I will not play this duo thing... ;) it makes eye cancer! :)

and PE about your answer, tell me what he could have done so much better after I put that much pressure ;)

G vs I was the standard that we all agreed on at the beginning unless the players unanimusly agreed to a different map. Given the tone of this discussion, I doubt we will arrive at a universal agreement to change the map, but individuals are still welcome to come to an agreement during any given game.

devonian thumbs up! ;)

RoxArt, you're completely missing the point. That game is an aberration because your opponent quite frankly played terribly. If you want an example of what one can do in the face of that kind of pressure, take a game I had against myrmidon in the tournament where he (as Germany) walked into Venice in A01. I recovered and was still able to fight back and win; I didn't because I screwed up after that and myrmidon was good and kept pressing, but the point is that such pressure can be beaten.

Now please stop bringing up stupidly extreme examples.

@Devonian: The problem is that if one party wants to do GvI, the other party has no recourse. RoxArt here, for instance, clearly likes his GvI. I would assume he's better at it than me. I think I would give him a good fight in FvA, an actually balanced map. If we face off, I am forced to play his preferred map simply because we foolishly agreed to make it the default without being aware of how ridiculously imbalanced it is.

If nothing else, GvI should not be the default map if one of the two players proposes GvI for the matchup, because that means one side gets the map it wants no matter what the other side wants if the one side wants GvI. I propose instead that we use FvA, Duo and Lepanto as the three default maps, prioritized in that order. If one sides wants GvI and the other wants 2-player Fall of the American Empire (or any other combination of maps that aren't the default maps therein), you play FvA; if GvI (or any other option etc.) and FvA are the options, you play Duo; if FvA and Duo are the options, you play Lepanto.

But neither I nor anyone else should have that awful imbalanced crap GvI map forced on me just because the other side insists on it. That's one-party consent, which is exactly what the idea of using a default map in the case of disagreement was meant to avoid.

dude just stop it...
we said this BEFORE start, you agreed on playing this tournament with those rules so now just do it and stop complaining!
So just because now you see you do not like the map (or are just terribly bad at it....)

as you state you like FvA more so what.... next time you do a tournament with that as standard map!

further: you played so bad against myrmidon in both games (also when you lost against him as germany!!!! I thought when you are germany you never lose!?) there is no further comment needed

last point: I wont read your big useless always repeating the same stuff textes anymore....

G vs I was the standard when we all agreed to join the tournament. No one was forced to join, but now that we have, I think it is unfair to all players who wanted to play G vs I, to change the map.

I agreed in the same lack of knowledge of the map's imbalance as everyone else. The difference is that I'm actually trying to correct the problem created by using an imbalanced map as the tournament default. And to use the word 'complaining' as though I'm just whining for its own sake instead of bringing up valid points is, like everything else you've said in here, intellectually dishonest.

It has nothing to do with my personal like or dislike of the map. I have made the case, repeatedly, that it is imbalanced, and proven it. No one has contested this, which means we all agree it is imbalanced. That is a valid objection that warrants discussion.

"you played so bad against myrmidon in both games there is no further comment needed"

What the fuck does this even mean or have to do with anything? I lost against him as Germany because of a crucial NMR that was entirely unrelated to my position in the game.

RoxArt, please. It would be better if you stopped reading and commenting. You have proven repeatedly that you are incapable of actually holding a rational discussion by continually misrepresenting everything I say as a personal complaint and refusing to address any of the logic behind it. I hate to be rude, but you are really not contributing anything worthwhile and it's becoming increasingly tedious to try to respond to what you're saying because you're not even responding to anything I'm saying, but your own hideously distorted version of what I'm saying. Whether intentionally or not I can't tell, but you're doing nothing but obscuring the actual discussion with input that really is not relevant to anything.

I can only hope fasces continues to prove himself more reasonable and capable of holding a discussion on the issue than you.

@Devonian: I'm not saying ban GvI. I'm saying don't make it the default. People can still choose to play GvI if they want, but as it stands, anyone who plays me that wants to play GvI gets to, regardless of my own desire not to play on an imbalanced map. That is unfair, and the logic that says "Well, we missed the fact that this was unfair before, so we can't correct it now" is, in my mind, bogus.

What recourse do I have if someone wants to play me in this tournament using GvI? Tell me why their desire should override mine when with any other map variant this isn't so and we actually default to a third-party map.

Let me clarify: If I want FvA and, say, you want FranklandvsJuggernaut, we default to GvI. Though I don't like GvI, I do think that's fair, because it's a third-party option.

But if you want GvI, you get your wish, regardless of what I want, simply because we agreed to a standard that in retrospect doesn't make any sense.

Do you see the problem here?

unfortunately GvI was agreed to. For next season I think it will be either Duo or FvA as the standard...

"I have made the case, repeatedly, that it is imbalanced, and proven it. " you did not prove anything here... it's just your thoughts and opinions....
and before you ask I will not pull up my thoughts before end of this tourney as stated more than once!

I still think GvI is pretty balanced... btw you lost several times as germany so stop it again ;)
and you won as italy to but it's soooo not doable!

And your pretty nice system just gives you FvA whenever you want, cause you will always "chose" FAll of american empire, as nobody takes that one and then FvA will be played... lol....

As fasces sais we agreed on that and so it is....

gameID=1969


That's an example of how unbalanced this map that involves RoxArt...there's no way I'm that much better than him but because I was Germany I tore him apart and won by the end of 1904. The map isn't balanced.

@Fasces, you can change rules if they don't work. I agree with Eden. GvI should not be the default, its awful.

However, I do think Lepanto should not be the default due to the different rules and the fact it hurts my head just looking at it :P.

FvA or Duo would be better.

Hellenic pls dont start you too.. i just played bad losing venice there that had nothing to do with being unb alanced...

Ah and no changing rules.... the tourney started with this setting and we play it with this setting dot over and out...

@ President Eden
"What recourse do I have if someone wants to play me in this tournament using GvI? Tell me why their desire should override mine when with any other map variant this isn't so and we actually default to a third-party map."

In this tournament, the only option would get unanimus consent to change the rules of the tournament. Anything less than unanimus consent would force a map on the player or players who did not agree to the change.

"Hellenic pls dont start you too.. i just played bad losing venice there that had nothing to do with being unbalanced..."
Well heres the thing, you took Munich off me turn one, and I pulled it around as Germany. So taking sc off the enemy in 1901 deosn't lead to losing. Your game was over once he took Venice because he was in such a dominant position.

The map is unbalanced, but given that we already have fixed rule that we have already played with, unless I see 8 posts here asking for a change, (4 so far: Me, Prez, Gob and Hel) It will stay the same.

"In this tournament, the only option would get unanimus consent to change the rules of the tournament. Anything less than unanimus consent would force a map on the player or players who did not agree to the change."
However right now a map is being forced on people who only joined because they wanted a 1v1 tourney and probably didn't read the rules until after joining.

Yes because misstakingly i let him into that bad position... and when i had munich i could also have done better... but you always learn...

and may first read then join?

@fasces
"However right now a map is being forced on people who only joined because they wanted a 1v1 tourney and probably didn't read the rules until after joining. "

The map is not being forced on them, the consequences of not reading the rules is being applied to them.

"you did not prove anything here... it's just your thoughts and opinions....
and before you ask I will not pull up my thoughts before end of this tourney as stated more than once!"

I didn't say here in this thread specifically. I don't remember which thread it was, but I definitely demonstrated decisively (or, barring that, demonstrated to no lasting objections) that GvI is imbalanced on a prior occasion. You have not on any occasion done anything to rebuke it. I'm not asking you to spill the beans on your secret super awesome strategies or whatever. You don't have to resort to that to address the objections I raised. The simple fact is that you've done nothing to challenge anything I've said in here, so don't tell me "it's just your opinion," because I've substantiated it with facts and had no one challenge it.

"I still think GvI is pretty balanced... btw you lost several times as germany so stop it again ;)
and you won as italy to but it's soooo not doable!"

First, there you go again, just stating your opinion without ever having proved it anywhere on any thread here ever. I'll go dig up my prior posts on the subject if I have to in order to demonstrate that I'm not doing the same thing.

Second, a broken clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean it's not broken. Similarly, one or two counter examples -- or even the ~35% of games Italy has won -- do not disprove the fact that Germany still wins almost twice as many games as Italy does. I highly suggest you stop misrepresenting my argument as "Italy cannot ever win" and instead address the actual argument I've put forth the entire time -- that being "Germany has too substantial an advantage to call GvI 'balanced.'"

"And your pretty nice system just gives you FvA whenever you want, cause you will always "chose" FAll of american empire, as nobody takes that one and then FvA will be played... lol...."

Fine. Make Duo the first default on the list. I don't care if I don't get "my" FvA whenever I want... unlike you. Because it's incredibly clear that you're just desperately trying (and failing) to uphold your preferred game type as the standard despite the fact that it is ridiculously imbalanced.

"unfortunately GvI was agreed to. For next season I think it will be either Duo or FvA as the standard..."
"In this tournament, the only option would get unanimus consent to change the rules of the tournament. Anything less than unanimus consent would force a map on the player or players who did not agree to the change."

I'm incorporating both of these quotes with one response because (a) they're the same point, more or less, and (b) this is the first objection I've seen that has merit. I'll go try to ratchet up support to get a rule change. I would request a majority rule (or even 2/3 supermajority rule) instead of unanimous, though. After all, if we're going to take arguments from consent into play, we have to acknowledge the long-standing legal precedent of 'misrepresentation.'

Misrepresentation invalidates a contract if the contract was signed under false pretenses which directly impacted the signing party's consent. In my case, for example, I did in fact agree to the rules of this tournament which included GvI as the default [pardon caps] -- UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT GvI WAS A BALANCED DEFAULT MAP. Had the game been, for example, Russia vs Germany, probably the most infamously imbalanced 1v1 on the website, I would never have agreed to signing up for this tournament. As it turns out, while GvI obviously isn't RvG bad, it is imbalanced to the point that I would not have signed up for this tournament had I known GvI was this imbalanced and the default map.

Thus, per misrepresentation rules, anyone who signed up for this tournament under the pretense that GvI was a balanced default map signed up under a false pretense and thus should not be held captive to that contract. I believe that gives us cause to reconsider, and hold a vote, because just as a non-unanimous vote would hold captive someone who did not want a change, not voting at all would hold captive someone who would never be captive if not for imperfect information.

(Note: People simply not reading that GvI was the standard is not the issue here. If people knew GvI was imbalanced and didn't read that it was the default and signed up, that's their fault for not reading. I'm with Devonian on that point, definitely. The issue here is that several of us signed up for a GvI default under the explicit pretense that GvI was a balanced default. It is not, thus we are moving to get it changed.)

"Ah and no changing rules.... the tourney started with this setting and we play it with this setting dot over and out..."

I refer you to a previous statement I made: "The logic that says "Well, we missed the fact that this was unfair before, so we can't correct it now" is ... bogus." "We did it wrong before" is not justification for continuing to do it wrong now. If you object to the premise that we did it wrong before, fine -- make your case that GvI is balanced or at least address my arguments as to why it isn't. But if we're resorting to the "We did it wrong before so we have to be consistent" argument then there is no argument to be had at all, because that argument makes no sense whatsoever.

---

So, to recap: I'll look for either a majority (9/16) or a supermajority (12/16) to get GvI replaced with Duo/Lepanto/FvA. Would prefer majority, of course, but I understand a supermajority. I feel the misrepresentation argument entitles my side to seek less stringent recourse than a unanimous vote. I'll also change the proposed alternate system not to make FvA the first default so that any complaints about me having an ulterior agenda are silenced. I am not trying to force FvA on my opponents; I'm only looking to ensure an imbalanced map isn't forced on me and those who agree with me.

In return, I ask that the GvI crowd either provide more conclusive reasoning as to (1) the supposed "balance" GvI really does have that I'm somehow missing, or (2) why we can't change an imbalanced map. If neither condition is met then I'll just start looking for that [super]majority and point to this thread as proof that GvI is imbalanced and should be changed.

Ok, Tourney Master Rules!
Everyone has until Thursday to PM me a map suggestion for the default map (So that Friday's games are played with the new rule). The reason for PM is to prevent (or at least partially prevent) strategic voting. So everyone can confirm that I don't fix the vote, I will be releasing which person voted for what on that day.
The options:
1) IvG
2) Duo
3) AvF
If you dislike the result we get from this democratic vote feel free to drop the tourney. I have a couple of people (2) who have requested entry into the tourney and will probably join should 2 players drop out.

I hope that we are not forced to restart the tournament over what map to use.

Thank you, fasces. I'd urge everyone to stick with the tournament regardless of the result; I will be. I only want to see a balanced default map... I certainly don't want the tournament to fall apart over this, and I think everyone else feels the same way. Thanks for hearing me out.

@President Eden
I disagree with your claim that there was misrepresentation. We agreed on 2 games per match-up with both players getting each side. We did this because we all acknowledged that the maps were imbalanced to some degree (excluding the symmetrical maps). This rule demonstrates that what was represented was that the map was imbalanced.

Devonian:

We agreed on 2 games per match-up with both players getting each side.

If a map is significantly imbalanced, then basically what will happen is in most matchups, the result will be 2-2 and we will not be able to determine the winner. That is why I support the use of a fairer map.

We then had a debate as to which map was the most balanced, of the ones that were asymmetrical. 2 players then came out and said I will not play unless it is IvG. Given that they were 2 players with impressive track records I assumed they knew how balanced/imbalanced the map is...
I also seem to recall that IvG and FvA were around tied at 1.5ish a piece gap in the stats. So I decided to go with IvG. However almost every game in this tourney has gone 2-2 or has been a different map.

We have 5 votes so far, so either 11 more votes or thursday and I will announce the winner.

There have been plenty of 4-0 matchups already in this tournament. So I think we should be able to determine a winner without changing the rules in the middle of a tournament.

"I disagree with your claim that there was misrepresentation. We agreed on 2 games per match-up with both players getting each side. We did this because we all acknowledged that the maps were imbalanced to some degree (excluding the symmetrical maps). This rule demonstrates that what was represented was that the map was imbalanced."

We explicitly agreed to GvI as the default map on the pretense that GvI was the most balanced asymmetrical 1v1 map. That pretense has been without a doubt proven false. I'm not seeing how this isn't misrepresentation. Unintentional, to be sure, and I don't want to confuse the general connotation of something being misrepresented (which categorically implies intention to mislead) with the technical definition here, but this is misrepresentation.

Dev: you'll find that half of the 4-0 were done on AvF...
Stats per date in this tourney (w-l-d):
Germany: 20-4-2 (ommiting the 2 games in which there was an NMR)
Italy: 4-20-2
Austria: 5-4-1
France: 4-5-1

France has the same # of wins as Italy, and they have less then half the games...
Its clear which map is balanced and which is unblanced.

Btw, this is only including games from the first 3 rounds. 4 round games that have been concluded do not count (since I don't have a record of them yet)