The Tournament Generator

[Tapeworm]

JUK let me know a tourney cannot end on a doubles game. I don't hhave the power to edit tournaments, only create them. Can we have that last game changed to a six player singles on tournament 2309?

Crusades: 48 Combatants, 2 Winners
https://www.majorcommand.com/tournaments/2309/

 

[AuraCraft]

jCuk let me know a tourney cannot end on a doubles game.

I was just gonna ask that in this topic^^
that's a pity.
I think it's fair that a 32 player tournament would have 2 winners, i.e. doubles finalists.
I enjoy putting a lot of effort into tournament teams games, but as you play a lot of the same setting (2 sides, whether 2 players or 2 teams) I notice my multiplayer insights suffer, so I lose my finals against teammates I helped achieve that very final

 

[Sebrim]

no problem - make a last round 1v1 of the two winners and split the tourney win 50-50

 

[AuraCraft]

I prefer that to a multiplayer final to a teams tournament... but I've ended in such finals going 2nd against someone who would follow suggestions* at best (or not at all and make it into the final anyway) :s Not even a thank you for the effort in half the games I work out

 

[ndrm31]

Hi, I as many people love tourneys and attempt to win as much as possible, it has no sense if an operator, in his attempt to reach 500 started tourneys, forces indirectly too this players to join innumerable tourneys that no all have time to play

 

[brianstheman]

Hi, I as many people love tourneys and attempt to win as much as possible, it has no sense if an operator, in his attempt to reach 500 started tourneys, forces indirectly too this players to join innumerable tourneys that no all have time to play

My opinion is that players should self-limit themselves so as not to be involved in too many games. Having a lot of tournaments at once with many options is great. Not sure why some feel compelled to join every single tournament, if they do not otherwise have the capacity to effectively manage the resultant game load.

 

[AuraCraft]

1st turn half deploy / FF / balkans / 16 players / 2 player games ?
(escalite, 1 anywhere)

 

[periwinkle]

1st turn half deploy / FF / balkans / 16 players / 2 player games ?
(escalite, 1 anywhere)

done! :lollypop: now just 497 tourneys to go to catch up to JCUK...LOL

enjoy the tourney!

https://www.majorcommand.com/tournaments/2433/

 

[xsb1977]

I 100% agree, I loved those big players tourneys with dozens of players, not those tinny 8 (8!!!!!!!), 10, 12, 16 players toruneys, and 1vs1. Even with the new rules, big maps are imposible for 2nd. So what are we playing, tourneys or lottery?

 

[JCUK]

Firstly I was not chasing 500 tourneys, If you think i spent the time creating 200 tournys so i could say I had created 500, WTF. FU for even thinking that. If you want to win as many tournaments as possible then suck it up and join them all. As brain says, pick the tournaments you want to play like everyone else does. Tournaments are not all about you, there are a lot of players that message me directly and ask for more tournaments. That's why I create so many, to give people options. I'm insulted that you think I was chasing a number.

 

[periwinkle]

I think it's cool that JCUK created so many tourneys and such a variety including 1v1. I like them the more the merrier. Whatever you enjoy ...
arty:arty:

 

[brianstheman]

... I loved those big players tourneys with dozens of players, not those tinny 8 (8!!!!!!!), 10, 12, 16 players toruneys...

OK, maybe 8 is small to be considered a "Tournament" But the bigger tournies with dozens of players take a long time to fill. To keep movement happening, smaller sized tournaments are crucial.

,.....1vs1. Even with the new rules, big maps are imposible for 2nd. So what are we playing, tourneys or lottery?

Let's see what the data says on this. I have played a lot with the new rules, as has Sebrim. In both of our experience, there has been an evening of the odds. When sitewide data comes in after a few months, we'll know more.

People should join either maps and settings they are comfortable with, or would like to challenge themselves on. Honestly, I have personally not been a big fan of border reinforce in 1v1. But I thought in these new Cold War tournaments I would challenge myself in an uncomfortable setting. After all, the other player has the same hinderance.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

FF 1v1 is a TERRIBLE setting. Even with the 1/2 deploy, the 2nd player has NO mathematical chance of winning, unless they get ridiculously lucky on the drop and can get commands that the 1st player can't get near to.

Watch that tourney. I'll bet dollars against donuts that 1st player wins almost every game. More so than a 'regular' setting 1v1 chance game.

 

[brianstheman]

FF 1v1 is a TERRIBLE setting. Even with the 1/2 deploy, the 2nd player has NO mathematical chance of winning, unless they get ridiculously lucky on the drop and can get commands that the 1st player can't get near to.

Watch that tourney. I'll bet dollars against donuts that 1st player wins almost every game. More so than a 'regular' setting 1v1 chance game.

I like glazed chocolate, thank you
https://www.majorcommand.com/games/507086/

Kidding of course. Just one game. But the tourney probably a good opportunity to get more data. In looking at the list of non-tourney 1v1 games , win rate far lower than the 90% of yore. Didn't count, but looks closer to 60%.

 

[periwinkle]

FF 1v1 is a TERRIBLE setting. Even with the 1/2 deploy, the 2nd player has NO mathematical chance of winning, unless they get ridiculously lucky on the drop and can get commands that the 1st player can't get near to.

Watch that tourney. I'll bet dollars against donuts that 1st player wins almost every game. More so than a 'regular' setting 1v1 chance game.

Yup I totally agree with you cards....the only FF setting the 2nd person has a chance of winning is no reinf imo. But if players want to request that type of tourney ....sure, I'll created it. I'll have a glazed chocolate too! :lollypop:

 

[brianstheman]

FF 1v1 is a TERRIBLE setting. Even with the 1/2 deploy, the 2nd player has NO mathematical chance of winning, unless they get ridiculously lucky on the drop and can get commands that the 1st player can't get near to.

So the numbers I see so far are 35 first player wins, 23 second player. 60%

GAMES LISTING (only counted games where First Player Half Troops was in effect)

 

[periwinkle]

So the numbers I see so far are 35 first player wins, 23 second player. 60%

GAMES LISTING (only counted games where First Player Half Troops was in effect)

Wow..really ? Cool.....

 

[riskyone]

Wow..really ? Cool.....

It shows that this system works well. Have to adopt some new strategy.:biggrin:

 

[riskyone]

I think it's cool that JCUK created so many tourneys and such a variety including 1v1. I like them the more the merrier. Whatever you enjoy ...
arty:arty:

I love almost all tournaments. JCUK puts in a lot of effort to make these for us to enjoy. Remember you can't please everyone. Give the guy credit.:top:

 

[riskyone]

Yup I totally agree with you cards....the only FF setting the 2nd person has a chance of winning is no reinf imo. But if players want to request that type of tourney ....sure, I'll created it. I'll have a glazed chocolate too! :lollypop:

Agreed