Forum
Set Of Rules For MTT (Ideas Stage)
|
Cod4 wrote
at 11:54 AM, Monday November 10, 2008 EST
Ok, this will basicly be a page so all members of the kdice community can contribute rules and guidlines that should apply to the Multi Table Tournaments.
Please don't post complaints against other thoughts etc just post your set of rules then the most suitable will be put together to make a complete set of rules. If you include a set of rules make them serious and put into 'Allowed' 'Not Allowed' Thankyou My Thoughts: Not Allowed 1. If you are in first place, let people fight for the other places whenever possible, it's there tournament so let them play it out instead of taking it into your own hands. Use the chatbox be aware of what places the other players want this is more important when it decides if another player is out or not they should be allowed to fight for there right to stay in. (*Other Rules can counter this*) 2. If you are in first place and you make a decision in the chat box to let two people fight it out, don't later change your mind and kill one of the opponents. 3. PGE (Pre Game Alliance) If a truce is NOT announced in the chat box i would consider this cheating, the truce would also have to be mentioned early enough in the game so the remaining players have enough time to counter if they wish to do so. 4. Helping other players considerably without mention of a truce in the chat box 5. Leaving someone with one a small amount of land. Unless this involves a truce or counter Allowed 1. Trucing in game is allowed if announced in the chat 2. Countering a truce is also allowed 3. If in a high rank position killing higher players is a reasonable strategy* 4. If in a low rank position killing higher players is a reasonable strategy* 5. You are allowed to flag for your position early or late in the game unless questioned by first place for a flag at this point decide to flag or fight Feel free to add your own set but again try and keep it serious (Mine isnt complete just what i could think of that moment) |
|
ma1achai wrote
at 6:05 PM, Monday November 10, 2008 EST obviously Ryan needs to answer this, but I would think this is a fair strategy.
The only caveat, to me, would be the way you went about it in the big game in question. If you make your intentions known, it should be ok... but if you accept a flag and then go back on it... not good. Just my thoughts... would love to hear what Ryan thinks about a clean 'tourny strategy' though... |
|
mr Kreuzfeld wrote
at 6:53 PM, Monday November 10, 2008 EST "silent truces with people who are not a threat"
i think it is still very fuzzy, and kind wrong. a silet truce with a guy who could reall help you later in the game is a ery good stratigy, and what is the definition of not a threat? some times if the other uy had 2X 2stacks next to you, and you have only 3stacks next to him, he migth become a threat. And sometimes you maybe would see more of an advatege moving the other way, and making yourself vounreable to this player |
|
Ryan wrote
at 6:58 PM, Monday November 10, 2008 EST kruez, this is my call. If its the same guy game after game then its not fuzzy anymore.
|
|
|
mr Kreuzfeld wrote
at 10:43 PM, Monday November 10, 2008 EST i know it is your call, i am just saying that; if are going to use the stratigy as discribed, you will end u only choosing to do this th the people you know will get the move, therefore there will onl be a number of guys you will know will get it,based upon previous experience.... therefor you will notdo this to unkown players,since you do not know what to expect.
|
|
|
mr Kreuzfeld wrote
at 10:47 PM, Monday November 10, 2008 EST and i am sorry for asting your time, and i d not like PGA. I just think that the border to PGA is on a different shade of grey than you. so i am just expressing my wievs bcause i would not like to see people get banned for makin choises that i don't concider bad.
i am sure that is the reason manu top players are so involved i this discussion |
|
voxall wrote
at 1:13 AM, Tuesday November 11, 2008 EST I have made silent truces with a weaker neighbor who is no threat to me in the past. I'm not sure how this is bad play. I see it as a gamble. By not attacking them, you allow them to grow, and sometimes, (because of the lack of communication) they turn on you. At that point, I have nothing to complain about because it wasn't a verbalized truce. Besides that, my strategy is sometimes to attack the most powerful foe while not gaining too many other enemies... Am I wrong?
|
|
|
voxall wrote
at 1:19 AM, Tuesday November 11, 2008 EST Another idea for tournament play: Once a long time ago, I played in a large multiplayer tournament where all the players were assigned alternative names, and I don't remember if the chat were turned off or not... I guess turning the chat off in this would weaken the game, but I think it would still be fun to have anonymous names (and perhaps avatars).
|
|
Orangatuan wrote
at 11:16 AM, Tuesday November 11, 2008 EST just to clarify CoD
PGE stands for Pre Game Enemy not Pre Game Alliance |
|
|
Cod4 wrote
at 11:32 AM, Tuesday November 11, 2008 EST Just a typo
|
|
Random Noob wrote
at 12:15 PM, Tuesday November 11, 2008 EST Ryan's point about silent truces is clear enough after the "same guy game after game" clarification. Probably the RC detector will solve 99% of these kind of situations, but this set of rules is a step in the right direction.
|
