pandasecret wrote:

tw2000 wrote:Game 4 results:

Just curious - how did you end up with only 4 players? Did you guys strategize knowing only 1 person had to be eliminated, so you didn't even bother mining?

A late start (entirely my fault for not checking the forum often enough, but entirely accidental), followed by a number of players not joining. We sent out the full range of invites and left it about a week, but only had 3 out of 7 join, plus none of the "reserves" took the opportunity to join either.

In terms of strategy, I made an alliance with one other player (Lotgewjai) and then made most of my plays to a) support that alliance and make my ally have faith in me and b) put myself in a strong position in case part a didn't come off! I figured that the best way to get through the round was to make my ally reluctant to betray me (and I know the other two tried to turn both of us at various points) and the best way to do that was to be the strongest player so there was no benefit to turning against me.

Was it any different to how I would have played an 8-player non-tournament game? I think we would have definitely tried to make it a 3 person alliance rather than stick to 2. Some of the chat was along the line of "we only need to knock one person out", but I don't think it had a massive effect on the moves I made. And arguably I completely ignored when orange built his first mine, wheras normally it might have triggered me to start at least thinking of my own mine. But generally no - and I think that's evidenced in the fact I came out first when only not being last was required!

Not to sound like a sore loser ..but a 4 player game is kind of pointless. You only have to beat 1 player to make it..whereas in 6 players you had to beat 3 to make it to the 2nd stage. Dont get me wrong..I lost fair and square in my game. But in the future these situations should be avoided. Top 3 in a game of 6 is much harder to achieve than top 3 in a match of 4.

thunder wrote:Not to sound like a sore loser ..but a 4 player game is kind of pointless. You only have to beat 1 player to make it..whereas in 6 players you had to beat 3 to make it to the 2nd stage. Dont get me wrong..I lost fair and square in my game. But in the future these situations should be avoided. Top 3 in a game of 6 is much harder to achieve than top 3 in a match of 4.

All depends on the game and what the players did initially. But as such, the problem has already been recognized and I have a few different ideas on how to better the situation in the future.

ALL GAME LINKS HAVE BEEN SENT. PLEASE PM ME OR POST HERE IF YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE LINK.

Edit: Correct link to Game 1 should now be sent.

Stage Two Starting Information:

• Once all 9 players are in your game, you may start.
• If all 9 players have not joined by Friday, please post the missing players names here or PM them to me.
• If the players do not join by Dec 3rd, Their position in the advancement will be forfeited and the player who placed 4th in their respective Stage 1 game will be given 3 days to replace that player.
• All games will start on the 7th of December.

Game 1 invite says game was cancelled by owner for me. Did this happen to anyone else in game 1?

Never mind, I found the correct link!

Yeah I've explained in-game but I'll also post here. I canceled the 9 player game when I found out creating a 10 player game was OK as well, but then still sent the old link as being the new link.
When TopKilla got word of the link not working, everyone was sent a new PM with the correct link within ~30 minutes.

thunder wrote:Not to sound like a sore loser ..but a 4 player game is kind of pointless. You only have to beat 1 player to make it..whereas in 6 players you had to beat 3 to make it to the 2nd stage. Dont get me wrong..I lost fair and square in my game. But in the future these situations should be avoided. Top 3 in a game of 6 is much harder to achieve than top 3 in a match of 4.

Now, if you were the 1 in the 3v1, you'd think differently.
I mean, it all depends of what type of game you want to play. Having a 4 player game with the top 3 advancing is almost just pure luck. While I would much rather prefer to play in the 6 player game because there are more chances for diplomacy.
Basically, the 4 player game favours those who like being lucky, and the 6 player game favours those who are actually good at the game

tw2000 wrote:

thunder wrote:Not to sound like a sore loser ..but a 4 player game is kind of pointless. You only have to beat 1 player to make it..whereas in 6 players you had to beat 3 to make it to the 2nd stage. Dont get me wrong..I lost fair and square in my game. But in the future these situations should be avoided. Top 3 in a game of 6 is much harder to achieve than top 3 in a match of 4.

Now, if you were the 1 in the 3v1, you'd think differently.
I mean, it all depends of what type of game you want to play. Having a 4 player game with the top 3 advancing is almost just pure luck. While I would much rather prefer to play in the 6 player game because there are more chances for diplomacy.
Basically, the 4 player game favours those who like being lucky, and the 6 player game favours those who are actually good at the game

There is no difference in the two. The tournament structure was flawed from the start.