode with the settings already defined and unchangeable, just like they did with duels. It could go as far as players not having to report their scores because moderators will be able to see results of tourney games. It would also be good for practice.

also, anything more than 3 mins and i wouldn't even consider joining.

Ecrit par b0nker2, 15.01.2013 at 19:47

It seems that Euro+ seems to be the choice everyone is making here. Personally I would like to see greater variety in the tournament, not to say euro+ is not a great map it is, but you have to widen it out. [..]

I like the idea of each opponent choosing their map in a bo3, however I think we need to be realistic about the map choice. For example they can choose from a list of selected maps, Middle East, Euro++, Euro, Euro+, North America, Mediterranean would all be appropriate in my eyes. And the settings should also be their choice.

This was exactly my original idea. But i don't know if others like that (some ppl stating not willing to join if they have to play anything else then Europe+)

Ecrit par nonames, 16.01.2013 at 02:33

One thing i would say is that no matter what the settings are, it would be nice if the admins made a game mode with the settings already defined and unchangeable, just like they did with duels. It could go as far as players not having to report their scores because moderators will be able to see results of tourney games. It would also be good for practice.

What about a rule that all matches have to be played as a duel?

Ecrit par nonames, 16.01.2013 at 02:33

also, anything more than 3 mins and i wouldn't even consider joining.

You can make your own rules. That means its possible you have to play 1 game with 4mins, if you opponent wants that. You can play your own game in your time, and i'm still thinking about a standard in the 3rd game (4, 3 or 2mins).

And yeah, you can just state that you don't like a specific rule, and discuss it. Telling you won't join if your rules are not in the tourney will not help me, because i'm sure others won't join if its less then 3 mins...

I believe the duels (ELO) should be separated from the tournaments so I don't see a need to make duels obligatory.

Ecrit par b0nker2, 15.01.2013 at 19:47

Seedings

I think the seeding system in the tournament last time needs to be looked at, yes you do want the more able players in the latter stages of course, but they shouldn't be given more of a chance with easier draws etc. If it is going to be double elimination why shouldn't say a rank 10 be drawn against a rank 10 round 1? Surley with DE then they will still progress just in the lower half of the table if they are really skilled.


Maps

It seems that Euro+ seems to be the choice everyone is making here. Personally I would like to see greater variety in the tournament, not to say euro+ is not a great map it is, but you have to widen it out.

Mbuto's concern was that games would have crazy maps and that people will feel uncomfortable playing them. The first point I agree, there is no point playing maps that are too big or too uneven etc. The second point about being uncomfortable in a new map actually imo will separate the players that are skilled all round rather than those that just know Euro+ inside out.

I like the idea of each opponent choosing their map in a bo3, however I think we need to be realistic about the map choice. For example they can choose from a list of selected maps, Middle East, Euro++, Euro, Euro+, North America, Mediterranean would all be appropriate in my eyes. And the settings should also be their choice.

If there is a third match then the last game should be played on Euro+ 10k 4 mins, which is the most commonly used settings atm.

This is also what i think.