we can't play more than one challenge match at a time, right?

Correct, y2k. If I'm reading the rules right

The result should be posted here or to Devonian through PM?

I suggest that whoever challenge another, post their challenge here and then send PM to the person to remind him.
So we know who has already played the game and who are still available.

Y2kjbk & Goldfinger, It was implied, but not specific enough. So, I will make it more clear with a slight revision to rule #3:

3. If the list of players is between 2 and 20 players, any player may challenge anyone else on the ladder that is ranked no more than 2 higher or lower than them. If the list is 21 to 30, any player may challenge anyone 3 higher or lower. If the list is 31 to 40, any player may challenge anyone 4 higher or lower, etc. However, you cannot challenge the same person twice in a row, if either player won both games. This is regardless of who initiated the first challenge. You cannot challenge or be challenged by someone who is currently in a challenge match. Players may only be in one challenge match at a time.

Xildur, When I start the tournament, I will post the complete rules in another thread. This thread will also be used to post results, challenges, and standings.
.

* the new thread will also be used to post results, challenges, and standings.

Devonian
y2kjbk
DrPrangloss
moosepers
Tricky
ebconvoyking
CoXBoT
mapleleaf
Xildur
goldfinger0303
Morandini
Ender
Maucat
Gunmaster G-9
Veross
Leif_Syverson
DoubleCapitals
chasewith3fleets
JtGS

Hope it isn't too late

The initial signup is complete. However, new players will be allowed to enter the tournament at the bottom of the rankings at any time.

I will create a new thread that lists the final rules. The new thread will also be used for standings and challenges.

Below is the initial rankings based on vdip points.


DoubleCapitals 852
chasewith3fleets 888
ebconvoyking 906
JackTheGiantSlayer 971
Tricky 975
DrPrangloss 985
moosepers 989
Veross 1000
CoXBoT 1046
mapleleaf 1212
Morandini 1314
Gunmaster G-9 1319
Leif_Syverson 1467
y2kjbk 1468
Ender 1663
Xildur 1677
goldfinger0303 1700
Devonian 1725
Maucat 1817

Link to the signup thread and initial discussion:
viewthread=60900#60900

Link to official tournament rules, rankings, and challenges
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/forum.php?threadID=60990#60990

Proposed revision to the rules:

Problem: It seems problematic that the higher ranked player is permitted to choose the map AND have the advantage of winning a draw. A higher ranked player can simply choose highly unbalanced maps and keep their standing. To correct this, I would like to propose changing rule 13 to read:

"13. If the challenge ends in a tie (1-1 or draw-draw), both players must have a rematch, with the other player picking the map. If there is another tie, there is no change to the ranking. Neither player may challenge the other for a period of 2 days."

If you are a current participant, please discuss and/or vote your approval/disapproval.

I approve of this. Otherwise it is too easy for the higher ranked player to deliberately sabotage the match by picking an unbalanced map

Which are the unbalanced maps?

I Agree

And if there maybe better just to exclude them from the selectable maps rather then forcing a third game that may still end up being undefinitive or unfairly balanced in somebody else's direction?

gsmx,

Technically, all maps are unbalanced except duo and Lepanto. It's not practical to eliminate all unbalanced maps, and unlikely we will have a consensus of which maps are "too" unbalanced. (There was an extended debate over this in a previous tournament, which was never resolved. I would rather not have an extended debate over which maps are "too" unbalanced.)

All rematches will be played twice, with each player taking the opposite side. A challenger cannot win with a draw, so it would be in the best interest of the challenger to pick a balanced map for the third & Fourth maps. If a challenged player wants to force 4 games, that will be up to them, but I think most will opt for a map that they think they have the possibility of winning.

I agree with the stipulation that if the match ends in a 1-1 tie and the challenger chose the map, then there is no need for a rematch.

I will count that as a no.

However, if that were to happen, and the players agree to a draw rather than playing a map that is "too" unbalanced. As moderator, I would accept their decision. It could even be a condition of accepting the challengers map. Would that change your vote to yes?

Playing a total of four games just to maybe get a result does start to sound a little tedious. What if we just had one more tie breaker game where to make it fair the challenger picks the map and the challengee gets country choice (or something like that)? Would seem to me a good motivator to choose the most balanced map as possible.

Or we could just default that all tiebreakers need to take place on one of the generally accepted balanced maps (duo or lepanto).

gsmx, I considered both of these.

Your first suggestion is not a bad idea, however, I eliminated it because most maps are unbalanced. Playing 2 games at a time automatically balances them. In a tournament, I think a primary consideration needs to be balance.

The second one is also reasonable, but I eliminated it because these two maps can become tedious if played repetitively. Playing 2 games which allowed variety instead of 1 on the same map time after time seemed less tedious.

I hope you will consider voting yes on the proposed change "as is".

You get you variety in the first two games, its just the final game for sake of breaking the tie. Playing one last "as pure as it gets" tie breaker game on a standard-ish board sounds a lot less tedious then playing the same player in four back-to-back games. I'd rather just settle it and move on rather then basically do the whole thing over again.

Ok. Thanks for your input.

No problem. If the vote goes the other way by all means that's cool.

Apologies if I am misunderstanding a simple concept - really trying not to be difficult about it. I guess I feel that everything could be much simpler if the overall rule was just that the challenger just chose the map each time, especially as it is in the challenger's best interest to choose what he thinks is the most balanced map. No rematches needed.

Otherwise, it kind of feels as if you are under perpetual challenge. If we are *not* changing the above rule, then I would vote "yes" to a rematch, but only if the one being challenged was the one who chose the initial map and it ended 1-1. If the challenger chose it initially (see my match vs. Goldfinger), it seems silly that we in effect need to play it again.

I agree with Ender. It's difficult enough to move up the ladder already, there's no need to make it take twice as long. Though another thing I thought of that might work is using the margin of victory as a tiebreaker. Even in unbalanced maps, there would be stiff competition because the losing side would need to fight for as many centers as possible. This also makes the game more interesting because in the event of a certified win (not yet proven, but a possibility on certain maps), the winner also would have to fight to keep the opponent weak even as he takes a certain victory. This is very different from PPSC in a standard game (generally considered lame) because there are only two players.

I was hoping that a variety of maps would be used in the tournament. Not just one or two variants.

However, I can see that the current rules encourage highly unbalanced maps. Ultimately, GvR might become the only map used if we don't change anything.

But, if we change it to challenger picks the maps ONLY, we will probably have only EvT (Which I think is a horrible map for testing a players skill.) or, FvA (Which is decent). But there are so many other maps worth playing.

This is why I want the higher ranked player to pick first. Hopefully, they will pick a reasonably balanced map, but a variety of maps might be used. There might even be some experimenting of unusual combinations of "Classic - pick your countries". If those experiments turn out to be horribly unbalanced, no big deal. The challenger will likely pick a very balanced map afterwards.

The first two tournaments I was in picked the maps at the start, and by the end I was tired of playing the same map. I wanted something different for this tournament. So, I permitted the players to pick. However, I didn't see the problem of only letting the higher ranked player pick the map. I think the revised rule is a good combination of variety and balance.

That makes sense

1v1 games wrap up rather quickly. I don't see how the argument that playing more games makes it harder to move up. If GvR is chosen defensively then the opportunity for the challenger to counter with a better map (so that skill wins out in the end) is a good thing. Variety isn't an issue either. I vote yes on Devonian's rule change proposal.

Is that a "yes", Brankl?

I agree with the revision.
It's not hard to get Draw if you choose a map with favorable position for one side.
So with this, the challenged has incentive to close the war with 2-0 directly instead of 1-1.