Community Tournament (Congratulations Alvendor on 1st Place!)

[GreatGonzales]

(07-28-2012 01:54 AM)Harti Wrote:  Also - no offense intended - I'm not entering a tournament with a "weak ruleset" (that hasn't been tested yet). If Player 1 wasn't allowed to act during the first turn, not only Player 2 will get the original FTA positioning, there could also occur imbalances we haven't seen yet, like a turn 5 (3rd P1 turn) special (turn 3 doesn't work really often as you have to get your wit spaces) or something.
The best balance is still having two games on the same map because both players get to enjoy the FTA and both players have to suffer the conditions of going second. If there's a clearly better player in the matchup, they will usually win both matches, and if it's two equally skilled players, the tiebreakers will often decide. And, @ArtNJ, I do think that base health is more important than the turns it took.

None taken, I think I agree with you. You explained well the problem with Alvendor's proposal that I felt but could not articulate. However, I do have some problems with your proposal, too.

For one, I'm not sure that base health is always going to be the best indicator of skill. In my case, for example, I will allow my base to take some damage if I have calculated that I will be able to win before my base is destroyed.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by "Who won earlier", but it sounds like you are saying that you are giving advantage to either the person who won more quickly (temporally), or, more likely, who won in fewer rounds. But I think this gives an unfair advantage to fast players/rushing players (depending on which interpretation is correct).

The player with the greatest total unit value...I guess I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that you are going to take a sum of the wit value of all units remaining on the board when victory is achieved by someone? Can you explain why this is necessarily an indicator of skill? So, let's say that a different player wins each of the two games, and the total value of units between the two games is 14 for one, 16 for the other. I guess it's reasonable to guess that the 16 player is probably better...but I am reluctant to use this sort of interpretation when someone may be using a unit formation that allows him to do more with less.

I feel that if there is a tie between 2 games, a third game should be played. I generally prefer that, or somehow mitigate FTA in a single game, to your proposal. Let me know what you think.