Official CC World Speed Cup 2010 [Winner: caymanmew]

[Teflon Kris]

Second Round = 4 x 5-player groups (1 player progresses from each 5-player game)


I really wish this had been correct or announced--It would have made a difference on how I played the second game--says nothing about top two advancing.

Also I must say it is a shitty thing to have players making truces in a tourney.

DJ-looks like no matter what I do I end up having issues in your tourneys--be nice just to have a none for once.

In DJ's defence, this is what it said in the pm I got from him:

Please join within 10 minutes as stated in the rules (see below).

Two players progress to the semi-finals (1v1).

And truces in tournaments are a very common thing (not saying it's a good thing). DJ said he'll adjust the rules for the next version.

I think you need to give him a bit of credit HLA. Speed tournaments (so far) require improvising and I think DJ has done a pretty good job.

Lx

Thanks Lx

In the first post - the contingency plan does state 2 x 5 player games with 2 progressing in the second phase where we have 15 players starting

Shame about the truce situation - we will have it covered next time though

[Bruceswar]

Second Round = 4 x 5-player groups (1 player progresses from each 5-player game)


I really wish this had been correct or announced--It would have made a difference on how I played the second game--says nothing about top two advancing.

Also I must say it is a shitty thing to have players making truces in a tourney.

DJ-looks like no matter what I do I end up having issues in your tourneys--be nice just to have a none for once.

In DJ's defence, this is what it said in the pm I got from him:

Please join within 10 minutes as stated in the rules (see below).

Two players progress to the semi-finals (1v1).

And truces in tournaments are a very common thing (not saying it's a good thing). DJ said he'll adjust the rules for the next version.

I think you need to give him a bit of credit HLA. Speed tournaments (so far) require improvising and I think DJ has done a pretty good job.

Lx

Thanks Lx

In the first post - the contingency plan does state 2 x 5 player games with 2 progressing in the second phase where we have 15 players starting

Shame about the truce situation - we will have it covered next time though

It is a shame, as it ruined the game, then you had him calling out where people were. Tis ok, he may walk away the winner, but he will not be in any more games with most of us. gg to all others.

[Lindax]

Congrats to all 3 winners!

Thanks for playing all.

Lx

[Teflon Kris]

Thanks to everyone who played - I'll send a PM with the official results etc very soon (gotta rush now - I've annoyed 2 women lol).

Big thanks to everyone for their patience at the beginning though - we had a big hiccup with the freemiums not getting their speed pass.

Thanks especially to Lx - without your help I would have drowned in the PMs lol



More fun coming soon - beginning of August - TPA Speed Tournament

[HighlanderAttack]

I hope I did not sound negative in taking away what DJ did here--I wish we could have more speed tourneys--one per week even. I would have to say that I missed both places where it said two players from each group would advance so that is my fault. I also just wanted to get my point across to the players that make a truce in this kind of tourney--it is just straight cheap. They evidently knew that 2 players advanced and when they became the strongest they knew they could easily pick off the three weak players left. It may be a part of the game but it is straight up cheap. Also to find out someone gave position away in a fog game--that is more than cheap--no need for players like that to ever play in tourneys and they don't deserve to be rewarded at all.

Anyway-great job DJ--one day I will get through a tourney of yours without any issues, not that I had any chance of winning this one with my incredible bad dice in game two anyway.

Take it easy.

[Teflon Kris]

Spot on mate - I'll be looking at avoiding the truce & fog giveaway issues in future, just like FIFA will be looking at goal-line technology.

Game chat disabled in speed tournaments?

Its a shame as I have lots of non-tournament speed games where this doesn't occur - maybe its cos I play 3-player assassin and that is less prone to these issues? Maybe we should have a discussion thread about this somewhere?

[Caymanmew]

Spot on mate - I'll be looking at avoiding the truce & fog giveaway issues in future, just like FIFA will be looking at goal-line technology.

Game chat disabled in speed tournaments?

Its a shame as I have lots of non-tournament speed games where this doesn't occur - maybe its cos I play 3-player assassin and that is less prone to these issues? Maybe we should have a discussion thread about this somewhere?

the problem was how much the truces would help us 2 people move on therefore we never really worry about the other person backstabbing till everyone else is gone

[Teflon Kris]

Spot on mate - I'll be looking at avoiding the truce & fog giveaway issues in future, just like FIFA will be looking at goal-line technology.

Game chat disabled in speed tournaments?

Its a shame as I have lots of non-tournament speed games where this doesn't occur - maybe its cos I play 3-player assassin and that is less prone to these issues? Maybe we should have a discussion thread about this somewhere?

the problem was how much the truces would help us 2 people move on therefore we never really worry about the other person backstabbing till everyone else is gone

Cayman, you are the Maradona ('86) here - you could really help me fashion a solution for future tournaments.

Would a truce be less effective in sunny conditions? I'm thinking it wouldn't make much difference and that we have two issues players complained about (which, you are right to say, they have nothing to complain about given the rules we had).

Would an anti-truce rule be an administrative nightmare? Would it actually mean whoever was strong after the first few dice were thrown would go on to win?

I'm thinking along the line of an anti-truce rule where it is still ok to warn others who is the strongest player in game chat (e.g. "Look out folks, Dave has a lot of regions"), and a fog rule where disclosures aren't allowed but players can remind one another of information in the log (e.g. "Dave claimed a bonus there - it must be either S America or Australia bonus area.")

I dont really want to revert to sunny games as it removes the fun element of surprise and often means games build-up and last longer which is no good in a speed tournament.

So the question is mate, would you have still been able to make the essential truce with these rules in place (if not, I have no doubt your ball skills would have got you through anyway).

Then, if those rules were in place, what would happen, the truce doods get ejected presumably, but then who goes through? It would have to be the last surviving non-truce players as there would not be time to start another game for them.

[Bruceswar]

Spot on mate - I'll be looking at avoiding the truce & fog giveaway issues in future, just like FIFA will be looking at goal-line technology.

Game chat disabled in speed tournaments?

Its a shame as I have lots of non-tournament speed games where this doesn't occur - maybe its cos I play 3-player assassin and that is less prone to these issues? Maybe we should have a discussion thread about this somewhere?

the problem was how much the truces would help us 2 people move on therefore we never really worry about the other person backstabbing till everyone else is gone

Cayman, you are the Maradona ('86) here - you could really help me fashion a solution for future tournaments.

Would a truce be less effective in fog?

Would an anti-truce rule be an administrative nightmare? Would it actually mean whoever was strong after the first few dice were thrown would go on to win?

I'm thinking along the line of an anti-truce rule where it is still ok to warn others who is the strongest player in game chat, and a fog rule where disclosures aren't allowed but players can remind one another of information in the log (e.g. X claimed a bonus there - it must be either Y or Z area.

I dont really want to revert to sunny games as it removes the fun element of surprise and often means games build-up and last longer which is no good in a speed tournament.

So the question is mate, would you have still been able to make the essential truce with these rules in place (if not, I have no doubt your ball skills would have got you through anyway).

I watched the game as the other was waiting to start. The truce totally wrecked the game, and had he not made it, he would not have made it through. It is as simple as that. Even with the lame truce he still got close to losing, so he reverted to even lower tactics, of calling out where red was.

No truces should be allowed at all, and nobody should be telling anybody where people are in fog. Either of those should be an automatic banning from the tournament. As for telling anybody who is strongest, I am fairly sure even in fog most anybody with a brain will know who is strongest. It is telling people how much they are dropping in the log. There should be no need to tell who has the territory lead or army lead.

[Teflon Kris]

I think you're right Bruce - there should be no need apart from where there might be an inexperienced player who needs a quick reminder to read the log.

I think we can safely introduce the rule for the next tournament.

I'm still wary 3-player games could be a problem - the silent truce between 2-players who decide to pick on a 3rd to go through, or pick on a third to eliminate him/her then fight it out (if there is one qualification spot). Unfortunately, 3-player games are the ideal first round format for the TO as it is easier to move players between games to fill them etc. I'm coming to the conclusion here that 3-player assassin is perhaps the best format, and maybe on maps with 'castle'-style starts. Thus minimising the 'silent truce' potential as much as possible.

[Teflon Kris]

The Official Results

Winner - caymanmew

Runner-Up - bigm1234

3rd Place - DJ Teflon

4th Place - Bruceswar

[Bruceswar]

I think you're right Bruce - there should be no need apart from where there might be an inexperienced player who needs a quick reminder to read the log.

I think we can safely introduce the rule for the next tournament.

I'm still wary 3-player games could be a problem - the silent truce between 2-players who decide to pick on a 3rd to go through, or pick on a third to eliminate him/her then fight it out (if there is one qualification spot). Unfortunately, 3-player games are the ideal first round format for the TO as it is easier to move players between games to fill them etc. I'm coming to the conclusion here that 3-player assassin is perhaps the best format, and maybe on maps with 'castle'-style starts. Thus minimising the 'silent truce' potential as much as possible.

Thanks for looking into this. Sorry to those in the game that were effected.

[pie12345]

this is crap i would be preemium