This is a friendly tournament so I think having to withdraw after I already agreed is a big bureaucratic but ok.
Game-keeper I officially withdraw my challenge so you can try your grab for glory first
Sorry that you feel that way, I am trying to make it as properly as possible so that we can avoid most future conflicts
I’m with gametaker on this one. Let’s say 1 and 2 are in a match. 3 and 4 are in a match as well. 4 beats 3 so now the previous 4 is wanting to challenge whoever loses the 1 vs 2. Let’s say that player 2 is losing. All he has to do is stall the match a week so 4 can challenge 3 again. Then 2 can go ahead and lose because it’s pretty safe that a week will pass before anyone can challenge him again. At that point 2 is pretty safe to never get challenged if he plays it right.
This is a complex problem, but even if it slowed gameplay I’d like to see someone have a chance to advance before defending again.
The reason I feel this way is the list is supposed to be a comprehensive list of the current top 10 players in the game. The current rules promote who is good at the game, but also who is good at manipulating the tournament.
It’s a tough call that could go either way but for my vote I’m with game taker. Maybe you could make a compromise and say after 2 successful defends, someone could be safe until they get a chance to challenge.
I fully agree with you.
As three players want a change I’ll draft a new rule.
Rule change suggestion:
Draft for New 2.1.4 rule
You can not challenge the player that you last challenged, unless that player has had a chance to challenge.
That player has one week to make a challenge, if he don’t, you can challenge him again.
If you are in the second spot you have to have played either the nr 3 or the previous nr 2 before you can challenge.
Challenge accepted game sent
Your mentioned about for 2 is not correct as 2 need to wait for 3 vs 4 finished the game and then another one week if 3 not challenge 2 before 2 can challenge 1 again
The current problem at middle post, say if 5 vs 6 , assume 4 always slow games , 6 might defend 7 and challenge 5 again and again if 4 not yet finish game, once 4 finish , the 5 can Chanlenge 4 unless 2 and 3 quickly finished game and 4 played with 3 again
Yes you are right, nr2 has to play nr 3 before challenging nr1.
The new rule might have chain effect that all games below certain post need to stop and wait, say 9 is waiting 8 , 8 is waiting 7 , 7 is waiting 6 etc, I don’t know will it happen
If 2v1 never finish, and nobody switch places, it takes 8 rounds before a complete lock down. As each round one player cannot challenge anymore.
Ah you are right, good call.
Sorry about that!
Trumpet.Alan I think it was…
Thanks! I wouldn’t say you’re in trouble though
Ah, OK, yeah, I remember you as Trumped.Alan =)
I am now - challenge accepted.
Will flick you an invite once I get up and have a coffee !
Regarding Rule 2.1.4
I want to suggest game_taker’s compromise for rule 2.1.4: The current rule with max two defend against the same player before guaranteed right to challenge. With this option it requires quite many round before a semi lock-down. Essentially it is in between the current rule and the one defend, one challenge suggestion.
If you are not a participant you can vote, but the participants vote counts more.
You can pick multiple ones. Will end in 48 hours
- Max one defend against the same player, until you have made a challenge
- Max two defend against the same player, until you have made a challenge
- No maximum limit, but should very rarely exceed 3 defend before challenge (current rule)
- Something different (please also comment)
- I doesn’t matter to me=)