I vote for the revision.

I keep my yes vote, because it would be an improvement over the current situation.
But I want to add a suggestion you might keep in consideration:
instead of having either the challenged or the challenger choose the maps for both games, why don't we have that each player chooses the map for one of the games (and the player who did not choose the map gets to choose the country)?

Votes so far:
Devonian - Yes
Goldfinger - Yes
Diatarn_iv - Yes
Ender - No?
gsmx - No
Brankl - Yes?
Leif_Syverson - Yes
Xildur - Yes
Bozo - Yes
Maucat - Yes
mapleleaf - Yes
JacktheGiantSlayer - Yes
Tricky - Yes
ebconvoyking - Yes

Votes so far:
Devonian - Yes
Goldfinger - Yes
Diatarn_iv - Yes
Ender - No?
gsmx - No
Brankl - Yes?
Leif_Syverson - Yes
Xildur - Yes
Bozo - Yes
Maucat - Yes
mapleleaf - Yes
JacktheGiantSlayer - Yes
Tricky - Yes
ebconvoyking - Yes
y2kjbk - Yes

Votes so far:
Devonian - Yes
Goldfinger - Yes
Diatarn_iv - Yes
Ender - No?
gsmx - No
Brankl - Yes?
Leif_Syverson - Yes
Xildur - Yes
Bozo - Yes
Maucat - Yes
mapleleaf - Yes
JacktheGiantSlayer - Yes
Tricky - Yes
ebconvoyking - Yes
y2kjbk - Yes
CoXBot - Yes

Votes so far:
Devonian - Yes
Goldfinger - Yes
Diatarn_iv - Yes
Ender - No?
gsmx - No
Brankl - Yes?
Leif_Syverson - Yes
Xildur - Yes
Bozo - Yes
Maucat - Yes
mapleleaf - Yes
JacktheGiantSlayer - Yes
Tricky - Yes
ebconvoyking - Yes
y2kjbk - Yes
CoXBot - Yes
DoubleCapitals - Yes

Votes so far:
Devonian - Yes
Goldfinger - Yes
Diatarn_iv - Yes
Gunmaster G-9 - Yes
Ender - No?
gsmx - No
Brankl - Yes?
Leif_Syverson - Yes
Xildur - Yes
Bozo - Yes
Maucat - Yes
mapleleaf - Yes
JacktheGiantSlayer - Yes
Tricky - Yes
ebconvoyking - Yes
y2kjbk - Yes
CoXBot - Yes
DoubleCapitals - Yes

Yes
Though I still think the margin of victory would make a better tiebreaker. But your rule change would make the rules better

Votes so far:

Devonian - Yes
Goldfinger - Yes
Diatarn_iv - Yes
Gunmaster G-9 - Yes
Ender - No?
gsmx - No
Brankl - Yes
Leif_Syverson - Yes
Xildur - Yes
Bozo - Yes
Maucat - Yes
mapleleaf - Yes
JacktheGiantSlayer - Yes
Tricky - Yes
ebconvoyking - Yes
y2kjbk - Yes
CoXBot - Yes
DoubleCapitals - Yes
Sevyas - Yes
moosepers - Yes

18 Yes's out of 26 players means 2/3rd approve the rule change even if the rest vote no.

All games that have already started will finish with the original rules. Any new challenge matches starting will replace the original rule 13 to be as follows:

"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."

I don't think there needs to be a rematch after the first match ends in a tie. It's at the challenger's discretion (whether to force one or not).

The effect would be the same as if the match were started, and the challenger forfeited. So, I would agree, as long as they admitted defeat, the challenger would not be required to play the second set.

I have had some requests to consider revising the rules due to the congestion in the ladder. Some players have waited a long time for a potential opponent to become available only to be challenged first.

I'm not convinced this is a problem that needs to be fixed, but do see that some "tweaking" might be worth considering. I have only been able to challenge one player and have been challenged 3 times. So, I wouldn't mind hearing what others think.

Before I entertain a solution though, I would like to take a straw poll.

If you think this is a problem that needs fixing, or if you think it isn't a large enough problem please let me know on this thread.

I haven't benn able to challenge another player and have been challenged one time, for me it's a problem.

I agree with Maucat, and I think it's a (mild) problem.
Two possible solutions come to my mind:
1) introducing a "priority" for those who were challenged several times in a row [this is probably the best, but I'm not sure about how to do it]
2) allowing people who were challenged several times in a row to challenge higher than usual. For example, currently we can challenge someone who is within 3 spots from our position: but we might say that the limit becomes 4 spots for those who were challenged 2 or more times since they last challenged someone; and then, 5 spots for those who were challenged 4 or more times since their last challenge.

I too think it is mild, but does need to be addressed in some way.

Perhaps after being challenged 4 times in a row, a person is immune to further challenges until they have had a chance to challenge up the ladder? If they forgo that chance by not issuing a challenge (if able) in a week or two window, they would lose their immunity. You'd also need some sort of priority. Say someone has been challenged 4 times, and a match above them finishes but they are unable to get a challenge in before the participants in that match themselves issue challenges that preclude the individual below them from challenging either of them. Priority would place say a 1 week moratorium on the actual game starts of those successive challenges to allow any person with this sort of immunity the right to override one of those challenges and force a challenge within that time frame. If they fail to override the challenge and issue one of their own, then the participants are free to proceed with their challenge matches. No one else would be able to issue challenges to any of these individuals in the mean time until the proposed match is overridden or the person with immunity fails to issue a challenge. The person with immunity must already be waiting for a match to finish to be able to challenge a match that is proposed but not yet started, they cannot have just gained immunity and then interrupt a challenge that was issued (but not yet accepted) before they gained immunity. In the case of multiple persons with immunity wishing to override a given challenge, priority goes to the individual with immunity who has been waiting the longest to challenge up the ladder. The individual in the number 1 spot could either be exempt from the immunity clause or could earn a short break by successfully fending off 4 challenges in a row while at the top.


There is at least one downside to this, in that you could get a block of individuals with immunity holding things up in the middle of the list. The advantage over the current system is that this at least favors upward movement rather than stagnation at the bottom.

Or, how about make this tournament like a soccer tournament where we don't use ladder but point base on win and lose?
And the point is given, by not only winning but also the gap between winner and loser in both maps (since a game is be done twice in a same map).

For example : I am the Home Team and Devonian is the opponent. I can choose the map, let's say Duo Map. And the first one, I win with 15-12 and the second Devonian win with 16-11. Then for the point, Devonian is considered winning and gets 3 because of the greater gap between winning. If we both get the same result (15-12), then both of us get 1 point each. The winner is the owner of the largest point.

This make us playable to all players. We just need an excel and 3 referees (or the people who take notes for all player's result). 3 referees are for objectivity since they are playing as well.

What di you think?

Xildur, were just trying to tweak the tournament slightly. Not fundamentally change it.

Maybe the next one can be like that. The first was a bracket tournament. The second had a point based format, but not like you described. This was a ladder, for variety.

Mostly, I'm trying to find out if it does in fact need tweaking. Or should we just let it play out as is. If only 3 people think it is a mild issue, then we should just let it be. But if several more ask for a change, then we can look at the options.

I'm all for tweaking. I have literally been unable to challenge anyone since it began but have now been challenged twice. It's mostly a timing thing as you have a week of "immunity" already while waiting for challenges above you to finish, but if you are not checking this site like a hawk, one of those matches could finish and then the participants challenge others before you have had a chance. Some tweak to remove the "who challenged whom" first aspect would be wonderful. Something like "challenges can only happen on Sundays", with all those not in a challenge submitting a "proposed challenge" earlier that week that gets ranked in terms of priority (details to be determined). Another option would be a rule that if you have challenged another but did not win that challenge, then you must wait a week (to allow others to challenge you) before you can challenge another.

So far, in the straw poll:

Maucat - Yes, we should look for a fix.
Diatarn_iv - Yes, we should look for a fix.
Leif_Syverson - Yes, we should look for a fix.
Ender - - Yes, we should look for a fix.
Xildur - Should we look for a fix, or are you only suggesting a total overhaul?

Total overhaul after one season.
But if there is a good fix idea, I may support it.

I think starting with the best players on the bottom was probably a bad thing. Once this bottleneck breaks up, things will go more fluidly.

I think some sort of fix is needed

So far, in the straw poll:

Maucat - Yes, we should look for a fix.
Diatarn_iv - Yes, we should look for a fix.
Leif_Syverson - Yes, we should look for a fix.
Ender - - Yes, we should look for a fix.
Xildur - Yes, willing to consider a fix.
Goldfinger0303 - Yes, we should look for a fix.
Devonian - Yes, willing to consider a fix.

Goldfinger, the rationale for the reverse order was to require the best players to earn their spot. It was the recommended method when I was researching the tournament format. Plus, in our tournament, it's easier to hold a position once you have it, since a draw favors the higher ranked. But, I do agree it may be part of the reason for the bottle neck.

I blame Ender. He refuses to submit to me

I am in favor of a fix but not a major overhaul.

Just an observation on Xildur's major overhaul proposal. The concede feature really skews the SC count difference in a win. Also it favors smallest map possible for defenders. All these issues can be overcome however. For instance a concede could be deemed an all to nothing win to penalize conceding early. Also, you would have to normalize the difference so that all maps are equal and there be less value in choosing a particular map. Empire 1 on 1 would take significantly longer to play to a final true win, but wouldn't grant you any additional value over a classic win.


Anyways, just thoughts for if such a tourney was ever put together.

There seems enough interest to look into a slight change.
I will try to put some of the ideas together, and will be open to additional suggestions while I think about it.

In a basic level, I see 3 lines of thought.

1. Allow for an expanded challenge range.
2. Expanded immunity and/or waiting period
3. Create a priority system

Did I miss anything?

These are some of the proposals I am considering:
1. Expanded Challenge range. (only one could be considered.)

a. Allow an expanded challenge range to 5 steps away. If the lower wins, players exchange places. (Subject to restrictions below)
b. Allow an expanded challenge range to 5 steps away. If the lower wins, players move up or down only 1 rung respectively. (Subject to restrictions below)
c. Allow an expanded challenge range to 5 steps away. If the lower wins, lower moves above the higher player, shifting the other players down. (Subject to restrictions below)

Restrictions:
The expanded challenge range is only available if:
a. all players in the standard challenge range are currently in a challenge. And;
b. The player desiring the expanded range was challenged 2 or more times since their last challenge

2. Expanded immunity and/or waiting period. (both or only 1 could be considered.)
a.. Require a 1 week waiting period for players who have just challenged someone else.
b. lengthen the 1 week immunity.

3. Create a priority system
I am least clear on how to implement this. I also am concerned that the management of a priority system might become cumbersome.

I would like comments on any or all of these proposals.