TO Mass Game Creating Engine

[Robespierre__]

That is precisely what I had in mind. It would be easy to manage a universal template.

I would like to throw out an example of something that we could do given an engine that there is no way on God's Green Earth I would think about doing otherwise.

Clan Baseball.

Each clan puts out 9 players and each plays one singles game for every scheduled game (so you would play 162 singles games over the course of the season). You could have division winners and wild card teams and have a playoff in the end leading to the world series. Perhaps we don't have enough clans to do American and National League, so we just do 16 clans. After a spreadsheet is properly set up, all the TO would have to do is manage the rosters as people go in and out of the 9-person team. All the game creation would be 100% automatic and take 5 minutes tops. If invites are automatically sent, then all missed invites are counted as losses. Tallying results would definitely take some time, but it would not be *that* bad so long as the job were shared amongst 2-3 volunteers. I think 4 people could run this league and no one of them would feel like you hijacked their lives.

This is just one stupid idea showing the kinds of tournaments that you could create which build community that I think would be a real addition to CC.

But I think if I can't convince Blake, Green Oaks, Night Strike, etal, then either (a) they are predisposed to hating my ideas, (b) this idea is not as good as others floating around, or (c) it just is not that good an idea. I doubt it is (a) so that would leave (b) or (c). I am being persistent because I really believe in what I am proposing here.

Robes

[patrickaa317]

Yeah, I think Robe's post was just meant to show that data can be pulled, which is also sort of stating the obvious.

What I was picturing (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you'd have a sheet that has the "game information" that will be uploaded to the site. This would be pulled from other spreadsheets, saved as a csv and uploaded. So, the csv would end up looking something like this:

4,agentcom,patrickaa317,robespierre__,greanoaks,S,Classic,A,S,E,C,F,N,20,pw

Basically,

[#players],[player1],[player2],...,[playern],[gametype],[map name or code],[deploy],[turnorder],[spoils],[forts],[fog],[trench],[roundlimit],[password]

Something like that. The gametype and player names are different enough that the player names could be parsed first to ensure there's N players for an N-player game. The map code idea is a good one just requires a separate Vlookup on a table published by CC. All the variables are distinct enough that you can make them unique (I know because I've done this for spreadsheets that I work on and MapRank and the Game Search already do it, too).

Is that the right idea Robes?

If so, the spreadsheets themselves would be fairly easy to design, IMO.

Love it, except I might suggest putting the players at the very end given they are the only one that can vary in number. You would want to to ensure that there is >= N players for N-Player game; I don't think you'd want to force all to be invited at once. It might be a situation where i want to create the game now, just not send 100% of the invites in case it is dependent on another result.

I am being persistent because I really believe in what I am proposing here.

Completely agree here. I'm mostly quite disappointed this was rejected so fast, especially for a vague reason of 'not enough resources'. If it's something that is beyond the ability of the dev team, then that's fine, just own it. If it truly is the case of not enough resources, let's throw out at least half of the things sitting in the submitted box now. IMO, this would be way easier and quicker than GameLog 2.0, Unlimited Adjacent forts, etc. Plus would have more benefits for TO's to run tournaments like the Clan Baseball league like you suggested which WILL ATTRACT MORE MEMBERS.

[Robespierre__]

Love it, except I might suggest putting the players at the very end given they are the only one that can vary in number. You would want to to ensure that there is >= N players for N-Player game; I don't think you'd want to force all to be invited at once. It might be a situation where i want to create the game now, just not send 100% of the invites in case it is dependent on another result.

The beauty of this kind of format is that none of the games are dependent on any of the others so they can just keep flowing out from the TOs. Only once you reach the playoffs will it have dependent games.

Robes

[patrickaa317]

Love it, except I might suggest putting the players at the very end given they are the only one that can vary in number. You would want to to ensure that there is >= N players for N-Player game; I don't think you'd want to force all to be invited at once. It might be a situation where i want to create the game now, just not send 100% of the invites in case it is dependent on another result.

The beauty of this kind of format is that none of the games are dependent on any of the others so they can just keep flowing out from the TOs. Only once you reach the playoffs will it have dependent games.

Robes

I was referencing more the format of the CSV than your Clan Baseball tournament, though I do think that'd be a fun tourney to play in.

[Robespierre__]

I see what you are saying now. It would be great if you could leave the invite field empty and therefore extend no invites. But if we had to wait to start games only when there are active participants awaiting, I could live with that.

[patrickaa317]

I see what you are saying now. It would be great if you could leave the invite field empty and therefore extend no invites. But if we had to wait to start games only when there are active participants awaiting, I could live with that.

Completely agree with that.

This would also be great for clan wars where clans use a bunch of the same map/settings for each war.

[JamesKer1]

This thread was once a suggestion that was rejected. With some editing, I have eliminated a bunch of talk and summarized it below, but made sure to leave notes and conversations on the technical side of things. This is a copy of its old thread.

-This suggestion had lots of support from the community (actually 100% from non-Team CC members), but it was shot down by blake and NightStrike for using up too much time and not effecting enough people.
-An argument was made that, if created, it would lead to more complex tournaments, fewer abandoned tournaments, and faster tournaments, along with making tournaments more "magical instead of torture."
-Some parts may be a little choppy since chunks of totally irrelevant conversations have been deleted. I tried to fix one major one, but the others I left to try and keep everything original.
-Robes and I have discussed this, and would like to present this as a Tools Suggestion now, hoping to bring it to someone who does have the time to code it, work with it, and benefit TO's for years to come.


If you really want to see all the talk in and not in favor of this, check out rejected suggestions. Any questions, contact Robes.

James K