- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
- Messages
- 229
I was looking at tournaments this morning and thinking about how this is the only setting where winning isn't dependent on going first. While I was thinking I could go through the past tournaments to actually generate correlation.. why bother and not just have a round robin tournament instead? Most people who play a good bit of 1v1 on it agree that it's currently the fairest fight, enough to start a tournament.
This would be super easy to manage (I actually would myself). Since we're not crowning the "best duelist", we don't need to worry about the issues battle-of-the-belt does.
Have signups, split people into 2 leagues based on rank if there are enough people (this will take months as it is). We have everyone play everyone else, and then crown a king or queen of the 12 domains(and a duke or duchess, or something).
20 point buy-in, 70/20/10 split, and hopefully a banner. Position is based on number of wins. As in Mercenaries, if there's a tie for 2nd or 1st, they'll split the entire 1st and 2nd place pot. I think having people run two games at a time is probably best so we finish before next year, but I'd be happy to hear input on that.
This would be super easy to manage (I actually would myself). Since we're not crowning the "best duelist", we don't need to worry about the issues battle-of-the-belt does.
Have signups, split people into 2 leagues based on rank if there are enough people (this will take months as it is). We have everyone play everyone else, and then crown a king or queen of the 12 domains(and a duke or duchess, or something).
20 point buy-in, 70/20/10 split, and hopefully a banner. Position is based on number of wins. As in Mercenaries, if there's a tie for 2nd or 1st, they'll split the entire 1st and 2nd place pot. I think having people run two games at a time is probably best so we finish before next year, but I'd be happy to hear input on that.