Conquer Club

A while back I had an idea for a clue-based tournament, but I don't know that it will work. The details need refinement, but the basic idea is this:

To win, you only need to win one game with the correct map and settings. However, you must discover what the correct map and settings are. Each round, each player picks their map/settings. I pit them against another player at random. You play one game on your map, and one on their map. For each game you win, I a)tell you how many of your settings were correct (spoils, forts, fog, placement), but not which settings were correct, and b)give you a clue about the correct map.

I have two concerns about this:
1) Players sharing hints with each other. If you get 2 friends in the tournament, they could easily collude to narrow the competition, and I'd have no way to find out.
2) Players could easily use Game Finder, and if they saw a large percentage of people using the same map/settings, they could just do the same, negating the "winning more games gives you more clues" aspect.


There are three possible responses here:
A) This is a good idea, and you can make it work.
B) This is a good idea in theory, but I don't see it working out in practice.
C) Sorry man, your idea sucks.

I'm looking for a little feedback. If the answer is A, please give me your suggestions. And don't be afraid to choose C.

Interesting idea, but I doubt it will work as you intend, so I'll give it a B.

You may also end up with it being against the rules, if somebody were to guess the maps and settings right in the first or second go....

Lx

I'd give it a B as well, since people would at least complain that their opponents were colluding, even if they really aren't.

Lx, they do play 2 games per round (one on their map, one on their opponents), so he'd be okay as long as no one guessed it right off the bat, and considering there are 160 maps plus however many settings that'd be kind of amazing (and the player would deserve a tourney win just for guessing all of that )

Natewolfman ran a CC Scavengers tournament last year.

Essentially the way it went was that he had a different "host" for each of the rounds of the tournament who selected something in CC land for people to find (like a particular territory on a map, or a thread or another player-really anything in CC was fair game). The host also provided I think it was 8 clues for each answer.

The last player to get the correct answer would be eliminated.

The games played and the order of finish was established. On Day 1 the winner of the round would get the clue. On Day 2, the winner would get Clue 2 and the runner up would get Clue 1. On Day 3 the winner would get Clue 3, the runner up Clue 2 and the third place finisher Clue 3. Each player was allowed to make one guess per day (I don't know if you could guess before you got a clue or not-I didn't play in it, i just took over the finals for him when he had to leave)

Thanks for the responses. I thought that would be the answer, but I was holding out a little hope.

The scavenger tournament is somewhat different than what I'd like to do, but thanks for the insight.

I think B too, but I want to say A...
So why do you host a non-official tournament version with 8 people or something, and use it as a beta. I'd be willing to participate, I'd really like to see how it worked. To win, wouldn't 2 people have to guess the right settings to play against one another?

The collusion factor could be avoided if you randomly assigned individual correct answers for all players, though it might be less fun.

Epideme wrote:To win, wouldn't 2 people have to guess the right settings to play against one another?

The way I was thinking...you'd have to win on the correct map/settings twice. So, even if your opponent guessed correctly, and you won that game, you'd be credited with one win.

Krissan wrote:The collusion factor could be avoided if you randomly assigned individual correct answers for all players, though it might be less fun.

It could also bring up a fairness issue, if some players think their clues were tougher, or they had to win a tougher map.

In Addition to that, if the tournament is basically, the first person for the pair of wins on specific settings, the speed is an issue... Sequential games take a lot longer, than freestyle...and speed games even more so... so if one person had to get a speed game... if they figure this out early, they could have 10 matches under their belt before somebody who figured out they needed sequential even finished 1

Epideme wrote:In Addition to that, if the tournament is basically, the first person for the pair of wins on specific settings, the speed is an issue... Sequential games take a lot longer, than freestyle...and speed games even more so... so if one person had to get a speed game... if they figure this out early, they could have 10 matches under their belt before somebody who figured out they needed sequential even finished 1

"First to win two games" would be judged by round, not time. Games would be sent out in batches, and each person would have the same number of games in each batch. In the case that the two games were won in the same round, there would be a tiebreaker.

There would be no speed or freestyle. Speed isn't feasible in tourney games, and freestyle is a joke, IMO.