Perfect, thanks for clearing that up. The week rule sounds good
Instead of just being able to challenge the next higher, what if a player could challenge anyone above them on the list (or limit it to 5 spots or something)? I think this might make it a little more interesting, as you won’t be playing the same players as often.
For example, in your version, rank 1 will constantly be playing rank 2 until rank 2 is beaten by rank 3 who they will be playing every other game (swap challenging rank 1 and being challenged by rank 3) and so on. If the challenger never wins, no ranks will change, and everyone is stuck playing the same people. While this may be an interesting challenge (“I have to beat mr_13en and only him to advance!”), I think it will get kinda boring fairly quickly. By allowing challenges to extend a few spots ahead, there may be more match variation and also possibility for interesting upsets.
Just throwing an idea out! I like the “ladder” style tournament a lot and think it will be fun to watch either way! Maybe someday I’ll get on the waiting list
Ah, I just read the rules fully and noticed the 2d timeout rule. Unfortunately, although I play regularly during the week, I can’t do turns during the weekend, so I can’t really meet that rule.
The format seems great as is but here are a couple options for Mr_13en to consider!
- If adding more variety to match-ups is desired: the loser could drops a spot regardless of whether they’re the challenger or defender. (#10 would then drop into the waiting list but likely near the rather than all the way to the bottom?)
- Regarding defending your spot frequently: perhaps a maximum of two defending matches in a row before being guaranteed a challenge match?
Not so sure dropping if you lose to a higher opponent makes sense. You losing to them doesn’t mean that the person below you is automatically better than you. I don’t think we want to add variety just for the sake of adding variety - do it where it makes sense.
The problem with guaranteeing a challenge match, but still only allowing a challenge to go one rung, is that you would have to wait until the person above you is no longer in a match. Which would then set a chain reaction of people waiting on other people to finish games, and could theoretically lock up the whole list.
Lots of ranking systems can see you drop below an inactive player when you lose (Elo for one). It doesn’t mean the person below is definitively better but the loser could always challenge (the person they slid beneath) to earn their spot back. I think having to win your way back into a rematch makes more sense than a loser being able to initiate a rematch against the same defending after a week.
Ultimately, there’s going to be pros and cons with any permutation of this kind of set up (delays between matches and/or playing the same people regularly and/or being challenged by people well below you, etc). It’s a matter of picking your poison so to speak
I just think that if someone challenges another player, they should have some risk involved as well… which came to my mind especially when considering your idea of potentially allowing people to challenge multiple rungs above them. Otherwise, if #6 wants to challenge #3, then #3 has nothing to gain and #6 has nothing to lose. At the very least, #6 should be at risk of dropping a spot. Now, if #6 wins, do they simply swap positions? That would be highly volatile.
A simple method:
A loss = move down one spot regardless
A win against lower opponent = no change (but ideally there’s a cap to number of defending matches in a row)
A win against high opponent = move up one spot
Yeah, I’m not overly opposed to a losing challenger having some sort of downside. My main beef is just only being able to challenge one rank above you, which I think might get boring after awhile. Maybe I’m wrong, though!
Lots of good food for thought guys. Haven’t had a chance to respond for various reasons (work/homelife/cold) but will soon!
Although I will say that part of my thinking behind a straightforward challenge system was that this tourney would require very low maintenance…which works for me nowadays.
I’m not opposed to the challenge system at all, just the “one rank ahead” limit. My 2c
Well guys, after starting this off with enthusiasm it’s fizzled out over the last couple weeks… I love this game but lately my time has been focused elsewhere. Anyway, didn’t want to leave you guys high and dry… you guys have all been great and definitely the best online community I’ve been a part of.
Going to close this out in a couple days, just didn’t want to leave without dropping a line…
You will be missed!
If its ok for you and everyone els I can take over the tournament. I’ll keep it just like it is.
@HansJoachimAa, yes by all means go for it! I think the rules did need some tweaking which I started to do but never finished. I’ll PM you when I get a chance and see what you think. Also I never asked Alex to post on the Witters Digest so that’s something else you may want to do. Can you edit the first post? Or do you need special permission?
I’d like to join, but can’t meet the 2d timeout rule on weekends. Is it possible to still be part of this?
I think so. I’m gonna hand this off to Hans and let him make the call but I don’t see a problem with that. The rule is to limit players from delaying each turn until the last hours of the counter.
Yes, would love to:)
thanks for the invite and i’ll happily join.