I had this idea of making a rather big tournament using only open setups. We'd start at 40 players and they'd be split into 4 10-player games (I have a specific setup in mind with 7 townies and 3 mafia). All winning players would progress to the next round. The next round would heavily depend on how the 4 games shaped up.
If mafia won all 4 games, we'd only have 12 players advancing to round 2.
If mafia won 3 games, we'd have 16 players.
If 2, 20.
If 1, 24.
If town won all games, we'd have 28 players advancing to round 2.
In order to probably fit rounds that start with an unusual ammount of players, I could invite eliminated players (or players that did not join the tournament) to fill up slots and make games have a decent size. Those players would try their best to win as usual, but would not advance to the following rounds upon winning a game.
Tournament is over when 20% or less players remain (that means we'll keep playing as long as 9+ players advance to a certain round, but if there are 8 or less players advancing, they are considered the tournament winners).
We could use 1 week day-deadlines and 48-hour night deadlines to make sure the tournament will not drag down for several months.
I can't mod 4 games at once as per site rules, so I'd need at least 3 volunteers to take the burden with me (they can still play the tournament and I'll assign them to mod a game in which they are not playing).
Do you think that is feasible?
Can we get 40 players to do that?
Rodion wrote:I had this idea of making a rather big tournament using only open setups. We'd start at 40 players and they'd be split into 4 10-player games (I have a specific setup in mind with 7 townies and 3 mafia). All winning players would progress to the next round. The next round would heavily depend on how the 4 games shaped up.
If mafia won all 4 games, we'd only have 12 players advancing to round 2.
If mafia won 3 games, we'd have 16 players.
If 2, 20.
If 1, 24.
If town won all games, we'd have 28 players advancing to round 2.
In order to probably fit rounds that start with an unusual ammount of players, I could invite eliminated players (or players that did not join the tournament) to fill up slots and make games have a decent size. Those players would try their best to win as usual, but would not advance to the following rounds upon winning a game.
Tournament is over when 20% or less players remain (that means we'll keep playing as long as 9+ players advance to a certain round, but if there are 8 or less players advancing, they are considered the tournament winners).
We could use 1 week day-deadlines and 48-hour night deadlines to make sure the tournament will not drag down for several months.
I can't mod 4 games at once as per site rules, so I'd need at least 3 volunteers to take the burden with me (they can still play the tournament and I'll assign them to mod a game in which they are not playing).
Do you think that is feasible?
Can we get 40 players to do that?
There is no limit to co-modded games. All you need is one volunteer to help mod. All 4 games can be modded by the same team. After thinking, this would make sense, since some mods are more lenient on deadlines etc.
Anyways, if we could get some Entertainment Team support, medals around the table would help get the 40 players.
Might as well post the open setup now, so we can have all discussions on various aspects running concurrently in the interest of efficiency.
Last edited by DoomYoshi on Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DoomYoshi wrote:
There is no limit to co-modded games. All you need is one volunteer to help mod. All 4 games can be modded by the same team. After thinking, this would make sense, since some mods are more lenient on deadlines etc.
If I were organnizing the tournament, I would commission two two-man teams that each mod two games, that way the mods can participate in the tournament as well. And Talos knows that we'll need all the players we can get to pull this off.
I also sign up and volunteer to mod.
"Disease, suffering, hardship...that is what war is all about."-Captain Kirk, from "A Taste of Armageddon"
I am in, and I could help carry the burden of one of the games! It would be my first game modding so would probably want a Co mod so it could run smoother . I would also be willing to mod any second round games or third round games so long as it wouldnt interfere with me playing .
If 40 is hard to find you could do a double elimination style turny. 4 games, people play in 2 at once. This is a bit hard to explain without a picture...
. are for spacing, ignore them -- indicate winning players advancing.
So A plays B and C plays D. A + D and C+B have the same player pool. Winners from A+B advance to game E (6-14 players) and C+D advance to F. Winners from E+F play in a final game G. If scum win in every single game G could be small (4) Perhaps you could add in a MVP from games A-D who was later eliminated.
3 rounds of games, idk it could work if you can't get 40 players.
Edoc'sil
Commander9 wrote:Trust Edoc, as I know he's VERY good.
Another thought: the current format doesn't make sense to me as it gives mafia players a greater chance of winning.
Theoretically, a good setup will have 50/50 chance of mafia winning. Since the setup is based on winning when only a certain amount of players are eliminated then the more eliminations there are, the closer you get to victory.
So, let's say you win 50/50. If you win as mafia, then you are 2/3 more likely to survive to the end as if you were town (2 other players advancing with you as opposed to 6 other players advancing with you). The current setup would work if there was only a 30% chance of mafia winning; which means the games would have to be unbalanced. I would prefer it if
A) it was not elimination-based;
B) if it must be elimination-based, to make the eliminations less drastic. For instance: the losing team decides which player to eliminate (think the Apprentice). Since there would be less eliminations this way, we could just play a certain number of games and then the overall score would determine the winner. Unfortunately, this just reverses the problem and makes town a better bet.
There are some major problems though: if there are no eliminations, then we need to have constant replacements, and the player burden become even greater.
If the tournament takes too long, it may just be won by attrition (players who stick around longer are more likely to win).
DoomYoshi wrote:Another thought: the current format doesn't make sense to me as it gives mafia players a greater chance of winning.
Theoretically, a good setup will have 50/50 chance of mafia winning. Since the setup is based on winning when only a certain amount of players are eliminated then the more eliminations there are, the closer you get to victory.
So, let's say you win 50/50. If you win as mafia, then you are 2/3 more likely to survive to the end as if you were town (2 other players advancing with you as opposed to 6 other players advancing with you). The current setup would work if there was only a 30% chance of mafia winning; which means the games would have to be unbalanced.
I considered that there would be a problem if games are 50/50 and winning as mafia is worth more than winning as town, but I felt it would be too hard to adress (as you said, I'd have to purposefully unbalance games to make the tournament balanced) and didn't bother solving it.
I could perhaps swap the "tournament ends when less than 20% players remain" and just go "we'll have 3 rounds: win all of them and you are one of the winners", but if mafia were to win all 4 round 1 games, we'd have only 12 players remaining with 2 rounds to go and I'd have to invite many players as guests for the round 2-3 games.
Maybe instead of a tournament there could be a league structure? There could be a mod-appointed MVP for the winning team, as well as a player-voted one. So, if you win, and get both MVP awards, it counts as 3 wins? This way, players could lose 1 of the 3 games, but still potentially win the tournament/league.
You could just make it double elimination. I think that reduced the effect of mafia advantage. Or even further you could make it double elimination unless you got a town role both times, in which case you get a final chance. I am not sure if these are balanced though, it hurts my head thinking about it!
Also I think the less winners the better. Less than 20% of 40 is 8 or less. From there you could do:
I think this is a rather lofty goal to get 40 people to commit to this idea. Look at the current games waiting for players...they are all LARGE games. Everyone wants their grand idea to be played out (including me), but I'm not sure there is the activity here, or even the numbers to get 40 to play.
With that said, I would like to start a smaller F11 game, and get a chance to mod. However, I would also be willing to mod this game as part of the tourney you suggest.
Perhaps, you just start a few games with the title "tourney game 1" in it, and then see how many participate, and track the participants. Then decide how the next rounds work. After you have your established base, you can PM them for future tourney games as the tourney advances.
I do think this forum needs some of the smaller setups to get games going quicker and to move them along quicker. All these grand games are daunting...especially with the special setups in some of them.
The only thing that sucks is a townie could be N0 killed and eliminated from the tournament if his town loses without participating from the tournament at all. To solve that we could maybe bump that setup to Round 2 and find other ones for Round 1?
Here is a good list of open setups from mafia scum:
) --- it's got SHIELDS!
. I would also be willing to mod any second round games or third round games so long as it wouldnt interfere with me playing 
