Juni
Worker
Posts: 137
|
Post by Juni on Nov 12, 2006 15:05:52 GMT -5
Nice changes SPM, great However, there is still something weird in OCC rules : It is a Civ3 rule, isn't it ? On Civ4, with OCC option checked, it is absolutely impossible to get a second city, so this rule is pointless.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Nov 12, 2006 16:24:08 GMT -5
Nice changes SPM, great However, there is still something weird in OCC rules : It is a Civ3 rule, isn't it ? On Civ4, with OCC option checked, it is absolutely impossible to get a second city, so this rule is pointless. Sorry, I corrected that, you are right. SPM
|
|
|
Post by Levi on Nov 12, 2006 16:28:56 GMT -5
Larodriguez pointed out to me that the size of the map is not specified for the 4v4 renny. He thought it should be on small, I am more inclined to think it should be on standard. What is the size of map in the Ren Teamer supposed to be?
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Nov 12, 2006 16:31:13 GMT -5
I also made the following changes:
1) to the Ironman Prelim, it will now use the Wheel Map, not Pangaea.
2) to the Renn 4v4, it is a standard size map with sealevel high
Thanks, SPM
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Nov 12, 2006 20:51:39 GMT -5
What's decided about the spy issue in later eras ?
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Nov 12, 2006 23:44:02 GMT -5
What's decided about the spy issue in later eras ? Abusing any game mechanics not specifically ruled ok by the admins is illegal. So feel free to use your spys for what they are meant for, but not to eject enemy units from your territory, fair warning. CS
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Nov 13, 2006 0:16:35 GMT -5
btw from the civfanatics site the spy bug has been in previous versions, it was simply never fixed. I have heard of 1 ladder game where it has happened accidently, so i think if it happened in an ccc game that would be very suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 13, 2006 0:39:44 GMT -5
so can we have a "fair warning" on the spy in the transport sitting on top of and hiding the other units too?
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Nov 13, 2006 3:08:53 GMT -5
so can we have a "fair warning" on the spy in the transport sitting on top of and hiding the other units too? Yes that is not how the game was designed to operate and ergo illegal. CS
|
|
|
Post by charliebrownparker on Nov 13, 2006 3:45:07 GMT -5
Hi SPM,
On OCC classic you mentioned 1vs1vs1vs1. What does it mean?
Will we have to play many games with only 4 players per game or a single one with all clans. I'm a bite confused. Could you please give us some explainations about that matter? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Nov 13, 2006 9:24:57 GMT -5
This spy exploit rule must be writen in all games rules in CCC, short and clearly. EG. Special rule : "Dont use spy to eject enemie units from your land". Also it must be in ladder rules to. We dont need confusion here.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Nov 13, 2006 10:40:29 GMT -5
Hi SPM, On OCC classic you mentioned 1vs1vs1vs1. What does it mean? Will we have to play many games with only 4 players per game or a single one with all clans. I'm a bite confused. Could you please give us some explainations about that matter? Thanks Yes, it's 1v1v1v1, because the Case's ladder software will not allow more than 4 teams in one game. That's why we run the Ironman, for example, outside the Case's ladder system. SPM
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Nov 13, 2006 10:41:07 GMT -5
I agree with Eiffel and CS about the spy exploit. I will add a line to the CCC rules concerning this.
SPM
|
|
|
Post by charliebrownparker on Nov 13, 2006 12:10:18 GMT -5
Yes, it's 1v1v1v1, because the Case's ladder software will not allow more than 4 teams in one game. That's why we run the Ironman, for example, outside the Case's ladder system. SPM I really apologize to ask stupid questions ;D ! How will you do with 10 teams registered on this event? 2 games with 4 players (1 per clan) and two clans directly qualified for final round due to a lucky bye? I don't understand how you can manage that. It shall be worste with an odd number of clans If we choose 9 clans for example. 8 of them would play a preliminary round and the last one (MUD as usual ) will be on final without playing and score at least 1 point. On those preliminary games who will access to final round? Winner of each game + best second? Anyway regarding this event i guess the winner will receive 8 pts, second 5pts, third 3 pts and fourth 1 pts as you do for ironman and cton
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Nov 13, 2006 12:28:47 GMT -5
The TD in charge would decide on how to fairly break the available clans up into games. I.E. if 9 clans register with the TD, he would make 3 1v1v1's with a 1v1v1 final, yes it could be that an odd number of clans register and one game has more players but that would be decided randomly by the TD in charge. Personally I like pulling names from a hat CS
|
|
|
Post by charliebrownparker on Nov 13, 2006 14:44:16 GMT -5
The TD in charge would decide on how to fairly break the available clans up into games. I.E. if 9 clans register with the TD, he would make 3 1v1v1's with a 1v1v1 final, yes it could be that an odd number of clans register and one game has more players but that would be decided randomly by the TD in charge. Personally I like pulling names from a hat Strange but let's try. Don't forget that TD has to determinate number of player per game before creating tournament web page. I'm not sure he would be able to modify it once web will be launched.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Nov 13, 2006 15:33:11 GMT -5
Ugh.
I remember this qualifying round for the Ironman being tried before. Being in a situation where four clans qualify and only one is eliminated leads to a very strange sort of game that isn't a lot of fun, and also doesn't seem like much of a way of selecting the eight best clans for the main event.
The game becomes weird because 4th place is as valuable as first, and everyone has a very strong incentive to identify the weakest player and dogpile them as quickly as possible. And yes, it's a CTON, but negotiation isn't necessary for this to happen. All you need is for third and fourth-party scouts to observe there's a battle or choke in progress and identify who's losing. The rational response to this information is to join in ensuring that the losing player is elminated as quickly as possible.
|
|
moineau
Warrior
Administrator
Posts: 330
|
Post by moineau on Nov 13, 2006 16:30:52 GMT -5
For the 1vs1vs1vs1 OCC classique Saturday, duplicates civ allowed?
|
|
|
Post by charliebrownparker on Nov 13, 2006 18:17:57 GMT -5
Right. This preliminary single round is unfair. Please give unlucky clans a second chance . For example with 10 clans Friday 06:30 PM 1st round (2 games) : 5 players per game. The 3 first players are qualifed for saturday's ironman 2nd round nearly 09:00 PM (looser game) : 4 players. The 2 first are qualified.....
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Nov 13, 2006 21:58:59 GMT -5
There seems to be some confusion on the Saturday OCC. We plan to run that using Case's Tourney software so it will handle random seeding on 1v1v1v1.
In the One City Challenge, each clan puts up 1 player. So we have somewhere between 12 and 14 players probably, max 16.
If it were 16, the Case's software would set up 4 round 1 matches of 4 person's each - random player assignment from the list as always.
With less that 16, some of the first round matches might run with 3.
This sets up a final match (winners of the 4 round 1 matcches) who play 1v1v1v1.
As for civ picking, we will allow duplicates since the rules don't say otherwise.
Best, SPM
|
|