| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cterrell
Joined: 18 Sep 06
Posts: 112
Location: Richmond, VA
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject: Tikal Tournament of Champions (auction) |
 |
|
I'm curious if there is interest in a Tikal Tournament of Champions. I would be happy to organize this. My thoughts are these....
16 player tournament, four semifinals with four winners feeding into one final game.
Top 16 players eligibility determined by number of wins when tournament officially organizes. If an eligible player is not interested or does not respond, next down the list gets an invite. Think of it like the game show Jeopardy and its TOC - the best players get invited back for a special tourney. 
Auction version. It's a Champions Tournament - its supposed to be more challenging. 
Random draw determines who you play in the semis. 
In case of a tie in the semis, player with most pieces off-board advances. Should it still be a tie, largest capped temple. After that, total value of tikis.
Thoughts?
Chris Terrell |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
andrew6261
Joined: 29 May 06
Posts: 39
Location: vancouver, canada
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd be interested if eligible.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freduk
Joined: 18 Jan 06
Posts: 433
Location: Bristol, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd have thought if you want the best players, you'd get the top 16 win percentages (min 50 games?), not just the most wins.
I don't qualify on either count, but Auction would put me off anyway. It's just way too slow, more than doubling the time to play. Ok F2F but not PBM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrew6261
Joined: 29 May 06
Posts: 39
Location: vancouver, canada
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| freduk wrote: | I'd have thought if you want the best players, you'd get the top 16 win percentages (min 50 games?), not just the most wins.
I don't qualify on either count, but Auction would put me off anyway. It's just way too slow, more than doubling the time to play. Ok F2F but not PBM. |
A quick tally of my games shows about 20 days average for basic, 40 for auction. My view is that if you play a lot of games, the luck in the basic version evens out, so I take the good with the bad, but if you're playing a tournament, there's certainly an argument for drastically reducing the luck element. I'm sure we've all had games without being to place a camp... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
t_o_m9
Joined: 14 Apr 06
Posts: 318
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| are these 1v1 player or 4 player matches? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrew6261
Joined: 29 May 06
Posts: 39
Location: vancouver, canada
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| t_o_m9 wrote: | | are these 1v1 player or 4 player matches? |
4-player |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
t_o_m9
Joined: 14 Apr 06
Posts: 318
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I find that the 4 player auction depends wholly on the order of the players, as some like to bid and others like to pass. The 4 player auction adds more of a luck element than the regular version IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koert
Joined: 28 Oct 05
Posts: 8
Location: Bruges - Belgium
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would be interested - although I would only be eligible if you take the best % for minimum 10 games (as I have only played 17 games).
Regarding who plays who: instead of random draw, you could use the order of the ranking: 1, 5, 9 and 13 play in the same game; 2, 6, 10 and 14 in the second, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freduk
Joined: 18 Jan 06
Posts: 433
Location: Bristol, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you're goint to use seedings, then 1,8,9,16 - 2,7,10,15 etc is better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tammykins
Joined: 18 May 07
Posts: 39
Location: Mesa, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: Tikal Tourny |
|
|
| I would be interested in playing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cterrell
Joined: 18 Sep 06
Posts: 112
Location: Richmond, VA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| freduk wrote: | I'd have thought if you want the best players, you'd get the top 16 win percentages (min 50 games?), not just the most wins.
I don't qualify on either count, but Auction would put me off anyway. It's just way too slow, more than doubling the time to play. Ok F2F but not PBM. |
I thought about that, but some players play mostly 2 player while others play mostly 4 player, so that doesn't work as well. Also, it doesn't measure the quality of players you go up against. I lean toward the tougher opponents when joining open games because I like the challenge.
Most wins being the criteria is sort of a "reward" for those who have proven their ability over time - or at least their persistence!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bogey
Joined: 18 Sep 06
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You KNOW I'm in.
However, if you are going to use win percentages as to who can play...and that does seem fair, then how will you seperate out those that have a high win percentage because most of their wins weree 2 and 3 player games? Just a thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cterrell
Joined: 18 Sep 06
Posts: 112
Location: Richmond, VA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bogey wrote: | You KNOW I'm in.
However, if you are going to use win percentages as to who can play...and that does seem fair, then how will you seperate out those that have a high win percentage because most of their wins weree 2 and 3 player games? Just a thought. |
Paul, you're #17 at the moment, so I suggest winning a few on the hurry-up or hope somebody drops! What, you didn't think I knew you were #17 when I started this post??? 
Seriously, I doubt all 16 at the top will be interested. Not everyone likes auction. So my guess is there will be alternates. In case of a tie for alternates I will use winning % for invites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
smlait
Joined: 16 Jul 06
Posts: 392
Location: alberta, canada
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: Tikal Tournament of Champions (auction) |
|
|
| cterrell wrote: | | I'm curious if there is interest in a Tikal Tournament of Champions. I would be happy to organize this. My thoughts are these.... |
I would be interested. (I only qualify if we go by #wins or %wins with a minimum of 50/100 games.) I think the semifinals should be seeded not just randomly drawn. The 1-8-9-16, 2-7-10-15, 3-6-11-14 and 4-5-12-13 groupings make most sense.
I don't like max. capped temple as a tiebreaker. Is that a tournament rule you've seen elsewhere or just for the sake of convenience? I'd lean toward using turn order in the final scoring round. It's harder to score well if you score last, so the later player in the final scoring round should win the tiebreaker, IMO. (That also means there's no need for secondary or tertiary tiebreakers - and it rewards players for doing well throughout the game if we're playing auction.)
Given a choice, I'd prefer "not auction" as I feel the turn order in the auction version is just as luck based as tile draw in the regular game. Also, I suck at auction-based Tikal.  But I'll play either.
Last edited by smlait on Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:23 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cterrell
Joined: 18 Sep 06
Posts: 112
Location: Richmond, VA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject: First 15 invites submitted |
|
|
There is a logjam near the #16 total win spot, so in the interest of avoiding ruffled feathers I think it best to extend the invites now to those currently in the top 16. I just sent the other 15 players PMs. If they decline or do not respond within seven days I will start going down the list for alternates.
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Your Games
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
