World Champion

[Tyro]

Cagey's Black Bird Invitational got me thinking: wouldn't it be good to have a current 'World Champion'?
It would operate in the same way as a boxing championship: anytime the current champion does battle as a single then his/her title is on the line, to the victor goes the spoils. In a mercenary game one could become the World Champion and before the game is over it could be lost.
All that is needed is a starting place and it flows from there. While not every winning player would follow the format and know (or care) that they were battling for the title I think one could rely on the Champion to report a loss and so the integrity of the title could be kept intact. The (new) Champion would be asked to report their first singles loss &c. &c.

In the event that the title is vacated then a play off of the leading contenders would be called.

Does anyone else agree that this would be a nice addition?

In my opinion, it would make sense to declare the current World Champion either completely randomnly or go straight to the top with jaejae.

 

[Cagey]

... unworkable as you describe it: the title could change hands a dozen times every day, keeping track of it would be impossible for any length of time.

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

It would have to be programmed in, so changing of the belt was automatic.

A couple quick issues (aside from the programming, which would be at least 9-12 months away)

1) If someone got the belt, they could stop 1v1 battles in order not to lose it.
2) A rule could be made to remove the belt if a player was not in an "competitive" 1v1 game for X amount of time.
3) The belt would default to the highest ranked player, maybe?
4) In a mercenary game, that player would be unfairly targeted.

 

[Cagey]

Oh, you think it's intended as just for 1v1 battles, oh well, obviously if you won the title you'd just stop playing 1v1s.

 

[th-child]

I wasn't around when the "battle for the belt" went on, but wasn't that a similar, if not the same idea?

I'd love it, I'd be happy to help organizing it, and what the heck, you can even decide the belt would default to me.

 

[bouttreefiddy]

We could have a "World Champion" tournament where the winner gets the belt or whatever, and then when that ends, another one begins, and the winner of the next one gets the right to challenge the current champion in a 1v1 for the belt.

 

[Wort]

How about once it is worked out who we start with there is a mini tournament and the winner of the tournament gets to challenge the current champion. The single player tournament could be max'd at 8 entries, or 16, and occur monthly? I would put a limit on people being able to enter the mini tournament two months in a row so you get a range of players. I like 8 as it would keep it running quicker and easier to fill up. You then have to win 3 games to win the right to challenge the champion.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Why start with anyone as the Champion? No offense to the current points leader, but it seems like if anyone wants that title, they should have to earn it in 1v1 games. I'm pretty sure that no one on the top of the points board got there by playing 1v1. I'd start with a 64 or 32 player tournament, and let someone win the title. Then smaller tourneys for the right to challenge, as bouttreefiddy suggested.

Also, what maps would be played on? We all know that there are (were) people who specialize on particular maps, I'd advocate that Classic Evolved be used for ALL games involved, since it's the original Risk board.

And, I'd have the 'matches' for the title be best 2 out of 3, we all know that there is a big advantage for first turn, making it best out of 3 would ameliorate that at least a little.

One more thing, and I'm going from memory here, it seems like those in CentCom with experience at it say that, while a 'tour of duty' ribbon and/or service award can easily be given, taking them away (transferring the title to a new champ) is more problematic. I think we need masterjskye, KFD, MrMarcos to weigh in here and tell us if that can be done. If not, then what?

 

[bouttreefiddy]

Why start with anyone as the Champion? No offense to the current points leader, but it seems like if anyone wants that title, they should have to earn it in 1v1 games. I'm pretty sure that no one on the top of the points board got there by playing 1v1. I'd start with a 64 or 32 player tournament, and let someone win the title. Then smaller tourneys for the right to challenge, as bouttreefiddy suggested.

Also, what maps would be played on? We all know that there are (were) people who specialize on particular maps, I'd advocate that Classic Evolved be used for ALL games involved, since it's the original Risk board.

And, I'd have the 'matches' for the title be best 2 out of 3, we all know that there is a big advantage for first turn, making it best out of 3 would ameliorate that at least a little.

One more thing, and I'm going from memory here, it seems like those in CentCom with experience at it say that, while a 'tour of duty' ribbon and/or service award can easily be given, taking them away (transferring the title to a new champ) is more problematic. I think we need masterjskye, KFD, MrMarcos to weigh in here and tell us if that can be done. If not, then what?

Instead of giving people a belt for their profile, there could be a champions list on the scoreboard. Kind of how sports encyclopedias list old championships. To give an example,

3. Cardinalsrule (defeated Cagey)
2. Cardinalsrule (defeated Tyro)
1. Tyro

 

[masterjskye]

One more thing, and I'm going from memory here, it seems like those in CentCom with experience at it say that, while a 'tour of duty' ribbon and/or service award can easily be given, taking them away (transferring the title to a new champ) is more problematic. I think we need masterjskye, KFD, MrMarcos to weigh in here and tell us if that can be done. If not, then what?

It's possible to give an award but not possible to take one away (as far as I know). So a belt that transfers hands is probably not doable.

 

[Dalinar]

A while ago now, Masterjskye said if I wanted to host a 1v1 round robin tournament, he'd be happy to allocate the points as long as I ran everything by him before starting it. I was thinking we'd run it with two divisions, an upper and lower - just separate the players into two groups at the median score after 30 or 34 join. If everyone is playing that many games (14 or 16) , 1st turn advantage should even out some. Winner is whoever has the most wins in each league, and people switch hosting so they host half their games.

I'm a bit busy, as all the people in the games I'm slowing down can tell.. if Th or someone would like to work with me on it, I'd be happy to help this go forward. Then we can start letting people fight the winners for a title

 

[Tyro]

Well, it seems churlish of me to not offer some support for something that I would like to see. So I'll volunteer some time to do some admin if it ends up as a league of some description. Or other kind of help if it takes on another form.
That said, I'm rather busy for the next few days. It's always the way, eh?
From reading the comments above I think there are a few main lines of thought that have support:
1) The battles should be fought 1v1, maybe best of 3, probably on classic evolved. There would be some sort of elimination process to enable a player to challenge the incumbent. Maybe have a Heavyweight / Lightweight division?
2) The battles are fought singles, up to 8 players at once. Ultimately this would lead to a challenge for the title.

I think I now lean towards the former idea. And I imagine the admin could be similar to the Christmas Mercenaries Tournament, I'd be happy to keep the tables.

 

[BadElmer]

1) The battles should be fought 1v1, maybe best of 3, probably on classic evolved. There would be some sort of elimination process to enable a player to challenge the incumbent. Maybe have a Heavyweight / Lightweight division?
2) The battles are fought singles, up to 8 players at once. Ultimately this would lead to a challenge for the title.

I think I now lean towards the former idea. And I imagine the admin could be similar to the Christmas Mercenaries Tournament, I'd be happy to keep the tables.

I like the 1v1's, but think all maps should be in play (to reward those of us who play all maps and to find the TRUE champion). Could just be that the host chooses the map or random or same for everyone per round.

 

[bouttreefiddy]

I like the 1v1's, but think all maps should be in play (to reward those of us who play all maps and to find the TRUE champion). Could just be that the host chooses the map or random or same for everyone per round.

I feel like that's the purpose of the Master of Maps league. This is just to test best 1v1 play, and it'd be a better test of that if we reduced variance from different map types. With that said, classic evolved is still one of my favorite maps, so I'm biased on this.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Some interesting thoughts going on.

Why the need to differentiate light weight / heavy weight leagues based on score? Extremely high scores are not a direct reflection of 1v1 abilities. They are a reflection of the style of game you prefer to acquire them on.

 

[Dalinar]

Some interesting thoughts going on.

Why the need to differentiate light weight / heavy weight leagues based on score? Extremely high scores are not a direct reflection of 1v1 abilities. They are a reflection of the style of game you prefer to acquire them on.

Let me be blunt, I would not join a 1v1 league where I had to play against a significant number of people with scores 1,500-3,000 because the scoring system is broken for 1v1. I'd like to note that a bunch of my points come from 1v1 tournaments I've won.

Against someone at 3000, I win 20 points and lose 45. That means I need to win (45/20):1 = 2.25:1 games to break even. That's a 69% win rate to break even. Between first turn advantage (for those who won't play delayed as I now like) and the dice, I might only be able to pull that off on 12 domains, 1 border, flat rate.
For someone at 1500, I lose 90 points and win 10. A 90% win rate is simply not going to happen with the dice. If I do win 80% of my matches, I'd expect (.8*10 - .2*90) = -10 points per game. If the pot is big enough and I have a large enough chance of taking.. maybe the numbers could work out, but it doesn't seem likely.
The issue isn't that "playing this isn't optimal", but it's so far from optimal I'm basically giving away points by joining those games. Frankly, it just sucks to lose 100 points because you got terrible dice so I avoid doing it as much as I can.

I'd also say it isn't fun to have your face stomped on either - forcing lower ranked players against higher ranked ones when they might fair very well in a lower division doesn't seem like a great idea either.

 

[Tyro]

I wouldn't say that is blunt, Dalinar. Just an eplanation of how you view it, I find it quite reasonable that you value your position in the ranks. I'm sure I would to if I managed to climb that slippery pole.
I imagine an excessively large buy-in would stop many from joining.
The Christmas Mercenaries buy in was administered manualy, so I guess adjustments are possible. But I also guess that this sort of admin to the database is a bit of a faff and not something to be introduced except as a last resort.
Surely the collective wisdom of the forum can find a solution? Or is the way the Battle of the Belts was organised an already tried and tested solution?

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I'm going to side with Dalinar on the need to split divisions. He's somewhat of an outlier in the top of the scoreboard, most people there didn't win their points playing 1v1. But his point is well taken, he stands to do nothing but lose points in this if all ranks are in one big pool. If we really want a true 'champion', we want the people at the top of the scoreboard to participate, yes? Rigging the system so they are bound to lose points isn't going to encourage them to participate. And (or), (and I'm not advocating this, just throwing it out as a possibility) we could use Dalinar's system of play, having the first turn just deploy/reinforce, to lessen the first turn advantage.

I also think that boutreefiddy was right when he said that MoM was made to find the 'best' player on all the maps. I will continue to advocate for all games on CE. Have to think that giving the champion the 'home field' by letting them pick maps and settings is not exactly fair. IMO, this should be "Classic" Risk - Evolved map, escalate, one border. Just like my board game's rules state.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Could do a best 3 of 5. If a person has 2 first turns in a row, both people HAVE to go AWOL until the other gets to go first. Or some such. too bad we can't force first turn. maybe in the future. While I have played Dalinar's fix for first turn, I am not completely sold on it. But I only played it once which isn't enough to have a valid opinion.

I kind of like the general theory of it having to be the same settings as classic evolved real time. Everyone should know it, and best 3 of 5 should even things up a bit.

To say a split division to save lower ranks from getting slaughtered just doesn't make sense. Way too many seargants out there in real time that know classic evolved well enough to slaughter majors on up who don't play 1v1. To get more higher ranks involved is a different story. Maybe take a poll of higher ranks to see if it is worth the effort?

But there are 4 main sections of the scoreboard i look at. High Score, most medals, most cudo most defeated. Being in the top 10 of any of those categories usually means it is more difficult to be in the top 10 of the others. Take cards for example. THE MOST decorated and most openents defeated. To get that he has to play games that will never allow him to get to be high score. To get most cudo, i believe a small percentage of those games are 1v1.

Just trying to say, if you want to be best, sometimes there are risks you have to take.

 

[bouttreefiddy]

I understand Dalinar's position, but with that said, creating heavyweight and lightweight divisions would reduce the likelihood of actually determining who the top 1v1 player is, and that defeats the entire point of this idea. I know I personally hit 3000+ roughly every six months, but I have made no effort to avoid real time games or large casual matches filled with weaker ranks. I just love playing, but it does hurt my score and I will go on 1500 point swings. I think there are quite a few players who use the site similarly. This suggests the need for a fundamental reworking of the scoring system to more accurately account for the amount of variation that exists in the game. In the absence of that though, it's just a game, and it's specifically called Risk, so I don't think we should coddle our strongest players.

I also agree with Gtivan about lower ranks not always being weaker. I think most of the people who play regularly on this site have specific map/setting combos in which they are probably the best player on the site. Some people only play to their strengths to ensure a high rank, but I feel like that's missing out on the competitive spirit. A game community shouldn't be about inflating individual egos; it should be about challenging our minds, enjoying our time, and making friends. This is a primary reason I've loved the Master of Maps league Airwick and Masterjskye have put on for us. We're all at a disadvantage 90% of the time.