Moderator: Clan Directors
Bruceswar wrote:Looks like KORT will score the first point with the city mogul quads. Though from what I can see Incandenza has a slight lead in the monsters singles! All others are too early to tell much other than it looks like it is gonna be down to the wire.
trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.
Chuuuuck wrote:Bruceswar wrote:Looks like KORT will score the first point with the city mogul quads. Though from what I can see Incandenza has a slight lead in the monsters singles! All others are too early to tell much other than it looks like it is gonna be down to the wire.
The score is 0-0, there are only 20 active games of 60 total, and you predict 1 win for each side so 1-1 and you already think it is going to come down to the wire?
I hope you are right because I want to see a great match, but it seems a little hard to tell that from the results so far.
Blitzaholic wrote:trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.
![]()
if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.
another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official
jakewilliams wrote:Blitzaholic wrote:trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.
![]()
if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.
another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official
Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?
jakewilliams wrote:Blitzaholic wrote:trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.
![]()
if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.
another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official
Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?
pmchugh wrote:jakewilliams wrote:Blitzaholic wrote:trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.
![]()
if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.
another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official
Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?
I don't get your point here, are you saying tiebreakers should be another 60 games? Whats wrong with 7 game tie breakers?
Chariot of Fire wrote:I think he was jokingly suggesting that, as it looks tied in the best-of-60, you discount all those games and simply go straight into the seven game decider and save yourselves a lot of time. At least that's how I interpret it.
ljex wrote:Chariot of Fire wrote:I think he was jokingly suggesting that, as it looks tied in the best-of-60, you discount all those games and simply go straight into the seven game decider and save yourselves a lot of time. At least that's how I interpret it.
that could be right, i guess we will have to wait for him
Snowgun wrote:I still don't understand why we don't make these things an odd number of games off the bat. OK, maybe it's due to each clan giving an equal # of map preferences, but you could easily sneak 1 or 3 or 7 random maps (w settings both clans agreed on) into the fold right off the start.
Dako wrote:Tiebreakers are very rare. I've seen like 5 of them in 50 wars here.
ljex wrote:pmchugh wrote:jakewilliams wrote:Blitzaholic wrote:trapyoung wrote:I knew it was going to come down to the wire first. After the games started they all had the same number of territories and troops so I figured with everything so even if would most likely be decided by a tie-breaker after 60 games.
![]()
if for some strange reason that is the case, we already agreed to a best of 7.
another 2 games here, we behind in conquerman but ahead in ww2 oz, so could be another split there, rats. 2-2? not official
Why don't you just run the 7 games and call that a war?
I don't get your point here, are you saying tiebreakers should be another 60 games? Whats wrong with 7 game tie breakers?
He is saying why not make it a 67 game challenge
Chariot of Fire wrote:It certainly makes for better drama if a tiebreaker is called for later rather than having it buried in the cluster of home & away games.
Incandenza wrote:Makes the tiebreaker game(s) that much more of a spectator sport.
Snowgun wrote:
I forgot we were all about the drama here. My bad.![]()
Too bad they don't broadcast them on the "Ocho"
jj3044 wrote:Snowgun wrote:
I forgot we were all about the drama here. My bad.![]()
Too bad they don't broadcast them on the "Ocho"
HAHA... mad props for the Dodgeball reference!
Snowgun wrote:Chariot of Fire wrote:It certainly makes for better drama if a tiebreaker is called for later rather than having it buried in the cluster of home & away games.Incandenza wrote:Makes the tiebreaker game(s) that much more of a spectator sport.
I forgot we were all about the drama here. My bad.![]()
Too bad they don't broadcast them on the "Ocho"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users