1 vs 1 Tourney...Double elimination... Lose 2 and you're out...NUKES...Escalate,

[sannheten]

I am in. Any map.
Will vote for escalate.
Escalate compensates better than escalite/flat for the first turn advantage. (An advantage that can take the fun away from 1v1.

 

[sannheten]

Or. The tourney could be set up so that we play every oponent twice. One game with 1st turn and one going second.

 

[once]

Or. The tourney could be set up so that we play every oponent twice. One game with 1st turn and one going second.

good idea. i much prefer having two games where everyone gets a 1st turn rather than making all games escalate, as 1st turn advantage remains an issue regardless.
but how to set this up? play everyone twice on different maps, or twice on the same map? if on the same map, and the outcome is a (maybe likely) 1-1, i guess it would be possible to play a series of double games until a winner is decided (3-1, 4-2, 5-3 etc), but this would extend the tourney significantly. could be fun? i dont know? an advantage to playing multiple games on a single map would be that then we could also let the players individually decide on which settings they want to play with rather than deciding this globally: each player decides on the settings for one of the two games

 

[engineerairborne]

good idea. i much prefer having two games where everyone gets a 1st turn rather than making all games escalate, as 1st turn advantage remains an issue regardless.
but how to set this up? play everyone twice on different maps, or twice on the same map? if on the same map, and the outcome is a (maybe likely) 1-1, i guess it would be possible to play a series of double games until a winner is decided (3-1, 4-2, 5-3 etc), but this would extend the tourney significantly. could be fun? i dont know? an advantage to playing multiple games on a single map would be that then we could also let the players individually decide on which settings they want to play with rather than deciding this globally: each player decides on the settings for one of the two games

To ensure that each get a 1st turn advantage could you not if the (person who is supposed to go first did not start first) have the 1st player miss their first turn, and the 2nd player is now going first, and then when the first player goes to take their turn, they don't deploy deferred troops?

 

[once]

To ensure that each get a 1st turn advantage could you not if the (person who is supposed to go first did not start first) have the 1st player miss their first turn, and the 2nd player is now going first, and then when the first player goes to take their turn, they don't deploy deferred troops?

absolutely. but if we were to play 2 games per map, and both players win one of those two games, then a tiebreaker is needed. since a third game would give one player 1st turn advantage, it should be a set of two games again, so that both players get 1st turn again. and so on.

 

[engineerairborne]

absolutely. but if we were to play 2 games per map, and both players win one of those two games, then a tiebreaker is needed. since a third game would give one player 1st turn advantage, it should be a set of two games again, so that both players get 1st turn again. and so on.

Agreed.

 

[waldegrave]

I'm in

 

[sannheten]

To ensure that each get a 1st turn advantage could you not if the (person who is supposed to go first did not start first) have the 1st player miss their first turn, and the 2nd player is now going first, and then when the first player goes to take their turn, they don't deploy deferred troops?

What if we deal with the first turn advantage by saying that the player going first only is allowed to deploy half of the deploy and not attack. That is that there will only be one game between each pair. And we will not have the challenge with tie breaker etc

 

[periwinkle]

To ensure that each get a 1st turn advantage could you not if the (person who is supposed to go first did not start first) have the 1st player miss their first turn, and the 2nd player is now going first, and then when the first player goes to take their turn, they don't deploy deferred troops?

or they can just start their turn and not deploy (not play and let the hour run down...) that's another way to make sure both players start first without re-creating a million games and dealing with deferred troops...either or....makes no difference.

 

[once]

What if we deal with the first turn advantage by saying that the player going first only is allowed to deploy half of the deploy and not attack. That is that there will only be one game between each pair. And we will not have the challenge with tie breaker etc

i have never tried this, but what happens if the deploy is an uneven number?
personally i would favour a minimum of two games per map where everyone gets 1st turn, and i wouldnt mind a series of eventual tiebreakers. i think if every player gets to bring his favourite settings to the maps this could turn into an interesting & satisfying challenge, might generate some unusual games outside of one's comfort zone. but maybe most of those games would be set up as 1 path escalate anyway so i am ok with anything.

 

[bilsi]

i have never tried this, but what happens if the deploy is an uneven number?
personally i would favour a minimum of two games per map where everyone gets 1st turn, and i wouldnt mind a series of eventual tiebreakers. i think if every player gets to bring his favourite settings to the maps this could turn into an interesting & satisfying challenge, might generate some unusual games outside of one's comfort zone. but maybe most of those games would be set up as 1 path escalate anyway so i am ok with anything.

I like the idea 1 home 1 away...How do you get both guys going first easily?

 

[bilsi]

I like the idea 1 home 1 away...How do you get both guys going first easily?

If we can figure that out we could do same map but home team sets everything...

 

[Stormcat]

If we can figure that out we could do same map but home team sets everything...

maybe something like if same player gets to go first in the second game, abandon it and try starting another, and keep trying till the correct player gets to go first?

 

[once]

If we can figure that out we could do same map but home team sets everything...

i think engineer & peri gave a good solution:

To ensure that each get a 1st turn advantage could you not if the (person who is supposed to go first did not start first) have the 1st player miss their first turn, and the 2nd player is now going first, and then when the first player goes to take their turn, they don't deploy deferred troops?

or they can just start their turn and not deploy (not play and let the hour run down...) that's another way to make sure both players start first without re-creating a million games and dealing with deferred troops...either or....makes no difference.

on autodeploy maps the turn would have to be missed altogether though

 

[periwinkle]

Oh yes...that is true about autodeploy