Discuss
Topics
- Gather up all interested players - by responding to this thread you are deemed interested.
- Interested players discuss and hash out the rules.
- Organize the tournament.
- Start the tournament.
- this should be a 1v1 single elimination tournament
- I think we should all play on the same map: the medium sized maps like Botanic Troubles or One on One are big enough to not have any first player bias.
- the games should be public with open chat so other tournament participants can spectate, observe and otherwise check out their future oponent.
- the games should be set to 1day time limits, but tournament particiapants should agree to play at least a few times a day so each round only lasts 1-2 weeks at the most... we don't want this tourney going on forever.
- the tournament bracket should be setup traditional style, based on your current weewar ranking (i.e. #1 player plays last ranked player, #2 plays second to last, etc.)
- I think the wiki would be a nice place to organize the tournament and to manage the results.
- Prizes: Alex has mentioned pro accounts as possible prizes, but I think for now we should just play for pride and bragging rights since this is the first tourney and there are likely some bugs and kinks to be worked out. For instance, maybe a prize could be that you get featured in a weewar blog post as the most awesome tournament player.
- with the holidays coming up, maybe it's best we take a few weeks to talk about this and then start it up the first or second week in january.
If you are new to this thread, you might want to just go straight to the wiki page and sign up for the tournament there.
So it seems like tournaments have been mentioned here before but it doesn't look like they ever took place. So let's get it together, fellow Tanglerians, and start one up!
Steps for setting up a tournament:
Here are my ideas:
- on rules:
- on organization:
- on starting:
So, what are your thoughts? Let's hear them!
*jumping up and down*
Me me me!! I'm in!
Excellent! Keep em' coming. Hopefully we can get at least 16+ people in this.
Oh, I'm sure we could manage that!
I'll play
I would definitely play. I like the idea of starting after the holidays as I'm not going to have good access over the next couple weeks because of travel.
I'm in. But I don't think the Wiki is the place to manage it. It would be a good place to post rules, results, and the current bracket in addition to here, but I think discussions / organizing everything should stay here in Tangler. Sounds good =)
Oh yeah, starting after the hols is a good idea... I forgot abt that
I'll play (after holidays)
ideas of mine:
- to keep the tourney interesting, there could be an agreement on three possible map choices for the tournament. when two players play, each one chooses a map they don't want to play, the third is the one played. This would introduce a bigger tournament strategy of, as you observe your opponent's previous games, you can eliminate a map they play better than others. Besides, I think it would get boring playing Botanic or OneOnOne X times in a row.
- Seeding could determine who plays Blue, or even better there could be some arbitrary way to flip a coin. Example: Top seed of every match decides heads or tails, then someone unbiased (how about a Dev like Alex?) flips a coin and tells us which way it went, all Blue players are determined by who won.
I am onboard with this, but starting in the new year and with more discussion to work out the details
count me in
In!
I am in, after the hollidays. might disapear till the 15th Jan.
Who gets blue definately needs to be determined in some acceptable way. I also thing that the 3 map choice is an acceptable idea. NO ARUBA!
I hope we can have team tournaments one day....
Will we play for points?
Why not?
I am in.
I have some other suggestion for the rules:
map: any map should be playable where one player can decide the map an the other one which color he/she wants to have. I think the player with the lower score should have the choice if he/she wants to select the map or the color.
teams: I would like to play team games also, but with teams which play together for the whole game (not temporary NAPS, Alliances...). This way very good players might play in a teams with one beginner against two intermediate players.
elimination: I would suggest that we do it similar like in the soccer world championship:
-> 1st round: Groups of 4 people (or 4x teams of two people) where everyone (or every possible team constellation) plays against everyone (every possible team constellation) in the group. The best 2 players will get to the next round, the other 2 will be out.
-> 2nd round: (only 1on1 from this round on) We should have an even number of groups where the 2nd player from one group plays against the 1st player from another group.
-> 3+ round: There could be matches between the winners and for the 1st,3rd,5th, ... place (depending on the number of players)
What do you think?
Sounds complimacated
Wouldn't it be easier to just draw up a list of names, then play people off against each other elimination style until you only have one left?
For map selection, collectively pick a set that are suitably balanced for 2 players, let the 2 people playing pick between them, and if they can't agree then the one with the lowest score decides, or toss a coin or something
I liked WM's idea of three fixed maps for the whole tournament - ideally medium-sized maps, and each player picks their least favorite and the remaining map is the map played. Some players have immense experience on certain maps and I don't think it would be all that fair for them to play against less experienced players on the same map. With WM's idea, people can strategize which maps to un-select based on what they have observed of their opponent in previous round games. I think order/color should then be chosen by the lower-ranked player.
Team games may be fit for another tournament. I don't know. It seems too complicated to combine into this tournament. Same for the soccer elimination method. Let's keep it simple. =)
Great, I'm glad to see that there is a lot of interest here!
I think WarMech's idea of having multiple maps is a good one. Although having players rank their preferred maps might be a better system. For instance, if both players don't want to play the same map, then how do you decide which of the other ones to play?
So, what are some other good 1v1 maps out there? I think The Bog is a good one in addition to the other ones I mentioned.
As for who plays as Blue... I think that having the higher seed go first would probably be the easiest to implement. But if we could get a reliable non-biased coin flipper then that would be nice too.
I agree with other posters that world-cup style rounds and team games may be a little premature for the first tournament, but they would definitely be fun to play with in the future!
So, how about we end "registration" on Jan 3rd? Your current Weewar rating on that day will determine your seed. Then we'll take a few days to organize the bracket and arrange the games, and then start things up on Jan 7th. How does that sound?
Also, spread the word to other people in your games... the more the merrier!
I'll play.
Pluto - I didn't consider the issue of both choosign the same map. Would it be fair to have Blue pick the first one and Red the second? This would be one way of evening out the playing field if you went by seeding.
As far as the top rank = top seeding = Blue all the time... I really don't like that at all, for two reasons. One, I think tournaments are more exciting when they force the players to adapt to unexpected situations. Two... well, this is something that I think everyone knows even though it is rarely discussed... but very often the amount of points a player has does not have as much to do with their skill level as one would think (did I put that tactfully enough? 
). I think seeding, therefore, ought to be more cosmetic than functional. If your goal is trying to win the whole tournament, then whomever you fight first doesn't really affect the tourney that much. Having FTA every round, on the other hand, will affect the game in a major way by giving the player a big edge.
Another thing to consider, particularly if we go to a multi-map thing, is that if you know for a fact that you're blue every time you can simply choose the map with the least amount of FTA and pick that to not play every single time, which further spikes the advantage in that player's favour and takes away the point of map selection. So top seeding for Blue would not be compatible with that idea.
I've been thinking about this tourny. The recommendation to keep it simple is the best recommendation. With that being said, here is what I am thinking.
Multiple maps sounds interesting but I think participants select their favorites and the majority rules. Round one play goes to the most popular map choice, round two, the second most popular so on and so fourth.
Matches picked at random from the pool of players regardless of current ranking. Blue player is always the first player picked in each random pairing.
Time limits adhered to, unless pre arranged by participants (we are trying to get on with it, and don't want games to go on forever)
Disputes (if any, settled by a majority of a pre established committee of 3, or 5 members)
just my two cents worth, bottom line though, keep it simple
I'm in too. sounds fun
count me in.
Multiple maps sounds interesting but I think participants select their favorites and the majority rules. Round one play goes to the most popular map choice, round two, the second most popular so on and so fourth.
Then the end of the tournament would be played on maps that people dislike... I'm in favour of collectively picking a small selection of balanced, universally known/liked maps and the 2 players choosing from that shortlist between themselves.
I am in. I like the 3 maps, each players vetoes one idea.
Or we could have one map each round? So all players play on the same map?
thats kind of what I meant. Not to suggest we play all the way down to the least favorite map, but rotate through say three or four maps for each round. Each round everyone plays the same map. If we were running a race, we would all be on the same track, so I see no reason we shouldnt all play the same map.
Yeah, that sounds good to me... Should balance out the time taken by each pair as well
that'll work too.
Count me in.
me too
Well, it looks like this is getting a lot of interest which is great! There are 18 players so far which will make for an interesting bracket, but we can do it.
Warmech and Humphammer make good points for doing random seeding, but I think there needs to be a way to prevent the best players from playing each other in the first round. For instance, who wants to see Duke and UNC play each other in the first round of the NCAA tournament? You want to see them both make it to the final for. Also, without a ranked-type seeding you don't have much potential for upsets which can be one of the most entertaining aspects (at least for the spectators) of a tournament. So, granted the weewar ratings are not terribly indicative of skill, but I think we need to have something and the ratings are good enough. Alternatively, we could use a different metric like win/loss record, or some combination of rating and record like the RPI or the BCS, but that may be a little too complicated for this go around.
As for the FTA issue, I do agree that who gets blue should be decided randomly, and on a per game basis.
Humphammer has a good idea to form a committee to resolve any disputes should they arise. Who wants to volunteer?
On time limits, in my experience most games seem to last from 20-50 rounds... which translates to 3-7 rounds per day to finish a game up in one week, or ~2-4 to finish up in two weeks. Is this type of commitment reasonable? How should the committee (see above) deal with games that are taking too long?
I also like Humphammer's idea on deciding on the maps for each round ahead of time. So, with 18 players, we are going to need 5 rounds... so what maps are good in addition to the ones mentioned before... or can we cycle through 2 or 3 maps?
just to clarify, I actually like the idea of using seeds to have the point leader play the lowest point holder, since it doesn't really affect the advantage any one player has in winning the whole tournament. What I dislike is the idea that the top seeds should get to be Blue all the time, since that definitely would skew the tourney in favour of the top points holder.
So yeah, I'm very much in favour of bracket placement by seeding.
hmmm... shouldn't the lower seeds get blue?
Is there any way of organising a tourney so that each player could be playing more than 1 game at a time? Since Weewar matches tend to go on a bit this might help speed things along.
count me in for the tourney
if dek informs me (email plz) when you have decided on everything, I'm in
btw: what about pro units?
could someone sum up your ideas so far? maps, units, mode, etc.
Sure Kurisu
(do I have your e-mail?)
I'm thinking pro units are out, since they tend to change the shape of the game, it could be unfair to non-pro players if they're not used to playing with the pro units, and in cases where the 2 people matched to each other aren't pro they wouldn't be available.
Bummer.... You're right, but bummer...
sucjs
how do i get to play here for 1st time
Sorry? You mean play weewar for the first time?
ya
right
If you give your e-mail I can invite you into a game
anbh27@gmail.com
Okay, gimme a min
ok
@dek: sure, you're a staff member and can see all personal details (such as passwords)
@SK: maybe the devs could allow pro units for all tournament games. but since that would require coding, non-pro units should be the only way :/
@Kurisu I won't do that. You have my e-mail addy - feel free to send me a mail
I'm in - let me know when it's time to start the tourney
- The maps. I guess we'll just use random draw to determine which map to play for what round. Also speak up if you don't like some of these maps or if there are some better ones.
- The tournament committee. I nominated dekrazee1, Super-King, and cmdrvaughn to be on this committee simply because they were the first ones to reply to this thread. If you guys don't want to do it, or if any one else wants to participate, then speak up.
Ok, I tried to sum up all of the discussions and made a page in the wiki here. Please let me know if I missed something, or you could just add it yourself.
Two things you might want to check out:
If you are new to this thread, just go to the wiki page and sign up if you want to play. Let's wrap up registration by next Monday and start the tournament on Wednesday.
Woohoo, let's get things started =)
I guess this means I should stop filling my headquarters, in case I have to host a game...
ah yes, that is a good point. if you don't have a space in your HQ then you might have to forfeit blue if you get it. I think I will add that to the wiki
In my experience, Plainly Six is not a very balanced map for 1v1: the starting locations are too close together. The other four maps are fine.
How about increasing the committee to 5 players to compensate for the fact that comittee members are all playing? It would also be handy in case one or two of the committee are involved in the game. The members you listed are all fine by me, and I would also consider adding you (Pluto) and RichRahl20.
Has there been a decision, yet, on the who and how of random draws? I think I have an idea for killing two birds with one stone with that, assuming we have an even number of maps in the selection:
After brackets are set up but before the map is chosen for the round, one opponent picks heads or tails. If the map chosen is in the front of alphabetical order, heads wins, if it is in the back, tails wins. Winner selects Blue or Red
So if we had four maps: Bog (,The), Botanic Troubles, City Sprawl, and One on One... and City Sprawl was selected, whoever picked or got left with Tails gets to be Blue.
Voila, both map and order are chosen at once.
- Botanic Troubles
- One on One
- The Bog
- City Sprawl
thanks for your input on Plainly Six. I've never played it 1v1, so I wasn't sure about it. I'll take it off the list then
I also think you are right about having 5 committee members, and I think you picked two good ones! I also nominate you (WarMech) as the first alternative.
I like your system for determining Blue and Map, but I'm also interested in removing as much human bias as possible (i.e. I don't want to be accused of cheating). So, I would like it if the final selector (map choice in this case) was determined by something completely random that everyone has access to. For instance, use the final score of a sporting event, closing price of a stock market, or even something like one of the stats at the bottom of the weewar page, like the number of registered users on a particular day.
I also think it would be a little cumbersome for everyone to pick heads or tails since there's not really a great forum for doing that until the games start. So how about we do this: When we draw up the bracket, we use a random number generator to give all players heads or tails. Then on the day that a round starts, if the number of registered users is even, then heads gets Blue, if odd then tails gets it. How does that sound?
I think that determining what map goes with what round is less critical. I guess we can do random draw, but I liked the idea of having people vote and then using the most popular for round 1, second most popular for round 2, etc. However, we just need people to vote... so I'll start. My preference would be:
Sounds like a plan to me. If I have missed it elsewhere let me ask
TIme limit? I think we should do 3 day, and if player does not move in time limit, kick. Stress that we want to do as many moves as possible, but 72 hours should be sufficient. If a reason pops up that will prevent you from moving in 72 hours, committe approval would be needed.
One or both players can request a re-do if a game becomes fowled for any reason (buggy game) at the approval of the committe.
All games open to public, but request the outside banter be kept down or to a minimum. If a game warrents a lot of discussion a thread here with the game number would be a good place to do so.
Are we using only basic units?
How many do we have on board as of now?
I have added a blog post: http://blog.weewar.com/index.php/main/entry/first_weewar_tournament/
I am afraid it does not get much attention when Weewar is running fine, but still
As for the format, our we looking at swiss, single-elimination, or double elimination? I have a swiss pairing software from my days as a MTG judge.
I agree with Pluto's map suggestions.
I would like to add river maze as a map, but I am not sure if the balance for the map is that good. I would like to use pro units also at least one map where we can use ships and air units, but currently only tai chi is 1vs1 with air and naval units but it is very imbalanced.
I don't think using pro units, especially ships, is a good idea, since some ships (battleship, destroyer?) are somewhat inherently unbalanced, and a good deal of players don't have much experience with pro units and would start at a pretty big disadvantage. Also, not all players have pro, so when the two players of a match don't have pro in a pro-map-round, it wouldn't work.
- Botanic Troubles
- One on One
- City Sprawl
- The Bog (I always lose on The Bog for some reason... guess I should practice before the tourney starts)
My preference for maps is:
about the bog quoting from the wiki: When you’re not the one who hosts the game (the red player), think of securing the base on the bottom right as soon as possible (e.g. by sending the first trooper there – sending a newly-built raider can also prove useful), otherwise the enemy has an opportunity to capture it along with the northwestern bases and you’ll be dead before the 10th round comes.
Imo the bog is a lot harder for red than blue. In my opinion zweistromland or jungbrunnen are better choices for the tournaments. So my map preferences
-> Botanic Troubles
-> One on One
-> City Sprawl
-> River Maze
-> Jungbrunnen
-> Zweistromland (with Hovercraft)
I'm with spadequack - I can't win on the Bog, can't quite figure out why. Maybe it's time to practice.
As for being on the committee, I'm completely cool with it but I would like to have some idea of when the committee's decisions will need to come into play. Any ideas?
- Humphammer, I was initially thinking of 1 day limits, but I guess we can do 3 day instead, as long as people still play as frequently as they can. I also agree that player removals and game restarts are good ways to use the committee. I think the general consensus is to stick with basic units since not all tournament participants have pro accounts. However, it might be fun to have a future pro-only tournament.
- Alex, thanks for the blog shoutout. This thing is really starting to generate a lot of interest!
- madmike, I think we will stick with single-elimination for now since it is the easiest to implement. I had actually never heard about the swiss paring style, but after reading about it it sounds pretty cool and maybe we can try it out in a future tournament.
- jeye and spadequack, I agree that river maze is probably not the best since we are going to stick with basic units.
cmdrvaughn, I updated the wiki for examples of things the committee may have to deal with
I don't know, I think that a 24 hour time limit with strict and immediate kicking rules is the way to go. Remember that the tournament is only going to progress as fast as the slowest player(s), which means that with the longest games taking ~40 rounds + some people matched in opposite time zones only doing one turn per day (or longer) + 5-6 rounds of the bracket... we're already looking at a tournament that could easily go for half a year. I know that sounds extreme, but believe me, the math says it's very possible. I will grant that the rounds will likely progress faster as the bracket progresses, but still..
In the amount of time (many months) we are talking, the server could go through a ton of balancing updates and rule changes, too. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that there needs to be some way of paring down the time this thing takes. Thoughts, anyone?
I know I didn't expect this tourney to be so popular with all the entries, so it may be that we'll be forced to set up scheduled matches.
jeye - River Maze and Jungbrunnen are awesome maps, but most of the players can't start a game with them.
Spadequack may be right, I haven't played the Bog in awhile with basic units, but I do remember thinking that it was one of those that Blue could do a cruel rush that cant' be defended. I'd say eliminate it from the list, just to be sure. Three different maps are plenty.
Make the first 2 rounds speed rounds? so a short time limit, with an agreed time of play
Agreed, speed is desired. I have no problem with 1 day. The kick from a game can be a spot of contention though, so I am not sure what is the best way to approach that. Time limits need to be cleary defined, and adhered to. I still think time limit extensions should be granted in the case a situation arises that prevents a player from complying. Extensions and Kicks by committee approval perhaps?
I think being lenient with time is inviting trouble and generating a lot of work and grief for the committee. I'd go with 12h limit and kicking being a valid option to win a round. All participants will have to adhere to this in order to participate.
It is like any mass sport event - If you fail to show up for the beginning of the race you are not in it. Just my 2 cents
12 hours might be over-short though, I know there are 12 hour periods where I'm not on Weewar because I'm sleeping. I think a 24hr limit with strict kicking would be better.
Or, you play with an even shorter time limit, but at an agreed time of day when you can commit to being around for a while. Then when one of you has to go, you agree another time to start play again.
Yeah, I agree....
For my proposed speed round, I was thinking more like 5 mins or an hour
12h is too short for me also, since I also have to sleep and sometimes go to university. 1 day or more is fine for me.
For the record, I don't think I will entertain WWPA greylist nominations for anyone's actions taken in official tournament games. If tournament games could somehow be easily identified (via game title, maybe?), that would help in this regard.
Pencil me in. I'll commit as long as turns are at least one day. I'd prefer 3 day turns, though I usually play at least once per day.
I'm willing to try any kind of time limit. I think since this is the first time we're doing this, then we just need to try it out and see what happens, how quickly people play, how long the games last, etc. Maybe we should just stick with 1day limits since that seems to be the common middle ground.
In an ideal WeeWorld, I don't think you would sign up for this tournament unless you were really into weewar and are going to play often. So hopefully this won't last half a year, but we'll find out.
I think one thing we can do is not only encourage players to play as often as you can, but also suggest that once two opponents start up a game then they schedule between themselves a couple of time slots where they can knock out 10-15 rounds in ~ 30min.
@Alex: Can we borrow the test server for the tournament?
Great idea, madmike! =)
Right now we are shouldering a lot of costs for running on extra servers to keep the performance high. So we rather not rent any more
Why would you need a separate system to run the tournament?
I like the 1 day time limit with kicking immediately enforced. We all know what we're getting into here - 12 hours seems to have already been vetoed and 3 days is just too long. If you can't for whatever reason get on and make a move every 24h, make sure people know. Ask your opponent for an extension and be specific. Example, I'm going to be out of town with no internet access for all of Saturday, I will make a play by 1200EST on Sunday or you can kick me. The more writing and paper trails you leave, the easier it will be for any problems to be resolved by the committee.
That sparked a couple thoughts -
1) I suggest starting an official thread here for Dispute Resolution.
2) Chat must be available to the public so that committee members can view the games and see what is said. Otherwise we are at a loss for resolutions.
I vote that finalize 1 day limits with immediate kicking now so that there is no more debating. Unless there are still problems with this idea.
I second that
@alex: just an idea since some of us have our HQ full. I have 12 games. I will probably just surrendered the ones I'm losing in to make room.
On random numbers, the utilities at http:\\www.random.org look useful
alex, i think another reason for using a dedicated server would be for consistency. In regards to WarMech's post above, since this tournament could go on for several months, service upgrades (and the associated bugs), unit stats tweeks, etc. could affect the game play.
But we're just doing this for fun and will absorb any of these hickups, so no worries. 
But maybe something to think about in the future... to have a tournament server where all you do is play tournaments.
question for the people, would it make any difference if the person who runs over their time limit doesn't get kicked from that game (and have it affect the records of the players) but instead is simply forfeit from the tourney?
I was thinking that since we have committees, a player could simply find one when who is online when the time limit is running out, ask them to watch (since you can calculate easily how much time is remaining), and maybe take a simple screenshot as evidence for tournament kicking.
This would allow games to fall within WWPA guidelines and still result in a speedy tournament.
Also, players could be allowed to have one or two chances to extend their time an extra day by just informing the committee member... you know, in case life interferes
what does everyone think of that?
That's a good idea, WarMech! And yeah, life happens. I'd like a second chance if I had to go over for whatever reason.
When playing One on One and the Bog I often with basic units I often had the result that the two players had defence with artillery and so on where not of them could do something. The result was a draw then. In such situations it would in my opinion be very difficult for the comitee to tell who has won. In my opinion using pro units or deactivating certain basic units may help in such a situation. Therefore I would like to have some pro units or deactivate some basic units. In case both fighting players acccept the choice of available units (which may include pro units) it should be in my opinion ok to fight with these units for the tournament. At least the using of pro units is against the Torunament structure according to the wiki page. In my opinion any selection of units should be allowed as long as both players agree to it before the game starts.
i'm in! soundslike fun. last, but hopefully not least. slow, but mellow.
i wanna join but too lazy to work out the rules.
that's a good point warmech. i also put a note on the wiki that you should let your opponent know if you are going to be gone longer than the 1 day limit.
what do you guys think about capping the number of participants at 64? It's at 63 as I write this and might get a few more before the deadline on Monday. If we go over 64, then we are going to have to have a play-in round which would delay the tournament for a great majority of the players, many of whom are probably highly anticipating the start. 
And, I don't think we'll get up to 128....
Please add me if there is still room!
Yeah, cap it at 64. (WOW! We have that many already! That's great!)
I'm sure we will have other tournaments for those who missed out on this one
now with Casein and LordBaer we are 64
ok, it's closed at 64!
i'll work on the bracket then
Thanks Pluto!
It would be a good idea to have the person who starts each game make sure to put "Tournament Game ##" in the name
Seconded
thirded...
ok, the bracket is up on the wiki. Please let me know if you see any errors, or if the wording about Blue selection is unclear. Thanks!
Can you post here what will go first to make it official?
yep, i'll make a note of it (maybe take a screencap too) and post it here and on the wiki...
nice work pluto! about choosing blue, we will need someone to be online at noon the day before the start of each round (not me). whoever that is should update the bracket soon after saying who is blue.
i'm afraid communication will be a problem (for example, if i am blue but have no slots, i need to talk to my opponent somehow...) ideas, anyone? there's always the weewar spy to chat in their other games and get their attention, but there has to be a nicer way...
i'm an EST guy (that's why i picked that time) so I definitely be online to check.
about communication, this is where a Weewar messaging system would be nice. Your idea is a good one. You could also use the WWPA messaging system but not everybody is on that.
Anyways, there is a provision in the rules that if you miss the deadline or can't start the game as Blue then you forfeit Blue and it will go to your opponent.
also, btw, for any non-USA'ers out there. The round names are adopted from the NCAA basketball tournament format. I'm not that clever
This stinks. I logged in this AM to check on the rules (see my earlier post about wanting to play) and register, and I find that there's suddenly a cap, despite the fact that we're supposed to have today to register. This stinks...
:-<
Even/Odd has got me a little puzzled. If we are using that to determine first player, and that is based on the number of registered players, then wont that be changing constantly and could be different for players depending on when they check it. Wouldn't it be easier and more concise if the committee just flipped a coin and call even and odd for each round?
joelodom, I'm willing to give my place up for ya
To clarify the even/odd thing. The number of registered players will be checked only once at the day and time specified, and then the result will be posted and be a constant thing. This is akin to flipping a coin except that the result of the coin flip is public and not under the influence of any human bias.
Pluto, et al: You may consider taking names (such as joelodom's) to put on a waiting list. Then when the official tourney starts, or gets really close to starting, if anyone has disappeared, the waiting list people can take one of the precious 64 slots.
@dekrazee1: Thanks so much. I've updated the wiki page, but if you were really wanting to play, you may stay in as you did register first.
I haven't played because of Christmas, so it'll be nice to be back on the battlefield.
joelodom, i'm sorry you missed the deadline, but at the point you left your message here most people were just signing themselves into the wiki.
The problem with just switching with someone or having waiting lists is that it defeats the whole purpose of having a seeded bracket. I wouldn't object with you switching with dekrazee if you both had similar ratings, but your rating is 1900 vs. dekrazee's 1508, and this would screw up the whole bracket.
Perhaps this can be the first issue for the tournament committee to resolve.
Another option would be to start up another tournament. Considering the popularity of this one I think it would generate a lot of interest.
heh, after seeing "It may not look that great in a non-Firefox browser" at the top of the bracket page on the Wiki, I felt compelled to check it out in IE
It's pretty severely messed up, looks like there are extra vertical spaces inserted more or less at random.
I assume there'll be independent checking of the even/odd number on the front page, hope so anyway because noon EST isn't always a great time for me. On that topic, how long does blue have to start the game after the round starts, 24 hours?
Do we have a confirm if it was at ODD or EVEN status for round 1?
Pistos will paste a screenshot on the first day of the tournament(Jan 9th).
here in this topic.
Oh! I didn't realise it was based on ranking.
I would like to put up the issue for the committee in that case. I think that joelodom wants in, and he might be more dedicated to the tournament. I'm sad to say that some things have come up since I first said I'd play. If joelodom can commit more than I, he deserves the spot imo. Maybe we should ask my first opponent for their opinion?
Dekrazee1: My two cents on this is we shouldnt make changes or make extra requests on the committee. I have been in the position of organizing something and then people start asking for VERY reasonable requests, but if you do something for one person... next thing you know you are adding 8 people and switching 4 more. And then the brackets arent balanced etc... Then you have other people complaining to the committee on why they changed things.
Obviously the committee can do what they think is best, but i would rather be the 'jerk' by speaking up than having them have to make difficult decisions. In fact, anything that goes wrong with this tournament is my fault, so blame me!!
MadMike: Sorry, i cant read or interpret a modern calendar. I thought it was the 8th today. 
I see no real problem using the NCAA chart for organizing the brackets, but I'm not sure I like their practice of have 4 number one seeds, 4 number two seeds, etc. It would appear that we have been seeded correctly 1 to 64, but would it be possible to get the numbers to reflect this?
It would make it possible for us to tell at a glance where we stand and would further show the upset-ish-ness (if it exists) in the final four.
I suspect the reason the NCAA uses what is essentially four 16-team brackets is to mask the fact that there is some amount of subjectivity to the seeding. Changing our seed numbers to accurately reflect our 1 to 64 status would further show our purely objective seed status.
Balder, I'm glad you asked.
I meant to post that stuff but forgot to. Here are the details about the seeding.
Hey Lordbaer, I hear ya. Fair enough
Well, I'm glad to see that I was right about us being seeded well! Good job Pluto! I believe I speak for all the participants when I say we really appreciate all the work you have put in to this! And here's to everyone else who helped get this tourney up and running!
Oh, and lest I forget, count me as another vote for a swiss tournament someday. As a long time TCG player and tourney organizer, I have grown quite fond of the format.
Thanks, I appreciate it! Also thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion in this thread. I think we came up with a pretty kick ass tournament!
I may have already voted for it, but I agree that a swiss tournament would be a lot of fun. I also think a teams tournament would be cool too but we'll probably have to wait for real team play to be implemented in weewar.
I appreciate all of the work that ya'll are doing to organize the tournament. I don't understand your seeding algorithms, so feel free to make whatever adjustments are truly fair. Just let me know if I'm in. If not, I'll wait for the next tourney. Thanks.
(BTW, I'm not sure how I got to 1900. I think I play on the 1700 to 1800 level, but it's hard to say.)
ok guys, Even players are Blue. So, let the games begin!
The seeding algorithm is pretty simple. Put everyone in order by rank. Set up four divisions in the bracket. The #1-ranked player goes to the first division and is ranked 1 there. The #2-ranked player goes to the second division and is ranked 1 there. ... #5-ranked player goes to the first division and is ranked 2 there. #6-ranked player goes to the second division and is ranked 2 there. ... And then within each division 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15, 3 plays 14, ... in the first round. Second round is similar in a way. And so on. Hope that made some sense. I don't think I explained it all too well...
If you jump in for dekrazee, then the rankings would be all out of place from your rank down to dekrazee's rank, so it wouldn't totally work out unless the bracket is restructured.
Sounds like you need a program to automatically setup the bracket.
So that people CAN just jump in and out (before the tourney starts) and it would be quickly recalculated.
Are you offering your services, Pistos?
I did the seeding and game matching in Excel which was pretty easy, but it actually took some effort to make the bracket in the wiki
Pluto: If you still need it for this tourney, I guess I can do it, but if you're already started, I'll wait till the next tourney to write it. 
cool! I think it's probably too late for this one since it's already underway, but it would definitely facilitate things for future ones.
is anyone else having problems with the wiki? it seems to be down for me at the moment.... I hope we didn't "slashdot" it.
the wiki is down for me too. it's been down for somewhat long periods of time before... so i hope it comes back online soon for the tourney. anyone know who hosts it?
if anybody is about to edit the bracket, can you punch this in for me for Game 01: http://battleground1.weewar.com/game/48481#
Ok, I got it
After someone else finishes editing it..
Is there a list of dates for the different rounds anywhere?
(I thought the first round was the 9th...)
the first round officially starts tomorrow, but you can go ahead and start your game whenever you want. However, you can't remove an inactive player until 1day past the official start.
new rounds will start whenever the current round is done... so stay tuned
Whilst I'm here, I'm having problems editing the bracket page to link to the game in question... I get as far as entering the CAPTCHA and then hit an error page.
if you are getting that "505 server error" than just reload. that seems to work for me.
I think it depends largely on how long the games in each round take. Unless we set an ending date and whoever has the most bases on that day wins. I dunno.
pluto, sorry about the wiki: i made a few changes putting the game url on the part of the bracket labeled "game ##" after some of the others were done like that (so i changed the rest for consistency) before i saw "If you are Blue, then please edit your name in the bracket to be a link to your game." yeah, so feel free to change it back or i can do it.
never mind, i'll just change it to the other way.
I'm getting the "holy smokes batman" error. It's happened several times now.
spadequack, yeah, i saw that. i actually kinda like it more the way you did it with the links on the game number, but i don't think it matters.
superking - maybe try making an account on the wiki so you don't have to keep messing with the captcha. maybe that will help
hey spadequack, i actually decided that i liked your way better, so i changed them back
let's stick with that then
ty to whomever put my link in
Wow, there's already some great games going on. This is very entertaining to watch... seeing everyone's opening strategies and how they pan out.
Well, I thought to make it easier to be a tournament spectator so I threw together this little script. On the bracket page on the wiki, it inserts the number of rounds a game has been played in parenthesis, and if the round has progressed since you last ran the script, then there will be an asterisk next to the round number... so you don't have to check out all the games. Check it out: Weewar Tournament Watcher
My opponent hasn't started the game yet
If someone can edit the bracket, please put this for Game 27
http://battleground1.weewar.com/game/48580
Thanks. (I can't edit page.)
spectator only here, and i just wanted to thank you pluto for another great gm script.
now we just need all the games to be linked...
so i just went to the profiles for the first pairing that don't have their game linked in yet and i can't find a common game between them using the gm script weewar spy v0.2. i guess it's possible that they haven't started their game yet...?
oh wait, i'm also using weewar spy, no version number, but it would make sense that it's the more up-to-date version because it has the asterisk at the beginning, whereas v0.2 doesn't. does that make sense?
yay! i linked a game. hope i did it right. it seems ok - game 4. let me know...
thanks man! I think people are still getting their games going... but there are definitely some interesting ones so far... a few upsets in the making
Thanks for putting my game up, luckymustard! I tried to get it on there, but the page was erroring out.
This is going to be a blast to follow. If it goes well, I suggest creating a more formal system for registration. I'm looking forward to playing Wee War as I've been out for a month or so.
Edited because I don't know how to search.
Had a long post about how Swiss would be cool but I see now that it's already been mentioned. I really like that idea going forward.
That said it's cool that we're having a tournament, and it'll be great fun (for as long as I'm in it, anyway, which may not be much longer).
First Winner: nickinc over ntalbott in 15 rounds. Congratulations! (an upset too)
I have made another blog post to chase those who have not started their games yet.. not sure it helps. Maybe it won't be necessary. Anyway - this is very exciting!
How do I dispute getting my ass kicked? Hahahaha, nice game duwanis.
Can someone edit the wiki for me please? I tried to register, but it's broken
For game 20: http://weewar.com/game/48670
I got it
Thank you!
What's up weewar tournament players and spectators? We're off to quite a start and the tournament is almost in full swing. Only six more games left to start, although two have already finished! I tried to notify the stragglers, but if your game hasn't started by noon EST tomorrow, then the odd players get to be Blue.
Good luck!
I started my game and have already made a mistake. Gonna take a miracle to beat Goater
heheheh
Errrrmmm... I started the game with pro units, so we had to restart. ie new game link.
Please update it for me? http://battleground2.weewar.com/game/48704
A thousand apologies for the inconvenience
Pluto, my pro account *just* ran out so I can't start my game, shall I ask my opponent to start it instead?? Or just wait till my time to start a game runs out or just buy another lot of pro time or what?
i guess all of those options are suitable
Pluto: I can build up a subsite somewhere which can help you manage the [next] tourney efficiently and more "automatically". Take notes as you go through this first tourney, as to a sort of wishlist for an online program/website that would facilitate the tourney. Things like tourney player registration, etc.
Hah, thanks cmdrvaughn. Now we get to find out if I get past round two... looks like I'll be taking on the #1 seed in our quarter
oops...
I don't envy you!
Only six more games left to start, although two have already finished!
Actually of the games that have links up in the Wiki, 8 have finished. Plus a couple more that are close to the end. Looks like there's been quite a few people having problems editing the wiki....
*boo hoo* I'm out
Made a few silly mistakes.
So, where can I sign up for the next one??
Pistos, thanks for that. I'll start working on a list.
sorry to hear that, dekrazee.... sounds like you are organizing the next one.
Fine!! People who get past the first round aren't allowed in mine then
lol... maybe you can start up the Consolation Tournament
hehehe Seeding decided by order of exit from the current tournament
So much for the upset... WarMech triumphs over nords9:
Nice! Congrats WarMech!
WarMech, you're such a bully... picking on the little guy
ty both... yer next, tomparrish/Tracy!
Speaking of #1 seeds, looks like ironcamel won his game. I'm next... please be gentle
And... we're already starting the next round? I got an invite but I thought the next round didn't start until the first one was over
yeah, we are going to wait for everyone to finish the first round so we can do the random first turn selection all at the same time.
OK then, I'll just ignore this invite and hope that ironcamel hits the forums
you could also message him in the game chat to let him know so you don't leave him hangin'
Yeah, I hadn't thought about that.......
I'm a noob, I admit it
In my opinion it is not useful if everyone waits for the last game of round 1 before some games of round 2 are started. The tournament is likely to be faster (and wasn't is an issue that this tournament shouldn't last too long?!) if games of round are started when it is known which players take part. So e.g. imo when game 1 and game 2 are done it should be possible to start game 33 even if game 3 is not even started and game 15 not finished.
The tournament could be a lot faster when it is done like that since the slowest players in round 1 might be faster in round 2.
However therefore it is necessary to know earlier who will be blue and who will be red. ^^
It would seem that way jeye, and it doesn't matter (except for who goes first) for a bracket style tourney like this... but it does matter for some other types of tournament (e.g. Swiss, or any other kind of weighted round-robin)
i agree with jeye. how about tomorrow noon, pluto screenshoots how many registered users there are and we setup who is odd and who is even for Round 2. It would certainly speed things up or at least make it feel like it's speeding up. If one part of the bracket is slow, everyone's gonna have to wait eventually anyway.
I'm a +1 for tomorrow at noon establishing round 2 odd/even. And we should plan on starting a new round once we have at least 1 game to play in that round. I'm of the opinion that if there is a game to be played it should be played. Since the Blue honor is a coin flip and the odd/even values are already assigned, it doesn't matter when the "flip" is held - as long as it is done before each round starts. Just my opinion.
I agree with the others that today (saturday) noon is a good time for announce who will be blue in the next round.
sure sounds good to me. why not just use the current setting (i.e. even's still play as blue) and just go ahead and start whenever?
the east bracket sure is much faster than the west bracket!
I don't think we should keep using the same coin flip - just go on the result of a new one
if even plays as blue I will be plue until I loose one game in the tournament or it is finished
Well, I'm actually most inclined to stick to the rules we agreed to before starting the tournament, but I do agree that starting games whenever possible may help to accelerate things.
So, it seems like the emerging consensus is to do the round coin flip whenever the first game in that round is ready to be played. If we can get a few more members of the community/tournament committee to weigh in on this then I can change the rules and do the Round 2 coin flip asap.
I'm in favour
Random's random. The rules before starting, as far as I'm concerned, were "pick randomly that either e or o will go first for each round of the tournament, one coin flip deciding the entirety of a round". As long as the flip's unknown beforehand it seems unlikely anyone should care.
It's worth pointing out, I suppose, that even if you don't wait for all the games in a round to finish before you start the new one, the tournament will still take just as long to finish... so aside from the argument that it might be less confusing to spectators if all the rounds start at the same time, I really don't think it matters at all which way you do it.
I agree that random is random. The o's and e's were already random, but I will go ahead and do another coin flip at noon EST tomorrow to make them even "more random."
It's worth pointing out, I suppose, that even if you don't wait for all the games in a round to finish before you start the new one, the tournament will still take just as long to finish
How so? I think I see where you're coming from - the longest matches will still end up holding up the rest of us. But still, playing matches in parallel means that a long game, that would have otherwise delayed the tournament as a whole, might have its delaying effect mitigated by a lot of shorter games in the chain leading up to it.
I think there should definitely be another coinflip, 'tis the agreed upon rules from the beginning
Tracy & TomParrish's tourney is over: http://battleground1.weewar.com/game/48717/ZSwLtVH5WV3M
Congratulations to Tracy, and Good Luck
Anyone know what's up with the Streen vs. sionide game - game 3? It still hasn't started yet... =\
streen: Last Login: 3 days 11 hours 32 Minutes
sionide: Last Login: 1 hours 36 Minutes , 5 games running on basic acct (so full hq)
yeah, sionide posted here that he didn't have room in his HQ, so he forfeited Blue over to Streen.... but, yeah you're right, Streen hasn't logged in since then.
I put a message in one of Streen's games to start the game, but he won't get it until he logs in.
I guess we need a provision in the rules to deal with this. Should we just cancel the game since even if they start now it will delay the whole tournament?
I think if Streen hasn't signed in and made a game by the time the last Round 1 game ends, the victory goes to sionide. One of them needs to advance, and if Streen has left weewar, it can't be him.
what Spadequack said
ditto
How so? I think I see where you're coming from - the longest matches will still end up holding up the rest of us. But still, playing matches in parallel means that a long game, that would have otherwise delayed the tournament as a whole, might have its delaying effect mitigated by a lot of shorter games in the chain leading up to it.
Well, ok, there is a circumstance in which the tournament ends faster, and that's if your lost time is split evenly across rounds and sides of the tournament (i.e. round 1 has as much of a delay as round 2, and the delayed games in round 2 are on the opposite side of the bracket from the ones delayed in round 1... etc.).
Whether or not that's probable enough to justify accelerating things, I don't know, I'm not that good at probabilistic computations... just wanted to point out that the benefit isn't as vast as it may seem to be, you're still likely to be waiting just as long either way.
Also, re: what Spadequack said, I'd be all in favor of setting a hard timelimit (if your game isn't started within x days of the round's start...). Since each game is allowed two weeks, you're allowing the possibility of their game starting just shy of two weeks after the tournament start, and then possibly taking another two weeks. That really sucks for that part of the bracket that's waiting on them... just my $0.02
ok, just did the "coin flip" and even's are blue again.
have fun!
here we go, Tracy vs. WarMech
someone want to punch that into the wiki bracket for me?
got it WM. Also, it looks like bjtitus hasn't signed on in 10 days to play in Game 32.
I'll ping him and let him know
yes, i haven't been able to start game 32 yet due to bjtitus not accepting my invite yet. at what point do we call it a "bye"?
I appreciate it, SQ
Could the committee please confirm that ebradley has won game 32 (http://battleground2.weewar.com/game/48504) so I can start the next game with him and not loose my Blue position due to the 24h limit? (I've already started it - http://battleground1.weewar.com/game/49401 - but ebradley didn't join insisting on waiting for the final say from the committee). We're waiting to start round 2 for your final rule guys.
I'm for letting ebradley move on. If you're not on in 10 days then you should forfeit. Especially if no one can get a hold of him.
agreed, let's have ebradley and sionide (game 3) advance
I think I'm going to open a discussion regarding what should be done if we get some stalemates on One on One (rounds 2 and 5).
There is already one game that might turn into a stalemate, but it might wind up getting finished. However, while I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple Round 2 games get locked down, I expect both of the Round 5 games to go into a stalemate, simply because the map does not allow enough of an edge due to slight skill advantages.
And even if there is a winner, eventually, these games could take a very long time to decide.
I know it isn't great to decide things mid-tourney, but it is better to decide NOW what to do in case we have stalemates, before we get too far.
Anyone disagree? Any ideas on resolution?
WarMech, I already mentioned this problem in map solution and when suggesting the use of pro units (if possible). Anyway One on One was still used as a map for tournament and pro units are not allowed I guess even when both players accept using pro units. Imo pro units help for this stalemates since hovercrafts and aussault artillery are quite good in reaching enemy artillery. (but it is not useful for games which are already started).
It might be to late for that now, but I guess it can be useful for the next tournament.
Suggestions for stalemates: In case of stalemates I suggest playing a rematch either will colors being switched or playing a rematch on another map. I know that takes time but it is imo unfair to give victory to one player since he has units which are 100 more worth than the units of his opponent.
guys, sorry for the delay, but I was away till now.
Is my game cancelled or shall I still start it?
oh well, I will just start it and if its too late, we can still draw.
I agree that a stalemate at the end of the allotted time should result in a 'tiebreaker,' or 'overtime,' or whatever else you'd prefer to call it, rather than some arbitrary decision based on a slight advantage in troop worth. Perhaps if there's no appreciable difference in position or troops, a second game could be played on a smaller map, a la Aruba? Probably also leave the players with a strong impression that the game should be as hurried as possible, so that the championship game isn't waiting for weeks on a tiebreaker.
Game 5: http://battleground4.weewar.com/game/48458
This is the 3rd time bonchon is seriously over the limit (as of writing 1 day 17h). He has never mentioned prior to taking overtime that he will need extra time, but upon my prompting has said he is at MacWorld and will not be online much (doesn't MacWorld have Wi-Fi?). When I should I boot him?
I think we said at the beginning that to keep things moving, we should kick on time limit. Any allowance beyond that being optional mercy and/or decided by consensus that the person has a good enough reason for being absent.
Views?
I concur, Super-King... there was some verbage in the tourney rules about agreeing to play at least a couple of times daily, and barring sudden unforeseen circumstances (that, in most examples I can think of, would keep you from caring about the tournament anyway because you're in an emergency), you can get in the game and let people know if you're going to be gone for a while... so I think after the 24hour time limit, without warning, is plenty fair. But then I'm a hard-arse like that sometimes
Snake, Imho you have that game wrapped up anyway. I would just warn him to stop stalling and the next time he goes over he gets the boot.
Re: stalemate games... I think that restarting is a viable option, but what's to prevent another stalemate from developing between the two players? I was thinking we use a more objective way to see who wins the game, something like an analysis of army strength like in Tracy's stats script. If there's a stalemate and you know that in a few days we will decide who wins based on army strength, then this will be an incentive to break the stalemate and attack to try to reduce your opponent's army strength. What do you guys think?
Well, it fixed itself for now, but I'll be less lenient from now on.
The side that makes the first move in a stalemate usually loses more strength in the short run. If the move was clever, that will fix itself later on and they'll end up on top. That it may serve as a disincentive to attack, at least close to the time limit, because if your opponent gains a slight and then stalls until the round is supposed to end, you won't be inclined to risk it.
There is not way to tell when turns were taken, I assume? It might be worth to reduce the time as it gets closer to round finish to prevent those kinds of stalls.
@Pluto it seems like it's really just this one map that lends itself to a high probability of a stalemate. Even if you started trying to attack to leech your opponent's army strength, the position can be even enough that it doesn't help any. Besides, I'd hate to be given credit for a win (or a loss for that matter) when the game was only off by a light trooper or so.
That's why I suggested a tiebreaker on a different map, ideally a smaller one that doesn't have the same kind of bottleneck that 1 on 1 does.
I'd consider a coin toss. That gives an incentive to the side that thinks they're doing a little better to go for the win, rather than take 50/50 chances ...
You could toss a coin in front of a webcam, set up an elaborate fair coin toss computer protocol (I could look into that), or you could setup a situation in Weewar that has 50/50 odds, such as a 7 tank attacking a 1 heavy tank 
, which very close, but apparently slightly biased to the heavy tank, according to Pluto's simulator.
one thing to clarify: winning a tournament game does not necessarily mean that you won the actual game... so two opponents who are in a stalemate can agree to a draw but still have the tournament committee select who advances.
We have a couple of options now on how to deal with a stalemate. The coin toss probably seems like the best. But we'll just have to wait to see how prevalent stalemates become.
This is perhaps another argument against using single elimination for future tournaments. Maybe round robin or swiss paring will be better formats because they can still accommodate draws.
I'd go even further, Pluto, and say that it's a dealbreaker for me. If anyone's advancement in future single-elimination tourneys could be determined randomly, I wouldn't have any interest in participating in them. Even if it's just for bragging rights, it'd still feel pretty crummy to know that I beat out someone else who may have been a better player just because of a coin toss. Heck, I think I'd rather have a draw eliminate both players than have a randomly selected one move forward.
I'm of the opinion that we're in a single elimination tournament, so why is anyone playing for a draw? I know, you don't want to make a move until you're ready, you've been matched move for move, or any number of other reasons. But this isn't chess - there is a random variable in play when it comes to attacking your opponent. I'm torn because I don't think that either a coin flip or an evaluation of army strength should be used to pass someone to the next round. But I don't have any better suggestions. The one I've got is probably worse, but I'll toss it out there anyway - have each committee member look at the game individually (like boxing judges) and place their vote secretly. The individual members can use whatever basis they want (see stats or coin flip) but whichever player gets 3 or more votes moves on....
It's lame I know, but it's all I've got.
Duwanis,
if you win by coin toss, you would have won because the other player failed to distinguish himself, and his luck didn't hold.
If another player is clearly better, let them show it by defeating or by at least gaining a significant advantage. Otherwise, where does the claim of being better come from?
Secret votes are no good. If there are votes, they should be public and come with justification. I'd rather lose by coin toss than secret vote.
The last alternative is to make everyone wait until every game is resolved ......
Removing both is right incentive to both of those players, but it gives a free win to the player the winner would be facing.
Maybe that's not such a bad idea, though ....
Clearly if there are two stalled games, the players could be eliminated and their next round opponents face each other.
@cmdrvaughn what if you have two options each turn - hold a drawn position, or play aggressively into a loss? There's not always a "winning move." Especially on a map with a couple of chokepoints, like 1 on 1, heavy artillery quickly leads to zugzwang... even if you play to win, you can still wind up in a drawn situation. And even when you count in the random number generator, it's true that those average out (especially so in the math that weewar uses).
@Snake the same applies... just because play has been even doesn't mean that the other player isn't better, it just means that there haven't been any opportunities that can be taken advantage of. And, again, if I advance, I would rather "luck" have nothing to do with it. If you're going to make the argument that failure to distinguish yourself is grounds for removal, then remove both players, because they both are guilty of that infraction.
I think the best choice, which hasn't been mentioned yet, is to remove 1 on 1 from any future brackets. Or leave it in, but remove heavy artillery from the available weapons, so that you don't encourage this dead-man's land between the ponds.
Of course that doesn't help us out at all in the event that this situation occurs in this tourney... but based on the talk we've had so far I think it's agreed that whatever winds up happening this time will be less than ideal anyway.
@duwanis - I understand what you're saying, and you're absolutely correct that whatever happens will be less than ideal if the games aren't played out in full. I guess that's just part of the growing pains for a first tournament.
And while aggressive play can lead to a draw, in the Weewar cases I've seen it usually leads to victory by keeping your opponent on his heels or going down in flames as you get crushed.
@Snake - I meant secret insofar as there is no discussion among the committee members. Like boxing - it gets scored, submitted, tallied, and a winner is announced. But in the end you know what judge scored what. I would be happy to explain why I voted one way or another. Given that we're not in a room face to face, deliberation gets lengthy and difficult among a committee. But I'm fine with deliberating if need be.
I like the voting idea... as long it is open, like you guys say.
Also, let's not count out One on One yet. If we get 1 stalemate out of 18 then it's not a big deal... that could happen on any map. But if half the games end in stalemate, then yes it should probably be excluded for future tourneys.
Should we consider removing it from round 5 if half of round 2's games go to a draw?
heh, I guess I stroked off during the whole One on One discussion.
I'm all for giving it a shot at having it still be game 5, but I have a couple contingency ideas:
- If BOTH players agree, BEFORE the coin flip, then they can switch maps and not play OoO at all. The one who loses the coin flip and gets to be Red chooses either City Sprawl or Botanic.
- I don't really like the idea of having attrition deciding the match unless the threshold (amount you have to have over the other player to declare victory) is something significant like 1000 credits. Hopefully this would prevent a last minute suicide-for-victory run where Red makes himself vulnerable on the last turn but manages to kill a couple troops putting him just over.
- 30 Turn Limit for action. If the committee decides that it looks too stalemate'y, then there's a attrition check. Not big enough difference? Red picks one of the two remaining maps.
Note that all these ideas are pretty compatible with each other.
In other news, I'm moving onto Round 3 after a hard fight with Tracy. Can someone update for me?
A draw's a draw. One a map like One on One, against a good player, if I knew that in the case of a stalemate there would be judges that decided who won, I would definitely play for a draw where the judges would clearly pick me. I don't think we want that.
Perhaps a draw means "play the map from last round to determine the winner" or something?
We should either have a good method of resolving draws or definitely change the round 5 map if we see any more than 1-2 draws this round.
GrredyAlgorithm said: "We should either have a good method of resolving draws or definitely change the round 5 map if we see any more than 1-2 draws this round."
Agreed. If that happens, the rules for Round 5 should change somehow. Use a different map, "secret" explained votes by the council to break a stalemate, start a new map after a stalemate, cut out H Art / some unit(s), or something else. I don't really like the idea of a coin flip though.
And WM, I'm editing the bracket now.
just for the record, I'm 100% against secret voting. I think that having a vote decide the winner is something to be avoided.
thanks, SQ
Hey guys, I needed some advice on my first round tourney game:
http://battleground3.weewar.com/game/48695
My opponent seems to have dropped off the weewar map, and my concern is that he permanently has. He hasn't logged in for four days, I'm his only game going, and I have no way of contacting him. I'm in the lead-- well, as significant a lead could be at round 11. At what point should I remove? Also, for tournaments, should we set a time limit for removing?
i wait till today. Since most people play during the week then on weekends. If he does not show up by... I don't know lunch time (eastern). I considered game over and you win the round by default.
sounds like a good plan
Also, sorry for holding things up in my game.... hopefully we'll be done soon
does anyone in the Sweet 16 want to start their games yet? If so, I can do the coin flip
- One is this one: http://battleground3.weewar.com/game/48695 where it looks like RichRahl20 should advance.
- The second is my own game: http://battleground2.weewar.com/game/48448 where we have been locked in a stalemate for most of the game. I tried to make a push a few turns back, but it was futile. Game progress has also been hard to make on account of both of us being in dramatically different time zones. My opponent thinks that I should advance but I am not so sure if I really have that much of an advantage, so I'd like to ask the tournament committee to make a ruling on this one so we can move on. Thanks!
Well, two weeks have passed since the start of the tournament, and now two games need attention:
Also, some people are all ready to start the third round, so I will do the coin flip tomorrow and post it here and on the wiki.
RichRhl20 won. His Opponent surrendered.
Ouch Pluto, you clearly have more units. I think given time you will eventually win via attrition.
I think for the next Tourney we should use the swiss system I mentioned, since it accounts for draws.
bleh.. attempted to say this in the chat, but it got all html-ed up: "wow.. this is one hell of a game (just watched the replay) seems to me that the only way this'll ever end is with an almighty meatgrinder-battle, couldn't call the outcome though.
You could probably figure that out, but having it posted here too doesn't hurt
Looking in detail at the unit counts, it's not all that unbalanced... all depends on how the units are used.
Ok, topic too huge - continued here
