The Great War

[Dukasaur]

Second Champagne launches tomorrow.

[iAmCaffeine]

Since it's all but over, I'd just like to congratulate luxbock on winning the The Maritz Rebellion tournament for denominator! Now if only I could find someone better than me to play my tournament games.

[robellis00]

I'd like to say thanks to all the folks who put so much effort into the Great War events. I have enjoyed participating in various events. It takes a lot of thought and work to put everything together; from the layout of the entire series to each individual tournament. Sure, I don't have as much experience as some others, but I want to say thanks for what has been produced so far. Quite an accomplishment!

I'm wondering when the next opportunity will be for us freemiums to get involved? I see the scoreboard exploding with war medals and getting envious that there are not more freemium events. I understand that premiums are 'where the money is', and I don't fault the directors for that. I just want to ask when the next freemium-friendly opportunity might be?

If another creative component is on the horizon, that would be fun as well. I'm not the most creative, but I am more than willing to participate. Isn't that one of the big goals of CC---to get more participation?

Thanks again, and happy hunting.
robellis00

[Dukasaur]

It's tough to design good fremium-friendly tournaments. Still, I'll keep trying.

Could definitely use more creative components, but I need more volunteers to step forward and run them.

There will definitely be a very big creative component in December. Anybody guess what it is?

[denominator]

Since it's all but over, I'd just like to congratulate luxbock on winning the The Maritz Rebellion tournament for denominator! Now if only I could find someone better than me to play my tournament games.

Are you going to actually accuse me of account sitting abuse, or are you just going to continue flinging your passive-aggressive bullshit around the forums like a butthurt child?

[iAmCaffeine]

Since it's all but over, I'd just like to congratulate luxbock on winning the The Maritz Rebellion tournament for denominator! Now if only I could find someone better than me to play my tournament games.

Are you going to actually accuse me of account sitting abuse, or are you just going to continue flinging your passive-aggressive bullshit around the forums like a butthurt child?

Just flinging.

I simply doubt you'd win otherwise, but there is no abuse.

[denominator]

Since it's all but over, I'd just like to congratulate luxbock on winning the The Maritz Rebellion tournament for denominator! Now if only I could find someone better than me to play my tournament games.

Are you going to actually accuse me of account sitting abuse, or are you just going to continue flinging your passive-aggressive bullshit around the forums like a butthurt child?

Just flinging.

I simply doubt you'd win otherwise, but there is no abuse.

I would highly recommend that you actually do some research before throwing out an insult like that:

It took 7 wins to take the tournament, so let's look at them:

1 - Game 15581892
2 - Game 15617461
3 - Game 15744267
4 - Game 15824209
5 - Game 15888505
6 - Game 15902336
7 - Game 16067405

I will freely admit that luxbock played and won the 7th game for me. And the win in the 6th game was secured by my clanmates as well, although I would contend that I already had that one wrapped up and it was dragged out by only the trench setting. However, the first 5 games were completely played by me, and I went 4-0 in the 1v1 games.

So thanks for showing up here simply to be a dick.

[iAmCaffeine]

Congrats.

[Tviorr]

Id like to thank you as well. You managed what we havent been able to

Weve been trying to lure Denom back into the wonderful world of CC, but married life is seemingly treating him too well to break up the self-imposed break.

Get into an argument with the little woman, retreat into the mancave and get hooked back in already...

Remember the good old days of downing half a bottle of scotch, playing cc long into the night while logging several meters of nonsense in the chat

[Fewnix]

At the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, the Great War ends. At 5 a.m. that morning, Germany, bereft of manpower and supplies and faced with imminent invasion, signed an armistice agreement with the Allies in a railroad car outside Compiégne, France. The First World War left nine million soldiers dead and 21 million wounded, with Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, France, and Great Britain each losing nearly a million or more lives. In addition, at least five million civilians died from disease, starvation, or exposure.

As that day approachs, it may be appropriate to post

[Dukasaur]

At the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, the Great War ends. At 5 a.m. that morning, Germany, bereft of manpower and supplies and faced with imminent invasion, signed an armistice agreement with the Allies in a railroad car outside Compiégne, France. The First World War left nine million soldiers dead and 21 million wounded, with Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, France, and Great Britain each losing nearly a million or more lives. In addition, at least five million civilians died from disease, starvation, or exposure.

As that day approachs, it may be appropriate to post

Aye!



Remember them.

[Dukasaur]

Finally a new Great War tournament!

Es Sinn launches today @1500.

[shoop76]

Duk, again you are doing a great job running this. I do have a complaint. Why the sudden rise in battle medals for these new tournaments. In almost all previous tournaments it has been 1 and now the last 2 have more. The battle of es Sein even has 3 going to the winner and 2 for 2nd. Its only a 25 player tournament. I find this really unfair. Have spent a lot of time playing these tournaments and now you are making it easier for the competition to make a comeback. This is something that should have been clear from the beginning.

[shoop76]

Very strange way to the seeding by score for the Battle of es Sinn. The top 3 scores are in the same group along with the bottom 2.

[Dukasaur]

Duk, again you are doing a great job running this. I do have a complaint. Why the sudden rise in battle medals for these new tournaments. In almost all previous tournaments it has been 1 and now the last 2 have more. The battle of es Sein even has 3 going to the winner and 2 for 2nd. Its only a 25 player tournament. I find this really unfair. Have spent a lot of time playing these tournaments and now you are making it easier for the competition to make a comeback. This is something that should have been clear from the beginning.

You understand the basic problem... if people feel they have no chance of catching up, they won't even bother trying. In many kinds of games the value of later rounds goes up. If someone has an insurmountable lead then the end feels kind of anticlimactic.

It would actually be worse in this case, because of the way WW 1 actually happened. There were something like 75 battles in the first six months of the war, when everybody was full of piss and vinegar and ready to rumble. As the depressing reality of trench warfare set in, and as some of the minor theatres got resolved, there were fewer battles. So, there will never again be the number of battles that we saw in the first year. Add that to a flat scoring system, and you could pretty well coast to the end.

I know you've done amazingly well, and you deserve a title of some kind, but the event can't just end here. You are the Babe Ruth of the Great War, but the Phillies won't come to the games if they have no hope. Something has to be done to make sure this isn't a four-year waiting game. That's why I decided to escalate the scoring from year to year.

In addition, there have been comments at various times that bigger tournaments should count for more, and I tend to agree. I pretty much put together a new scoring system, and here's what I came up with:

Proposed New Battle Medals Awarded Policy

Base, 2 for each base year

• August 1914 to August 1915 - 2
• August 1915 to September 1916 - 4
• September 1916 to October 1917 - 6
• October 1916 to November 1918 - 8

Multi-round bonus, 1 extra for every three rounds or portion thereof except the first five

• up to 5 rounds, no extra
• 6 to 8 rounds, 1 extra
• 9 to 11 rounds 2 extra
• 12 to 14 rounds 3 extra, etc.

Large-tourney bonus, 1 extra for every 20 players or portion thereof except the first 16

• up to 16 players, no extra
• 17 to 36 players, 1 extra
• 37 to 56 players, 2 extra, etc.

Game=load bonus, 1 extra for every 15 games or portion thereof after the first 15

• up to 15 games, no extra
• 16 to 30 games, 1 extra
• 31 to 45 games, 2 extra
• 46 to 60 games, 3 extra, etc.

Tournament cup given when #Players + Game Load > 37

There will be helmets given for 1st as well as the helmets given out to some randomized non-winning place

Is it too much? Should this be phased in gradually? Should it be reduced somewhat? I'm willing to listen.

As to why it wasn't made clear from the beginning: because it wasn't clear. We're in uncharted territory. An event like the Great War hasn't been attempted before. We are, very literally, making it up as we go along.

From the first post:
Subject: The Great War

We will try to recreate, using tournaments and sub-events, the entire history of World War I.

This event is dynamic! The rules now may not be the rules in 2018. New features will be added, unpopular features will be dropped.

[ConfederateSS]

Duk, again you are doing a great job running this. I do have a complaint. Why the sudden rise in battle medals for these new tournaments. In almost all previous tournaments it has been 1 and now the last 2 have more. The battle of es Sein even has 3 going to the winner and 2 for 2nd. Its only a 25 player tournament. I find this really unfair. Have spent a lot of time playing these tournaments and now you are making it easier for the competition to make a comeback. This is something that should have been clear from the beginning.

------I would have more of a problem. Being a premium member. Then having to pray for tokens to play an Event. I don't really like tourneys. But I'm sue there are those who love them. I am in Race to The Sea.a 20 round tourney. People playing 2,3,4,5 and 6 rounders win 1 medal. The 20 rounder is worth 1 medal. Shouldn't it be worth like 4 or 5 battle medals? It might take until 2017/18,at the rate we are going. After it is over I'm done with tourneys. But I see your point as well. Here is a story from my childhood if it helps.
------I remember when I was growing up. We would play football,hockey,baseball or whatever. We would play for hours. When it was getting dark. Or if we had to go in and eat. Even if you were up 50 to 5. Or down 50 to 5. Whatever you were playing. You would here this phrase. NEXT ONE TO SCORE WINS. I mean,did we grow up communists and no one told us. I always found that funny. That is what The Great War reminds me of.
------I hope you end up winning TGW. You've earned it. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...***GOOD LUCK, May The Goddess of "Victory",bless all your dice rolls!***

[Tviorr]

Im not really sure how exactly to read that, but for a 70 player tournament it could be 17+ medals in it. Not sure how they would be distributed? Even at this point 12+?

Or is the base value something different.

Seems a bit steep to me. - Even if I am one of the stragglers somewhat behind shoop, I would agree that the values shouldnt run away with us.

I think your thoughts on the amount of tourneys are valid as it does make for less excitement with less tournaments for periods of the war and a bit of an increase along the way is probably well and good. I would however also think that the hardest medals to rake in would be the first ones as youd had to scrape in a lot of tanks to play everything, youd had to play a lot of tourneys, sometimes with rather heavy game loads clashing, so credit where credit is due as well.

Im not actually sure how Shoop did it, but as he has done it, his lead should not be unduly undermined. - After all the rest of the players playing Great War tourneys are probably increasingly likely to keep an eye out for him and possibly throw a wrench in his machinery or just in his face if they have nothing better to do on their turns . Tourneys do have inbuilt options of playing against the strongest player in the tourney and not just against the strongest player in the individual map. - Even if its not that widely a spread tactic (I think).

After all noone made the Babe play without a bat

Aside from that, Id think that most tourneys, especially longer ones, would have a rather limited number of players vying for the top spot. Most of us mere mortals are content with lesser placings and sticking it to the players just above us

[Dukasaur]

Seems a bit steep to me. - Even if I am one of the stragglers somewhat behind shoop, I would agree that the values shouldnt run away with us.

Okay, this is the kind of comment I'm looking for. Maybe it is too steep. Maybe it does need to be re-evaluated.

Im not really sure how exactly to read that, but for a 70 player tournament it could be 17+ medals in it.

A 70 player tournament would have 4 extra medals over and above the base (1 extra for every 20 players or portion thereof except the first 16). If it was this year (base of 4) it would have at least 8. To have 17 it would also have to have a high game count and/or a lot of rounds. To reach 17 medals it would have to have 80 games and 15 rounds.

[Dukasaur]

Maybe a formula that varies with the square root of the total players, games, and rounds? It wouldn't be such a drastic change.

[shoop76]

Duk, I'm glad that you are listening to others. There are only a couple of mods that actually do. I do disagree that players will stop joining. It actually amazes me, in today's cc, how many people are participating in this. Personally I am against changes more than a quarter of the way through a competition. I have by no means won the Great War as there is a long way to go, but now it seems like the 1st year is basically been done for nothing as the scoring is changing and will change more.

[mookiemcgee]

If first place starts dropping 3+ medals, this severly dilutes shoops (and anyone else near the top) advantage and the value of their 'old medals'. Id like to see 1st place get a maximum of 2 medals regardless of size (smaller tourneys maybe give 1 for first), perhaps in really large tourneys 2nd place might also get 2 (but very rarely). If you want to award medals for more places I dont really have a problem with that as long as it because there are alot of entrantants. I think the top 10% being awarded seems like a fair rule of thumb.

Assuming Shoop keeps playing and performing well he will have the same chance to maintain or extend his lead, but it would be unfair if people getting 1 win suddenly get 3x the value out of it which is why I think 1st place should be capped at two (or just leave it at 1 and award more people, but this would seems to make winning in first not matter)

[morleyjoe]

Duk, again you are doing a great job running this. I do have a complaint. Why the sudden rise in battle medals for these new tournaments. In almost all previous tournaments it has been 1 and now the last 2 have more. The battle of es Sein even has 3 going to the winner and 2 for 2nd. Its only a 25 player tournament. I find this really unfair. Have spent a lot of time playing these tournaments and now you are making it easier for the competition to make a comeback. This is something that should have been clear from the beginning.

Fully agree with shoop on this one. Please keep up the great work. Please keep the medal formula as per all the previous events. Shoop has worked hard to get where he is, as have all of those chasing him. This event has a strong following, and while there may be a few that do drop along the way, there are always others playing it for the sake of being in a tournament. Thanks for your great effort! It is greatly appreciated!

[Dukasaur]

Duk, again you are doing a great job running this. I do have a complaint. Why the sudden rise in battle medals for these new tournaments. In almost all previous tournaments it has been 1 and now the last 2 have more. The battle of es Sein even has 3 going to the winner and 2 for 2nd. Its only a 25 player tournament. I find this really unfair. Have spent a lot of time playing these tournaments and now you are making it easier for the competition to make a comeback. This is something that should have been clear from the beginning.

Fully agree with shoop on this one. Please keep up the great work. Please keep the medal formula as per all the previous events. Shoop has worked hard to get where he is, as have all of those chasing him. This event has a strong following, and while there may be a few that do drop along the way, there are always others playing it for the sake of being in a tournament. Thanks for your great effort! It is greatly appreciated!

Okay, that's an extreme view.

I'm ready to consider ways to reduce the increase, but having no increase at all is just going to kill this event. You have to have a horserace. Declaring a winner in the 5th quarter of a 17 quarter event is just going to make the rest of it seem like a pointless exercise.

[mookiemcgee]

Again, i think you can expand the number of players receiving medals without diluting shoops advantage, but if you start issuing multiple medals to anyone in a single tourney you will totally undercut his advantage. Perhaps you increase the 1st place prize by one medal each year? This makes year 4 most important which i think Duku feels is vital, and at lest put something concrete in place so we know whats coming?

Perhaps another route you could consider is changing the prize issued each year to a different medal? This would allow for Shoop to 'win' year 1 and have that codified in the record books, while maintaing an 'achievable' goal for shorter term or new players.

Sorry I know these are just a bunch of rough ideas hope they help.