posted 04-23-99 11:22 PM ET        

We have been waiting for a while for that one to start but, alas, so far nothing has materialized. Understandable as they are busy doing chats with BR and TT and such.

Anyway, we need seven more players to fill out to a full sixteen players. A simple single elimination tournament. 1 vs. 1 games. We'll call the tourney "May Madness."

Winner claims the coveted Garland Cup.

I will be creating all the games from custom maps. It will be single elimination. Each round will have a new map.

Details as to size of map, etc. are still being worked out. So post your comments here.

Obviously we need reliable players, because we don't want anyone winning a round because of a total forfeit.

Feel free to e-mail me as well.

posted 04-24-99 06:01 AM ET            

I have claimed many victory's at the Transcend level. Playing the Believers
Proof aVAILABLE!

posted 04-24-99 07:23 PM ET            

Let's get some talk going on the world parameters.

What size world? Standard or small seems appropriate for "live" online games.

What settings for weather? Erosion? Life forms? Percentage of water?

I'm producing a custom world for each round of the tourney. So take a look at Tropical Chiron (DL it at www.sirius.com/~tfs99/maps/trop-st-nf.zip) to get an idea of what it could look like.

We won't be using T.C. as some have already seen it. But, I can (and probably will) produce something similar (but definitely rearranged) for the tourney.

Do you want to have any accelerated starting at all? Not the AI kind, but the CMN kind where a human (i.e., me) would intelligently develop your initial setup (with guidelines provided by you the participants).

We could also try the Bigger Bases acceleration proposed by myself and Goobmeister. That is, each player starts with a larger base and gets a certain number of SMAC points that could be used to buy terraforming, tech points, base structures, extra units or additional energy.

Other suggestions received so far include progressively making the planet more difficult each round of the tourney (i.e., less rain, more lifeforms, less erosion), and making the difficulty setting higher each round (starting with Librarian and working our way up).

Let's see some posting here so that we can arrive at some consensus. As tournament creator, I will have final say where a clear consensus seems not to be established.

posted 04-24-99 10:25 PM ET            

I do not agree. A tourney is to match skills against other players, not the computer. I feel what ever setting you start with, should be the settings used throughout the tourney. This proposal we be like moving the dart board further away in a cricket match for the final playoffs.

posted 04-25-99 12:38 AM ET            

No idea whether you're still looking for players... if so, I'd be interested (I'm not the world's greatest player, mind you, so if the only participants are mega-experts, then... er... you catch my drift).

Anyway, just as a general thought, I think it's possible to set up the scenarios so that the two human players (or indeed all the players) actually play from the same faction .txt files? If the idea really is to provide a test of skill rather than a generally fun game of SMAC, and if you're trying to remove as much of the "luck" element as possible, then maybe starting everyone off with identical advantages/disadvantages would be an interesting test. It would also avoid any conflicts about whether someone won through skill, or through faction-based advantages (e.g., on a map with high fungus levels, you'd have to admit that the Gaians have the edge, and when it comes to defence, Yang's got a good head start... etc etc etc).

You could incorporate the "progressive difficulty" aspect by starting the players off as an "easy" faction and progressing to the "harder" ones (although there's always disagreement about which ones are easy and which aren't!). In any case, I think it would be interesting to see how, say, two Believer factions would win out against each other, seeing as both of them would have the advantages/disadvantages normally assigned to only one.

Equally, if the idea is to provide a genuine comparative test of skill, then would it be an idea to start all the players off with exactly the same number of bases, population units, base facilities, military units etc., rather than allowing players to choose how to assign their "points"? This would, again, take some of the fun and interest out of the thing, but it would be a more direct comparison of player skills if everyone was in exactly the same situation to start off with.

Also, is it proposed to play this tourney via direct IP connection? If so, I guess time zones would become pretty significant...?

Nell

posted 04-25-99 07:21 AM ET            

About the erosion settings, rainfall settings, I reckon it would be cool if it was random and we weren't told, so if we decide to have abundant life forms and tell the map settings, everyone will go gaians, so we will have to adapt with what we get.

I reckon use standard map, but map size is just personal preference.

About accelerated start, I reckon have none as the early stages can determine who wins the game, and the first 30 or 40 turns won't take long at all, so it won't make much difference to the time for a match.

posted 04-25-99 11:43 AM ET            

About my sentences...I love to handle the psych feature in the game so i would vote for Transcend Level though your stair level suggestion is very interesting...It requires some kind of flexibility from the player since your game playing style should be different, with different levels...

following that, i love random events and unexpected features...it requires from the players ability to react and play it different according to circunstances...so i don't agree with all equal for all, same faction and so on...

The only requirement is that the map would be
balanced for all the factions and i trust Ted�s judgement on that.

About the acc Start, the games will be online ones so it doesn't take too long to build up from begining...Let's start from 0

posted 04-25-99 04:36 PM ET            

Keep posting input as to how the tourney should be setup.

So far a consensus exists on:

1) Difficulty: Transcend throughout each round.

2) Factions: Players choose their own.

3) Accel Start: No (However, I still like the idea of giving out SMAC points to be spent as people see fit)

Other areas ...

4) Weather, erosion, life forms: some have advocated uniformity, some random. As CMN for the tourney I strongly believe in uniformity as it is only that each player and each round be the same. I will use Rainy, Average erosion, and average life forms as the settings.

5) Planet Size: Not much talk so far about that, so I assume no strong feelings, one way or the other. Therefore the CMN deems Standard size for the planet.

6) % Water: Not much talk on this either. Unless someone strongly objects (USSO) it will be in the 35-45% range.

7) Random Events: no talk yet. I am open to whatever, but keeping in the spirit of uniformity for the tourney, Bell Curve may be the best way to go. USSO, that is what I will do.

8) Technology: no talk yet. Most people in my experience prefer No Blind Research for MP games. There also seems to be a bias towards No Spoils of War, although that one is more evenly split. I assume that Tech Stagnation should be off. USSO, that's the way ot will be.

9) Fog of War: I find this setting to be cool. But I am still open on this one.

10) World Map Visible: No. Players want to explore. USSO, that's the way it will be.

11) Victory Conditions: All (USSO)

12) Do or die: Yes (USSO)

13) Intense Rivalry: No (USSO)

14) Pod Scattering: Yes (USSO)

See next post for a little more info.

posted 04-26-99 03:42 AM ET            

I'm @ peace w/ almost everything that has been said so far. ONLY condition I will regretfully NOT abide by is 2 have blind research ON!! NO WAY, DUDES... 8^o

posted 04-26-99 06:47 AM ET            

4) Weather, erosion, life forms: some have advocated uniformity, some random. As CMN for the tourney I strongly believe in uniformity as it is only that each player and each round be the same. I will use Rainy, Average erosion, and average life forms as the settings.

Don't mind but I would have liked it if they weren't revealed, so you have to adapt strategy to what the settings are.

5) Planet Size: Not much talk so far about that, so I assume no strong feelings, one way or the other. Therefore the CMN deems Standard size for the planet.

Fine with me

6) % Water: Not much talk on this either. Unless someone strongly objects (USSO) it will be in the 35-45% range.

Fine again

7) Random Events: no talk yet. I am open to whatever, but keeping in the spirit of uniformity for the tourney, Bell Curve may be the best way to go. USSO, that is what I will do.

I definatley believe on, they add lots to the game, (e.g. atrocities during sunspot, getting wonder built quickly with extra minerals, coping with depleted nutrients, etc.)

8) Technology: no talk yet. Most people in my experience prefer No Blind Research for MP games. There also seems to be a bias towards No Spoils of War, although that one is more evenly split. I assume that Tech Stagnation should be off. USSO, that's the way ot will be.

I would like blind research on, so no rushes to air power etc. ; spoils of war off ; and tech stag off.

9) Fog of War: I find this setting to be cool. But I am still open on this one.

Visual preference....

10) World Map Visible: No. Players want to explore. USSO, that's the way it will be.

Deffinatley not!

11) Victory Conditions: All (USSO)

Yep

12) Do or die: Yes (USSO)

Makes sense (imagine, you win by conquest but then they restart so you haven't won...)

13) Intense Rivalry: No (USSO)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, yeah okay.

14) Pod Scattering: Yes (USSO)

Yep

***********

Also a few other things - Are we going to play simultaneous or turn-based? It would probably be better for it to be turn-based (no rushing a defender to an undefended city before the attacker can take it), however I'm not sure how this will affect the time taken for a game.

There were a couple of other things as well, but I can't remember them right now

Lastly what does IMHO, USSO, and SMAC (nah just kidding ) mean?

posted 04-26-99 10:11 AM ET            

I will also offer my help in designing and creating scenarios, if needed.

I will also force you all to listen to my $.03 worth, as soon as read all the posts above.

posted 04-26-99 06:36 PM ET            

Ok. ok. OK!

So Fog of War is only a visual thing. So sue me!

For some reason I thought that it actually did something besides gray out the areas you couldn't see, like:

1) not letting you see the change in sizes of bases you no longer see, or

2) not letting you see when units have left squares you previously saw.

But, alas, wishful thinking as to how I would implement something has gotten the better of me and run away with my imagination. I still think it is a cool _VISUAL_ feature :P.

posted 04-26-99 06:46 PM ET            

I will post the list of contestants shortly. I was hoping to do so after all 16 had responded to my e-mail requesting information for purposes of seeding.

To date, I still have yet to hear from 6 of the contestants. Also, we have had our first contestant bow out, so we will be proceeding to the first alternate.

So, Goobmeister, you are now a part of May Madness!

posted 04-26-99 06:48 PM ET            

2) not letting you see when units have left squares you previously saw.

It does do these things.

Do you remember in the original civ how you would assemble an army to take out that puny AI city and then when you got to it the thing was three times as big? There was a fog of war, you just never knew it.

posted 04-27-99 10:28 AM ET            

How Long does a Live MP game usually run for? (I have not played in one before)

What sort of availability is expected? I would probably only have 1 or 2 nights a week where I could put aside some time.

posted 04-27-99 10:37 AM ET            

NO pod scattering unity pods only at base
please
(i would even say tech stag but i don't wanna get lynched!)

posted 04-27-99 03:02 PM ET            

1. Don't like blind research - too much of a handicap, especially in a tournament.

2. Don't like Fog of War - apart from its actual effects, I also reckon it looks weird.

3. No random events - don't like them anyway, and especially not in a tournament.

4. errrr that's it.

posted 04-27-99 06:11 PM ET            

I must be smokin' somethin'. I tried exactly what I posted and it did not work as you said. The moment I move a rover away from previously seen units, the units remained on the map. When those units moved out of those squares, the squares went blank.

Same thing goes for the size of base thing. Rover moves away, I build a colony pod in the previously seen base and the map reflects the change in base size.

Like I said, perhaps there is something in the air, but I swore that is how it worked. I'll check again when I have time.

posted 04-27-99 06:17 PM ET            

That is an interesting question. However, I find it highly unlikely that both players would be eliminated on exactly the same turn. If only one gets eliminated, the other contestant wins by default.

If both players get eliminated on the same turn ... well, let's cross that bridge when we come to it (I don't think we will).

I'll be monitoring the situation in each game, so I'll have plenty of advance warning to think about the possibilities.

posted 04-27-99 06:38 PM ET            

Four things govern the length of 2 player MP games:

1) Player speed

2) Connection quality (responsive/few errors)

3) Connection speed (3P MP games and up this is #1)

4) Host computer speed (determines speed of AI factions)

The order reflects the relative importance of each in how long a game takes.

Fast, experienced players can really zip through the first 20 turns or so online, especially if they plan ahead on techs, building, terraforming, etc.

What seems to consume most of the time in "live" games is the diplomacy. As you can imagine, dealing with human players is not as cut and dried as the AI. And the amount of time consumed on this goes way up with each additional human player. With 2P MP games, this shouldn't be as much of a factor, especially considering a lot of it can be done via e-mail in between live sessions.

SO HOW LONG WILL A TURN TAKE?

To give you a feel for it, I have played 5P MP games where we got about 4 to 5 turns done each hour (accelerated start).

I've played 3P MP games where we got about 100 turns done in two three-hour sessions (from scratch). That works out to about 17 turns an hour.

For 2P MP games, I would expect that experienced players should be able to get in about 20-30 turns an hour at the beginning, with the rate decreasing as the game years pile up.

My rough guestimate on "real-time" length for each round of the tourney is about a month per round (your mileage may vary). Some pairs may finish their game in less than two weeks, others may take the full month plus some. Just depends on how often and for how long they can get together.

Seeing as none of us has ever participated in a SMAC tournament, it is hard to estimate at this point.

Hope this helps.

posted 04-27-99 06:47 PM ET            

POD SCATTERING:

I am open to reducing the number of pods scattered away from each beginning base.

But "pod-popping" is part of the fun of the game.

It's your tourney, so now is the time to make your opinions heard on this. For right now, I would like to keep at least _SOME_ pods scattered.

RANDOM EVENTS:

I plan to have the Bell Curve ON, that means random events REDUCED or OFF (not sure which). I agree the R.E.s are part of the fun of the game, but some can be really devastating and we're trying to keep this tourney as fair as possible (within reason).

posted 04-27-99 07:06 PM ET            

My gut feel is that everyone will want to start out from scratch on this one. Especially since these will be "live" games and not PBEM. If there is interest, we could give each person some SMAC points to fiddle with and start everyone with a size two or three base.

But as it stands now, I am having trouble getting even the basic info from 1/3 of the contestants (i.e., which faction they want to play!). So having people cope with a new thing like SMAC points might be a little much right now.

I do plan on having one tiny bit of acceleration for sure. Each faction will start out with two additional units: a Scout Patrol loaded onto a Unity Foil (each faction starts on a coastline).

posted 04-28-99 05:23 AM ET            

About random events, I still believe they should be in the game, because there does need to be some element of luck in it, that you have to respond to, but if everyone else doesn't want random events it won't bother me too much (although I'll miss sunspot activity for me to commit atrocities )

Noone has replied to my question on simultaneous or turn based, so I assume it will be turn-based.

Also noone has told me what IMHO and USSO means! Please tell me!

Ted when can we expect tournement brackets to be posted?

And lastly does a multiplayer game save after every turn? Because if it doesn't we might have some problems with people disconnecting....

posted 04-28-99 10:26 AM ET            

I think both poppin pods and random events are good things. Obviously the benefits that come from them are good, but I also enjoy overcoming the challenge of the negative events.

I don't plan to whine "I lost because it was always cloudy at University Base and I could not get enough energy for my research..."

posted 04-28-99 06:54 PM ET            

I'd say :

posted 04-28-99 08:48 PM ET            

In the rover example you do get to see the enemy unit for one more turn and then it is gone.

I'm not sure what you meant by the city example. Also SMAC could be different than the original civ. I remember in the original civ that you could walk up to a small city and walk away. Later it would be much larger. They city had to be an enemy city of course. I'm not sure about civ2 sense I hated so I never played it. However I do recall sending out a caravan to what I thought was a small city and then when I got there it was much larger and had city walls. Didn't that ever happen to you? Now that I think about it you could have just cheated and looked at the trade list to see what size it was.

posted 04-29-99 07:08 AM ET            

This is only one of many instances where simultaneous takes some of the strategy away from the game (another is who can attack first between 2 opposing chaos rovers, with stats 8-1-2) turning it more into a who can click the fastest game.

posted 04-29-99 12:07 PM ET            

A large part of the strategy of a game is what order you research the tech tree. If we make it random, there's a large amount of skill taken out of the game, especially if you want anything other than a Conquer game.

posted 04-29-99 12:35 PM ET            

Goob
Willing to provide Tin Crow with an alibi...

(well at least make more difficult to place him at the scene...)

posted 04-29-99 04:20 PM ET            

1. Simultaneous turns: sounds odd... does that mean both players can be trying to capture the same base at the same time, for instance? So how does the game decide who gets there first? I'd vote for turn-based, because it's familiar and sounds less likely to cause aggravation... but I've never played simultaneous turns, and if it works logically, then I don't really mind.

2. Random events: again, I vote against these. I usually play without random events in my solo games, and all it does is stop the annoying things like "oh look, all the mines near X base have vanished". Can't see the point of that... it just means building three more terraformers and wasting a lot of time. It seems like you can't turn off some of the random events, like sunspot activity and the "Hercules has reached perihelion" thing - those still happen even with random events turned off. I've never seen the meteor strike (mentioned above), so I don't know if that would be affected or not.

3. errrr that's it again.

Nell

posted 04-29-99 11:02 PM ET            

I can add my 2cents into the mix...

** I play with NO CLOCK mainly for negotiation reasons and because with a clock you have to click too fast (my wrist can't take it anymore).

** NO RANDOM EVENTS is highly preferred
** NO BLIND RESEARCH is highly preferred
** Small map size to keep down how long the game will go ... I am playing one MP game now that has gone on for 5 weeks already!
** very little water
** rare native life
** rainy
** NO ACCELERATED START (strongly)
** TB (seems most fair - and you can manage your cities while the other player moves)
** PODS scattered is most fun (hey, we need to have some fun)

IN the MP games I have played I guess about 20 turns per hour is reasonable if all is going well for players. It gets less as things get hairy.

More later. Should be fun unless there is lag in the game or disconnections occur.

posted 04-30-99 04:13 PM ET            

My name is cousLee

I am a SMAC ADDICT.

What is the diffrence between a SMACaholic and a SMAC addict?

posted 04-30-99 05:43 PM ET            

there are only 2 settings that i wood like to see in the games the rest i doesn't really matter to me. :-)

#1
random events: strong yes
i like the game to be like life, you just never know what's going to hit ya (win the lottery or a death blow) so you better be ready :-)

#2
blind research: strong yes
again i like the random factor, otherwise the game becomes a "tank rush"

and as nell likes to say
"errr that's it :-)

posted 04-30-99 05:57 PM ET            

The tournament pairings have been posted over on Apolyton:

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum27/HTML/000005.html

They have a much better UBB system over there. You can edit your messages. Use UBB Code in them. It actually remembers you're preferences and password. I like it a lot better than here.

I have also started the May Madness News Network at:

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum27/HTML/000004.html

Narrative accounts of each tourney game will be put in that thread, as well as role-played faction leader comments (should you be so inclined).