Forum

by **yeti_c** on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:21 pm

Ditocoaf wrote:
n00blet wrote:

I've never hosted a Tournament before, so I don't think I should be the one to host it. I think it would attract more people if someone with an established Tournament Directing rep hosted it (and it certainly would run a lot smoother!)
So.....Anyone want to host it? Maybe?

I'm already in the middle of hosting my first tournament. It's really not hard, at all. Try it!

I'm currently hosting 2 so wouldn't want to add another one - especially as the C4 tourney is very hectic!!

But like DC says - it's mega easy...

The one thing I will say is - I would make sure that everyone posts that they understood the rules - and the punishment for breaking them... if any game is broken in - the breaker gets booted - and the game gets replayed without them...

Tourney minimum is 16 players... so if you're worried about running a tourney - only make a 16 big one...

C.

by **yeti_c** on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:22 pm

n00blet wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:I'm already in the middle of hosting my first tournament. It's really not hard, at all. Try it!

I'll give the handbook a look-see. If no one more experienced expresses interest in the next few days, I might make it myself

And if you do - my name goes onto the list!!

C.

by **lancehoch** on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:51 pm

I would help out running a tournament. If you are doing it in the main Tournament Forum, you should link to this thread and make a post in here detailing the exact rules as we have discussed them.

by **Ditocoaf** on Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:54 pm

ooh! and also link to my post explaining why AA is so very awesome!

Aslo,

add me to the "in," whoever ends up running this.

by **yeti_c** on Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:03 pm

Looks like you have a quarter of the necessary signups already - of course - the idea was to get it out to the public - not the core fans already!!

PLEASE - make sure it's not a 1 game you lose your out tourney... I'm loving this new style so much I just want to keep playing it!!

To me - this and FOW are the biggest changes to the other game that we never mention that I've seen so far - not only are they ever so simple - but they're muchos funos...

Imagine... FOW - AA - Infected Neutrals... Awesome - CC PLEASE!

C.

by **denominator** on Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:15 pm

I would also be in said tournament.

You would have to be very explicit in explaining the rules, and there would be tricky issues with making everybody follow the rules. I would suggest everybody gets one warning - then disqualification. It would take a lot of work to make sure everybody didn't cheat though.

by **n00blet** on Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:04 pm

denominator wrote:I would also be in said tournament.

You would have to be very explicit in explaining the rules, and there would be tricky issues with making everybody follow the rules. I would suggest everybody gets one warning - then disqualification. It would take a lot of work to make sure everybody didn't cheat though.

I think one warning and then disqualification is a good idea. Although, a truly ruthless player could wait until the finals and then use their "warning" to clean up

. Maybe we should say that if they win the game because of that move, the game is redone? Although it's hard to tell sometimes when exactly the game turns around. If it's a clear-cut case then I suppose a warning and game redo would be fair.

I think the best way to make sure people aren't cheating would be to have anyone post in the tournament thread that one of the players accidentally attacked too far, and then post in the game chat as well so one of the directors could check it out and deal with it accordingly.

yeti_c wrote:PLEASE - make sure it's not a 1 game you lose your out tourney... I'm loving this new style so much I just want to keep playing it!!

I'm thinking double elimination, or maybe mini-leagues of 4 with the top two advancing.

yeti_c wrote:To me - this and FOW are the biggest changes to the other game that we never mention that I've seen so far - not only are they ever so simple - but they're muchos funos...

Imagine... FOW - AA - Infected Neutrals... Awesome - CC PLEASE!

C.

Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....

lancehoch wrote:I would help out running a tournament. If you are doing it in the main Tournament Forum, you should link to this thread and make a post in here detailing the exact rules as we have discussed them.

Sweet! I'll pm you about organizing it if I end up doing it

by **denominator** on Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:21 pm

n00blet wrote:[Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....

How would you program the infected neutrals stop after one attack?

by **lancehoch** on Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:52 pm

denominator wrote:
n00blet wrote:[Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....

How would you program the infected neutrals stop after one attack?

You warn them once and then kick them out.

by **Ditocoaf** on Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:35 am

lancehoch wrote:
denominator wrote:
n00blet wrote:[Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....

How would you program the infected neutrals stop after one attack?

You warn them once and then kick them out.

Well, at the point in their assault that it lists the territories that can attack, prevent it from listing the territories that are ruled out by AA.

n00blet wrote:I think one warning and then disqualification is a good idea. Although, a truly ruthless player could wait until the finals and then use their "warning" to clean up . Maybe we should say that if they win the game because of that move, the game is redone? Although it's hard to tell sometimes when exactly the game turns around. If it's a clear-cut case then I suppose a warning and game redo would be fair.

I think rather that they should have one warning in round 1, and if they make it through the first round, then its assumed that they know how to play. People will have to be extra careful if there's no warnings, sure, but I think removing that cushion after the first game will be the best way to prevent the most mistakes.

by **yeti_c** on Fri Nov 28, 2008 4:26 am

denominator wrote:
n00blet wrote:[Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....

How would you program the infected neutrals stop after one attack?

That should be easy enough.

C.

by **walnutwatson** on Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:46 am

I've played this style of play on a board game (mentioning no names) and it makes a nice change. Slow games but lots of new strategies involved. I say go for it.

by **n00blet** on Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:51 am

Yaaaaay support!

$\:D/$ $\:D/$ $\:D/$

I'll probably start setting up the Tournament when I get home from work today. Look for the thread sometime tonight (no promises

)

by **sully800** on Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:10 pm

I'd also make a distinction between two breakages of the rules. I broke the rules twice accidentally by picking the wrong country from a drop down list. This should not be allowed in the future or go unpunished (because I'm not saying I was faultless) but in both instances I could have made a legal attack and made a mistake. If AA was a real feature that mistake could not have happened.

On the other hand there were at least two instances of a chain of illegal attacks. I think that they were both because the person did not realize which game was AA. However, this should be a highly punishable offense in the tourney - one warning and you are done. This type of mistake can absolutely change the outcome of the game, on any card setting.

I would be interested in the tournament by the way. Let's play it on a map with "standard" gameplay but not a very common map. That way the chance of people mixing up the AA games with one of their regular games is minimized. I would otherwise suggest classic, but instead we could do any standard map like Europe or Phillippines