Topic: Widelands tournament 2016; official announcements

SirVer wrote:

I would appreciate if we do not do the 2v2 3 games - I found 5 games to be enough for a tournament for me personally. 3 more is a lot of time investment which I do not have really right now. I would appreciate if I could get away with no more games or at max one tie breaker.

Besides my personal situation, I also think the tournament was long enough and great - I think finishing it quickly now and then do a more fancy one in a couple of months would be preferable. It would also allow more people to participate again instead of just the same 4 players for 3 games like in this final phase.

I also do not care personally what place I am that much. I improved a lot as a player in this tournament and that was fun. I also played a ton of very close games which was also fun and showed me that balance in Widelands is not in a terrible spot. Most surprising to me was that I liked the alternative win condition games much more than the Autocrats one - my wood gnome game was the best game of Widelands I ever played or witnessed.

sorry to hear that. i thought 3 games over several weekends weren't a big deal; also, I longed for the chance to make a few 2v2. most important, i thought they would be fun, regardless of how they end, and (at least for me) it will give a better sense of closure. I can also guarantee that whether we will have another tournament in 2-3 months will not be affected by whether we end this one here or make a prolonged tie break. My personal life may, though; my decision to start this tournament was largely dependent upon breaking up with the girl I was dating (not sure if I can use the term "breaking up", since that is normally reserved for people in a committed relationship and we were never at that point); I suddenly found myself with much more free time, which I invested in my hobbies. If you want another tournament, you should hope I don't find another date

If all this hasn't convinced you to play 3 more games, then I offer an alternate solution. We play at elimination, first against fourth and second against third, the two winners against each other. You'd have one or two games at most. Or maybe we can play a 2v2 game first and second against third and fourth, and the two winners will play against each other; that would let me salvage one 2v2. if you don't want to play even that many games, you could retire, and we'd play for the first place in three. let me know what you prefer.

EDIT:

WorldSavior wrote:

I've taken a look at the rules again and they tell me that I'm already the winner of the tournament: "After the last round, if one player leads the ranking alone, he will be the winner." It doesn't say anything about points! ;-)

eh, rereading it, it wasn't written clearly, but it was obviously meant as "leading by score" as opposed to "leading by bucholz". so, after the wall of text I wrote for rules, I may have troubles from not being verbose enough

Anyway, we could do it like that; then I would claim you only won cause toptopple retired, and you will claim I was only lucky to get a strong opponent at the first round who raised my bucholz

Top

Quote

Alternatively, the four finalists declare a period they need to recuperate, and the longest of these is chosen to rest up, after which the four players communicate to arrange for dates to play the finalists rounds, taking each players needs for otherwordly concerns in consideration, all with the aim to finish within the year counting from the first round's start.

After all, with only four players left, all of whom play in the same games, there's no real hurry to wrap things up on a schedule. If not, I'd be inclined to pronounce the two players ready to continue the joint winners, with the option to duke it out between themselves to claim sole winner's position.

Top

Quote

Please correct me, if I am wrong here!

As I understand, we have 4 people with 4 wins and 1 lost:

• SirVer (A)
• Notabilis (B)
• WorldSavior (C)
• King_of_nowhere (D)

(I will use letters not to favor anyone)

Matches between them are:

(Arrow "→" means "lost", I recommend to make simple arrow graphs)

So for sure we have a tie: D → C → A → D
and one lost: B → D

So my general idea now is to fill all other matches:

• A vs. B (or B vs. A )
• B vs. C (or C vs. B )

And we have 4 possible results:

Situation 1.:

• players with 2 wins: C, D
• players with 1 win: A, B
• wins: D → C

Situation 2.:

• players with 2 wins: B, D
• players with 1 win: A, C
• wins: B → D

Situation 3.:

• players with 2 wins: A, C, D
• players with 0 wins: B
• wins: A → D → C → A

Situation 4.:

• players with 2 wins: A, D
• players with 1 win: B, C
• wins: A → D

So if we consider not to play any other matches, we can use older fights to find the winner in 3 situations (1 is a tie for 3 players):

But this results aren't good for player B, who can't win the tournament and he/she has to play two games. So probably it is not a good solution.

---- Funny story here ----
Considering that we want to play only one match, we can say that if B & C play once, we can say that:

• If B beats C, winner is D (for sure)
• If C beats B, C is the winner (for 66,7%)

See that table above

---- Solution for everything ----

I have one solution for giving everyone a chance to win, but it needs one more fight. If you want, I can write it here, but after some time (now I have to do something else, sorry).

EDIT:
---- My proposal ----

Player B is playing 2 games, as it is described above. After this part, those players who has 2 wins over other fellows, are playing last final match to find the great winner.

First two games should be played with (the same) 4-hours win condition, on the same map. Who should pick the map and win conditions? At first I was thinking about player B (because he/she has the worse position here), but picking the map by "master of the tournament" is a good proposal too (he isn't playing this part of the game).

Second part of the game should contains epic game of two masters (or three, when B lose all the games). First I was thinking about "The Nile" map, but it can be too long game for the tournament. Also the map should be equal for three players match. So better map is "Ice Wars": closer starting positions, equal for anyone, can be played for hours as well as very fast clash (Go! Barbarians! Go!). Of course Autocrat win condition here.

With that solution, all players who wins with B will pass to the final, where they will play with D. If B wins all the games, he/she will clash with D with no other opponents.

EDIT 2: thanks to WorldSavior about wrong arrow mean

einstein13
calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/
backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/

Top

Quote

rules can be changed at will, especially now that it only concerns a handful of people. I would like my initial suggestion (3 games of 2v2 with all team combinations) simply because I would like to play 2v2 and I would like to play on archipelago sea. we can even agree to call the tournament a draw and play a 2v2 on archipelago sea for fun

anyway, it will depend on what sirver decides to do.

By the way, I think sirver is a bit stronger than notabilis, and me and worldsavior are a bit stronger than sirver; I wouldn't bet on the winner in a match between me and worldsavior. Still, a tie break could go any way, as anyone could hit an off day, or be lucky with fights.

I also want to say how surprisingly like chess this game turned out to be: all of your choices and small mistakes in the early game are carried on for the rest of the game, and a couple of imprecisions are enough to lose.

Top

Quote

------ THE REGULAR TIME FOR THE LAST ROUND HAS ENDED------

gunchleoc has stated that he could not play before today, so him and trimard still get to play without any problem

on the other hand, JANUS AND EPICSPARTAN MUST PRODUCE A GAME VERY SOON, OR FACE PENALTIES

@sirver, worldsavior, notabilis; good, then we can try to play 2v2; if we can't find time in a couple weeks, then we give up and do something simpler. can anyone set up a google doc to see when we can have free evenings? I don't have the knowledge to do it.

@everyone; regardless of what happens with the tie break, I expect, if nothing too disruptive happens in my private life, to host another tournament in march/april, and keep a rithm of two tournaments per year from now on.

Top

Quote