TLO 2010 [Winning Team: TOFUkingood]

[Chariot of Fire]

Can you name and shame the players/teams who lost their games by default? Such forfeits have happened before as well. Why not kick the team out and scrub all record of them, otherwise it lends a bias to games won/lost, overall points, and MVP standings.

[Lindax]

Can you name and shame the players/teams who lost their games by default? Such forfeits have happened before as well. Why not kick the team out and scrub all record of them, otherwise it lends a bias to games won/lost, overall points, and MVP standings.

You can see it all in the Game Rosters on page 1.

This time it was team Empire by virtue of Lord Voldemort (for the second time) and team The Drunken Monkeys by virtue of Genoke.

Since it is the second time that team Empire lost a round due to forfeits, the though crossed my mind to "scrub all record of them".

I'm still hesitant though, because it doesn't have any effect (so far) on the ranking of the top teams and the individuals in the team that do everything right would get punished because of one single player. Btw: Last time I did take the Team Captain title off that player. Maybe this time I should ban him from the tournament.

I never thought it would come this far.... Maybe I'll send out a poll to the Team Captains and see what the overall opinion indicates.

Lx

[SirSebstar]

its obvious, take the games of round 18. those games in red that show up are forfieted..
edit; fastposted by lindax

ps, hell no. a team stays there, but maybe some more substitutes?

[Chariot of Fire]

Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

[Culs De Sac]

Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

i second that motion..

[Lindax]

Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

I totally see your point.

However, I would like to remind you (and everybody else) that the maps and settings have been posted on page 1 for a long time now. It would help me a much more if you would bring this kind of thing to my attention before a round starts.

I know I'm far from perfect and appreciate any help I can get to make this tournament a success.

Lx

[anonymus]

Ah ok mate, thanks.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

agreed
/

[Chariot of Fire]

I'd never played Ardennes 1v1 before so hadn't appreciated how lopsided it could be. I sure as hell won't be playing it again lol. It's like entering a duel at 10 paces with shotguns.

But point taken re advice. If any other maps in future look to be wrong for the game type then either myself or others may drop you a line.

[sirron]

Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

i second that motion..

ditto, it is a nightmare.

[Lindax]

Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

i second that motion..

ditto, it is a nightmare.

I got the message guys. Please read my post above and advise me beforehand next time!

Lx

[dustin800]

Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

I agree, before my first turn I was down 30 troops

[Lindax]

Ah ok mate, thanks.

One other thing - different topic, same tourney. Can we avoid having games such as WW2 Ardennes going down as singles? It's a great map - big, many bonuses, ideal for team games - but in 1v1 I'm sorry but it's an absolute disaster. Whoever goes first has a 90% chance of winning, simple as that. Kinda took the fun out of it.

I know you've more maps to select for future rounds, so I thought it prudent to suggest avoiding 1v1 maps that are similar in nature to WW2 Ardennes whereby the player going first wins a landslide victory by virtue of all the bonuses.

Cheers mate

I agree, before my first turn I was down 30 troops

Ok, this is starting to piss me off now. If you guys are not interested enough to check the maps and settings for each round that have been posted on page 1 for months now, and nobody ever said anything, I suggest:

A: You stop posting about this, I got the message.

B: Check future rounds for stupid maps/settings combinations and let me know.

C: Acknowledge your own lack of being "on the ball".

As I mentioned before, I know that I'm far from perfect. I can use all the help I can get to run this tournament. Post after post stating that one "agrees" after the fact does not help.

Lx

[danryan]

As a matter of fact I'll take the dissenting view here - Ardennes is no worse than a number of other maps for 1 v1, including WW2 Europe, World 2.1, Rail Europe, and possibly even City Mogul, which all have a huge first turn advantage. It's just that 1 v 1 is heavily biased to whomever gets to go first. It's not like it was a random map, and no one knew what they were getting. For what it's worth, that's my take.

[Rodion]

Lindax, I'm not sure whether you desire input in order to adjust maps for "fairness" up to the extreme or just to abolish extremely unfair scenarios.

I looked at round 19 games. Assuming you're not only worried about the extreme scenarios, I'd flip-flop Rail Africa with Cairns Coral Coast
(Rail Africa becomes Quads and CCC becomes triples). Rail Africa triples gives 13 territories per player, while Cairns Coral Coast triples gives 10. I'd also flip-flop Rail Australia and South America (Rail Australia doubles give 15 territories per player) for the same reasons. I always consider "fair settings" those that give around 8-11 starting territories per player.

Let me know if this is the kind of feedback you were looking for or if I crossed the line.

[Chariot of Fire]

Sorry Rob. I think people are just responding to my post without reading on and seeing your comments about you 'getting it'. Plus I guess if I was the only one who posted concerns it would simply look like it didn't suit me and not a lot of others, so why should you change anything for just one person?

Anyway....of other games coming up:

Round 19 - Sydney Metro singles could be a prob. You could switch it for Galapagos (keeping the settings applied to each map)

Round 20 - NYC also doesn't suit singles. The biggest map yet the fewest players. Would be better switched with the small USA Great Lakes

Round 21 - Holy Roman Empire could be switched with either Feudal, Pelo Wars or Imp Romanum (each of which are far more suited to 1v1 than HRE).

Sorry again mate. I could have looked at all the maps ages ago but the problem didn't really become apparent until the WW2 Ardennes fiasco.

[Lindax]

Lindax, I'm not sure whether you desire input in order to adjust maps for "fairness" up to the extreme or just to abolish extremely unfair scenarios.

I looked at round 19 games. Assuming you're not only worried about the extreme scenarios, I'd flip-flop Rail Africa with Cairns Coral Coast
(Rail Africa becomes Quads and CCC becomes triples). Rail Africa triples gives 13 territories per player, while Cairns Coral Coast triples gives 10. I'd also flip-flop Rail Australia and South America (Rail Australia doubles give 15 territories per player) for the same reasons. I always consider "fair settings" those that give around 8-11 starting territories per player.

Let me know if this is the kind of feedback you were looking for or if I crossed the line.

I'm mainly concerned with extreme "mistakes" on my part Rodion, but I will certainly take notice of the kind of suggestions you are making and quite possibly make some changes (providing I don't get player assignments for that round before I get around to it).

I'm always open to constructive ideas and suggestions that improve this tournament and will always try to take them into account.

Thank you,

Lx

[Lindax]

Sorry Rob. I think people are just responding to my post without reading on and seeing your comments about you 'getting it'. Plus I guess if I was the only one who posted concerns it would simply look like it didn't suit me and not a lot of others, so why should you change anything for just one person?

Anyway....of other games coming up:

Round 19 - Sydney Metro singles could be a prob. You could switch it for Galapagos (keeping the settings applied to each map)

Round 20 - NYC also doesn't suit singles. The biggest map yet the fewest players. Would be better switched with the small USA Great Lakes

Round 21 - Holy Roman Empire could be switched with either Feudal, Pelo Wars or Imp Romanum (each of which are far more suited to 1v1 than HRE).

Sorry again mate. I could have looked at all the maps ages ago but the problem didn't really become apparent until the WW2 Ardennes fiasco.

You don't need to apologize mate. You pointed out a "problem" and I totally understood that. I have never played Ardennes 1 v 1 for example, but now I know the issue with it.

Thank you for your other suggestions, I'll have a closer look at those, as well as Rodion's.

Lx

[Chariot of Fire]

As a matter of fact I'll take the dissenting view here - Ardennes is no worse than a number of other maps for 1 v1, including WW2 Europe, World 2.1, Rail Europe, and possibly even City Mogul, which all have a huge first turn advantage. It's just that 1 v 1 is heavily biased to whomever gets to go first. It's not like it was a random map, and no one knew what they were getting. For what it's worth, that's my take.

It is mate, it's a lot worse than those that you've cited. Due to the nature of the scattered drop it's rare to drop a bonus in WW2 Europe, 2.1 and Rail Europe whereas in Ardennes it's almost impossible not to (and then use that deploy to deprive one's opponent of any bonuses he might have held). Of the 11 Ardennes games in this TLO I think all of them will go to the player who started first.

You've pretty much said the same yourself Game 4710581

[Chariot of Fire]

Rob. I think jakewilliams created a spreadsheet of all maps and what the drop would be (territory-count-wise) for each game setting. I'll check with him and get it to you if it still exists as it's handy as a Tourney Director to be in possession of such info.

Rod makes a valid point - there are some games where territory counts are divisible by 3 and thus are far from perfect. Ideally the drop should start with 11, 14, 17, 20 etc terrs per player.

[mkcummins]

I'd never played Ardennes 1v1 before so hadn't appreciated how lopsided it could be. I sure as hell won't be playing it again lol. It's like entering a duel at 10 paces with shotguns.

But point taken re advice. If any other maps in future look to be wrong for the game type then either myself or others may drop you a line.

well said, mate. that's EXACTLY what it's like.

Lindax, you're doing an outstanding job. this whole tourney is a blast. thanks for being open to suggestions.

[Lindax]

----
I have made some adjustments for the maps and settings for Rounds 19, 20 and 21, as suggested in this thread. Thanks again for those suggestions.

See page 1: MAIN EVENT

Lx

_________________________________________________________________________________________

[slickstick]

Round 17:

Warriors vs. King Arthurs Bovine

Singles:
Game 8708707-King Arthurs Bovine
Game 8708719-King Arthurs Bovine
Game 8708735-King Arthurs Bovine

Doubles:
Game 8708753-Warriors
Game 8708768-King Arthurs Bovine
Game 8708800-Warriors
Game 8708814-King Arthurs Bovine

Triples:
Game 8708832-King Arthurs Bovine
Game 8708848-King Arthurs Bovine

Quads:
Game 8708864-King Arthurs Bovine

4/17

[Lindax]

----
Round 17 results and scores updated.

See page 1: MAIN EVENT

Lx

_________________________________________________________________________________________

[Lindax]

----
Round 18 results and scores updated.

See page 1: MAIN EVENT

I need the player assignments for Round 19 by coming Wednesday the latest (and not for Round 198 as I wrote in my PM ).

Lx

_________________________________________________________________________________________

[Genoke]

True, it's unfortunate, but if a team "COMMITS" to play in this event, but can't bother a) reading messages and b) accepting invites, I think it's fair to penalize them.

Sorry for the miss, i think i skipt 2 games when i was accepting the invites (maybe by distracting in real life).
I look at the bright side... didn't lost a point by losing those

thats going to make a nice boost to the brewery, although not a great impact i think, except they have already won this round by default.
Fur us its not going to make much of an impact, i was expecting the doubles to be won,
i could have used a quad here...lol

Lucky for me and our team it was just 2 dubs, would have been worse when it was a trip & quad.
anyway...we managed to win the round without them.