2010 Adjacent Attacks Tournament - Winner: OliverFA

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:48 am

OliverFA wrote:And what about allowing each player to choose his own map and settings? If each group plays 6 games, each player will have the chance to score at the map he is best at (or likes most). And we will not be forcing anyone to play in a particular setting. One player can decide to play at Clandemonium with no spoils, another at Feudal War with no spoils, and a third player at Feudal Wat with nuclear spoils.

Anyway, wathever choice we finally make for the tournament(s) structure, I am happy that we are going to have more AA games.

If anyone thinks that the scoring system could be improved, now it's the time to change it before we begin the next tournament I personally like the idea of favouring the winner player while still giving points to the rest of the players, but if someone has a better idea now it's a good time to discuss it.

I have personally really enjoyed the current scoring system over the last year. It has made for some really interesting games and strategy. I know personally I'm at least 10-15 points higher than I would have otherwise been if I didn't get quite good at playing defensively to last the longest in the end game when someone else was running away with the game. There's something to be said about having the ability to pick out the farthest point away from the guy taking over and doing one's best to slow him down a turn or two before he gets to you to eliminate you.

by **SuicidalSnowman** on Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:02 pm

Agreed, the scoring system that gives more players points is completely necessary, in my opinion. AA games tend to be slower and longer, and getting nothing in the end is terrible. Having points for 2nd, 3rd, etc also gives you an incentive to make a strategic stand even if you aren't the game leader. I like the AA game idea of "covering your retreat." In regular games, you just put up a stack and hope it holds, in AA there is a little more time to move things around.

As for maps settings, I still personally prefer the idea of (at least in tournament play) fewer options. For me, I would like either standard settings and a few maps, or one map with settings variants.

Another idea I had is to run a 2011 AA Tournament, similar to this one, and perhaps we can run shorter side games, like, perhaps, a short Feudal AA tournament, with 16 players each playing a series of games on Feudal with different settings, then the top 4 scorers play 4 more games on Feudal for the championship. Just throwing ideas out there. The real downside is more time required on organizer's side.

by **OliverFA** on Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:27 pm

After reading Suicidal Snowman comment, I think that I have the solution! The requirements we all agree are:

- Shorter tournaments (To have better chances at getting new players)
- Scoring system
- "AA friendly" maps
- Small variations within each tournament to make it more fair for everybody.

What if each one of us who wants to organize runs a small tournament? Let's say player A runs a (more or less) 16 week tournament with Feudal War maps. Then player B runs antoher 16 week tournament with 6 different maps. Then player C runs a third 16 week tournament with maps choosen by players... Each host adds his own flavour to his tournament, which will also help in providing variety to our games.

by **denominator** on Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:33 pm

I like the idea of shorter tournaments, although I also like the idea of one long tournament. What if we combined the two?

I'm not entirely sure of the rules on something like this, but would it be possible to "pass" tournament organizer status around? We could make the second season of AA 18 mini-tournaments where each round is run by a different participant that gets to choose the map and settings that everyone plays on. Then just randomize the players in each game each round to prevent burnout.

I'm afraid that running so many small tournaments will lead to less people playing and increased rule breakage with new players.

by **OliverFA** on Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:53 am

Well I wasn't suggesting to run all the mini-tournaments at the same time. What I wanted to say is that provided that we want shorter tournaments to have more chances of getting new people, each one of those tournaments could be run by a different person with slightly different rule variations.

We all agree about the scoring. We disagree about the maps selection and the size of groups. Each tournament would have its own maps and its own group size.

But those tournaments would be in order, one after the other. And for the bigger tournament, I think the top players of each tournament could qualify for the final tournament.