Discuss the Path to 1942 Tournament here

[ElLobo]

Great to have a tournament, but 1 week for 20 turns is not enough. If time zones are not synchronised then more than 1 turn per day is difficult, and those of us who work (I am up at 6am and dont get home until around 6pm) would struggle to get 3 turns in per day average even if time zones are in sync. It would work much better if each round were to be played in 2 weeks, and not 1.

About this i was thinking too, and in the last tournament i had an opponent sitting in US, me in western europe, so,....was complicated, but luckily we managed to play nearly two turns a day, and in the weekend, i guess it was for me saturday night we finished the last 10 turns in a row!!!
was very nice,....and worked very well, but luckily we spoke, and we both had time to play!!!

And i think it would be nice if there will be someday a tournament, for players that minimum participated in one tournament and showed that they are playing, with a little bit more time to manage the turns( something like 10 day for one map) !!!!

[tkrysiak]

Great to have a tournament, but 1 week for 20 turns is not enough. If time zones are not synchronised then more than 1 turn per day is difficult, and those of us who work (I am up at 6am and dont get home until around 6pm) would struggle to get 3 turns in per day average even if time zones are in sync. It would work much better if each round were to be played in 2 weeks, and not 1.

About this i was thinking too, and in the last tournament i had an opponent sitting in US, me in western europe, so,....was complicated, but luckily we managed to play nearly two turns a day, and in the weekend, i guess it was for me saturday night we finished the last 10 turns in a row!!!
was very nice,....and worked very well, but luckily we spoke, and we both had time to play!!!

And i think it would be nice if there will be someday a tournament, for players that minimum participated in one tournament and showed that they are playing, with a little bit more time to manage the turns( something like 10 day for one map) !!!!

That participation idea is quite nice but as I said earlier on - its a niche game. If you look at the amount of people in the current tournament with previous toruney xp, its not much at all. Still, I hope they find some creative way of improving things. That short pre-tourney round that needs to be played to qualify for proper rounds is the best idea mentioned so far...

[ElLobo]

Great to have a tournament, but 1 week for 20 turns is not enough. If time zones are not synchronised then more than 1 turn per day is difficult, and those of us who work (I am up at 6am and dont get home until around 6pm) would struggle to get 3 turns in per day average even if time zones are in sync. It would work much better if each round were to be played in 2 weeks, and not 1.

About this i was thinking too, and in the last tournament i had an opponent sitting in US, me in western europe, so,....was complicated, but luckily we managed to play nearly two turns a day, and in the weekend, i guess it was for me saturday night we finished the last 10 turns in a row!!!
was very nice,....and worked very well, but luckily we spoke, and we both had time to play!!!

And i think it would be nice if there will be someday a tournament, for players that minimum participated in one tournament and showed that they are playing, with a little bit more time to manage the turns( something like 10 day for one map) !!!!

That participation idea is quite nice but as I said earlier on - its a niche game. If you look at the amount of people in the current tournament with previous toruney xp, its not much at all. Still, I hope they find some creative way of improving things. That short pre-tourney round that needs to be played to qualify for proper rounds is the best idea mentioned so far...

....thats true, well there is time to find a solution,...it´s not necessary to find the solution tonight!!!

[urbanov4]

So, I almost won with both sides a big victory at round 1, but it ended about 60-70% cos my opponent didnt move. Then, in round 2 I made a total vitrory at turn 14 with both sides (I admit, was a very weak opponent), killing tons of units. And now I am in the 26th place. I think it should have been enough at least to be in the top 5.
This counting method is ridiculous, it makes that all to a one-armed bandit. Your playing counts nothing,

[Folklore]

The idea of check-in is already implemented in other multiplayer games. You're disqualified if you fail to do a check-in 15 minutes before the tournament start. In PC2 it may be a day or two.
2 weeks for a single round sounds ridiculous to me. It might work only if all the rounds start simultaneously, so you have 6 games from the start. In this way, you can get to play more turns if your free time is limited or if the opponents are in different time zones. But then, the draft system is tied to previous round points, so starting all rounds simultaneously makes no sense. Other Slitherine wargames have the same tournament system as in PC2 and it seems to work fine.
On the tournament rules page (https://www.slitherine.com/tournaments/rules) it's stated, that "If neither player has claimed victory before the time runs out, we adjust the scores based on how much time each player took to play their turns. The aim of this adjustment is to prevent stalling tactics where a player sees they are in a bad situation and stops playing and waits for the game to time out." But looks like it's not working right now, or the adjustment value is not enough.
As tkrysiak said, it's a niche game, so the devs might not even plan to change anything and don't account the feedback in this thread at all.

[Fudwuppel]

Just some random thoughts here:
I have seen posts stating how difficult it was to play with opponents from different time zones. I agree, when one is up and active, the other may be asleep. My first round's opponent is in western Europe, or so I assume from the times he made many moves. I am in central USA. We generally played three turns or so each day and finished all twenty moves before the end of the round. I hate to disagree with so many players, but I believe it is not the time zone difference that killed those games but one player just wasn't into playing the game or was treating the tournament games as if he were playing against the game engine and not a human, so taking his sweet time to move.
I still like the idea of a short preliminary tournament to pre-qualify players for the main event. That may winnow out the slackers and quitters.
The check-in before the tournament is also a great idea but should be extended to each round. Those who aren't present, well, shouldn't have signed up anyway.
Rounds lasting two weeks seem a bit excessive but many tournaments have that sort of structure. Some tournaments - Strategic Command games - have rounds lasting six weeks. A three round tournament would almost become a career. I wouldn't play in such a tournament but it seems to work for many players. I did notice, however, that those tournaments finished with lots fewer players than started. I am torn on the idea of a longer round but would go along with a two week length. Too much down time between rounds if we finish early. But, that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
Playing all the rounds simultaneously simply cannot work because there actually would be only one huge, confusing round. Aside from that, how would pairing for the next round be handled?
I wonder if the developers will actually implement any idea the players have suggested or if we're all playing King Lear, shouting into the wind. We'll see.

[brianjones17]

Just some random thoughts here:
I have seen posts stating how difficult it was to play with opponents from different time zones. I agree, when one is up and active, the other may be asleep. My first round's opponent is in western Europe, or so I assume from the times he made many moves. I am in central USA. We generally played three turns or so each day and finished all twenty moves before the end of the round. I hate to disagree with so many players, but I believe it is not the time zone difference that killed those games but one player just wasn't into playing the game or was treating the tournament games as if he were playing against the game engine and not a human, so taking his sweet time to move.
I still like the idea of a short preliminary tournament to pre-qualify players for the main event. That may winnow out the slackers and quitters.
The check-in before the tournament is also a great idea but should be extended to each round. Those who aren't present, well, shouldn't have signed up anyway.
Rounds lasting two weeks seem a bit excessive but many tournaments have that sort of structure. Some tournaments - Strategic Command games - have rounds lasting six weeks. A three round tournament would almost become a career. I wouldn't play in such a tournament but it seems to work for many players. I did notice, however, that those tournaments finished with lots fewer players than started. I am torn on the idea of a longer round but would go along with a two week length. Too much down time between rounds if we finish early. But, that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
Playing all the rounds simultaneously simply cannot work because there actually would be only one huge, confusing round. Aside from that, how would pairing for the next round be handled?
I wonder if the developers will actually implement any idea the players have suggested or if we're all playing King Lear, shouting into the wind. We'll see.

I agree with the idea of short preliminary tournament to pre qualify for main event. Also a chat between opponents at the beginning of your first game round advising each players best playing times that way you can both try to meet each others preferred times. eg Best play time for me between 17.00 UTC and 24.00 UTC. This could be standard procedure for all players in the rules ??? . Communication in any work, life and game playing makes things work better. I personally will be doing this before my next round.

[Owi]

Implement a 24 hour counter to make a move or loose the tournament.
If you signed up for a multiplyaer you have to play or go play singleplayer.

Like this you couldt not make a move but still be eable to have the oppurtunity letting the opponent not taking on the last hex to win the game and robbing his points by simply sitting it out..

24h counter is a must for a tournament everyone signed up for to make a fair competition.

I do not care what the reason is why you cant play or make no move, just not sign up if you cant or wont play.

[darthlocutus11]

My first tournament: first round was too easy...did not play and earned 2000 points. Second round won both but did only 859 points... I need to familiarize myself on how to do more points. ANY BODY HAS the rules on how they allocate points ? thanks.

[darthlocutus11]

FOrgot to say...wish I could thank my opponent KLLEMOL for playing 'til the end when he knew everything was lost for her/he.

[Fudwuppel]

Just some random thoughts here:
I have seen posts stating how difficult it was to play with opponents from different time zones. I agree, when one is up and active, the other may be asleep. My first round's opponent is in western Europe, or so I assume from the times he made many moves. I am in central USA. We generally played three turns or so each day and finished all twenty moves before the end of the round. I hate to disagree with so many players, but I believe it is not the time zone difference that killed those games but one player just wasn't into playing the game or was treating the tournament games as if he were playing against the game engine and not a human, so taking his sweet time to move.
I still like the idea of a short preliminary tournament to pre-qualify players for the main event. That may winnow out the slackers and quitters.
The check-in before the tournament is also a great idea but should be extended to each round. Those who aren't present, well, shouldn't have signed up anyway.
Rounds lasting two weeks seem a bit excessive but many tournaments have that sort of structure. Some tournaments - Strategic Command games - have rounds lasting six weeks. A three round tournament would almost become a career. I wouldn't play in such a tournament but it seems to work for many players. I did notice, however, that those tournaments finished with lots fewer players than started. I am torn on the idea of a longer round but would go along with a two week length. Too much down time between rounds if we finish early. But, that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
Playing all the rounds simultaneously simply cannot work because there actually would be only one huge, confusing round. Aside from that, how would pairing for the next round be handled?
I wonder if the developers will actually implement any idea the players have suggested or if we're all playing King Lear, shouting into the wind. We'll see.

I agree with the idea of short preliminary tournament to pre qualify for main event. Also a chat between opponents at the beginning of your first game round advising each players best playing times that way you can both try to meet each others preferred times. eg Best play time for me between 17.00 UTC and 24.00 UTC. This could be standard procedure for all players in the rules ??? . Communication in any work, life and game playing makes things work better. I personally will be doing this before my next round.

Agreed. When playing from different time zones, it would be prudent to talk to your opponent to arrange some times to play that would be convenient for both of you. I don't, however, think that should be part of the tournament rules. I would simply hate to be penalized for not talking to the other player.

[Catacol]

2 weeks for a single round sounds ridiculous to me.

Hmmm. Just picking this apart from a maths angle - a 20 turn round requires 40 log ons and turns taken. My opponent in the current round is clearly in the US somewhere - turn is taken at 0300 when I am asleep....I might get time to squeeze a turn in before I go to work at 0600....and then when I am done at work (around 1800) I reckon it's midnight with him. It isn't easily sustainable. We got a decent run of turns played live on Saturday but time zone disparity again knocked things out around 5pm my time.

Given that the last tourney was only a few rounds and then we have waited many weeks for the next tourney there is a lot of downtime. If tourneys are not going to come and thick and fast on top of each other then why hold each one to a week in playing time? Very fast tourney and then 6 weeks off while waiting for the next? That's what is ridiculous. We could have played each round of the last tourney over 2 weeks, got it finished properly, and then only waited a couple of weeks for the next tourney. Everyone is a winner. The time zone thing is not a made up problem, and 3 turns each per day is a fairly tall order even within the same time zone.

[ElLobo]

Sorry for change!!!

Is it possible to get the Barbarossa map from the first round as a multiplayer map??? that one i love!!!!
Is very nice made!!!!

Please slitherine,....give it free and add it as a multiplayer map!!! it´s from panzercorps 1 and we do not have a lot multiplayer maps,....the random, uff sorry to say, are nice but i do not like that much!!!!

and please help me, that they smile and add it in the next update !!!!!

[Retributarr]

2 weeks for a single round sounds ridiculous to me.

Given that the last tourney was only a few rounds and then we have waited many weeks for the next tourney there is a lot of downtime. If tourneys are not going to come and thick and fast on top of each other then why hold each one to a week in playing time? Very fast tourney and then 6 weeks off while waiting for the next? That's what is ridiculous. We could have played each round of the last tourney over 2 weeks, got it finished properly, and then only waited a couple of weeks for the next tourney. Everyone is a winner. The time zone thing is not a made up problem, and 3 turns each per day is a fairly tall order even within the same time zone.

It's quite obvious.., that 'Players'... need to be matched up with 'Time-Zones'... as much as possible!. Where a workable arrangement can be made for divergent out of whack-Disparagement of time zones... then so it should be made agreed upon by both parties... as a workable solution... where they both agree to it... otherwise... live with the consequences of a tinder-box [Explosive] situation!.

[Folklore]

Yea, those campaign maps are surprisingly fun for multiplayer.

[urbanov4]

Also we'd need much more maps anyway. There are only some 5(?) non co-op which are playable.

[urbanov4]

I'd also be happy with a not too expensive DL with good and many multiplayer maps. This time I try this game always after some month break, and I can enjoy the game for a short time. But after I played all maps in 4-5 times it becomes boring.
Also would needed good tournament rules as I wrote earlier Just counting win and lose would be much more meaningful than this system, and also more simple Also would give the similar compensation for those, who had a quitter opponent, than those, who won a match.

[tkrysiak]

Also we'd need much more maps anyway. There are only some 5(?) non co-op which are playable.

Honestly, there is no excuse for not adding every single map from the campaign (and any DLC you own) and making them playable. If it works in tourney format then it will work in regular unranked MP...

[urbanov4]

Also we'd need much more maps anyway. There are only some 5(?) non co-op which are playable.

Honestly, there is no excuse for not adding every single map from the campaign (and any DLC you own) and making them playable. If it works in tourney format then it will work in regular unranked MP...

You are right. But as a big fan of this game, I'd even pay for it, cos I cant buy any other game that givesa so good game experience in multiplayer (I mean ww2 strat games). It would worth me some money to play for ages on good maps and on exciting tournaments than play against AI with another title.

[Fudwuppel]

Also would needed good tournament rules as I wrote earlier Just counting win and lose would be much more meaningful than this system, and also more simple Also would give the similar compensation for those, who had a quitter opponent, than those, who won a match.

It's just my opinion, but the win/loss method of scoring in a tournament like this wouldn't be feasible without performing a sort of the results. I don't know what the sort would use as criteria - it could be units killed, number of turns to achieve victory... or points.
Consider: If a tournament started with 120 players, it is possible that 1/8 of them could tie for first place. If the pairing put winners against winners and losers against losers, similar to this tournament (in the 2nd round my opponent had finished his first round just behind me in points; that seems to be true with all the pairings I looked at - Slitherine wanted fair match ups) we would see 60 players at 1-0 on round 1. After round 2, 30 players could be 2-0. At the end of round 3, 15 players could be tied for first place at 3-0. Who won? Too many tournaments with 10-15 1st place finishers would kill participation.
The win/loss format of scoring seems to be a bit clunky in practice because at least one sort would have to be made on the results. If not, then, of course, a LOT of players will weep and wail, 'I won 2 out of 3 games! Why am I tied with 44 other players at 2nd place?'
Just another random thought rattling around inside my head...