Team tournament

[micky]

Some time ago there was a tournament where players could sign up as a team (doubles). Can someone organise something like that again? Maybe even Fixed Force? On a small scale then as it would never fill otherwise.

 

[airwick]

Some time ago there was a tournament where players could sign up as a team (doubles). Can someone organise something like that again? Maybe even Fixed Force? On a small scale then as it would never fill otherwise.

I was thinking about starting a MoM A-Team edition for teams of four...

If people are interested I can set up in the next few weeks

 

[micky]

I'd prefer smaller teams, but you are the master on this, so ...

 

[periwinkle]

Oh! Sounds interesting ! I'm up for any team of any size...maybe we can do a combo of chance and FF?

 

[clarkenfeld]

Ohhhhhh a tournament where you choose the team you're in is a dream. Yes please airwick.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I like it, and would certainly play, but making Fixed part of it limits it only to commander class. I think it should be open to all paying customers.

 

[airwick]

I'd prefer smaller teams, but you are the master on this, so ...

What would you prefer?

 

[micky]

Honestly, I'd prefer Fixed Force. The reason I requested this (in a minute of frustration): I found myself in a FF tournament with 2 partners who don't communicate and we are losing the game because they either don't know about FF (and don't read the chat), or I don't know what (because our drop was fine) - but definitely they don't care about team play.
I would like a FF game for those who appreciate this setting. If it limits players because they don't find it worth the few $ - so be it. That's why I asked it be on a small scale (i.e. 16 players - doubles). It would be like a "treat". It's not that I have a teammate or anything, but this request really derives from a disappointing game which could have been a great adventure.
And I would like to say thanks for the "What do you prefer?".

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Well if it's to be designed to be small and quicker (16 or 24), not like the other MoM tourneys, FF is fine. But if the plan is to make it one of the grand tourneys, then we need some strategist people to fill it in. If small, I'd say doubles is better. (Although my long-time partners are all gone, so I'll have to find someone.)

 

[micky]

I didn't really think of a huge tourney like MoM, but a tourney with settings played by members who appreciate the FF

 

[th-child]

Some time ago there was a tournament where players could sign up as a team (doubles).

I assume you are talking about the '2018 Year End Doubles Round Robin Tournament', which you participated in, right?

We are in the finals, and we are playing the very last game now. The tournament started almost exactly a year ago, so this is just a heads-up for both the participants and the organizers about what kind of time commitment it would mean.

MoM tournies are a different level altogether, it could even take 2-3-4-5 years to finish I guess, if it can be finished ever at all, airwick can maybe comment on that.

I'm not saying this to discourage anyone, I think these special tournies are awesome, the more the better, and airwick (and every other organizer) is an absolute MVP, and be like airwick.

2 more notes:
Fixed force is not good for duels. On bigger maps, the starting team wins, period, and on smaller maps it is still influenced very much by the drop and the first sets.
Also, if it comes to a 2v2 duel tourney, escalate might not be an ideal setting. One unlucky round can mean the game is decided, it is just waaay too fast and random imo. Then again, with flat rate or escalite the whole tourney gets even longer. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[periwinkle]

Yes....I agree with th-child about the FF. For 2v2, for those who know how to play, the first team has an extreme advantage...the only maps where the team going second might have a fighting chance is 1984, nukes, and 12D no reinf...but any other normal map it will not work as well....bummer.


Perhaps I could think of a tourney with doubles.....12 players...lemme sleep on that.....

 

[Cardinalsrule]

FF is, like th-child said, not good for duels, either 1v1 or 2v2. Give me a good partner in a 2v2 FF game and we'll win over 90% of the time, again depending on drop and sets. With 1v1 closer to 100%. The only time FF is a good setting is larger games, or ones with more than 2 teams. I have to disagree with Peri on 1984, with the auto-decays, I'd bet money that the first player or team could decimate the other before they had a chance. Game might even be over before the sets. (And 12D no reinforce is heinous - talk about a setting for marathon games, lol)

 

[periwinkle]

FF is, like th-child said, not good for duels, either 1v1 or 2v2. Give me a good partner in a 2v2 FF game and we'll win over 90% of the time, again depending on drop and sets. With 1v1 closer to 100%. The only time FF is a good setting is larger games, or ones with more than 2 teams. I have to disagree with Peri on 1984, with the auto-decays, I'd bet money that the first player or team could decimate the other before they had a chance. Game might even be over before the sets. (And 12D no reinforce is heinous - talk about a setting for marathon games, lol)

On the 1984 map it is possible to win going 2nd I was thinking 12 player doubles FF game 1 anywhere escalate ...similar set up to the clan challenge ...

 

[Cardinalsrule]

On the 1984 map it is possible to win going 2nd I was thinking 12 player doubles FF game 1 anywhere escalate ...similar set up to the clan challenge ...

In a 12-player setting, yes. In a duel - 2v2, no way. Give me any decent partner and let us go first, we'll slaughter you every time. The auto-decay would kill you. In FF knocking someone down to 1 troop on a tert is automatic.

 

[airwick]

And I would like to say thanks for the "What do you prefer?".

You started this thread, so your ideas about this tourney are important input!

Well if it's to be designed to be small and quicker (16 or 24), not like the other MoM tourneys, FF is fine. But if the plan is to make it one of the grand tourneys, then we need some strategist people to fill it in. If small, I'd say doubles is better. (Although my long-time partners are all gone, so I'll have to find someone.)

Could make a small MoM tourney for max 2-3 rounds/months?

MoM tournies are a different level altogether, it could even take 2-3-4-5 years to finish I guess, if it can be finished ever at all, airwick can maybe comment on that.

2 more notes:
Fixed force is not good for duels. On bigger maps, the starting team wins, period, and on smaller maps it is still influenced very much by the drop and the first sets.
Also, if it comes to a 2v2 duel tourney, escalate might not be an ideal setting. One unlucky round can mean the game is decided, it is just waaay too fast and random imo. Then again, with flat rate or escalite the whole tourney gets even longer. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You mean those ridiculous MoM Battlefield Earth and Conquer the World? I have a few more in mind

I was hoping for a small scale tourney; and I agree to what was said above about the 2vs2. I am not keen on a 12 players/map because the teams that have their turn last have hardly a chance (= also unbalanced).
6 players/map, doubles, would work?

Great input peeps! Some ideas:

Small tourney, max 16 players = 8 teams
First round, 2 groups, 4 big maps to be played with 4 teams/8 players active, has to be played in a month, best two qualify for next round
Second round, winners group, again 4 big maps to be played with 4 teams active, has to be played in a month, winning team takes all

Will be over in 2 months.

If people are up for it I will set it up in the next few days.

 

[micky]

Airwick - you are a star!
Sounds perfect and thanks for the thoughts put into this and willing to take it on (I do understand it's a lot of work). Let's see if there is positive feedback/interest

Thanks

 

[airwick]

MoM FIXED FORCE: https://www.majorcommand.com/forums/threads/9531-Master-of-Maps-FIXED-FORCE