##vote Byzantines

##vote brainbomb not leading

Can people play in this if they do not have all the dlc? I got both expansions, just not all the tiny dlc's that were released over the years.

@Vecna: Pretty sure we don't care about the small DLCs. Last time we didn't even have a hard rule on needing expansions I believe.

So to sum up some of the things that brainbomb did that I'm sure everyone else understands we should definitely not do:
- Completely random seeding without taking timezones or schedules into account for first round
- "Fixing" stuff without even touching the issue
- Tournament Director graciously giving himself another chance after screwing up his own game

Should we do 3- or 4-player games?
3-player games are more likely to finish in time. When is Civ 6 coming out?

Also worth mentioning is that I think most people just want to play. A more free model where, for instance, there's no seeding and people can just play with whoever is online might be more appealing to most.

Perhaps the first round could simply be with a set deadline and anyone who manages to take a win in 3+-player games started after the beginning of the tournament and finished before the first deadline potentially classifies? With tie-breakers if there are more or less winners at that time. For instance, if you win your second game you'll qualify only after those who won their first game. If you're second in your first game, you might be allowed to join the finals if there are less games finished than needed to fill the finals with winners. And so on.

Those are just thoughts, to be clear. I did not decide whether I it should be done yet.

Or everyone who can play for an extended period during the holidays joins one large game and the winner wins :-)

My biggest issue with the first time we did this was that we had a game going where Vash and I were winning handily and were in what was effectively a game-deciding war with each other, but we never could complete the game due to Steephie being in a different time zone.

Instead of having someone replace him we had to start a new game, in which I was placed in a shithole starting spot and blocked in by ghug and whoever our new player was immediately.

It was bullshit.

Another stupid thing there was that I got blamed for not being available while I was literally available 24/7 as long as I was informed in advance, because otherwise I might be offline and/or sleeping. So I still don't get in what way *I* prevent that game from starting again..

Although my lag was definitely frustrating (which was still a unique case for me. I don't know why the lag was so noticable while I'm always very able to play..). Probably most frustrating for me but everyone else definitely got impatient with me, which made it extra frustrating for me because 1) I was busy rushing, 2) I had to wait so much and 3) everyone constantly addressed their frustrations at me :-(

The good part is that I have never been able to create that lag before or since. It's really unique for me.

I am in

How does it work? I'm kind of curious

We're still deciding how it works.

How would you like it to work?

Steephie - a round robin wouldn't really be ideal, simply due to the fact that some players might play more games than others.

I'm also slightly predisposed to a 4 player setup than a 3 player. 4 players is slightly more balanced. The more the merrier, really.

I was also talking with some others about using maps other than pangea. Donut or 4 corners or something map be more balanced.

Vecna, you should be fine without all the map DLC's. So long as you have the main expansions.

Also, I think Civ VI comes out in November

@Ogion - Kinda just like a single elimination tournament, with a winners and losers bracket. The structure depends upon the level of interest.

Will need more interest than this to run a tournament. Where's the rest of the usuals?

I just dont have time. sounds cool. people should sign up

So, potential list here.

1. Goldfinger0303
2. Chaqa
3. Vecna
4. Steephie22
5. Guak
6. Yoyoyozo
7. Ogion?

I absolutely agree that it isn't ideal, but a round robin might be what it takes to stimulate them to join. Like I said, most just wanted to play the game last time around. With or without tournament.

You could limit the max amount of games (even limiting that to one is possible but meh in my opinion) per player to reduce that problem, for instance.

Then again, perhaps just a ladder tournament, possibly with a final among the top scorers after some time, is best.

Ladder might be ideal. Just add games as you finish them. Divide cumulative score by number of games played to get an average? Only problem with that is it punishes the victors who win early. Perhaps something more like 1st place gets x*10 points, where x is the number of players in the game. 2nd gets x*7, etc.

Perhaps create a formula to take time out of the equation. So it only looks at who won from who etc. when all games are over.
The fogginess of that might prevent obvious winners to appear too soon as well :-)

It would perhaps need to be a two-step formula: first you add and detract points simply based on 'score'. Then you have an idea of player strength. Next step is to do the math again, except this time you weigh the player strength into the results.

Makes sense?

Also, civ6 is probably going to be complete shit on release

So that means that indeed, first player gets x*10 points, second x*7 etc. in the first step. Then player strength is calculated based on accumulated score/max score+max score/100 or something like that (you can do that many ways for similar results actually). Then you get a number between 0 and 1 as your strength, plus a decimal for the amount of games you played added to that (so someone who wins his first game can't be unbeatable). This number could then be the modifier used for the actual score.

So say your player strength is 0,7 and you win a game against 3 people with strengths 1, 0,8 and 0,6. This means you'll get a score of 4*10*1*0,8*0,6=19,2 from that game.
Of course, you only know this at the end of everything, because that's when player strengths are officially calculated. You can do preliminary calculations, but the scoring *is* dynamic.

Disclaimer: never did such a thing before.

Hmm I forgot to add the step of dividing by 0,7 for your own playing strength but I'm not sure whether that actually makes if everything is calculated at once anyway. Weaker players would get more points for the same result. Don't know how that works out compared to simply solid players who just win a lot.

Probably leave it as I said it in my previous message, on hindsight.

I'd play

Me too!

ChippeRock, have you joined the webdip civ steam group?

Steephie - let me think over all of what you said when I'm more awake

I won't be playing. I'm done with the disappointing turd known as Civ 5, now that our hopeful savior Civ 6 is on the way.

Still haven't checked out Civ 6 at all. Somehow that surprises me..