The Dominating 12

Sounds like an interesting tournament. I just hope that it can be finished before the next contest is due. :roll:

Very interesting set up

Congratz @@alphax211 for winning 6/8 of the 1v1 games [b]AND[/b] 2/4 of the 9p games - very impressive! :) Kinda cool that we actually managed to end all games within the (hoped for) 1 month time, even though the big games were 36h games [b]AND[/b] 1 game had to be replayed due to wrong settings: https://dominating12.com/game/965786 (noticed when 10d in). Thx for hoosting @@Hoodlum :)

Congrats alphax211, see you in the next one

Congratulations to new dominator @@alphax211 - dominated! 8 outta 12 games @@alphax211 6+8+8 = [color=red][b]22 points[/b][/color] [color=blue] Capitals & Assassination [/color] @@AlexCheckMate 6+8 = [b]14 points[/b] [color=blue]Domination[/color] @@slackbatter 4+8 = [b]12 points[/b] [color=blue]Deathmatch[/color] @@Henris_1 = [b]5 points[/b] @@ProblemChild96 = [b]5 points [/b] @@hooboy11 = [b]4 points [/b] @@OldDogGen = [b]2 points[/b] @@Dima = [b]2 points[/b] @@KOE_KittyKat = [b]2 points[/b]

Nice. Congrats alphax211!

Thanks guys. And thank you hoodlum for organizing an excellent tournament. I personally think this should be the format of all d12 games going forward. It gives everyone an equal and fair chance at claiming the dominator title, given its multiple games as opposed to one game in which anyone can get lucky. Its also more of a challenge and more fun with multiple games to be played in various formats :)

different setting would be cool.... i play only capped games and they work differently from increasing card

Capped cards are fun, but make for very long games and often stalemates (especially with all skilled players). Regarding this format: It seemed for a while to me that it didn't feel as important, because there were several games so it felt watered down compared to only 1 game, but in the end it was pretty exciting. Of course this format is much better for decreasing the weight that luck plays. And it's cool that it rewards more well-rounded players. I hope we can find plenty of maps that it will work on so that we can have some variety there (I think that will mainly be an issue for the 1vs1 games). Also it's probably just because I don't ever play them, but 1 vs 1 games feel too luck dependent to me. Is that feeling shared at all? I haven't come up with a better way to break a tie though.

for the 1v1 games usually the luck advantage is going first, but one mistake can cost you the game! a skilled 1v1 player might be able to win from those non starts, and a lesser skilled 1v1 player can lose from a start. anyway, here's how the luck of the draw went. alex [b]started 4 times[/b] - won 6 times - 4 wins from a non start [color=red](won all his non starts)[/color] alphax [b]started 4 times[/b] - won 6 times - 2 wins from a non start [color=red](won all his starts)[/color] henris [b]started 2 times[/b] - won 5 times - 3 wins from a non start slack [b]started 4 times[/b] - won 4 times - 1 win from a non start hooboy [b]started 6 times[/b] - won 4 times - 1 win from a non start Problem [b]started 4 times[/b] - won - 1 win from a non start KOE_KittyKat [b]started 6 times[/b] - won 2 times - 0 wins from a non start dima [b]started 2 times[/b] - won 2 times - 1 win from a non start odg [b]started 2 times[/b] - won 2 times - 2 wins from a non start *note - the players that won the big games alphax/alex/slackbatter - are also in the top half of the 1v1 wins.

I think you also have to consider what the drop is. I have been involved in a lot of 1v1s where even though I go first the drop has my opponent with one or two regions and neutral blockers.

Yeah, I was considering the drop the biggest luck factor. Then dice luck and card luck are both amplified with only one opponent. It's possible to overcome some early bad dice luck in a 9 player game, but in a 2 player game it can pretty quickly wreck things for good. Plus in a bigger game the other opponents can provide protection to the less fortunate so player skill has more opportunity to counteract bad luck.

Just reviewing the format as what applied for this D12 tournament as a whole, I come to the following notions: - I dislike the 8 1v1 games. I too share slackbatters opinion that they're heavily based on luck. I won 6 / 8, however, I can not recall any real mistakes made in any of those games by my opponents, with which I'm kinda implying that I managed to win most by luck (be it starting first, drop, dice, (early) set, opponent missing a turn or a combination of the previous). Also, for those who aren't playing with/on a premium account, having 8 1v1 games clogs up your slots and finally, in the 1v1s, the possibility of people to get annoyed/angry/even worse from their opponent not playing as fast as they'd like them too (granted, it's a LT game, not a ST, so shouldn't really be a problem. imo..) is heightened. However, that said, I also have to agree with slacks next point about the 1v1s.. being... I can't think of a different manner with regard to how to fix ties in a better way.... - I haven't made up my mind yet about the 4 9p games. Playing all the categories in 1 go: caps/dom/as/DM. I'm inclined to think that DM with increased cards is just the best way to go about it. I feel that [b]caps[/b] is just too volatile; just about anything can spark a chain reaction and it's game-over for 8 of the 9 players - often without a need for the 9th to do something extraordinary. In [b]dom[/b], I believe there will most often be someone shooting for the needed amount, missing by a few, the next one taking the victory home. Then [b]as[/b] is rather similar. Perhaps most of what I just said is mostly due to an "imbalance" in the manner how the values for sets of cards go up... cards always go up in the same fashion (4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, +5, etc), which is perhaps only suitable for X amount of players (I haven't really done the exact math), whereas I believe this should also be a function of the amount of players involved. Cards should be important in the game, yet not completely decisive. The Dom & As game types make it more appealing to 'try for something' - /AS\: see if you can score an elimination and secure a quick win, as you do not need to worry about 'consequences' (if the elim works, you win the game), /DOM\: try to get the amount of territories when you've got an 'early' set (for say... 1.5-2x the amount of territories you should conquer (so... +50-70 when needing to take 34?)); if you do not.... it's very likely you won't get another chance again (because cards just walk up that high so quick that 1 of the next 8 will likely manage). Much the same for [b]caps[/b] I believe. All of these effects get amplified for fog games too - people will be making decisions on lil' information and are bound to make 'mistakes' which will take away from the balance of the game. As for the notion of capped games... I believe in many short term games, this will often lead to 1/more players getting annoyed/angry with the slow pace of the game and/or just running out of time (being forced to step out due to other obligations) and as such bombarding the game. Or, when this isn't the case - stalemates. With the stalemate option being an ever more present option for LT games, especially with a lot of skilled people people in them (as is likely the case for the D12 games). That said; I do not believe capped games belong in D12 (or maybe.... capped at a rather high number? say 40-60 ish? dunno... haven't experimented much with the setup). I acknowledge the fact that if the D12 tournament is held over just 1 game, the winner of that 1 game will likely have been just more lucky than the other 8, as opposed to just a lot more skilled. Yes, this will be less when there's more games (4 9p (+8 2p)), however, not by that much of a difference really... in fact... I believe that it doesn't really matter all that much who wins the title - it's more about who manages to get into the tournament (and then that also leaves a lot of room for discussion, as there are players who are highly skilled too, yet prefer to not be bothered by rating at all (@@Hoodlum) and just play every game they feel like (which will often lead to quite some loss of rating and not managing to make it to the D12 tourney). Anyway... a lot of characters have been typed, not that much was said :p The notion of finding a 'best player' is inherently flawed. There's a rather wide base of really good players on this site and that's as far as distinguishing goes really. However, it's ofc cool to still keep a D12 tourney, regardless of in which form it is to be had. :)

i like the set up, it shows a dominant result, vs the 'dominating' players. i like it because it keeps the 9 players active, at least playing 12 games between each tournament. it bugs me to see players playing minimal games (not dominating) qualifying for the dominators title. there's a handful of live players that deserve to be there, but their short game activity equalizes their rating and will forever be a warrant officer. it bugs me that to get there you need to play less, avoid small games, seek to play other high rankers and avoid playing new players. it was more interesting to follow as a non participant, and i'm quite happy to acknowledge that the winner alphax as the dominator and he won an all round game. other results, haven't interested me. i think there's a place for capped games, it's a skilled mode, but i can't see it working within the time frame. i'd like to see a separate ranking system for 1v1 games, or make them for tokens (gambling) or a no-points option, i think it would improve the rating system, and give active dominant players a chance.

It has never helped me to play less, seek other high rankers, or avoid new players (because I do none of those things). I have noticed other people do these things, but I'm not convinced it works (since I'm still ranked higher than them:P). Maybe it helps that I don't play 1v1, but that would only be true if luck is as big a factor in those games as I suspect (otherwise winning a lot would yield points).