Concerns for round two.

[Mantis]

When I started planning for round one, a concern was the round length. I decided to give twice as long as I thought it should take. Reasonable, I thought. But when we got there, less than half the people had completed the games. There was nothing but to let it go longer. Each extension improved (often considerably) the %. But at what point do I just have to terminate people and their games?

This is all for the enjoyment of the players; the last thing I want to do is have it result in bad feelings or ill will if I had to start axing people. So what we need to do, for both the tourney, and my peace of mind :crosseye:, is determine together what the ideal length is.

This game is for you guys; I couldn't even play this time 'round. So before round two starts, I'd like to discuss the agreed upon length. I'll post the results along with the round 1 winners, scenario, and round 2 schedule before midnite, my time. (It is now 9:05 am)

I'll post the stats for MarketGarden when I come back to check this thread, assuming one of you eager fellows doesn't beat me to it. ;)

[RavenStrike]

I don't have a good answer for the length of round 2, but whatever it is might the WHQ keep a record of delayed play or drop outs. Then as future tournaments come out one's opportunity to join the tourney would be a function of reliability and timeliness in previous tourneys. Or is that too much bother for little return? :crosseye:

BTW, I guess I'd say 5 days a turn should be plenty, even for those who have the unexpected pop up.

[Tiberius]

I think the main thing is that once deadlines are set that they are held to. In round 1 there was an Oct. 1 limit set originally (or was Oct. 15).
At this time I'm pretty sure that everyone who has finished their games had already done so. We should have just tallied up the scores then instead of waiting for a month on people who were AWOL anyway. Give people 2 weeks to respond to a post or one week to respond to direct e-mail. THey can always come back later with a plea if there was truly a good reason they missed their deadline and want to be re-included. I wouldn't mind waiting for someone who has requested time and has a good reason but I don't want to wait indefinitely on people who are just not responding. Give us about the same time for round 2 that was originally planned for round 1. 2 weeks before the deadline post a reminder and send out a general email. If people need more time that is plenty of time for them to say so. If someone isn't done and didn't request more time: see ya. I think one of the things is that round 1 probably eliminated the drop outs anyway. I think that everyone that is surviving to round to is probably able to deal with deadlines.

[06 Maestro]

It is reasonable to expect at least two turns per week for games of this size. If someone has so many other games or activities that they cannot achieve this rate, they should not sign up for a tounament. If there is some unusual RL problem (opportunity to excel) I think that most of the membership would be understanding and would approve of an extension. However, any extention granted should be based on the stated commitment by those making the request to get current by a specific date. If they fail to get current by the new date, they're out-no exceptions. If no request is made, then they are indeed AWOL and should be left behind rather than hold up everybody else. You can send WEB MPs to investigate.
It may not be fair to implement these rules in the current tournament, but extension after extension is not right either. I for one appreciate a timely opponent. It is especially appreciated when an opponent gives an opproxmant date/time for his next turn.

[Mantis]

I agree; I'm just at a loss when so many are over.

There isn't the response in this thread I was hoping for, but I'm sticking to my word. Round two begins in a few minutes, and I'm going to take an average of what was posted here and use that as the guideline for round 2's duration. I will reserve a right to make a single extension to the length, but there will not be a second extension. AWOL/Uncompleted games will be scored as either OVs if one side has abandoned the game, or as the average VPs for the victory level if neither player is especially 'to blame'.

[Mantis]

At two turns a week, the scenario will take 10 weeks. We'll call that Jan 31st. the nasty thing is that Christmas is in there... Anyone want to wager on what the '% complete' at that date will be?

[Chuck?]

Also, how does the scoring work this round? Is it total victory points earned or victory level?

[JAMiAM]

Also, how does the scoring work this round? Is it total victory points earned or victory level?
Don't forget to nail him down on what constitutes "victory points" or he'll be changing his mind faster than a Republican Political Hack, when justifying why we're in, or getting out of Iraq. :p

[laszlo.nemedi]

Don't forget to nail him down on what constitutes "victory points" or he'll be changing his mind faster than a Republican Political Hack, when justifying why we're in, or getting out of Iraq. :p

Jamiam, how does it feel as you have to do it officially... :D

[Mantis]

Exactly as stated in the other thread, in response to James 'victory' jpeg. Total VPs from both games will determine who advances. OV/SV/etc are only involved as far as the 'report a game' bit goes for the ladder, and has no real effect on the tourney.

To simplify, if your opponent goes AWOL, you get an OV. I'll average out the VPs of all players on your side (Axis/Allied) that scored an OV, and award you that many VPs towards the tourney.

If your game is incomplete, the 'current' victory level will stand, and current VPs will be used.

[Mantis]

(I believe it was objectives + enemy losses - friendly losses = VPs, but go check).