The Dominating 12

@lifeinpixels NO 3 PLAYER GAMES!

@MuzuaneAskari I'm trying to do small games this next time to change things up. Why don't you like the idea of the winner getting to choose 1 opponent to play in the second game?

Skarni's idea doesn't work if the previous dominator won one of the games.

@ thorpe dont take it seriously... XD
@ pixels 3 playa games still involves too much luck. it should be 4p at least...

Vexer the previous dominator plays directly the final game. In case he/she is between the first 12, player nº 13th plays the semifinals.

Yeah, I don't like the idea of the previous winner not having to fight to be in the 2nd game if they are in the top 12. And I don't like the idea of the 13th player playing as long as the all top 12 players want to play.

The reason why I don't like the idea of chosing a player is to avoid problems.

Let's say you chose me to play the final, I don't want to hear anybody saying that I helped you to win because I wanted to be chosen; and this may happen not only in the semi-final but also in some other games we could haven been playing.

I know you think most of the players so high ranked never would do this kind of acusations without solid proves. Right, I agree. But I also know that many times we don't understand the movements of some good players and we get angry; imagine then that the "bad player" was rewarded with a place in the final. It`s not a good combination.

And as I said, this can happen in many games; we may be playing the semifinal and some other game (let´s call it game 1). The other players of the game 1 may think that we are not attacking each other because we are trying to be nice between us because of the semifinal.

I am reading what I wrote and it sounds like paranoic, am I?

How about 3 games, 4 player each.
Winners get to play the final game plus other players from the losers

Those players are the ones who have the best "coefficient tally" records against the 3 winners

Let's say Matty, Fendi and TomC are the winners
"Coefficient tally" records of MuzuaneAskari will be 14 - 5 -6 = 3

MuzuaneAskari is Conquering TomC 14 20
Matty is Beating MuzuaneAskari 5 11
Fendi is Conquering MuzuaneAskari 6 8

If there are more than one player with the the same "coefficient tally", all of them will be played in the final

The idea is that you choose the best players that have played with the 3 winners in the past and reward them

The downside is that Vexer will have to right some additional SQL scripts (and I can help with that T-SQL script if needed)

You mean something like this?

"your dead next big game Matty i"m not even going to try to win just kill you."



If you want to start with seperate games (3x4, 2x6, whatever), players should be chosen on how well they played in the previous games.
So not on how much other players like them, or how well they have played 2 years ago.

The problem is that I don't know a fair way to choose so - who died first/last is defenitely not a good idea - the player who played best may very well die as first - sometimes that happends.

Another idea is playing 6 games (4 each) at the same time.
1, 6, 7, 12
2, 5, 8, 11
3, 4, 9, 10
1, 5, 8, 11
2, 4, 7, 10
3, 6, 9, 12
(No player plays with another player in more than one game)

All winners (3-6) players play the final game.

Yes there may be a 3 players final game but the probability will be low. If that happens, so be it.

I like your idea tontot; maybe the first 6 games should be increased cards and/or Caps to make it faster.

i also like tontot's idea, and if someone wins both games he will get to choose the map and the settings in the final

That's all alot of games, tournaments enough, why not just play one nine player increasing game on world expanded. Those games are huge fun!

Matty, I think the reason we have this discussion is because we want 12 top players competing for the Dominator title. Otherwise doing top 8 in one game will be the easiest.

I spent some time figuring out the most fair way in the shortest amount of games without having a 3 or four player game;

3 round tournament


Round 1: 3 games using players D12 rank to determine game seeding. The numbers used below represent each player based on the final player ranks 1 through 12.

  gm#1 1,10,11,12  gm#2 2,7,8,9  gm#3 3,4,5,6

*The winner of each of these three games gets a bye on round 2 and automatically a spot in the final 4 players game match.

Round 2: The Wild Card Round. The 9 players who lost in the the first round will play a 9 player game and the winner will get a second chance (hence the 'wild card' and will become the 4th player for the final game.

Round 3: A four player game between the three winners in the first round and the winner of the round 2 wild card game.


-note: the matchups in the first round are seeded the way you would in playoffs; #1 against the bottom three, #2 against the middle and #3 against the top. That's the incentive to ranking as high as you can in the D12, it gives you an advantage (well deserved , I might add) in the D12 tournament.

Very creative elysium, I like it. This system gets my vote with the current available options. I don't think 3 rounds is too long for the title of site dominator.

What happens if a player in the top 12 doesn't want to play?

If a player(s) in the top twelve doesn't want to or can't play for whatever reason, just work your way down the list and sub in anyone who wants in from the next highest ranks until you have twelve.

It won't affect the seeding system as it would remain in the same format of 'top highest vs bottom 3, second highest vs middle 3 and third highest vs the top.'