[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier[Subject Thread] [Add Response]juan rodriguez wrote on 2008-03-27 UTCI like the idea as originally conceived, each player brings one game, any working game, self invented or not. I'm definetly in on those terms, or any other reasonable ones, but like Je Ju, i've never invented so can't bring an original to the table. Sorry for the late chime in, this tourney idea will keep me more glued to the site now. So, Yes I'm in! Had an idea though, for another tournament to take place AFTER this one. Since there are several inventors out there who are versed in creating games and then a smattering of us that have no clue where to begin, I'd like to suggest an Inventor/Apprentice opportunity. The way it would work (and please feel free to add or change, or disregard entirely) is that each non-inventor would be paired with an inventor. This could be done randomly, alphabetically, or by choice, i don't so much care one way or another. Once the pairs are made, each pair would hit the drawing board, bouncing ideas back an forth to create a game. The non-inventor could provide keen ideas and tactical support while the inventor could provide keener ideas and technical support. There would be a time limit, of course, perhaps 2 weeks, one month, i'm really not sure how long this sort of thing takes. At the completion of that time period however, a tournament would commence involving games that each team has just completed and brought. Each team playing as individuals and as a team, in the manner of pooling points. Like I said, this would have to take place, AFTER the tournament suggested but I think its a good way to recruit more inventors and more interest to the whole CV site. Good Luck all! carlos carlos wrote on 2008-03-25 UTCi can help assigning the games. i'll also play. je ju wrote on 2008-03-24 UTCAppreciate the input. As a non-inventor (to date), I don't want to restrict this to invent and play. I think an invent and play tourney is a great idea in addition to this one being discussed, but not instead of this one. I have no problem with participants being inventors and bringing their inventions. I'm intrigued by the more radical suggestion of bringing a different game for each match-up, none of which can be brought more than twice by the same player during the course of the tournament, but have concern that waiting for players to designate what game they want to play each round, the wait to see how many veto votes are cast, any replacement time for vetoed games... might slow things down, and as things slow down, players lose interest and we end up with a situation similar to the Game Courier Tournament #3, into about its 22nd month with a 50 % participation rate. To allow more variety, however, in each pool round-robin, in which each player plays 3 of their own games (as black), each player may bring one (play it vs each other player in pool), two (play one game once, the other twice) or three games (each game once). The player will not, however, be able to choose which game vs which opponent. That will be done randomly. At each level, when pools are reassigned (winner's pool;loser's pool), there will be a one week period in which participants can change the games they bring. Still looking at an April first kick-off for signing up. Any more input is very welcome. Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-03-23 UTCOkay, shall we say that each player brings a game of their own or anyone else's design, and puts it in the pool? Now we can do 2 things, depending on games and players. If we have enough people, we do a tourney. If we only have a few, we do invent-and-play or a double-game tourney, with people playing 2 games at a time against each other. Games for tourney to be decided by vote; a simple 50% thumbs down removes a game. Games for invent and play are of one's own design, and what we do here is tough. Since this is playtesting, the games are not expected to be 'perfect', but they need to be readily understandable and playable. So I suggest any game in this category be written up, with a preset [help is available - ask], adequately enough to be posted as is. If all the I&P games are good, that is, readily playable or fixable and then playable, we could do a round-robin tourney, with each player playing their own and the other player's game. As we see who's willing, we can make firmer plans. This is a very sketchy outline, but we have very sketchy participation now. If enough people are interested, I will revive Invent and Play regardless of what tourney activity may happen. Charles Daniel wrote on 2008-03-22 UTCMy suggestion may sound more radical .. I suggest that for every pairing: e.g Player A vs B they play two games . First Player A chooses ANY game (it can be his own), then Player B chooses his. Player B shall play white (or have the option to play first) in player A's game, and Player A plays white in Player B game. We can restrict it so that no player can choose to play the same game more than twice for the whole tournament. Also, the rules of the particular game chosen must be clear to the opponent. To me, this makes more sense because every player gets to play his/her own game as well as opponents game. And there will be a larger amount of game types being played, with the added benefit that players can playtest their own games. Gary Gifford wrote on 2008-03-22 UTCI think a player should be allowed to nominate one of his(or her) own games, or nominate a game of another instead. Being allowed to nominate one's own game opens interest up to players who may have invented a long forgotten (or overlooked game)... and, unless it happens to get 4 vetoes it sees the light of day. To see an event with, for example, 8 players, each of who have brought 1 game to the table of their own design would be interesting, I think. je ju wrote on 2008-03-22 UTCGary, excellent suggestion. Let me clarify that in my proposal the games that the participants 'bring' to the tournament do not have to be games they designed...and I considered stipulating that they can't be games they designed, but opted to leave that option open for now. If anyone believes that one shouldn't be able to bring self-invented games, feel free to chime in. We are now at March 22nd...if this plan draws interest, I'd like to start a thread for this tournament, which for the time being will be called the 'First Official Game Courier Pot Luck Tournament', or FOGaCoPoLuTo for short. The thread will start April 1st and will invite interested players to sign up. Entries will be on a first come, first serve basis, in multiples of 4. First four in are in, next four in are in, if four more sign up, in. April 8th would be the cut date for entries. April 15th the deadline for nominating a game. April 22nd the deadline for vetoing a game (currently based on Gary's suggestion) May first start date... Gary Gifford wrote on 2008-03-22 UTCje ju's idea has merit, but I disagree with the game selection aspect that states [a first vetoed game] 'will be replaced by any other game chosen by the person who originally chose the game that got vetoed. The replacement may not be vetoed by anyone.' The reason I think that is bad is that the person might have two very bad games. He can submit his least dreadful game first, if it gets vetoed he can then submit his more dreadful game. If he is the only one that likes those games; well, it hardly seems to be a good thing. Another reason is that a person might have a game that everyone thinks is fantastic. Then 1 player vetoes it... thus disappointing 7 players. Better I think, would be a veto of 4. A game is submitted, but it would take 4 players to reject it, not 1. If half the players don't like a game, then that seems to be good reason to offer a replacement. je ju wrote on 2008-03-22 UTCAbsolutely correct, no need to make it the GC tourney 4. I suggest/propose... 8 players, 8 games. Each player designates a game they want to have in the tournament. Once the 8 players and games are known, there will be a one week period in which any participant may veto a suggested game. That game will be replaced by any other game chosen by the person who orignally chose the game that got vetoed. The replacement may not be vetoed by anyone. Once the games and players are known, the players will be put into two groups of 4. The groups will be determined by current rankings. Among the 8 participants, pool A will include the players with the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th rankings. Pool B will have 2,4,6,8. Player 1 will play Player 3, Player 5 and Player 7 in the game Player 1 brought to the tourney, as well as the game their opponent brought to the tourney. Same format for Pool B. Each player will be involved in 6 tournament games simultaneously. Time setting will be a pace of 4 moves per week, same as the GC Tournament 3. 1 point for a win, 0 for a loss, .5 for a draw. At the conclusion of the round robin, top 2 from each pool will create a winners pool, and the bottom 2 from each pool will form a losers pool. The same format for round 2. After that, the top two in the winners pool will each nominate 2 of the games that were brought to the tournament and play each other in those four games to determine the champion. This could also be done between the bottom 2 of the winners pool, the top two of the losers pool and the bottom two of the losers pool. The total number of entrants need not be restricted to 8, and any multiple of 4 would be fine with this format. If the number were 10, pools of 5 possible but that has each player playing 8 games at the same time and that could be a bit much. If there is any interest in this sort of tournament I'd be happy to organize it, but would need someone to do the tech bits (assigning games, putting up charts and stats and that sort of thing. ex: Player Game Elvis Alice Chess Aretha Time Travel Chess Ray Omega Chess Janis Janus Chess Karen Korean Chess Snowman Falcon Chess Horse Crazyhouse Joe Joyce Anti-King Chess Aretha uses veto to eliminate Janus Chess. Janus replaces it with Cannons of Chesstonia. Player Game Elvis Alice Chess Aretha Time Travel Chess Ray Omega Chess Janis Cannons of Chesstonia (replacing Janus) Karen Korean Chess Snowman Falcon Chess Horse Crazyhouse Joe Joyce Anti-King Chess With the help of David Paulowich, it is determined that over the past 365 days, the players rankings fall in this order: 1 Joe Joyce, 2 Elvis, 3 Ray, 4 Horse, 5 Karen, 6 Snowman, 7 Aretha and 8 Janus Pool A is Joe Ray Karen Aretha Pool B is Elvis Horse Snowman Janus Joe vs Ray Anti-King Joe vs Ray Omega Chess Joe vs Karen Anti-King Joe vs Karen Korean Joe vs Aretha Anti-King Joe vs Aretha Time Travel Similarly designed schedule for each player. End of round one: Name wins losses draws points Joe 5 0 1 5.5 Karen 4 2 0 4 Aretha 2 4 0 2 Ray 0 5 1 .5 Joe and Karen go onto winner's pool, Aretha and Ray onto the loser's pool. End of winner's pool: Name wins losses draws points Joe 5 0 1 5.5 Janus 4 2 0 4 Elvis 2 4 0 2 Karen 0 5 1 .5 Joe will choose two of the games, Janus will choose two of the games, and they will play each other once in each game. Overall winner is champion. In the event that they split the four games, they each then choose one more game and play those two...and continue as necessary until there is a winner. Any thoughts? Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-03-22 UTCThere is also no need to make this next tourney CV Tournament #4. I, too, have considered a 'bring-your-own' tournament. We could certainly offer a variety of formats, and having several kinds of tournaments might well bring out people who wouldn't normally play. There's also a fair chance some of the top players might not want to play in a number of tournaments in a row, or all of those going on at the same time, or of unusual types. This also could encourage more entrants. What did you have in mind? Lets see if we can come up with something enough people like to hold another tournament. As far as invent and play, that could be revived if people show enough interest. There are a number of new designers that are undoubtedly dying to get their games played. This would be a great venue for playtesting. Say the word. Get some people together. I'll help. Finally, I need to ask about contests. The 45-46 Square Contest is down to one judge, me. I need at least one other person to play the games with, and would prefer 2. Ideally, we could play face-to-face [I live in the NYC metro area], but beggars can't be choosers. Anyone interested, please contact me. Joe Antoine Fourrière wrote on 2008-03-21 UTCSome creations may interest no one except their creator, so I would suggest to keep the current format. For games which might attract some interest if given enough visibility, how about reviving Invent-and-Play between (or parallelly to) GC Tournaments? 11 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.