TOURNEY: Rubiks Rampage

[haWD96lz]

I'm not a fan of all the rules changes. Its one thing to let people opt into the new 1 v 1 rules, but the rest impact strategy including the first round strategy for some so that seems to be unfair.

 

[periwinkle]

I'm not a fan of all the rules changes. Its one thing to let people opt into the new 1 v 1 rules, but the rest impact strategy including the first round strategy for some so that seems to be unfair.

:dito: hmmmm....it's confusing already as it is....let's keep this simple and stick to the original plan....once the tourney ends then you can create a 2nd tourney with modifications/improvements because everyone would have the hang of it. My 2 cents. :lollypop:

 

[brianstheman]

So I think one thing Zorbs probably considered when he took out the "Corner Totality" win condition, is it prevents constant battles on the same maps. Everyone would be going for those maps all the time.

There was just a 4p game on Duck & Cover, and I would anticipate many more such occurrences if Corner Totality were to remain a win condition. Lots of battles for same maps doesn't seem like a great outcome when 27 maps are in play.

Many maps will rarely be challenged under that criteria. Changing it to a larger majority is a plus for that reason.

I do find the new shapes interesting. However, I understand that most players (including myself most likely) would have a difficult time assessing what shapes they had other than the basics. The lines themselves are going to be pretty hard to track after time progresses (with diagonals and such).

We are one round in, and everyone has had a chance to attack exactly one map, for a maximum of two consecutive territories. So while long term strategy may change under the new win condition, immediate strategy should not. Before individuals would at best be 2/3 of the way to creating a line. Same as now.

 

[haWD96lz]

So I think one thing Zorbs probably considered when he took out the "Corner Totality" win condition, is it prevents constant battles on the same maps. Everyone would be going for those maps all the time.

There was just a 4p game on Duck & Cover, and I would anticipate many more such occurrences if Corner Totality were to remain a win condition. Lots of battles for same maps doesn't seem like a great outcome when 27 maps are in play.

Many maps will rarely be challenged under that criteria. Changing it to a larger majority is a plus for that reason.

I do find the new shapes interesting. However, I understand that most players (including myself most likely) would have a difficult time assessing what shapes they had other than the basics. The lines themselves are going to be pretty hard to track after time progresses (with diagonals and such).

We are one round in, and everyone has had a chance to attack exactly one map, for a maximum of two consecutive territories. So while long term strategy may change under the new win condition, immediate strategy should not. Before individuals would at best be 2/3 of the way to creating a line. Same as now.

I agree there was a corner issue, but the changes have made things more complex than I would have signed up for. To change without asking for input midstream is not great. Better as Peri said to stick with things even with flaws then go again with fixes.

 

[brianstheman]

Zorbs, it seems like there is some concern regarding the geometric complexities. While it does add a lot of nuance, most players would have a hard time tracking their own progress toward patterns and shapes as the map spreads.

Without an automated tool for doing so, most would resort to the simpler patterns, not even being aware of additional shapes created in the process. As is, the diagonal lines should add some nice zig.

My votes (if they are considered) would be: 1) Yay on win condition change (otherwise corner totality going to lead to lack of contests for many maps): 2) Nay on geometric additions and related attack strengths (due to the opacity likely to ensue).

 

[periwinkle]

I like that :lollypop:

 

[haWD96lz]

I concur. Otherwise I"m leaving and if too many other people do that will be a big negative.

 

[markattax]

I agree with brian and haW.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Zorbs, it seems like there is some concern regarding the geometric complexities. While it does add a lot of nuance, most players would have a hard time tracking their own progress toward patterns and shapes as the map spreads.

Without an automated tool for doing so, most would resort to the simpler patterns, not even being aware of additional shapes created in the process. As is, the diagonal lines should add some nice zig.

My votes (if they are considered) would be: 1) Yay on win condition change (otherwise corner totality going to lead to lack of contests for many maps): 2) Nay on geometric additions and related attack strengths (due to the opacity likely to ensue).

I agree with that. However I do have to give Zorbs a HUGE :congrats: on his solution to the new 1v1 rule.

 

[brianstheman]

I agree with that. However I do have to give Zorbs a HUGE :congrats: on his solution to the new 1v1 rule.

Zorbs continues to amaze!!! He's come up with a million things with this tourney I never would have thought of

 

[Zorbmonkey]

Hey guys! Thanks for your constructive feedback. I was expecting opposition to the changes so I'm not surprised at all.
I'll discuss the points you've made, the geometry system in particular and then what should happen next.

#1. When I first made the tournament, I didn't analyse the line rules enough. I then realized that moves would be predictable and everyone would just be trying to stop peoples lines. So I sat down and fleshed out a better geometry system with more options and less predictability. Also it allowed more cool abilities. I figured that implementing this was worth the controversial rule-change.

#2. I mentioned at the beginning that this was an experimental project and I think in that spirit I got carried away with it and treated it as more of an artwork than a tournament, forgetting that it might confuse or annoy people, apparently to the point of not wanting to play.

#3. I am more than capable of counting, tracking and updating all shapes and point totals for everybody. As for players trying to work out the best cubes to attack to max their score, the vast vast majority of players will never reach a point where the geometry gets even remotely complicated. Most players won't even get a line. It's more of a cool gimmick for the lead players. However, if this system is still going to confuse people then I guess it's a problem.

#4. The thought of waiting for a rerun of this tournament to experiment did cross my mind, but I didn't know if that would ever happen or how far away that would be so I thought I'd experiment now. CCC on the other hand is a comparatively simple tournament with less work that I'll likely roll out again next year with any improvements added at that time.

#5. I actually got rid of the corner victory because it would invalidate the "cube+" shape. Also I think getting all eight corners would be even more difficult than getting a majority.

#6. I also understand the concern of rule changing when it comes to screwing up peoples plans. However, since the changes were made before anyone could head towards a specific shape, the effect on strategy is practically zilch. Still, potentially bothering for some I suppose.

#7. I'm glad the ALT rule has been perceived well. Since a lot of contests will be 1v1 I thought it was a good idea to include. Early testing on that rule on MC appears to show an improvement to balance.

#8. I like maths and shapes and sometimes I over-indulge, forgetting that others don't like maths or shapes. Go figure.

With all this said, if the geometry part of all this is causing concern I can revert it back to the way it was (causing more disruption temporarily but that's life)
That leaves the win condition part. 1/2 or 2/3? I don't really care. What do y'all think?

 

[periwinkle]

I like 1/2 ....

 

[xsb1977]

Mars: xsb1977 vs EasyToKill
https://www.majorcommand.com/games/506701/

 

[8]

Classic Mini: 8 vs Hortik
https://www.majorcommand.com/games/506705/

 

[Hortik]

Philippines

Hortik vs Periwinkle
https://www.majorcommand.com/games/506709/

 

[TheGeneral]

https://www.majorcommand.com/games/506720/

Sea of Japan - TheG defends against 8

 

[8]

8 defended Mini-Classic

https://www.majorcommand.com/games/506705/

 

[brianstheman]

https://www.majorcommand.com/games/506729/

South America - brianstheman defends against Sannheten.

 

[BadElmer]

Classic Evolved: BadElmer vs markattax

https://www.majorcommand.com/games/506746/

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Balkans game:
https://www.majorcommand.com/games/506750/

Barbarossa game:
https://www.majorcommand.com/games/506751/