Treeburst155

I agree with you about the pay to play tournaments attracting the top players for the most part. Heck, if there were enough of those tournaments I'm sure we'd have somebody out there who would try to take up CM as a profession. LOL!! This is not a bad thing but it does leave the casual player out of the action which is something I'd rather not do. I like the idea of holding an item specific tournament like a "South African Wine" tournament. I'm not sure it will be that easy to find sponsors willing to donate and ship fairly nice merchandise such as WineCape is doing. I think he may be the exception rather than the rule among the community. Then again, I may be underestimating the generosity of the CM community. There's only one way to find out and that's to solicit the forum for a sponsor. I'm not prepared to do that just yet. Let's see what happens on this thread first. Our discussion is buried deep on page three of this single thread but some benefactor may turn up. I'll just let it ride for a day or two. Rather than call it the "South African Wine Tournament" for an example we could actually name the tournament after the sponsor rather than the merchandise, or both. For example, "WineCape's Wine Tournament". This way the sponsor gets well deserved recognition for his generous gift. Treeburst155 out.

Hi Stug III! That thought had crossed my mind. What would WineCape get though if he won the second tournament? BTW, You're in for the second tournament along with WineCape and Chuckle. I've been trying to figure a way to get nice prizes together for the second and future Combined Arms Tournaments. My wife would kill me in my sleep if I sponsored a second CASH prize. I've come up with two ideas that may or may not appeal to potential tournament participants. The first is a "pay to play" thing where everyone pays an entrance fee. If ten people put in $5 US and I add $5 US then the prize would be $55 US giving the winner a $50 net gain. There are some possible problems with this however. Paying a fee may very well take the fun out of it for many people. Also, either myself, or some third party would have to be trusted enough to hold the money for the winner and not just drop out of cyber-space with the cash. One possible answer to the "trust" problem would be to ask somebody like Madmatt to collect and hold the money. Everybody knows him and he's not going anywhere. Also, everyone knows where he works. LOL!! If players seem to like this entrance fee idea I will ask Madmatt to collect and hold the money for us. There are other highly respected members of the community that could be asked as well. Then again, after I send off this $50 prize to the winner people may trust me enough to handle their entrance fees. My second idea is inspired by WineCape's generous donation but is full of big holes. BTW, he should be posting pictures of the bottles he is donating. I've exchanged a couple emails with him and I get the impression (not sure) that the six bottles may each contain a different wine. Anyway, my second idea is that people donate something of value that they don't mind parting with. For example, I have a 64 MB stick of PC100 RAM that I won't ever use. I have a Talonsoft game (Rising Sun) that I will never use, etc.. This merchandise could be shipped directly from the donor to the tournament winner like WineCape is doing. It doesn't take long to come up with the problems here. The item can't be too bulky or heavy unless the donor is prepared to pay a large shipping fee. (This makes WineCape's donation all the more generous, BTW). The donor could fail to send the prize. This would not be the end of the world as no participant is really out anything (such as an entrance fee). If the donor was a participant what would he get for a prize? So there are several problems that would need to be worked out with the merchandise plan. Any feedback on this topic is appreciated. If at all possible I would really like to run a series of these prize tournaments. I just can't supply the prize every time. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Please disregard this post as its sole purpose is to deposit some chlorine into the Pool. You will feel no pain. You will simply Die-A-Lot now. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

That's tellin' 'em Iron Duke!! :mad: :eek:

Labappel, I see no problem with the Random Game Generator if players want to use it. Just be sure that the generator is set to a maximum of 1,500 pts. before generating the battle. Treeburst155 out.

And now Gentlemen we must deal with a less pleasant aspect of the tournament. We must talk about disputes and how they will be resolved. The best way to solve a dispute is to prevent it. The best way to prevent a dispute is for all participants to become VERY familiar with the CAL Rules as laid out at Tournament House. These rules are very clear but there are several options available to the combatants. For example, you could use the Rule of 75's, or Recon Rules, or the Panther 76 Rules. Players must familiarize themselves with ALL these rules as they are a part of the CAL Rules under which the tournament is being played. Besides, if your opponent wants to use Panther 76 Rules it would behoove you to know exactly what those rules are before you agree to them. Many different types of games can be played under the CAL rules. Spend some time at Tournament House looking the CAL rules over. Even if you think you know the rules there may be something you missed. If everyone knows the rules then disputes can be kept to minimum. If you are setting up a game be sure you use the parameters (weather, date, hills, etc.) your opponent agreed to. Take your time and get it right. If you are receiving a setup be sure everything is right before you begin. Remember also, that CAL rules permit either player to reject the map (on first sight) for any reason since some QB maps can be quite unbalanced. Once you place your units in their starting spots and send the file you have accepted the game. There is no turning back when you notice the month is January '45 and it was supposed to be August '44. Other than possible setup problems the only disputes I can see arising would involve a player's choice of units. This could get somewhat hairy for me, as the arbitrator of disputes, since different units would be allowed for different games depending on the particular rules (Short 75, Recon, etc.) decided upon by the players. ***************************************************************************** Players should keep any email correspondence with other players that outlines the final conditions and rules agreed upon for the game. Preferably, once negotiations are over, one final email would be sent listing everything agreed to. I do this anyway in my games as a double check on what has been agreed to. This final email is proof of what has been agreed to and both players will have a copy of it. ***************************************************************************** Should one player see a King Tiger on a hill when they are supposed to be playing a Recon game he could then prove to me that the game was in fact supposed to be a Recon game and not Heavy Armor. I would then rule in his favor and the game would be restarted from scratch. If you cannot document the rules agreed to for a game I have no way of knowing whether or not your opponent has violated those rules. I would of course be contacting your opponent too asking him for documentation of the rules agreed to. Please report any suspected rules violations to me immediately upon discovery since the game will have to start anew if I agree with you. If there are any disputes, I would bet they are due to an honest misunderstanding of the rules agreed to or a misinterpretation of the rules themselves. Let's not accuse anyone of cheating if rules violations are found. Illegal units on the battlefield will be obvious and not something someone would do if they were trying to cheat. The game will be restarted from scratch so no harm is done. Finally, I think we should mention the well known concept of "GAMINESS". Yes, this is my favorite topic. 1) To have a tournament you must have a GAME. 2) CM is the GAME for this tournament. 3) Since every point counts you can expect players to fight hard and with every maneuver, tactic, and weapon at their disposal. Expect the unexpected, deter the dastardly, fight fire with fire. 4) Some gamey tactics fall into a gray area that reasonable people can disagree on. They are difficult, if not impossible to arbitrate; therefore, perceived gamey tactics complaints will not be entertained by the "Court of Disputes". 5) Players can agree to not use certain gamey tactics if they so wish. Refer to #4 above if your opponent violates your agreement. The Honorable Judge Treeburst155, First International Court of Disputes.

WineCape has sweetened the pot, fellas!! The prize is now $50 US and 6 bottles of good South African wine delivered to your doorstep, postage paid! Thanks WineCape! Chuckles, Stay tuned. I think there may be more "Combined Arms Tourneys" coming soon! You have a slot reserved for the next one along with WineCape. [ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] [ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

OK guys, all participants should be receiving an email from me any second now containing everything you need to know. If you don't get it then I probably messed up typing your address. Post here if you don't get the player list. Teach, We will go ahead and let the tournament begin. Yours and BradleyH's secure BER will be out soon enough for the vast majority of the games. Only TCP/IP games will need me to run the program for them. Don't rush on our account. I don't think these guys will be playing that fast anyway. If they do then they can spare the time to wait for the secure BER or let me run it for them. Thanks again for a great contribution to the CM community. We will certainly be using it. Treeburst155 out.

Teach, That's great news! We can hold the start of the tournament until your secure BER is finished. The BER makes all the difference in this tourney since every single point counts and flag rushes would be rampant. Thanks a bunch!! Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

LABAPPEL is in at slot 10!! The Combined Arms CASH Tourney is now full. I will be sending a list of the participants and their email addresses to all involved VERY soon. Please be sure your correct email is in your profile if you did not provide me with one when you reserved a slot. Please post to this thread if you have any questions or problems. I will keep my eye on it. I will keep players supplied with the latest tournament statistics through this thread also. As results come in they will promptly be posted for here for all to see. Finally, if you missed out on this tourney but would like to play in one just like it, (minus the $50 prize) just post here and I will start a new one when and if I get ten players. I will post stats, announce winners, etc just like the CASH tourney. There just won't be a cash prize. Treeburst155 out.

Bog is in at slot 9! Just one more person allowed in the Combined Arms CASH tourney! Treeburst155 out.

GCLEMENT is in at slot 8! Tom, I think the idea is a bit too ambitious. If players wish to use custom maps they can and I will be happy to place their forces on the map and tournament save the scenario. I don't want to require all 10 players to make a map however. There will be many more than 9 games going on anyway. I think it works out to about 45 different player matchups. I'm not sure about that though. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Sock Monkey reserves the 6th slot in the tourney! Four more slots to fill in this winner take all CASH tourney. $50 US to the champ unless he's from NZ in which case he gets 50 Mexican pesos. Sock Monkey, If it becomes apparent that many will not make the 90 day time limit there will be extensions, but only to a certain point. I don't want to die of old age before this thing is over. 120 days may be more reasonable but we'll leave it at 90 for now to keep people moving. It's hard to judge how much time should be allowed since some have more "playtime" that others. KIWI JOE is in the 7th slot! Three more slots to go. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Well, the weather here in Arkansas is downright dangerous at the moment so I'm still here monitoring the thread for awhile. It sounds like people prefer cash to a trophy. So do I since it is easier. Should I cut down the Canadian and NZ prize money since they have such a favorable exchange rate? Treeburst155 out.

Sajer fills the fifth slot. We've got five openings left. I'll be back online at 10PM ET if any more questions or issues pop up. Mike the Bike, "Stalins Organ" it is from now on. Anything but a Meeting engagement is a risky thing to agree to IMO. The other types don't seem to be as well balanced. Defend against Assaults at your own risk. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Actually, I believe I specified 25 turns as the max just to keep things rolling along. This would give a 21 to 29 turn game. We can change this if the majority want to. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Tom wrote: " This does mean that depriving your opponent of a VL by contesting it on the last turn is a VERY effective strategy and I HIGHLY recommend the use of some secure form of variable turn end mechanism, because contesting VL's on the last turn will be a effective strategy when EVERY victory point that you can deprive your opponent of, counts! " I think all games should take advantage of the BER with +/- 4 turns for the reasons Tom stated. I will handle all BER work promptly when players get down to the last turns. It doesn't take long to run the program and fire off two emails with the verdict. Remember to setup you QBs to reflect the most amount of turns the game can go as per BER instructions. Let's keep the variation standard at +/- 4 turns. Treeburst155 out.

Would people prefer a $50 cash prize instead of a trophy? It would be much easier for me and there would be no shipping involved. The winner could take his wife/girlfriend or husband/boyfriend out on the town with his/her winnings. This could cause your significant other to look more favorably on all the time you spend with CM. I'm willing to set aside $50 of my hard earned money for the winner. Feedback wanted please. Treeburst155 out.

I think most people would be willing to do a TCP/IP session but there are those who just can't put together a solid chunk of time that is convenient for the other guy too. I don't want this fact to force people out of the tournament. How about it Agua? Are you willing to PBEM if necessary? Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Tom W has come up with a better scoring system! All your victory percentages from all your games will be added together. The highest total wins. Every single victory percentage point a player gets will count for him. Thanks Tom!! NOTE: I will be referring to participants by their handle on THIS forum. Whatever name you use on the TH ladder I'm not concerned with. Mike the Bike, you are Mike the Bike to my record keeping. Participants so far: The_Capt, aka_tom_w, KelsieD (via email), Mike the Bike. I strongly suggest you post here rather than email me. Posters to this thread will have priority from here on out. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Agua, By requiring TCP/IP only you would be forcing the rest of the paricipants to play that way against you. I don't want TCP/IP to be forced on players. You must be willing to do a PBEM if any of your nine opponents cannot or will not play TCP/IP. If you agree to this you're in. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Colonel Deadmarsh, This tournament has nothing to do with the CAL ladder other than the fact that the game results of the tourney (minor, major, etc.) could be posted on that ladder if the players wished since all CAL rules are being followed. The points I assign have nothing to do with the ladder. These would be tournament related only. The CAL scoring system would handle any of the results posted to TH in its own way. TomW brings up an interesting point about the Randomizer. At this point it is not secure. I would have to run the BER for people wishing to randomize their game ending. This will slow down things a bit at the end of your games since you will be waiting on me to respond with the BER results after each turn. I am online quite a bit however so I don't see this as a major problem. Please note my edit to my original post. I've changed the scoring system slightly. Tom W, The only way to handle drop outs and people who don't make the deadline is to nullify EVERY game that the deadbeat has played. If you beat someone and they drop out you're just kinda screwed on those points. All players must play the same people and play the same number of games for the tourney to be fair. If Joe doesn't get to play Sam because Sam dies then all Sam's games are discarded as if he had never joined the tourney. This is the fairest way to run a tournament since everything is the same for all players (they all play the exact same opponents and the exact same number of games). Players can play any side they wish. This is to be worked out by the players themselves. Using the CAL rules the German advantage is nullified IMO. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yobobo@TH: But again win % means nothing. If I played 20 -900 rated players and had 10 minor wins, and you played 20 +1050 rated players and made 10 total wins. What would the % mean? We would still show the same win %. How about the top dogs link showing ratings from 20 and under games played, 20 - 50 games played or something like that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a great idea IMO! People could see a Top Dogs list consisting of others who have played a similar amount of games. Very nice idea. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zahl: There's one inherent problem in systems that take victory level into account. You could score four brilliant, but only narrow wins against state of the art opponent and then commit a major blunder in the fifth game, resulting in a total defeat. Your opponent would have negated all of the wins, all thanks to your horrible mistake in one game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would say your narrow victories are not "brilliant" simply because they were narrow. Major blunders resulting in Total Victory for your opponent are definitely something to avoid, especially if you're only managing narrow victories in other games. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

OK, we've got one. Be sure and post your email address if your profile does not reflect the right one. Please double check this. Edit: I've got another one "KelsieD" who registered by email. There are 8 slots left in the "trophy" tournament. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]