Fall from Heaven Duel League: The Fall From Heaven 10th Anniversary Celebration

[Dreylin]

I was going to suggest something maybe a bit more flexible:

Play as many games as you want simultaneously or serially against opponents over a 12month period (max 1 game vs each opponent). At the end of 12months all players with 3 or more games are ranked. Any games played against unranked opponents are discarded. Final ranking based on win-loss ratio.

Single elimination for top 2 or 4 after that.

[Kragroth]

I like 2 things about your suggestion

1. You're trying to let people play more games if they want to
2. Your method allows new people to join in rather easily
2. You're trying to protect against people dropping out

The problem I see is that this system still rewards people for playing more games: 7 out of 8 wins is better than 6 out of 7 wins, etc. Yes, there's a risk of losing the game and hurting your ratio, but what I don't want is for someone to notice their opponents getting a good ratio and realizing that the only way to seed to the top is to win one more game. This could result in a lot of last minute games where people try to prompt their opponent to play with them.

I think the seeded rounds should be defined as 2 or 4 from the beginning. I don't want people to feel that the rules are being changed on them midway. I do like your 12 month idea. Perhaps these 2 sets of 3 round robin games instead of being 6 months and 6 months could be 12 months total and people like Mardoc who cannot play too many simultaneous games would just tell their opponents to wait.

[Dreylin]

The problem I see is that this system still rewards people for playing more games

Actually, I was more afraid of the opposite problem; anyone who wins their first 3 games has little incentive to play any more (although total games played would have to be the tie-breaker so 4/4 would beat 3/3).

Also, while 7/8 is better than 6/7; 6/8 is worse and the more games you play the more different civs you have to play with (assuming we restrict each player to running each leader once), more strategies, etc. If we randomise and assign the initial game pairings, you could also end up with fewer "easy" opponents to play that extra game against. You could also opine that rushed last-minute games would engender sloppy play, thus being a more risky proposition.

As you say though, the strength of this approach (flexibility) is also the weakness as it has more potential to spiral out of control ... but then again maybe it'd be easier to right it again if it did.

I'd certainly play in a more regulated tournament structure in order to take part, but I wouldn't be surprised if it fell apart partway through when one of the players dropped out - 12-16 months is a long commitment....

[Bobchillingworth]

I don't care too much about what method of organization is used... I liked how the first Duel League was run, but I can't remember the exact structure. I don't want to get burnt out with too many battles though.


I think flexibility is key in terms of when the tournament is over; I'm not interested in cutting everything off by some semi-arbitrary May deadline, even though my preference is to conclude things within a reasonable time-frame.

[Ellimist]

What about picking civs a different way?

• Player A proposes two civilizations, 1 and 2.
• Player B may accept or reject this pairing.
• If player B rejects the pairing, the process starts over and they become player A. (This can happen more than once.)
• If player B accepts the pairing, they can choose which of the two they will play and their opponent will play the other civ.
• Both players then choose which leader they wish to use for their civ, if multiple options exist.

I also suggest waiting to pick leaders until after all of the other settings have been agreed to for a particular game.

[Kragroth]

What about picking civs a different way?

• Player A proposes two civilizations, 1 and 2.
• Player B may accept or reject this pairing.
• If player B rejects the pairing, the process starts over and they become player A. (This can happen more than once.)
• If player B accepts the pairing, they can choose which of the two they will play and their opponent will play the other civ.
• Both players then choose which leader they wish to use for their civ, if multiple options exist.

I also suggest waiting to pick leaders until after all of the other settings have been agreed to for a particular game.

Interesting, I was thinking of the following: For each of the six games of the round Robin, each player has to pick a different civilization. The first player in a round match will pick the mapscript while the second player will pick their civ and leader. Then the first player will pick their civ and leader.

No duplicate civs are allowed for the round robin games. Duplicate civs are allowed for the tie breaker and final games.

A question to everyone, how do you feel a tiebreaker is decides best? 2 out of 3 duel games one for 3 way for example or a special free for all tie breaker?

[Molach]

Just popped in to say thanks for invite, great idea and that I have too little free time to play. Signup for lurkerdom/ lurkerhood only.

[Tasunke]

My primary vote is that we have the option of playing these duels in real time, with perhaps a 4 hour time limit, and fast or blazing turn timer.

EDIT: We can use either sequential or simultaneous turns.. All that truly matters to me is that the match can be started and resolved within the same day. Simul is usually the format of such games, but sequential real time can be bearable with only 2 players, Sequential real time *might* be preferred so that it could at least be similar to PBEMs, which are always sequential. However simul could certainly save time by approximately cutting the turn times in half. By example, if the turn timer is 1 minute, and each player takes 1 minute to play the turn, then 30 turns could take either 60 minutes by sequential or 30 minutes by simultaneous play. However in my experience simul fast or simul blazing can progress through 150 turns in about 3 hours, which averages out to a bit under a minute. Obviously the earlier turns tend to go by faster, while the turns during war tend to take a bit longer.

[Kragroth]

I'll codify the rules as soon as I can but yes if both opponents agree they can also play a real time game.

I assume Ellimist and Tasunke are in?

[Aurorarcher]

I'm in, just verifying my earlier post as someone requested a verification.