Public Demand: Who wants to see Titans of TH, RD, BoB clashing?

[zahl]

Robert, I think you misunderstood WineCape's intention. The idea was to choose the players here via our vote. They will in essence represent themselves, not their tourney houses, thus ladder custodian's opinion is no more crucial than anybody's.

Anyway, Broken is my nominee due to his exceptional record against RD veterans. Many RD top guys have attained their high rank by playing poorly rated opponents almost exclusively and do not belong in this competition.

[ June 04, 2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: zahl ]

[Broken]

Originally posted by Robert Hall:

With respect Winecape, there is no official nomination from Rugged Defense as yet for this Tournament

I agree, Rob. Although I appreciate Zahl's endorsement, there are a number of good players on RD. However, As Zahl mentioned, ladder position is not the best indicator of CM skill, since a decent player can rise to a high ladder position simply by playing mainly "newbies" and low ranked opponents and avoiding tough players. I would suggest that RD ask players who are interested in representing RD to submit their availability to Ed.

Originally posted by Redwolf:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Broken!:

Mirror matches with well made human-generated maps, with a look at the map before purchase,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think that is a good idea since it will allow for high-precision gun shopping. But I agree with Fionn that each player pair would probably come up with rules by themself.

Matching your TO&E to the battlefield is a valid CM skill, or am I missing something? The more information the players have available at game-start, the more skills they can bring into play. For example, a more able player benefits from human-selected, as opposed to computer-selected, forces.

Originally posted by Winecape:

We need 6 players IF we go with a combination of RoW II and ME’s. However, I could increase TITANS to 12 players (i.e. 2 sections in RoW II, as we need multiples of 6’s there), but then TITANS will play 16 matches total if players want to include their beloved negotiated, own force selection QB’s as per a “second round.” It seems that 6 players only are just too small a field in TITANS

I second that.

[Fionn]

IF the players being nominated are top of their ladders then I don't see why adding more is of benefit. If the guys nominated really ARE the best then any other people nominated are just going to be there to make up the numbers since they won't challenge the top 5 or 6 ( by definition).

One other thing... This thing is ballooning. I'm sure I'm not alone in not having time to play 12 or 18 or whatever other people. Adding them in increases the hassle, opportunity for fights and won't add to the quality of the upper levels of the tourney since the top players should be the first 5 or 6 nominated.

This idea was pure, simple and good when it was "6 players... 1 from each ladder and a couple of independents". Maybe let it go to 8 but if it starts getting much bigger than the match burden just becomes crippling and I simply don't have the time for that. My work and social life come first.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Broken!:

Originally posted by Redwolf:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Broken!:

Mirror matches with well made human-generated maps, with a look at the map before purchase,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think that is a good idea since it will allow for high-precision gun shopping. But I agree with Fionn that each player pair would probably come up with rules by themself.

Matching your TO&E to the battlefield is a valid CM skill, or am I missing something? The more information the players have available at game-start, the more skills they can bring into play. For example, a more able player benefits from human-selected, as opposed to computer-selected, forces.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Fionn:

My work and social life come first.

I understand that your social life is more important...but work??? Poor sod!

[WineCape]

OK, I'm trying to made a quick admin decision if we want to piggyback onto RoW II's scenario's, due to kick off very soon. TITANS should be a maximum of 6-8 players. Full stop. No more, no less. These 6-8 players will play the RoW II scenario's, scored via Nabla. The top 2 or 4 players should have further play-offs (or all TITANS concerned if everybody wants to get an ME in) via their own force selections in QB's. This is the only way I see that you will have a mix of scenario's and ME's for the TITANS and still piggybacking onto RoW II.

Gentlemen, we need a decision on whether TITANS want to:

(a) piggyback onto RoW II's excellent scenario's (5 rounds as there is only 5 scenario's) with the reliable Nabla system for unbalanced maps/battles as well as a further 2 extra matches via own force selections, whether QB or referee created maps. 7 Rounds total for TITAN participants.

( Not bother with RoW II scenario's at all as part of trying to spice battles up.

Fionn, Swamp, Ghost, Surlyben, Broken (for the time being representing RD), Major TakTik, Wreck (you will slot in as an independant), we need a VOTE on the above within the next 48 hours.

If (a) is VOTED, then we have a VERY reliable arbiter at least by the name of Treeburst who will handle the RoW II part only. He will then get one of the prizes for his trouble.

Robert,

No offence intended by accepting the nomination of Broken by a RD member. We’ll wait Ed Vos’ official nomination from Rugged Defence ASAP. Meanwhile Broken will not be necessarily discarded as a possible participant. In the absence of a nomination from Rugged Defence he will take the reigns for your tourney house.

Scipio,

We need your very best house player to report here ASAP!

[ June 05, 2002, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[RobH]

Let me just say to everybody I rate Broken! as a CM player of exceptionally high ability and he knows that ! I am not denying and have not said he should not represent RD.

My understanding was the laddermasters themselves were nominating the representative from their respective ladders - as is demonstratively being done by some ladders - even though those nominated are then acting on their own behalf as it were. If the ladder players themselves are to nominate players, then I feel that should be done by the players on the ladder, not by one player from the ladder. Again, no disrespect to Zahl, but one ladder player is simply not enough to nominate a player to represent that ladder.

Rob

[Deathdealer]

Hi fellow CMers...

I just heard about this Titans tourney and it sure sounds like good lessons for every participant. At the moment I'm top Warfere HQ player but that's because of few ops and lots of games.

Some thoughts about the whole idea... I consider myself pretty ok player ie I've got some nice wins and some sore losses too but that's what one gets when one puts ones nose into games . What's more important is I DO PLAY FOR FUN ie to win opponents force and not so much for those mostly unavoidable flags. I think my former opponents can agree to that. As I understand this is exactly what good chap Fionn means.

About battles:

I'd say ME QBs on premade map without participitans seeing it. Rather given some vague info about it just like CM QBs (weather should be random) - that should give players their best chances to "optimize" and get their "best" tools into play. There shouldn't be too many flags, maybe some maps shouldn't have those at all. Rules should be negotiated among opponents but I think only Scipios artillery rules are reasonable here. I don't think we'll see KingTigers rolling to meet SuperPershings all the time

I'd be honored to get into this tourney as I haven't played anybody else but Craig that have been mentioned here so new "faces" on the field are always welcome. Of course Scipio is just as good as I am so this is still speculative me getting into playing.

Just some thoughts...

* eh, forgot the most important thing (for me at least). Scoring...

I don't care about scoring at all as I try to get more from playing than just this or that kind of score. I'll check the AARs as those give more to me than anything else

[ June 04, 2002, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Deathdealer ]

[Fionn]

Scipio,

I hear you man. I hear you. Unfortunately I can't resign and become a professional CM player ( complete with Ferrari and groupies) quite yet so I have to keep the day job .

Soon though, soon .

[MajorTaktik]

Hello,

I am unfamiliar with RoW II scenarios, so if those that do know them think they would work, then that is fine.

Generated MEs are ok, but I think something better can be used. I don't like the long horizontal setup zones in generated MEs and the quirky flag placements can be a pain.

Perhaps maps created in the editor and "touched" up for balance with both players picking forces and sending them to a third party to make the selections would be a good compromise.

Aki, I hope we don't face each other first, since I see enough of your troops already

[Deathdealer]

Scenarios would get us rid of choosing troops and that is more than fun too. Plain QBs no way, too much strange terrain but 3rd mate setting fight would be great. And I agree with Craig seeing me too much - I'm pretty tired against his troopies too

Fionn, I'm with you man... wouldn't mind some cheerleaders boosting my morale. But RL (work mostly) is at the moment most inconvinient hindrance to playing. In couple of years I've paid all my loans and I have my own flat so I do seriously consider CM professionalism

[Wreck]

I vote (a), we piggyback on ROWII, for scenarios.

Doing this does not absolutely commit us to using Nabla scoring, though it does make it possible. Nabla is a good method, but it does mean we have to wait and be in-synch with the rest of the ROWII. I suppose this is not a big deal, since in any case we will have to wait for them (or them for us), before talking about scenarios.

Anyway, to firm up what I think makes sense, we should do Titans in one big group of 8. We use the five battles from ROW and add two other QBs featuring referee created maps but using player-bought forces. Then we kick each other's butts to make sure we get our ROW battles done earlier, so that we don't hold up ROW from their finals and from being able to talk.

Alternatively, we might use only some of the ROW battles and add more QB style stuff. Perhaps 4 and 3 instead of 5 and 2. Personally I think it best to use them all, but that's just me.

[Fionn]

Death,

The cheerleaders could do more than boost my... morale . Wouldn't it be great if we could play it professionally? I don't know what my patients would think though... "NO, really, playing this game for fun is far preferable to me than saving your lives." Might be an unpopular decision

FWIW I vote for ROW II participation and the NABLA scoring system. If we have to wait a bit before finding out who wins then so be it.

[WineCape]

I have the following TITANS:

1. Rugged Defence: Awaiting official nomination (Broken!)

2. Tournament House: SWAMP

3. Bands of Brothers: SURLYBEN

4. Blitzkrieg: MAJOR TAKTIK

5. WarefareHQ: DEATHDEALER (Welcome!)

6: FIONN KELLY

7: WRECK

8: GHOST

Robert Hall,

We need your officil top Rugged Defence nomination to fill up to 8. It seems that Broken! will play anyway, as we will, with RD's nomination, have at least one representative from each tourney house.

Wreck,

What you've said in your last post above! Can I use you as my Chiefs of Staff? Going 5 RoW's scenario's (the full quota) and negotiated QB's thereafter seems the best.

Fionn and Wreck votes (a) above.

They seem to like the Rumblings of War set-up and have faith in SuperTed's Boots & Tracks 5 scenarios created to spice things up.

I NEED YOUR VOTES Gentleman. Surlyben, Swamp, Deathdealer (a warm welcome!), Rugged Defence? If not forthcoming within 36 hours I'll make my "dictorial" decision based on this thread.

[ June 05, 2002, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Treeburst155]

I agree Wreck's plan is a good compromise. The participants get two ladder style games and the RoW II scenarios.

Fionn comments on there being too many games to play. We could easily do without a playoff IMO. Eight people, 7 scenarios, 1st place is "King of the Titans".

Should the vote (or decision) go to Wreck's plan, we will need to make a final decision on scoring. There will be no median for the two "pick your own" scenarios. These two scenarios will only be played four times each.

First things first, however. If you are a designated Titan you need to vote!

Treeburst155 out.

[SurlyBen]

I suppose I'll vote for option A .

[MajorTaktik]

Hello,

My vote:

-ROW II scenarios sound fine if the others think they are good. On that note, what are they like, exactly? A brief description, if someone wouldn't mind.

Though I have read quite a few of these posts, I am not sure exactly how many games will be played by each person.

Craig

[Treeburst155]

If we follow the "Wreck plan" (option A) each player will play seven scenarios. As for the RoW II scenarios, they are top secret. The only info you will get will come from the briefings. The scenarios will be 100% secure unless you're a hacker of some sort.

Treeburst155 out.

[Deathdealer]

Option a is fine with me as good scenarios are hard to come by but as you spoke so highly on those I'll do 'em...

7 fights... mmm, looks like I need to drop some other games depending on the rate we start. At some time in history I did have about 25-30 PBEMs going on at the same time but handling of them was somewhat time consuming.

I sure wouldn't mind some cheerleaders help me in the forthcoming fights ... but point system is all the same for me as I mentioned above. As this is a competition for everybody to marvel at I suppose we need some kind of rating system LOL

[Combat Opinion Staff]

see below

[ June 05, 2002, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: Combat Opinion Staff ]

[Combat Opinion Staff]

I'd like to play random generated maps with human bought forces as I think this is what most top players play most often. If that doesn't happen, I'll settle for the ROW scenarios using Nabla.

Swamp

[ June 05, 2002, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: Combat Opinion Staff ]

[Combat Opinion Staff]

I'm not familiar with ROW scenarios. Do the players buy their own force like the Rugged Defense tournament or does the scenario designer buy them? Just curious.

Swamp

[Holien]

Hi Swamp,

To answer your question regarding ROW Scenarios.

The last ROW the games were pre built scenarios with all forces selected by the designer.

The games were not always balanced but they were sheer fun and frustration as you did not know what the other player had and where he might show up.

Some games had reinforcements appearing in odd spots and the scenarios really tested your ability to cope with what you were given.

All the games were based on real life battles and that gave you some clue as to what you would be up against.

The new games might not be like that, it is also said that there wll be some badly unbalanced games in the deck. In those games your ability to deal with a crap hand will be tested and compared to everyone else with that naff hand.

The Nabala system ensures that if you do well (comparatively) with that naff hand then you will score well.

Choosing forces is an art and playing with what you have a different skill. I a sure you will do well either way.

H

[Combat Opinion Staff]

[ June 05, 2002, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: Combat Opinion Staff ]

[WineCape]

OK, the majority [6/8] has voted that we will piggyback onto RoW II's 5 secret scenario's.

All TITANS participants - you'll be a section called "RoW II: TITANS" - please look at the ***Rumblings of War II: Boots and Tracks Brawl*** thread ASAP regarding your tourney details. All of Treeburst's posts on page 1 there, 2/3rd down, post starting on May 2nd onwards, will explain in detail as how the mechanics work. Please give attention to it now! Can be found at http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024606

Robert,

We still await Rugged Defence's nomination. Could you inform your top players to look so long at this thread (and the RoW II thread) so as to make themselves ready to be available if/when they are so nominated as one of the TITANS.

Treeburst,

We have 7 TITANS and need another 1 player. I think that you should go ahead and match up the 6 even players so long, the last pair to be matched up within 18-24 hours as soon as we hear from rugged Defence.

MAJOR TAKTIK,

We need a confirmation (match) email from you for this TITANS clash ASAP. Please send it to Treeburst at mikeman@cablelynx.com.

[ June 05, 2002, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]