Moderator: Community Team
everywhere116 wrote:You da man! Well, not really, because we're colorful ponies, but you get the idea.
Rodion wrote:I had this idea of making a rather big tournament using only open setups. We'd start at 40 players and they'd be split into 4 10-player games (I have a specific setup in mind with 7 townies and 3 mafia). All winning players would progress to the next round. The next round would heavily depend on how the 4 games shaped up.
If mafia won all 4 games, we'd only have 12 players advancing to round 2.
If mafia won 3 games, we'd have 16 players.
If 2, 20.
If 1, 24.
If town won all games, we'd have 28 players advancing to round 2.
In order to probably fit rounds that start with an unusual ammount of players, I could invite eliminated players (or players that did not join the tournament) to fill up slots and make games have a decent size. Those players would try their best to win as usual, but would not advance to the following rounds upon winning a game.
Tournament is over when 20% or less players remain (that means we'll keep playing as long as 9+ players advance to a certain round, but if there are 8 or less players advancing, they are considered the tournament winners).
We could use 1 week day-deadlines and 48-hour night deadlines to make sure the tournament will not drag down for several months.
I can't mod 4 games at once as per site rules, so I'd need at least 3 volunteers to take the burden with me (they can still play the tournament and I'll assign them to mod a game in which they are not playing).
Do you think that is feasible?
Can we get 40 players to do that?
My opponent is working with Monsanto cronies, Rupert Murdoch yes-men and corrupt labor unions.
shieldgenerator7 wrote:In! PLus, I'd like to volunteer to mod a game
DoomYoshi wrote:
There is no limit to co-modded games. All you need is one volunteer to help mod. All 4 games can be modded by the same team. After thinking, this would make sense, since some mods are more lenient on deadlines etc.
Commander9 wrote:Trust Edoc, as I know he's VERY good.
zimmah wrote:Mind like a brick.
Iliad wrote:The upside of calling everyone scum and making 1000 predictions is that statistically you should get a few right.
My opponent is working with Monsanto cronies, Rupert Murdoch yes-men and corrupt labor unions.
DoomYoshi wrote:Another thought: the current format doesn't make sense to me as it gives mafia players a greater chance of winning.
Theoretically, a good setup will have 50/50 chance of mafia winning. Since the setup is based on winning when only a certain amount of players are eliminated then the more eliminations there are, the closer you get to victory.
So, let's say you win 50/50. If you win as mafia, then you are 2/3 more likely to survive to the end as if you were town (2 other players advancing with you as opposed to 6 other players advancing with you). The current setup would work if there was only a 30% chance of mafia winning; which means the games would have to be unbalanced.
My opponent is working with Monsanto cronies, Rupert Murdoch yes-men and corrupt labor unions.
My opponent is working with Monsanto cronies, Rupert Murdoch yes-men and corrupt labor unions.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users