Community Tournament (Congratulations Alvendor on 1st Place!)

[Alvendor]

(07-28-2012 02:21 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  

(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.
..
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.

Ok, yeah I'm cool with the standard format if that's what ppl want. Just want to explain my thinking of how my suggestion affects balance. In the normal game the movement initiative and the wits advantage is given to p1. But if p1 is not allowed to move, p2 gets the movement advantage while p1 keeps the wits advantage. To give one advantage to each player should reduce the imbalances compared to give both advantages to one player.

It is also possible to prove that there won't be any new overpowered strategies because of this. If there existed such a strategy for p1, p1 could just as easily execute that strategy today by just skipping the first turn.

Playing as p2 in the new format is worse than playing as p1 in original format (you are first to move, but in the new format the opponent has more wits). Therefore there are no new overpowered strategies for p2 either.

If we go for the "play 2 games simultaneously" I also prefer a third game if its a tie. I don't think there is any good way of determining the relative skill if the players won one game each.