More Tournament Control Features

[TheGeneral]

If they are that good they will rise back to the top anyway. I just do not understand it.

 

[kenjoh]

If they are that good they will rise back to the top anyway. I just do not understand it.

That's easier for you to say. You can afford to play more recklessly in tournament games because if you lose, it's not much skin off your back. The higher ranked players don't have that same luxury.

I watched you play recklessly against me in an assassin fixed force tournament final where I was your target. You were relentless against me, but weakened yourself until you were easily eliminated. Th-child was one of our opponents, and all he could do was watch as another opponent easily won because of your risky and overly aggressive strategy. And kiss his big points goodbye without a reasonable game.

You get more tournament wins by playing aggressively like that, but maybe it's players like you that make the tournaments less desireable for the high rankers. I think that if you and the high ranked players played for the same amount of game points, you would be less inclined to take advantage of your lower rank to play only to gather tournament wins. Or are you afraid to occasionally play the higher ranked players on a more level playing field?

Please don't take this personally, but the tournaments we have are not fair to higher ranked players because of play like yours. I suspect that there are others who play the same as you, trying mainly to rack up tournament wins while playing more recklessly, I might consider that strategy too if I ever start moving up in the tournament wins stats. It makes sense to do now that I think about it.

We could solve this problem of skewed strategies in tournaments by just no longer posting the tournaments wins leaderboard anymore. But you and several others would undoubtedly think that would be a bad thing for MajCom.

Let's not assume that tournaments are somehow the perfect competitions for every player as they are. The change I am proposing would take away your advantage, so I understand why you would oppose it. But it would only do so for a small percentage of the total tournaments.

 

[once]

ok, i have not read every post in this thread, but i think we all have a sound understanding of what elements make a tourney a chancy endeavour, and attacking one particular players’ style seems neither necessary nor productive to me. i have great respect for th & eric (and there are countless others), but i am guessing they are not putting their points on the line for the sole purpose of doing us a favor: they also find the potential of winning a tourney worth the risk, and, more importantly, they probably enjoy the format enough to participate in it.
i have had the pleasure to participate in a couple of masters excellent generals games, which are - to me - amongst the most rewarding / tight games on this site. but you could make an argument that playing in a game exclusively comprised of players that think before taking their turn, also creates a game that is somewhat more clinical, dependable, safer. you know the other players are not going to do sth crazy unless they have no other choice, so trying to guess the development of a game seems actually more reliable.. or *easier* in these games. they truly are fantastic games, and i am not saying that the random crazy player missing from them is a shortcoming at all. but this crazy player is a part of most other games, and it requires a different set of skills to work with this. and you *can* work with this. because those players are not only screwing up games, they are also creating opportunities. trying to successfully spot, or even provoke those, can be immensely rewarding.
it is very possible the point system is not ideal. i have no suggestions for an improvement. but i dont think it is “punitive” for higher ranks, there already is a maximum loss cap in place, and lets not forget that the higher ranks too, at some point, profited from the risk / gain ratio of the point system. i think redstorms idea to reset the points annually is interesting. but i do not see this happening ever.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

ok, i have not read every post in this thread, but i think we all have a sound understanding of what elements make a tourney a chancy endeavour, and attacking one particular players’ style seems neither necessary nor productive to me. i have great respect for th & eric (and there are countless others), but i am guessing they are not putting their points on the line for the sole purpose of doing us a favor: they also find the potential of winning a tourney worth the risk, and, more importantly, they probably enjoy the format enough to participate in it.

it is very possible the point system is not ideal. i have no suggestions for an improvement. but i dont think it is “punitive” for higher ranks, there already is a maximum loss cap in place, and lets not forget that the higher ranks too, at some point, profited from the risk.

I agree 100% with that. Attacking another players style of play (and their avatar, which to me seemed ridiculous and childish) serves no purpose. If the higher ranked players don't want to or are afraid to, their loss, IMO. I don't think the tournaments are lessened by their absence.

The current scoring system works reasonably well until you get to be a top-ranked player, then it becomes almost punitive.

So I think we should add this small subset of tournaments to this site, and see if we can get more interaction from the senior players. There's nothing wrong with trying something new if it solves an existing concern.

The scoring system has been debated ad nauseum, it's not going to change. Not for the regular play, not for the tournaments.

The longer this debate continues, the more reason I see for leaving the tournaments exactly as they are. If the high-ranking players want to play games within their own 'community', they can do it by setting up private tourney-style games the way that Masterjskye has been doing. Then they won't need to worry about a "punitive" system.

 

[kenjoh]

I agree 100% with that. Attacking another players style of play (and their avatar, which to me seemed ridiculous and childish) serves no purpose.

I don't think my comments were either ridiculous or childish. Thanks for your judgment (not).

Perhaps my word "offensive" regarding the avatar should more accurately have been "disturbing". Abuse victims in particular would understand what I meant. I think the general understood also, and I thank him for that. I was not attacking the general - I was pointing out my concern about the psychological effect of the avatar. I regret that you don't understand.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Oh, I understand.

 

[kenjoh]

I agree 100% with that. Attacking another players style of play (and their avatar, which to me seemed ridiculous and childish) serves no purpose.

Again, regarding your apparent judgment of my motives, I meant no criticism of his style of play. I was trying to make a valid point about how game strategy in tournaments can be understandably skewed under the present system. My reference to a particular game with the tournament wins leader seemed like a good example of my point.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

"You play reckless". But that's not a criticism...

Are you serious???

 

[Cardinalsrule]

OK, this thread has run it's course, there's nothing else positive likely to come out of it.