Page 1 of 2

Idea for future ladders and tournaments!

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:43 am
by torig
Well, there seems to be a player base that is interested in tournaments and quick matches.
What I was thinking about, is to set up a series of "odd" matches. For instance, 1v1 with both players controlling two territories. Or on big world. Or a kind of 2v2 ladder would be fun.
A variable unit ladder could be cool as well.

But especially the multiple territories could allow for some very interesting games. I've only played that mode once, and it's a shame you don't see it more often.

Is anyone else interested in playing such "ladders" ?
Am I wrong in thinking that people don't often go for multiple territories per player?

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:00 am
by shinygerbil
I'm interested in weird settings :) I could probably come up with some pretty odd settings if I tried. ;)

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:09 am
by Peace and Love
I owe this one to Radiant's crazy mind: RADAR DEFENSE

Custom Unit Setting (credit)

3 territories per player

score calculated by the number of radars remaining at the end of the game

no fleets, no airbases

All radars must be placed in Defcon 5 with both players allied. After all radar is placed, the alliance is broken and silos are placed in secrecy.

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:32 am
by torig
Nice to see there is some interest. Peace's suggestion is _really_ out of the box thinking (but sounds cool, I admit!!). However I was more looking at "normal" "weird settings" matches.
IMHO not enough multiple territories games or team matches are being organised while 1v1 is being promoted heavily.

(Peace, I'm not against extremely weird settings modes and games either. So keep 'em coming ;) )

edit: for the radar defense mode, I guess everyone would end up setting them in a Feud. With the silos around them in a bigger-Feud ;)
Only issue is that you cannot easily attack the other radars then, while yours will be "easy" to defend.

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:26 am
by Peace and Love
Alright I got another one called "Unreasonable End"


Credit mode ((many units will not be placed))

3 players free-for-all

2 territories each

MUST be speed 4 at all times, no 1, 2, or 3. Completely intuitional unit placing, place as much as you can possibly lay down on the map.

have fun :D

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:49 am
by zjoere
what about a suicide orgasmo ladder ?

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:55 am
by torig
Good suggestions so far ;)

I still think a vanilla 2v2 ladder would be fun as well. Getting the 4 gamers on at the same time would be harder :(

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:52 am
by Smiling Buddha
You can use any settings you want (even radar defence :wink: ) in the 1vs1 ladder if you both agree.

I personally like playing with few cities, unlike most players who seem to want to cram in every last city.

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:56 am
by torig
Smiling Buddha wrote:You can use any settings you want (even radar defence :wink: ) in the 1vs1 ladder if you both agree.


I would recommend you rethink that suggestion. Games played using a different mode aren't comparable at all.
Of course, maybe I have too stringent a view on that 1v1 ladder and "what it stands for". I at least would recommend proposing such a thing to 'all involved' first, as to not get pissed off replies from some once they find out different rules had been used ;)

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:37 pm
by creator
I think a 2vs2 ladder would be great...I think it is one of the best modes. But i think it would go the same way as the tounament...with people unable to play.

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:14 pm
by torig
creator wrote:I think a 2vs2 ladder would be great...I think it is one of the best modes. But i think it would go the same way as the tounament...with people unable to play.


That's why I'd try and make it very loose. Like: no fixed teams (people rotate teaming up with others), no fixed ladder as it were. Just teams battling it out, and the winning team gets a point (both players). Players who have the highest score are the best team players.
It's not really "the best team" winning, but that would take considerable commitment from all involved to play :( :?

I've noticed that many people will spec 1v1 games of the known players -most of these players are known themselves- but I rarely see some of those setting up games. Joining, sometimes, but also rarely :s
While sometimes there are 8 specs on, and I'm just thinking what a shame it is most people are so 1v1-minded (only ;) ).

Creator if we get this thing going I'd gladly be a team buddy of yours. Or trying to defend my team against yours :P

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:19 pm
by Smiling Buddha
torig wrote:
Smiling Buddha wrote:You can use any settings you want (even radar defence :wink: ) in the 1vs1 ladder if you both agree.


I would recommend you rethink that suggestion. Games played using a different mode aren't comparable at all.
Of course, maybe I have too stringent a view on that 1v1 ladder and "what it stands for". I at least would recommend proposing such a thing to 'all involved' first, as to not get pissed off replies from some once they find out different rules had been used ;)


I stated in the OP that settings could be changed if both agreed, and I can't see how it would affect the other players in the ladder.

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:35 pm
by torig
Smiling Buddha wrote:
torig wrote:
Smiling Buddha wrote:You can use any settings you want (even radar defence :wink: ) in the 1vs1 ladder if you both agree.


I would recommend you rethink that suggestion. Games played using a different mode aren't comparable at all.
Of course, maybe I have too stringent a view on that 1v1 ladder and "what it stands for". I at least would recommend proposing such a thing to 'all involved' first, as to not get pissed off replies from some once they find out different rules had been used ;)


I stated in the OP that settings could be changed if both agreed, and I can't see how it would affect the other players in the ladder.


But not too many players have done so, I think?

Simple: imagine the KOTH rules are being used in the stock 1v1 ladder, because both players agree to. It gives your game a 30 to 45 minutes (but most often 30, really) real time duration, which has a big impact on the way the game is played and on its outcome.
Everyone using the same score somewhat guarantees that after a while, "real' top players will be at the top of the ladder and the person above you should eventually be too strong for you to advance any further (without improving your skill, which will be constantly happen, but at a slower pace in the top echelons).
What I'm getting at is that it's easier to discover your real place in the Defcon rankings.
On the other hand, it's all luck based too. Like I told Peace and Love: sometimes you're the pigeon, sometimes you're the statue :D :P

Just my 0.02 EUR

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:50 pm
by MikeTheWookiee
Surely you've both agreed to the settings before the game starts, so there can't really be any complaints from either party? Whoever wins, wins, and they move up / stay where they are in the ladder. Why anyone else should complain is beyone me. Think the guy only got to where he is because of bizarro-settings? Then don't agree to them when he plays you. Insist on something more normal. That can be in the rules - Any settings you like, but if you can't agree, play 100% vanilla (but with random territories) mode.

And on a side-note, why don't you try a 39-cities equalised population game? Equalised is the way to go. And 39 cities gieves you that need to defend some other places (here's looking at Russia).

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:02 pm
by torig
Well, it's not much of a ladder if all participants move up and down by playing different sports ; in my opinion at least I'll say.

Good that you bring it up. I've *never* experimented with the city randomisation options (such as equalised, fully random etc). Sounds like fun too
:D