Massive Assault
http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/

The First Individual Massive Assault Tournament
http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=292		 Page 17 of 20
Author:  MortonHQ [ Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:34 am ]
Post subject: 
Many appologies guys. Last week was an absolute disaster at work. I'll get my turns in as soon as I can and try to pick up the pace next week.

Sorry for the delay.
Author:  MortonHQ [ Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
Think I'll call it a day at that.

I've been trying to get myself out of the mess I've created all week and the situation isn't improving. Rocklizard doesn't seam to make many mistakes! (unfortunately)

Good luck to you all in the next round.
Author:  Tiger [ Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hi,

We have 4 players in Semi-Finals:
Pitor
maelstrom
Enfprcer
Rocklizard

New round could be started next week, but I have one suggestion about rules:
Players don't use Surrender to get good balance of lost units. Are you agree?
Author:  Maelstrom [ Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
How would ties work then?
Author:  Tiger [ Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Maelstrom wrote:
How would ties work then?


As it was described in rules:

"If two players got the same amount of points, the winner is determined by the following factors (listed in decreasing importance order):


1. The score of personal encounters (i.e. points collected in the games between these two players during this and previous stages).


2. The cumulative difference (measured in unit cost) between destroyed units achieved during personal encounters.


3. The cumulative cost of all units lost in all battles in the Pool.


4. The cumulative cost of all the surviving units achieved during personal encounters.


5. The cumulative cost of all remaining units in all battles in the Pool. "

Disadvantage of using current system in the situation when one players get advantage in one battle and surrender in other one if he see, that he could lost it with other score.
Author:  Tiger [ Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
All rules were established before start of tournament, so I don’t want to change anything without agreement of players.
Author:  Maelstrom [ Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
So what is the rule change then? You're not allowed to surrender? With 4 games, its conceivable that there is an even split (not nearly as bad as with 2 games of course). Is this just a gentlemen's agreement not to surrender for tactical reasons? I'm sure all the players in the tournament won't exploit anything, but just wondering how to make it fair in the event there is a tie.
Author:  Tiger [ Sat Mar 13, 2004 2:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
Maelstrom wrote:
So what is the rule change then? You're not allowed to surrender? With 4 games, its conceivable that there is an even split (not nearly as bad as with 2 games of course). Is this just a gentlemen's agreement not to surrender for tactical reasons? I'm sure all the players in the tournament won't exploit anything, but just wondering how to make it fair in the event there is a tie.


Yes, it's just gentlemen's agreement.
There was other suggestion, add rule about counting of battle's turns, but it could be difficult too. Any ideas?
Author:  Maelstrom [ Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm okay with that :). I can promise not to surrender for unit loss issues if other people are open to it.
Author:  Rocklizard [ Sun Mar 14, 2004 5:56 am ]
Post subject: 
I can think of a few problems I am afraid:

We would need gentlemen's agreement also that in a game that is clearly going to be won, the winner proceeds directly to securing the territories needed for victory, without detouring to mop up the last few units. Also that he secures 300% as soon as possible without taking that extra turn or two to kill off a few more pieces.

Also if you are certain to lose a game but can't surrender, why recruit? All you are doing is putting more cannon fodder on the table to be destroyed.

The problem is, if you have a below average set-up as Green amongst similiarly matched players on Anubis or Noble Rust you are going to lose no matter how well you play. It cannot be right in a tournament to play to cause maximum damage in unit terms but to lose as quickly as possible - this is not the way that MA should be played but the player that does so will progress under the rules. The skill is in playing as well as possible to try and reverse the disadvantage and to try and get back onto even terms, if you come close but fail you should be rewarded under the rules not penalised for having played on.

For this reason, I suggest that the total number of turns (i.e. in a pair of matches that is drawn, the winner is the player that achieved the win in the fewer number of turns) is used becase:
1. If an attacker proceeds cautiously in a game that he will inevitably win he will lose a split tie if his opponent plays better, more aggressively and achieves the victory earlier in the other game.
2. If a player has a poor start position, by careful play he may be able to prolong the game as long as possible and is incentivised to hold existing territory, conquer new territories right to the end and defend desperately to prevent the attacker reaching 300%. These are all the true objectives of MA, the number of units killed is not.
3. It will create exciting games with risk taking and winning close battles rewarded instead of games where you take a bit longer to build up an overwhelming force before you attack. The end of games where both sides are close to winning could be very exciting - particularly if the replays are continuously available on the web-site. If spectators are witnessing a closely run race they may keep coming back to see the action, if all they see is two games being won heavily by opposing players then there is little interest but to wait to see who happens to have done more damage at the end.

Finally, I suggest that we play the semi-finals as two games on Wasserland since going first has the smallest advantage on that map.

So my preferences would be:
(i) Play two games on Wasserland with the least turns rule
(ii) Play two games on Wasserland with the existing rules, surrendering is allowed (but with the gentlemen's agreement that you will not do so unless there is no realistic prospect of your winning)
(iii) Play two games on Noble Rust and two on Anubis with the least turns rules (total of the two games won compared for each player)
(iv) Play two games on Noble Rust and two on Anubis with the existing rules , surrendering is allowed (but with the gentlemen's agreement that you will not do so unless there is no realistic prospect of your winning)

I think Dave (MortonHQ) was a bit surprised that I surrendered as Green on Anubis after only three turns and thought that perhaps it was for tactical reasons, in fact I had spent a number of hours thinking about the position and given how poor my starting position was and the fact that he had invaded a small and medium SA of mine on his first turn, I had absolutely no prospect of winning. He had just resigned the other game on Anubis and given that he was so short of time and we were holding up the tournament, it seemed like the right thing to do not to make him play through a game he was clearly going to win. In any case I was fairly confident that I was going to win both on Noble Rust :D!

Mike
Author:  Pitor [ Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:45 am ]
Post subject: 
Personnally, I agree with Rocklizard :) Playing 8 games for the semi finals seems good for me. Just a suggestion : why not playing 2 games on wasserland and 2 games on new paradize instead of 4 games on wasserland. Concerning the non surrendering proposition, I have no problem to play each map till the end :wink:
Author:  Rocklizard [ Sun Mar 14, 2004 9:14 am ]
Post subject: 
Sorry for any confusion, I was suggesting one of the four preferences not all of them!
Author:  Sky Keeper [ Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:05 am ]
Post subject: 
I also like the idea of "turn counting" rather than "meat counting" - it will be just spectacular and keep the loosing player interested in the game.
Author:  Pitor [ Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:27 am ]
Post subject: 
lol, I was indeed confused :o

Anyway, personnally, I think that playing only 2 games on bigs maps or 4 games on medium map is not enough for a semi final because with opponent of similar skill, initial position is really important. So, I propose either 6 games on medium maps, or 3 games on big one. Just a proposal... :wink:
Author:  Enforcer [ Sun Mar 14, 2004 12:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
sorry been away for weekend, i'm happy with whatever is decided. Am just amazed i've made it this far :)
Author:  Maelstrom [ Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
My personal opinion is that 4 games on those medium/larger maps is enough. And yeah, number of turns might be a better indicator, and not as easy to exploit as counting unit kills. Of course that will drag out this round longer, as we won't be surrendering even if it looks like a loss is imminent.
Author:  Rocklizard [ Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think four medium or two large is enough, one bad start position should be capable of being overcome - in all probability your opponent will have at least one bad position too.

It sounds like all four of us are fairly ambivalent which maps we play on - everybody OK for Tiger to make a decision?
Author:  Tiger [ Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'd like to suggest the following variant:
2 pairs are randomly selected out of 4 1/4 winners. Each pair plays 4 games (again, switching sides) on Noble Rust and Anubis planets.

If two players got the same amount of points, the winner is determined by the following factors (listed in decreasing importance order):
1. The total number of turns (the winner is the player that achieved the win in the fewer number of turns).


2. The score of personal encounters (i.e. points collected in the games between these two players during this and previous stages).


3. The cumulative difference (measured in unit cost) between destroyed units achieved during personal encounters.


4. The cumulative cost of all units lost in all battles in the Pool.


5. The cumulative cost of all the surviving units achieved during personal encounters.


6. The cumulative cost of all remaining units in all battles in the Pool.


Are you agree?
Author:  Enforcer [ Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
we could do 2 games vs each person, 2 on noble, 2 on anubis and 2 on wasserland. Then 1st adn 2nd fight 2 games on new apradise for the final, and 3rd/4th fight 2 games on new parradise for 3rd. Make it random who u play on which of the 3 maps
Author:  Rocklizard [ Sun Mar 14, 2004 4:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's not a bad idea but I think it is better to play someone you have not played before in the tournament, otherwise you play two games against someone and then have to play against him again in the final or third place play-off.

I'm up for Tiger's suggestion.
Page 17 of 20 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/