World Champion

[Cardinalsrule]

I agree with you, fiddy, but I think most of the top 10 on the points scoreboard are too scared of losing their ranks and won't participate. I guess maybe we say, so be it, don't.

 

[Dalinar]

It wouldn't decrease the likelihood of finding the best player if you simply allow the lightweight champion to challenge the heavyweight, problem solved.

As for lower ranked players not always being weaker, I'd agree. However, there certainly is a correlation between skill and rank even it's loose.. I'd bet the top 1v1 player is at least in the top 50 (maybe top 60, I see Dorcee and Bullsjit sitting in the 50s and they're excellent duelists).

As for maps, I don't think it matters much except larger and or more complicated maps than classic evolved require more skill. Fighting a 4-front war 1v1 in classic evolved is silly but managing such a war skillfully may win you the match playing on massive. 12D, 1 border also let's you plan and make decisions that will matter 5-10 turns from now - it's the only map like that. Smaller maps tend to vary more too, less die rolls to balance out the luck.
I'd also say that high level 1v1 skills are rarely specific, excepting possibly 12 D and Africa (nukes is isn't as involved once you have the mechanics). Once you understand the value of auto-deploys, you understand their value on Rome, Mars, or Forgotten Kingdom. Most all of the skills transfer between maps, as does strategic thinking.. I only feel disadvantaged on small maps because there's a larger chance the dice will kill me.

I also agree people should play fun challenging games rather optimize their score. Personally, I try to keep games with running friends who are good duelists (or 2v2), even if it's not a good a bet. My current score is something of an accident I expect will be corrected eventually.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

So, using Dalinar's concept, I'd say 2 'tournaments', and then the 2 winners play best 2 of 3 for the title. Then we start over with 2 tournaments, the 2 winners play for the right to challenge the champion, again best of 3 (?). Not sure about that 2nd part, but can't think of anything better.

Personally, if this ends up with champion/winners getting to choose maps/settings, I'm not going to view that as fair or a true contest of who is best 1v1, and I won't be participating (not that anyone cares).

 

[BadElmer]

creating heavyweight and lightweight divisions would reduce the likelihood of actually determining who the top 1v1 player is

What about having divisions but allowing the winner of all divisions play for all the marbles? Surely the high ranks could afford to defend themselves for a single match.

 

[champig]

I agree with you, fiddy, but I think most of the top 10 on the points scoreboard are too scared of losing their ranks and won't participate. I guess maybe we say, so be it, don't.

Just to make it clear, that wouldn't be the reason why i wont participate, i just hate 1 v 1

Nevertheless for those who like that setting i'm sure it's a great idea, have fun guys !

 

[Dalinar]

What about having divisions but allowing the winner of all divisions play for all the marbles? Surely the high ranks could afford to defend themselves for a single match.

Or 3-5 matches, less luck, but I agree - for a final set of matches it's certainly not that big a deal.

Cards, how about we compromise - one classic evolved escalate (which is terrible 1v1 btw, it helps the first player hugely in long matches), then the players each pick 1.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Or 3-5 matches, less luck, but I agree - for a final set of matches it's certainly not that big a deal.

Cards, how about we compromise - one classic evolved escalate (which is terrible 1v1 btw, it helps the first player hugely in long matches), then the players each pick 1.

I could live with that, I just want it to be fair for all involved.

 

[th-child]

I like the flowing of ideas here, sorry for not chiming in earlier.

First of all:

if Th or someone would like to work with me on it, I'd be happy to help this go forward.

Sure thing. Whatever we decide, I'm happy to help in organizing.


About splitting up a lightweight/heavyweight division:

I agree that score doesn't strictly correlate with skill, but I think this is a moot point in this discussion. We'd need the two leagues not because we imagine the higher ranked players to be better (maybe they are better, maybe they are not, again: this is irrelevant atm), but because the scoring system is deeply unfair and we'd like to have higher ranked people to participate, too.

On a side note: we often make snide comments about the really high ranked, who - we feel - must be only able to retain their scores by being very selective and risk-averse (no pun intended) in their games. Maybe this is true, however let's look at it this way:

Score is the only currency we have -- not the only thing we can win, but the only one we can use to pay our debts when we lose.

In contrast, we earn medals, UDOs, tournament wins, etc. which are not at stake. Let's imagine we had to pay with these. I.e. the winner gets an UDO, the loser loses one (and hence maybe loses a medal, too). Would we still play? I guess we would.

And what if you have to risk 3 UDOs while the opponent has to risk only 1? Would we want to play tons of games like this, too?

I don't mean this as a rhetorical question -- would we? Maybe we would.

Anyway, Dalinar's point is imo well-justified, and we shouldn't ignore the problem (or else high ranked people won't participate). It's like "beating the stinging nettle with someone else's d.ck" (a lovely Hungarian proverb. Or "it's quite easy to sit with a bare ass on a hedgehog, if it's someone elses ass." This one is Russian I think.).


Cardinals: you have won the battle for the belt, which had different weight divisions. Could you please sum up for us how it worked? Thanks!



I'll comment some more later...

 

[Cardinalsrule]

From Badorties original post:



Welcome to the Official Battle for the Belt tournament.

This is a belt-based 1v1 ongoing tournament for the best 1v1 players in several weight classes.

How it works.

1. After signing up, you will be put into a weight class depending on your rank. 1k-2k = Lightweight. 2k-3k = Middle Weight. 3k+ = Heavy Weight.
2. A queue is randomly formed for each weight class.
3. The first two players of each class battle each other 1v1, game settings are determined by first player. Best of 3 games.
4. The winner will continue to battle the remaining players in 1v1 best of 3 games. Winner chooses settings.
4.1 They can be any three maps you want, with three different settings if you want (you can do it on all the same settings as well). The next set of three maps must have at least two maps that are different to two of the first set. Other settings does not matter.
5. The loser of a series will go to the end of the queue
6. The matches will continue on like this, with the player with the most wins holding the official belt. The first belt is given to the player with 3 series wins. If the belt holder loses a series, they still hold the belt if they have the most wins.
7. If a player ties the belt holder for most wins, they face off in a title match.
8. Upon receiving the belt for the first time, the player is awarded 150 bonues points. Each time they defend the belt in a series, they receive 50 points.

Further rules:
1. I, Badorites am the referee and my word is law. Rules may be subject to change.
2. If a player fails to accept a challenge, they will be removed from the competition, or sent to the back of the queue. You have 48 hours to accept all challenges.
3. All series are played CONCURRENTLY. That means three 1v1 games at the same time. Title matches are 5 games. This means YOU NEED TO BE STRATEGIST OR ABOVE to compete.
4. At some point after a player reaches a win limit of 20. A grand winner will be announced and the season will reset.

All belt holders will receive a belt trophy for their profile, indefinitely.



I'd change a few things, but there's some things here that could be used.

 

[DeadGirl]

I think the problems that have arisen in this discussion speak to the need for a better scoring system, and I personally think it should be a big priority, not only for projects like this but for the health of the game in general. And as I've said before, I think the chess ELO system would work perfectly.

I would also like to say that first turn is such a sizable advantage in most 1 v 1 games that a World Championship match would only be completely fair if an even number of matches are played. Chess championships are played with an even number of matches for the same reason, although the first turn advantage is smaller in chess than in 1 v1 Risk. If the players split the matches they would have to keep playing sets of two until someone came out on top.

I like the idea of the players taking turns choosing maps and settings. But to make things more interesting, and to stop extremely specialised players from taking an advantage by picking the same settings each turn, I think each map should only be allowed to be chosen once, and then the player has to pick a new one on their next turn!