The Tournament Generator

[namelochil]

Have we ever had a 1v1 tournament with Dalinar's first-turn "delay" as part of the rules?

 

[calume]

Okay, a third round of only 3 singles would work? Any option would be cool. Like to see the map return 1 time for a tourney

OK,
The tourney has been created, round up your friends and enjoy
here is the link;
https://www.majorcommand.com/tournaments/1487/

I respected as much as I could your guidelines, 27 players, triples, flate rate, one anywhere,

Cheers

 

[masterjskye]

Have we ever had a 1v1 tournament with Dalinar's first-turn "delay" as part of the rules?

I don't think there has.

 

[TormentaBANNED]

ther wont be winners eduardo, check this one: https://www.majorcommand.com/games/220181/

Well we won the tournament and the game https://www.majorcommand.com/tournaments/1411/ seemed to end properly, but we don't appear as winners of the tournament, so could it be possible to give zonie and me the 120 points for each of us and 1 more tournament win? Thanks!

 

[Cardinalsrule]

120 points being awarded to Eduardo and zonie today. Congrats, guys!

 

[AuraCraft]

JCUK has started a 4 rounds of 2 player games tournament every few days since I've been playing tournaments these last few months
They fill up within a day so I think they're hugely popular.
JCUK seems to be online a bit less these days.

Would anyone fill in for him plz?

I haven't seen any of these maps lately in his tournaments;
Mexican American War
Mesopotamia
Africa
Balkans

Also he chose a 4 player escalite as last round but they tend to end up in stalemate and a lot of people I spoke to would rather have a 2 player as last round

thanks

 

[TormentaBANNED]

Sorry buddy but I don't know if 2vs.2 are specially popular, for example looking at the 4 last archived 2vs.2 tourneys, 64 slots available, only 30 people participated. Looking at the 2 last archived tourneys with 38 slots available, 28 people participated. I'm not sure but maybe 2vs.2 are less, not more, popular. But if you create a 16 players tournament and 10 to 15 players join quickly every tournament, it's going to be full in a day, of course.

As I think I have said in another occasion, 2vs.2 doesn't involve much strategy and is mainly about luck (I know you win a lot so maybe you can correct me). Therefore I'm cool with some 2vs.2 tournaments sometimes, it's not bad for variety and at least 2vs.2 doesn't get in the middle of serious competitions. But the huge amount of 2vs.2 tourneys that jcuk created or creates (I hope he comes back) is possibly spoiling the general and the tourneys scoreboard.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

First, these tourneys that JCUK was denigrated for making are 1v1, not 2v2 as you repeatedly said.

28-30 people are very quickly jumping into those 1v1 tournaments. I don't understand how you could say that's not popular. You say that they fill in a day, but they're "not popular". HUH???

The bottom line is, unless Sheriff objects (which he hasn't), it's nobody's business what kind of tourneys ANY of the TOs want to create. If you don't like them, don't join. But bitching about them just makes you look like a tool. (Not you in particular, Eduardo, you meaning anyone that whines.)

 

[TormentaBANNED]

First, these tourneys that JCUK was denigrated for making are 1v1, not 2v2 as you repeatedly said.

Yes sorry for the lapsus, I was thinking that he created some 2v2 tournaments too, which are only a bit better. I didn't "denigrate" him, I would have done it if I used your tone with me when I was talking about his tournaments.

28-30 people are very quickly jumping into those 1v1 tournaments. I don't understand how you could say that's not popular. You say that they fill in a day, but they're "not popular". HUH???

No, you misread me. From 10 to 15 people join quickly EVERY TOURNAMENT (not just 1v1), so a 16 player tournament which fill up fast doesn't indicate popularity. In fact, according to the very small research I did, they are less popular that the rest. A big tournament which fills up fast could be a good measure of popularity, for example.

The bottom line is, unless Sheriff objects (which he hasn't), it's nobody's business what kind of tourneys ANY of the TOs want to create. If you don't like them, don't join. But bitching about them just makes you look like a tool. (Not you in particular, Eduardo, you meaning anyone that whines.)

Well if we followed your rule we could never suggest anything. I'm just saying that 1vs.1 have little to do with a site "where strategy gaming lives", are not specially popular as far as I know, and in some weeks JCUK (a nice and respectful player by the way) made so many of those tourneys (more than half of the open, if I recall correctly) that they could affect some rankings (one of the greatest virtues of MC as you are aware of).

Of course if a TO wants to make one thousand 8 player mercenary tourneys every week, he or she can, but some tools like me will complain. Of course you can always follow your own rule: if you don't like my post, ignore it. But bitching about it just makes you look like a tool like me

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Let me respond to your comments section by section, as you did mine.

First, I was not referring to you when I said that people had denigrated him for his tourneys. I was referring to someone else.

Second, you can disagree with me if you wish, but the fact that ALL of his 1v1 tourneys filled up fast indicates to me that they have some 'popularity'.

Third, I didn't state any 'rule', and I'm not saying that suggestions aren't welcome. But, there are always several tourneys that are NOT 1v1, as we have several other fairly active TOs, so if you don't like 1v1, don't join them. I would like you to explain to me how having 1v1 tourneys "affects some rankings".

And, finally, I thought I made clear that I was NOT calling YOU a tool. Apparently that point was lost. Sorry.

This entire subject has raised some hackles since JCUK was attacked for his tourneys to the point that he has apparently left the site. Excuse me for not being happy about that.

 

[haWD96lz]

I am a big fan of his 1 v 1 tourneys and while I didn't play in them all I played in many.

 

[Redstorm]

Just a reminder to any players that would like to see a specific tourney idea......Post your idea (theme, settings, maps, etc) here or email to a specific TO if u wish and it will get done. I know that NDRM has done a lot of these and I have done at least 4 or 5. Probably most TOs have. If you dream it, it will come. LOL

 

[TormentaBANNED]

Second, you can disagree with me if you wish, but the fact that ALL of his 1v1 tourneys filled up fast indicates to me that they have some 'popularity'.

Of course, most tourneys have some popularity.

Third, I didn't state any 'rule', and I'm not saying that suggestions aren't welcome. But, there are always several tourneys that are NOT 1v1, as we have several other fairly active TOs, so if you don't like 1v1, don't join them.

I already do that.

I would like you to explain to me how having 1v1 tourneys "affects some rankings".

As I said before, and based on my experience of hundreds of 1v1 played, I think that, although luck is an important feature in every game, it is the most important feature in 1vs.1, whose estrategy is really basic.

So, let me show an example: TOs create ten 16-players-1v1 per week. In a month, one player joins all of them and wins 8 out of 40, he gets 8 tourney wins and more than 1000 points. Now imagine if the overrepresentation of 1v1 lasts a year, the points scoreboard and the tournament wins scoreboard would possibly be full with people boosted by tournaments with very little strategy involved and very few players defeated.

And, finally, I thought I made clear that I was NOT calling YOU a tool. Apparently that point was lost. Sorry.

No problem, I learnt a new word

This entire subject has raised some hackles since JCUK was attacked for his tourneys to the point that he has apparently left the site. Excuse me for not being happy about that.

I didn't know that, was he insulted for creating those tourneys or what? Well it wasn't me and I'm just chatting because aura raised the issue, not important enough to bully anyone, obviously.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

As I said before, and based on my experience of hundreds of 1v1 played, I think that, although luck is an important feature in every game, it is the most important feature in 1vs.1, whose estrategy is really basic.

So, let me show an example: TOs create ten 16-players-1v1 per week. In a month, one player joins all of them and wins 8 out of 40, he gets 8 tourney wins and more than 1000 points. Now imagine if the overrepresentation of 1v1 lasts a year, the points scoreboard and the tournament wins scoreboard would possibly be full with people boosted by tournaments with very little strategy involved and very few players defeated.

I guess my answer to that is, if someone can win one out of every 5 tourneys with 16 players in them, they deserve the points and recognition. That would take a lot more than just luck of the draw to get first turn.

 

[AuraCraft]

Haha thanks CardinalsRULE

@Ed
1 vs 1 tournaments are way more popular than other tournaments. I requested a 5 round 2 player tournament and within 24hours, 21 players joined.
A few days later, it started with all 32 while tournaments with 21 to 27 required players took longer to fill up
If there are 3 JCUK tournaments available they fill up as fast all 3. Other tournaments take over twice as long to gather as many players, even now that there are far fewer tournaments available.
Those people are all paying members of the site, they're not as vocal as they could be over here but they make their preferences heard by joining those 1vs1 tournaments.
They could start 2 player games outside of tournaments if they wanted but apparently they prefer these 2 player tournaments.
Who are these people to deny them what they're paying for!?
Also, those 5 tournaments you're referring to - two of them were multiplayer last rounds But I guess my winning those 2 had nothing to do with estrategy :biggrin: By the way, I dare you to a best of 25 games where each of us gets to go first 13 times and chooses 13 maps and settings, you can go first

 

[TormentaBANNED]

1 vs 1 tournaments are way more popular than other tournaments. I requested a 5 round 2 player tournament and within 24hours, 21 players joined.
A few days later, it started with all 32 while tournaments with 21 to 27 required players took longer to fill up

My small data disagree, but I'll try to check in the future.

They could start 2 player games outside of tournaments if they wanted but apparently they prefer these 2 player tournaments.

Of course, check the tournament archives. 5 of the last 7 or 8 1vs.1 tournaments have been won by players who seldom win estrategic tournaments although they usually play them (I won't say names). You have decent dice in 3 games and you get 150 or 200 points and a tourney, so no wonder.

Who are these people to deny them what they're paying for!?

Oh I'm not denying anything (neither I can). But if you look at the first 15 or so ongoing tournaments you can see that more than a third are or include 1vs.1, so when I saw your petition I thought that you simply wanted almost every tournament to be 1vs.1 and I disagree, they are already overrepresented. I'm fine with 1vs.1 tourneys sometimes, I don't play them but I understand they have virtues (they're faster, for example) and what the hell, worse players must also have the chance of winning a tourney once in a while.

By the way, I dare you to a best of 25 games where each of us gets to go first 13 times and chooses 13 maps and settings

I've just checked my archive and we have played two 1vs.1 together, I won both, so according to your reasoning I'm better than you I don't see the point in risking that position LOL. You had worse dice and abandoned both games before the end, one after round 2 and the other one after round 6, by the way...

Seriously, unless one of us win 20 out of 25 we would be saying the same things as now, and even if I won 16 or 17 I would still lose points, so I must say no. Although we can do that in the future, when you are 1000 points ahead.

 

[AuraCraft]

so when I saw your petition I thought that you simply wanted almost every tournament to be 1vs.1

You seem to imply I'm being selfish :s
I only want supply to meet demand, for whatever kind of games people ask for. Not only 1vs1, but different games for people who care for them, live and let live

1vs1 ... already overrepresented.

And you base this on what evidence?
Have you done a survey, asking all strategists what kind of tournaments they'd like to be created?
You can only make this claim if there are many 1vs1 tournaments that don't fill up.
There's a simple way to prove this; 5 rounds of 1vs1, 32 player. It'll fill up in days, you'll see. I already requested one like this.

I would like to know the ratio between 2 player games players join and 4 player games among the free to play games (this is an indication of demand)

I still dare you. You can keep track of the score so you don't lose out points in the process due to the fact that I have less points than you. 30 points fixed for each game, then to make up for excessive lost points, I'll drop a game I'm winning. You're not a chicken are you?

 

[TormentaBANNED]

Well I think I made my point, no need to repeat myself.

As to your challenge, I dare you to toss a coin 25 times. It will be faster and not so boring. If you win 20 times, I'll acknowledge your superiority in that complex art (you'll probably win, we chicken are not very lucky).

 

[AuraCraft]

You're funny but also wrong and you know it

 

[JCUK]

Still complaining about 1vs1 tournaments? How about letting the paying members who want to play them decide instead of complaining about tournaments that you don't want to join. Belittling people that join them saying they are easier and the only option they have of winning a tourney is also elitist and a childish response.

I don't even know why I logged back in, nothing has changed.