Ivanov Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 In regards to the players that went missing from the groups, it's pretty simple to resolve, I think. There should be two people from each league passing to the next stage, so if there are for example two guys missing and only three managed to complete their games against each other, it means that the two with the best score out of those three should get through. Regardless the fact that they didn't complete all the games ( which is not a result of their wrongdoings ). If that would mean that some weak players managed to exit from the league due to that - well I know it's maybe not entirely fair but what can we do? Their will be quickly eliminated by the really good guys, who managed to beat all the opponents in their leagues. By the way, for the next competition, in order to avoid that kind of situations, I'd suggest some stricter selection process of the tournament competitors. For starters, I would oblige everyone who want's to take a part in the future tournaments, to sign up as the forum members. In this way it would be easier to put the preassure and perform some kind of ostracism against the ones, who don't take the competition seriously enough or simply cowardly avoid sending back the turns. But returning to the main subject of the previous post, I think that the maximum number of Fate Of Nations games per person in the next phase, should be two. In this way, it would be maybe possible to complete them in three months. So if we will have 16 players, I suggest mini campaigns matches or more gropus, so every participant plays only two FON matches - one as the CP and another as the Entente. Any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Hasn't it already been decided that the next phase is a knockout cup? That way you only play more games if you win. Should we do it like in hockey, so that the no. 1 ranked plays the no. 16 ranked, and the winner of that plays against the winner of the game between the 8th and 9th ranked, and so on? We probably don't want Swiss style or random draw as we want the final stages to be the most balanced and epic, not the first one? Opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 It'd be NICE to hear what Kommandant has to say in respect;) Glabros proposal certainly sounds interesting. Any other variants/proposals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I don't think the tournament is a democracy nor should it be, all we can do is help give our input for Kommandant to decide upon. I get the feeling you don't like that I'm a "power behind the throne" in that Kommandant seems to value my advice (he asked me for this role) of sorts and being transparent about it, but life's tough...but rest assured, propositions are valued on their own merits, not from who they come from, in their end, and "popular support" like the vote for the scoring do count. I'm sure Kommandant could put the results up as well, but in the end you have to say - is it a good policy? Would it cause controversy if the staff went against the popular vote? I know that this was not the case this time, but just on principle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I don't think the tournament is a democracy nor should it be, all we can do is help give our input for Kommandant to decide upon. I get the feeling you don't like that I'm a "power behind the throne" in that Kommandant seems to value my advice (he asked me for this role) of sorts and being transparent about it, but life's tough...but rest assured, propositions are valued on their own merits, not from who they come from, in their end, and "popular support" like the vote for the scoring do count. I'm sure Kommandant could put the results up as well, but in the end you have to say - is it a good policy? Would it cause controversy if the staff went against the popular vote? I know that this was not the case this time, but just on principle... I honestly don't know who is actually pulling the strings, who is the power behind who and I simply prefer not to know it. What I know, is that Kommandant is the referee and I am suprised to hear more news about the tournament from you, than from him. Whatever. I also think that some important, controversial issues, should be a subjected to the vote. In this way, we will be able to choose the option that is most convinient for the majority and that could be only beneficial for everyone. We are taking part in the first tournament, so there is a need to discuss and work together in order improve it. How can you downplay the importance of the popular voice? I like to think that we are a community of thinking people and surely together we can come up with some interesting, fresh ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mancspartan Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Jumping quite a few steps forward to the final - I think it would be interesting if the 2 finalists produced an AAR of the match(es) so we can "see" what is happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I'm surely not downplaying the importance of the thinktank here, just check the SC3 thread and any other thread about balance and improvements! What I'm trying to say in my blunt way is that in any event I've held or helped with, I've always believed that someone should be in charge and make decisions, even if they happened to be unpopular ones. All smart "leaders" listen to the people around them, in war and peace, and pick the best ideas to use. What I meant by democracy is that any votes we take would be binding and the "decider" would get in trouble for going against it, I don't like that idea, not in real life, but especially not on the Internet. That being said, I'm personally not against publishing results. After all, it may influence who's picked to be the next organizer (well, in this case, it was more like someone stepped up and volunteered to do the job out of his own limited spare time, so kudos to him). Kommandant is busy with both work and university studies at the same time, so any extra "burden" that he's loaded with in real life on top of that can and will severely limit his ability to take part. I'm sure we'd all like for Kommandant to speak up rather than me, which I think is the main point, so I'll ask him to take a look here again. I'm just trying to help here, and if you think I need to be part of the tournament staff officially to do that, then I can look into that as well if it helps things go along more smoothly. In fact, you can do that yourself as well if you wish! No-one's "specially privileged" here, I just know Kommandant better than the rest of you I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kommandant Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ok people, here i come again, sorry to be so out of here but as glabro said, i'm really busy most of the times. I was waiting 1.04 to come out to give most of the info, aside the scoring system that i should had informed you guys early, sorry for that... Ok, here, the score system that is working, that have won, is my/glabro's system, yes he helped me with that. The league fase is near the end, after it we will have playoff knock out games using ONE fate of nations game. There will be TWO winners in every league and the FIRST place get an medal to the player forum account. It will work like this: Example with 4 leagues: Hope you guys can see it. Just to make a note, 3rd and 4th place can also have a game of Call to Arms, if both players agree, after all this is to have fun as far as i know. Hope this answer much of you guys questions. Edit: Now you can see that with 8 leagues first fase of the playoffs will be 16 players and 8 games, the following 4 games, before the semi finals, will be also a Fate of Nations game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapare Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Well, unless someone ells from my group is showing up I am at least 2nd place I guess.. with my one game, lol. That still counts, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 In fact, you can do that yourself as well if you wish! I definitely offer myself to be a referee for the next competition ( in case that happenes, I am ready to sarifice myself and abstain from takig part in the tournament as a player ). But for the moment, I reserve a right to speak up whenever I have some doubts and questions in regards to the current competition. The league fase is near the end, after it we will have playoff knock out games using ONE fate of nations game. There will be TWO winners in every league and the FIRST place get an medal to the player forum account. It will work like this: Example with 4 leagues: Hope you guys can see it. Just to make a note, 3rd and 4th place can also have a game of Call to Arms, if both players agree, after all this is to have fun as far as i know. Hope this answer much of you guys questions. Edit: Now you can see that with 8 leagues first fase of the playoffs will be 16 players and 8 games, the following 4 games, before the semi finals, will be also a Fate of Nations game. Great stuff:) I am glad you are back herr Kommandant;) We do appreciate you effort and understand the sacrificies you make, as we too belong to the working class ( not to the studing class anymore thought ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I definitely offer myself to be a referee for the next competition ( in case that happenes, I am ready to sarifice myself and abstain from takig part in the tournament as a player ). Ooh, maybe I'll run against you, in the spirit of fair competition! I remember us having some "political disagreements" already! This can be the start of a great new tradition! I can be the republicans and you can be the democrats (or whichever way, don't really care as neither of them represents my politics really, but they're the only two labels people will accept), and everyone else can be the "rest" (J/K)! But for the moment, I reserve a right to speak up whenever I have some doubts and questions in regards to the current competition. Of course you have that right, the same way I have a right to speak plainly and want to make others speak plainly as well instead of "suggesting" things. I'm a blunt instrument type of guy! But we have no conflict, really, at least from my viewpoint (well except maybe "politically", but that's it!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ooh, maybe I'll run against you, in the spirit of fair competition! I remember us having some "political disagreements" already! This can be the start of a great new tradition! I can be the republicans and you can be the democrats (or whichever way, don't really care as neither of them represents my politics really, but they're the only two labels people will accept), and everyone else can be the "rest" (J/K)! I prefer a different division - you Menshevik and me Bolshevik. Sounds more WWI approriate. Of course you have that right, the same way I have a right to speak plainly and want to make others speak plainly as well instead of "suggesting" things. I'm a blunt instrument type of guy! As a true Bolshevik, I am well mannered and only suggest things. But whoever disagrees with me, will end up in a cold train, on the way to find a new home in Siberia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 How horrible but true.... In any case, looks like the "big games" will be mirror games too. Are those scenarios not balanced either? Looks like we need a "handicap" option in the future. Now we need a set of victory conditions, or rather, tiebreaker conditions, BEFORE the games start playing. How about total (nominal) income first? Current troop ratios second? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I think that Fate Of Nations is balanced in favor of the Entente ( maybe it will change in the 1.04 ). Call to Arms is pretty ok, so maybe a mirror is not necessary... The campaigns have victory conditions on their own, so the tiebreaker conditions would apply, only if both players score the same type of victories at the end of their games, right? How about National Morale ratios ( which is a central issue in the game ) instead of the income and then the casualties ratios? At least that's what I suggest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ps. In my opinion making the income a decisive factor is a totaly inaceptable, because it depends greately on the luck that players have with the industrial tech research. So if industrial output was to be decisive, it would mean that obviously both players would invest maximum chints in that type of research and ultimately the one with better luck, would end up with higher production at the end of the game. National Morale depends entirely on the strategy and the combat conduct so those two factors should be considered as the tiebreakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Wait....doesn't everybody go for max industrial tech research anyway? I guess not. But what I meant by nominal had nothing to do with industrial tech, and everything to do with the MPP value of held territories without any adjustments for supply, tech or recent enemy capture (and recapture). I don't really have a problem with morale, except that that loss of minors affects it FAR too much and skews the strategy to favor taking minor countries where it otherwise wouldn't make sense. I've found that my Germans get crippled for 3-5 turns when Belgium or Netherlands or something is taken, and that's complete bollocks. You don't cry and fold over when your buffer states fall, when they're designed to fall in their strategy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Wait....doesn't everybody go for max industrial tech research anyway? I guess not. But what I meant by nominal had nothing to do with industrial tech, and everything to do with the MPP value of held territories without any adjustments for supply, tech or recent enemy capture (and recapture). I don't really have a problem with morale, except that that loss of minors affects it FAR too much and skews the strategy to favor taking minor countries where it otherwise wouldn't make sense. I've found that my Germans get crippled for 3-5 turns when Belgium or Netherlands or something is taken, and that's complete bollocks. You don't cry and fold over when your buffer states fall, when they're designed to fall in their strategy! So how would you go about counting the "nominal" value of the held territories if you exempt the industrial tech upgrades? Maybe should we took into the account GDP per capita or someting like that? Or you just mean taking into the account the possession of some important locations like NM the objectives? That would make more sense in my opinion. I don't think that the industrial power should be a decissive factor in the game. Historically the military spendings and industiral output of the Entente was few times bigger than the one of the CP, yet Germany ultimately lost the war due to the wrong strategic decissions, like launching the urestricted naval warfare or combat related issues like the manpower crisis after the 1918 offensives. As for the importance of the minors, arguably the impact of the Bulgarian surrender had a huge impact on A-H and consequently on the German leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Durrr. Why is this so hard. I mean the value that the resource has on the map when you click it. You'll notice that this isn't multiplied by tech or anything else. Just count 'em up. And obviously I wasn't talking about who has the bigger industry, CP or Entente, but who has conquered or retained more resources as either side. Aaaaanyway, as long as NM is free from silliness like I mentioned above, I suppose it works fine. Then again, it would mean you basically have to take the "MPPs for NM" options even though you otherwise might not want to, but oh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 That's what I thought. So does it mean that the poor Kommandant will have to go through each map with the calculator in his hand in order to sum up the net value of all the resources in the players possession? Or you mean just comapring the charts - but I really don't know if they represent the net value of the resources or the industrial strenght multiplied by the industrial tech level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 No, the players would do it for him, and he'd only have to do it if someone tried to cheat and there'd thus be an argument. That is, unless the charts supply that information. It's too bad the resources don't matter for NM purposes. I don't understand how Moscow for example is only worth 100 NM (out of tens of thousands). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'm not convinced about this method - counting the resource values seems to be very impractical... I propose the comparison of the NM values and the casualty rates. Shall we vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kommandant Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I will come up with some thing, please just WAIT! Also you can send me an email about yout idea, a sumary of it, please. You too Glabro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ok cool - you will receive it later on:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'm not convinced about this method - counting the resource values seems to be very impractical... I propose the comparison of the NM values and the casualty rates. Shall we vote? Mate, give it a rest, will ya. Did you miss the part where I agreed with you that the NM value comparison is a good tool for the primary tiebreaker? As for the casualty ratios, I don't remember, did we have a "lost MPPs" by way of casualties chart? Because each strength point lost counts, not just "finished off" detachment, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Mate, give it a rest, will ya. Did you miss the part where I agreed with you that the NM value comparison is a good tool for the primary tiebreaker? Comerade - I didn't miss the part where you agreed with me, but I simply still don't agree with your proposal ( please don't miss that part ). Anyway let's send the proposals to the Kommandand and see with what he will come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts