KNOCK OUT series!

[ER_Chaser]

Years ago, I wanted to organize such a match in the TOAW community, but failed due to few interests. Now I think CM games fit even better for the idea and I would like to give it a try again here:

A knock-out series can be hosted by the CM hq with the following format:

1) We start with any interested player as the "King of the Series".
2) The "King of the Series" then gives out a specific game setup (be it a QB with precise requirements in all aspects or a scenario or whatever form of definition that can be clearly identified.).
3) Then this setup is posted upon the forum and asks for challengers.
4) The challenger will have the previliage to decide which side in this setup he shall take. And the "King of the Series" must agree (since he sets the terms).
5) The first responding challenger on the forum will get the bid. Then a game with that preset term shall be fought between the two (the challenger and the "King of the Series".)
6) The challenger must pass 50% victory percentage to win. (NOTE he does not need to "win" the game in the CM system, only 51% percentage would be enough). And if so, the "King of the Series" would be "knocked out". And the challenger will become the new "King of the Series". Otherwise, the "King of the Series" will prevail and stay.
7) The (new) "King of the Series" will then give out exact requirements for the next round. And we back to 2).
8) A defeated challenger may not immediately challenge again. He then must wait for at least 5 rounds to be eligible (I am just saying ... 5 .. or any number proper.).

This series in this format can run forever or at least as long as interests available. And requires little maintance effort from the staff members. Should it become popular, it may attract many audience. --- which was my intention.

I suggest the HQ award some kind of "accomplished" "King of the Series" in such a series by ladder points or proper medals or something to promote interests. For example, for a "King of the Series" who successfully survived 5 rounds (defeated 5 challengers), award him 50 points or whatever proper. And for one who survived even longer, the bigger prize or fame or whatever....

The other good thing about this series is that we can have multiple series going on at the same time.

Any thoughts? Critics? Interests?
:)

[Palantir]

Sounds like a "King of the Hill" type of format.
Winner stays till defeated.

Has possibilities ER.
Little time but will ponder this one.

[ER_Chaser]

ye, a bit like "king of the hill" , more like "jauggnouts" ... but not exactly the same to either... Let us see if anyone would be interested this time :)

[ER_Chaser]

sigh ... two days passed and no response.

Seems no interests again.

But if anyone would spare a couple of minutes to tell me .. *why* this idea is so boring and fruitless? I am serious, I really did not understand why last time there was no interests... neither about this time. Thanks, I will really appreciate it.

[Iron Mike USMC]

sigh ... two days passed and no response.

Seems no interests again.

But if anyone would spare a couple of minutes to tell me .. *why* this idea is so boring and fruitless? I am serious, I really did not understand why last time there was no interests... neither about this time. Thanks, I will really appreciate it.

Saw this for the first time this afternoon. Being a CM newbie, and slowly (quickly really) getting hooked, it is of interest. For whatever duration any single chain goes, or even multiple chains, what about those competitors who win most of their games, but do not have the longest string of victories? Or, a 5 game string.

Perhaps points/recognition to include:
Longest string of victories.
Most victories overall.
Most victories against different opponents.
Most victories against any single opponent.

[ER_Chaser]

Saw this for the first time this afternoon. Being a CM newbie, and slowly (quickly really) getting hooked, it is of interest. For whatever duration any single chain goes, or even multiple chains, what about those competitors who win most of their games, but do not have the longest string of victories? Or, a 5 game string.

Perhaps points/recognition to include:
Longest string of victories.
Most victories overall.
Most victories against different opponents.
Most victories against any single opponent.

Great great ... thank you ... finally I got some noise back :)

I see the point raised here ... yes, actually very interesting. It makes sense to reward different degrees of success and participation. This reminds me of another form of such a "knock out series" ... This time, it is not between two players only. Instead, it is between two teams.

The two teams would line up, say, 5 players on each side, and then A1 will fight B1, if A1 wins, he goes on fighting B2, ... till he is defeated, by for example, B3. Then B3 will take on A2... till he is gone. Finally the survival team wins the "Knock out series". But we also award things like "most achieved player" (the one who won most games... NOTE: this does not necessarily belong to the winning team!) etc etc... How does that sound? :)

[Alkiviadis]

It's an interesting concept for a competition, but I have a problem with # 4: "4) The challenger will have the privilege to decide which side in this setup he shall take. And the defender must agree (since he sets the terms)."
You thus remove the factor of SURPRISE from the equation. Surprise is one of the major reasons I only play with another human & only with EFOW. Because that's a major factor in real war (and what makes the CMxx series thrilling to play). In short, the "Oh ****" aspects of the game are the spice...nothing like getting shredded in an ambush to get the adrenaline flowing.
Therefore, I suggest that the challenger is kept in the dark re: the defense's deployment, if he wins the new winner sets up a defense for the new challengers. I won my last battle defending as the Soviets by ambush ("Dead Ground & Rye" - a great scenario). I wouldn't have been able to do that if we had implemented your rule # 4.

[Iron Mike USMC]

I just remembered something I was thinking, when I started reading the first post. For scoring, what if the victor was always the defender. The challengers could bid to see who gets to be the attacker. The lowest bid, in points to spend, gets the gig. The lower the bid, the higher the potential score. Just a thought, don't know how practical it would be in this environment.

[ER_Chaser]

It's an interesting concept for a competition, but I have a problem with # 4: "4) The challenger will have the privilege to decide which side in this setup he shall take. And the defender must agree (since he sets the terms)."
You thus remove the factor of SURPRISE from the equation. Surprise is one of the major reasons I only play with another human & only with EFOW. Because that's a major factor in real war (and what makes the CMxx series thrilling to play). In short, the "Oh ****" aspects of the game are the spice...nothing like getting shredded in an ambush to get the adrenaline flowing.
Therefore, I suggest that the challenger is kept in the dark re: the defense's deployment, if he wins the new winner sets up a defense for the new challengers. I won my last battle defending as the Soviets by ambush ("Dead Ground & Rye" - a great scenario). I wouldn't have been able to do that if we had implemented your rule # 4.


Thanks.

But I am bit confused... Where does #4 reveal the game details? Or maybe you were confused by my vague description there. Let me be more clear with a small example here:

The terms a "defender" must set clear before the battle would be like:
For a QB, it should define precisely: purchase points, time of the war, region, the two sides involved, force mix, any restrictions (including house rules) on purchases, time of the day, month, year, weather option, size of map, # of turns, terrain of the map, etc etc. Please note: this does not remove any "surprise" in game, for settings you do not want to be fixed, you should specify them as random. The purpose for this definition is just to keep the game FAIR instead of transparent.
For a scenario, it should point out precisely which scenario to play, and whether the two participants should or should not have knowledge on the scenario. (of course, here, gentlemen's honor must be in place.)

Then the challenger will have the right to choose which side in above specification he would like to play. Again, this is just to keep the things FAIR. (otherwise, the defender can always set up rules like 3000 German points vs. 1 point Russian, and I will go with German side, then what is the point to play?)

It does not require any details of the defender's battle plans or the challenger's.

Do I make myself clear this time? :)

[ER_Chaser]

I just remembered something I was thinking, when I started reading the first post. For scoring, what if the victor was always the defender. The challengers could bid to see who gets to be the attacker. The lowest bid, in points to spend, gets the gig. The lower the bid, the higher the potential score. Just a thought, don't know how practical it would be in this environment.
Yes, "bidding to be challenger" was in my mind. But actually there could be technical problems raised from this concept. Please feel free to discuss more about it here. I also need to think about more details.

Hmm... IMPORTANT NOTE I might confused everyone by that word "DEFENDER " ---- I did not mean for a "player playing defensive side" in the game at all! I just give a player would keep the seat (like King of the Hill) a name... like a defending champion... it has nothing to do with what role the player is going to play in the real game. I am sorry for the confusion. Maybe I should give it another name?

Ok, let me change it to be "King of the Series". Hope that will clear some confusion... sorry, friends.

[ER_Chaser]

OK, I edited my original post. Replacing that "defender" to be "King of the Series" ... hope that will make things a bit less fuzzy... :p

[Alkiviadis]

Understood now & thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant the challanger would actually look at the setup file.

[ER_Chaser]

ye, it was confusing, I should have made it clearer, thanks for bringing up the issue.

iron Mike, can you be a bit more specific about the idea of challenger bidding... it seems like I cannot find a good reasonable way of doing that... thx.

[Nat Mallet]

Hello,

I'm not sure I find this type of tournament interesting. Here's why.

1. Difficult to get into the game. Because only the first responder gets to play the KotS, it's like a phone in radio contest; only the person listening at the right time gets a chance to play. Even with the 5 game re-try limit, not everyone may get a chance to jump into the game.

2. How do you determine the winner? First player to win 5 consecutive matches? Player with the most wins after 6 months of battles? Who's the real winner if several series are running at the same time?

3. This tournament could go on for ever. Because there's only one match going on at a time, players will have to wait a few weeks before they can play. Imagine this: The KotS favors large scenarios (40+ turns). And he's good at them. Even at 3 turns a day, a battle would last at least two weeks. At one battle every two weeks, it would take forever to give everyone a chance.

I appreciate the effort and the goal for such a tournament, and we do need more. But this format doesn't seem very exciting or fair. Please let me know if I'm missing something.

Nat

[ER_Chaser]

Hello,

I'm not sure I find this type of tournament interesting. Here's why.

And that is exactly what I'd love to hear :) Thanks a lot! :)



1. Difficult to get into the game. Because only the first responder gets to play the KotS, it's like a phone in radio contest; only the person listening at the right time gets a chance to play. Even with the 5 game re-try limit, not everyone may get a chance to jump into the game.

I agree.
The reason I thought about this "series" actually consists of this concern exactly the other way around. The bad thing about this format is that it is hard to get into playing if (!) there are lots of interests. However, very often I found the problem was the opposite: not enough interests to host up a large normal tourney. Therefore, when there are little interests of involvement at any time, this kind of series might still be able to get on going.
The other reason favors this kind of format vs. usual tourney also sits in here. A usual tourney requires large amount of time and effort from the organizer to pick, prepare, test "proper" scenarios for it and take a lot of their personal time to coordinate the play. And when people drop out or something (like extra delay, etc), everyone gets frustrated in waiting for one game to finish.

This second reason is the major motivation for me to promote this new format.


2. How do you determine the winner? First player to win 5 consecutive matches? Player with the most wins after 6 months of battles? Who's the real winner if several series are running at the same time?

This is a very good question. In a basic form, there is no "winner" of such a series. It is a fluid thing. Your success is only measured by the time you can stay at the top. There is no champion at all.
This is a serious drawback of such a format, I have to admit.
Unless people go with a different type of mentality ---- one has to accept it is NOT a tourney, it is different, something of its own ---- it is hard to enjoy such a thing.

The second variant that I wrote in a followup post actually kinda solve this problem: a team knock-out match. Please check that out if you have time and interest and I would appreciate your feedback :)



3. This tournament could go on for ever. Because there's only one match going on at a time, players will have to wait a few weeks before they can play. Imagine this: The KotS favors large scenarios (40+ turns). And he's good at them. Even at 3 turns a day, a battle would last at least two weeks. At one battle every two weeks, it would take forever to give everyone a chance.

This is something I really missed completely. Yes, you are right. An arbitary setup could raise many problems including this one. What if the "king" requires a 1000 turn game? That is absurd,(of course no one is going to do that, but just to make the point) we do need some restrictions on the terms that the "King" can set.

As for "giving everyone a chance", I think again the idea was for the situation when there is low interests for a normal tourney. And besides, if you want to play in such a series, I think under some rules, everyone should be able to start a new series ---- soon the series should converge to a few that catches attention and rise in fame. The rest would just fade away. But that iso nly my guess.


I appreciate the effort and the goal for such a tournament, and we do need more. But this format doesn't seem very exciting or fair. Please let me know if I'm missing something.

Nat
Thanks again, you really raised a lot of important points --- I appreciate your help :) I hope through discussions like this, together we can finally come up with something interesting, convenient and feasible for all of us to enjoy :love:

[GunnerC]

I think this would be a welcome addition to the general run of things. There should be a number of such 'series' on the go, at least one or two for each game (CMBO, CMBB, CMAK) - one for mixed, one for armour only, etc. They could perhaps be 'Sticky' threads on the forum.

Having a number of such series should reduce the problem of people getting involved. I'd also keep the games to 30 turns maximum.

Possibly there could be a small points bonus for a run of wins (3 or more) and for knocking a champion off a series ?

There should also be a deadline on defending a challenge - e.g. at least one completed defence every two months. That would stop someone getting on top of a few series and sitting there (possibly just becaiuse of games overload).

[ER_Chaser]

Great points, Colin .... Please allow me some time to get back to you ... (today I am exhausted ... :p ) ..