Clash of the Nations (a game) - matchday 1 (group stage)
Clément
calculate and post the results, followed by the next matchday post.
If you feel we need to adjust the period between deadlines, or even the time
of the day our deadlines expire, please let us know.
***
All you have to do is send us an e-mail, preferrably to lcmello [at] gmail
[dot] com (but any other of my e-mail accounts you happen to know is fine).
In that e-mail, tell me how many extra-goals you want each of your teams to
score on that matchday.
Please keep in mind that you only have 32 extra-goals to spend for the whole
tournament.
***
Matchday 1 (e-mail submission deadline: Wednesday, October 27, 9:00 PM GMT)
Group A
South Africa (Joachim Parsch) 0-0 Mexico (milivella)
Uruguay (MH) 0-0 France (Futbolmetrix)
Group B
Argentina (Futbolmetrix) 0-0 Nigeria (Joachim Parsch)
Korea Republic (Jesus Petry) 0-0 Greece (Lleo)
Group C
England (Mark V) 0-0 USA (Joachim Parsch)
Algeria (MH) 0-0 Slovenia (milivella)
Group D
Germany (Mark V) 0-0 Australia (Abubakr)
Serbia (Jesus Petry) 0-0 Ghana (Joachim Parsch)
Group E
Netherlands (Lleo) 0-0 Denmark (Mark V)
Japan (Futbolmetrix) 0-0 Cameroon (Abubakr)
Group F
Italy (milivella) 0-0 Paraguay (milivella)
New Zealand (Futbolmetrix) 0-0 Slovakia (Abubakr)
Group G
C�te d'Ivoire (MH) 0-0 Portugal (Lleo)
Brazil (Jesus Petry) 0-0 Korea DPR (Mark V)
Group H
Honduras (Lleo) 0-0 Chile (MH)
Spain (Abubakr) 0-0 Switzerland (Jesus Petry)
Good luck to all!
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> Group F
> Italy (milivella) 0-0 Paraguay (milivella)
What the heck!!! I assigned teams to pools randomly, but with the
constraint that each pool contained teams from 4 different groups...
or so I thought. I didn't notice Paraguay + Italy. Sorry!
Now, Luiz, you have two options, or so I guess:
- fix it as soon as possible: exchange my Italy with another 4th-tier
team such that (1) it's not in the same group of Mexico and Slovenia
(my other teams) and (2) the player who gets Italy is neither
Futbolmetrix nor Abubakr. These two conditions should be enough,
shouldn't they? Pro: no player has the advantage of having two teams
in the same group.
- keep everything as it is. Pro: no confusion.
Anyway, whatever you choose, it has obviously been my fault. Sorry!
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> Cl�ment:
>
>> Group F
>> Italy (milivella) 0-0 Paraguay (milivella)
>
> What the heck!!! I assigned teams to pools randomly, but with the
> constraint that each pool contained teams from 4 different groups...
> or so I thought. I didn't notice Paraguay + Italy. Sorry!
Argh! I am sorry, as I did a quick check and did not spot this.
> Now, Luiz, you have two options, or so I guess:
> - fix it as soon as possible: exchange my Italy with another 4th-tier
> team such that (1) it's not in the same group of Mexico and Slovenia
> (my other teams) and (2) the player who gets Italy is neither
> Futbolmetrix nor Abubakr. These two conditions should be enough,
> shouldn't they? Pro: no player has the advantage of having two teams
> in the same group.
I'm going to do it ASAP.
Sorry guys, for the overlook.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> "milivella" escreveu:
>
> > Now, Luiz, you have two options, or so I guess:
> > - fix it as soon as possible: exchange my Italy with another 4th-tier
> > team such that (1) it's not in the same group of Mexico and Slovenia
> > (my other teams) and (2) the player who gets Italy is neither
> > Futbolmetrix nor Abubakr. These two conditions should be enough,
> > shouldn't they? Pro: no player has the advantage of having two teams
> > in the same group.
>
> I'm going to do it ASAP.
Thanks. You are the gamemaster of the year! (OK, tied with Maluco's
wonder-Jesus) And I'm the jerk of the century.
--
Cheers
milivella
Mark V.
> "milivella" escreveu:
>
> > Clément:
>
> Luiz Mello
Let me make sure of one thing. The goal allotment still stands, right?
i.e. Brazil starts each match with 3 goals, North Korea starts each
with 0, etc.
Clément
> "milivella" escreveu:
>
> > Now, Luiz, you have two options, or so I guess:
> > - fix it as soon as possible: exchange my Italy with another 4th-tier
> > team such that (1) it's not in the same group of Mexico and Slovenia
> > (my other teams) and (2) the player who gets Italy is neither
> > Futbolmetrix nor Abubakr. These two conditions should be enough,
> > shouldn't they? Pro: no player has the advantage of having two teams
> > in the same group.
>
> I'm going to do it ASAP.
Here's the fix: milivella gets Honduras (formerly with Lleo), and Lleo gets
Italy.
Plus, I took the opportunity other two swaps to improve bracket balance for
the next rounds:
Joachim gets Portugal and Cameroon, and sends Ghana and Nigeria to Lleo and
Abubakr, respectively.
That way, each player now has 2 teams on each side of the brackets.
[Unless I'm mistaken, of course, in which case I'll blame sleep
deprivation]. =)
Corrective posts to follow.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> Here's the fix: milivella gets Honduras (formerly with Lleo), and Lleo gets
> Italy.
Thanks!
> Plus, I took the opportunity other two swaps to improve bracket balance for
> the next rounds:
>
> Joachim gets Portugal and Cameroon, and sends Ghana and Nigeria to Lleo and
> Abubakr, respectively.
>
> That way, each player now has 2 teams on each side of the brackets.
Very nice!
> [Unless I'm mistaken, of course, in which case I'll blame sleep
> deprivation]. =)
You're not mistaken. :)
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
>
> Let me make sure of one thing. The goal allotment still stands, right?
> i.e. Brazil starts each match with 3 goals, North Korea starts each
> with 0, etc.
Actually, no. Some players argued that a more balanced base-goals allotment
would improve the game, making it more challenging strategy-wise.
What was 3-2-1-0 became 1-1-0-0 (in the same order). This mean no pool has a
clear best team, and there are no minnows.
The [corrected] rules post has all the pools and goals allotment:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.soccer/msg/8ae05bd503100429
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Clément
calculate and post the results, followed by the next matchday post.
If you feel we need to adjust the period between deadlines, or even the time
of the day our deadlines expire, please let us know.
***
All you have to do is send us an e-mail, preferrably to lcmello [at] gmail
[dot] com (but any other of my e-mail accounts you happen to know is fine).
In that e-mail, tell me how many extra-goals you want each of your teams to
score on that matchday.
Please keep in mind that you only have 32 extra-goals to spend for the whole
tournament.
***
Matchday 1 (e-mail submission deadline: Wednesday, October 27, 9:00 PM GMT)
Group A
South Africa (Joachim Parsch) 0-0 Mexico (milivella)
Uruguay (MH) 0-0 France (Futbolmetrix)
Group B
Argentina (Futbolmetrix) 0-0 Nigeria (Abubakr)
Korea Republic (Jesus Petry) 0-0 Greece (Lleo)
Group C
England (Mark V) 0-0 USA (Joachim Parsch)
Algeria (MH) 0-0 Slovenia (milivella)
Group D
Germany (Mark V) 0-0 Australia (Abubakr)
Serbia (Jesus Petry) 0-0 Ghana (Lleo)
Group E
Netherlands (Lleo) 0-0 Denmark (Mark V)
Japan (Futbolmetrix) 0-0 Cameroon (Joachim Parsch)
Group F
Italy (Lleo) 0-0 Paraguay (milivella)
New Zealand (Futbolmetrix) 0-0 Slovakia (Abubakr)
Group G
C�te d'Ivoire (MH) 0-0 Portugal (Joachim Parsch)
Brazil (Jesus Petry) 0-0 Korea DPR (Mark V)
Group H
Honduras (milivella) 0-0 Chile (MH)
Spain (Abubakr) 0-0 Switzerland (Jesus Petry)
Good luck to all!
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> Matchday 1 (e-mail submission deadline: Wednesday, October 27, 9:00 PM GMT)
OK, I have spent ten minutes trying to devise a working strategy to
win the game, and these are my first 2 cents:
- Cent #1: I suspect that even little modifications in the rules about
the allocation of default goals and of points per round reached would
have a big impact (bigger than I thought). E.g. if winning the WC was
8 points instead of 10, it would be very different; if each of us had
3 teams scoring 1 default goal instead of 2 teams, it would be very
different...
- Cent #2: I can't wait to see how the other contestants will play!
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Clément:
>
> > Matchday 1 (e-mail submission deadline: Wednesday, October 27, 9:00 PM GMT)
>
> OK, I have spent ten minutes trying to devise a working strategy to
> win the game, and these are my first 2 cents:
Hey, I've my third cent and it's already an idea for a future variant!
- Cent #3: I don't know if it's necessary to spice up things, but a
nice way would be implementing a rule such as: when a South American
team plays against a European team, the South Americans start with 1
goal extra; and similar rules for the other possible couplings, so
that there is an overall balance (no confederation is favoured). It's
a way (this one involving confederations is just an example, one could
think of different ones) to make the game less opponent-agnostic, e.g.
if my team is set to be 2nd in group A, I would be willing to do what
I can to avoid that group B is topped by a South American team.
--
Cheers
milivella
MH
> We plan to run two matchdays a week. After each matchday's deadline,
> I'll calculate and post the results, followed by the next matchday post.
>
> If you feel we need to adjust the period between deadlines, or even the
> time of the day our deadlines expire, please let us know.
>
> ***
Don't want to be a pain, but can you please repost the automatic goals
each team gets at the beginning of each round. I can't read the old
mails on this server any more.
Thanks
milivella
> Don't want to be a pain, but can you please repost the automatic goals
> each team gets at the beginning of each round. I can't read the old
> mails on this server any more.
Please let me begin my slow path to forgiveness. Here is - if I'm not
wrong - what you asked for:
Group A
South Africa (Joachim Parsch) 0-1 Mexico (milivella)
Uruguay (MH) 1-0 France (Futbolmetrix)
Group B
Argentina (Futbolmetrix) 1-0 Nigeria (Abubakr)
Korea Republic (Jesus Petry) 1-0 Greece (Lleo)
Group C
England (Mark V) 1-1 USA (Joachim Parsch)
Algeria (MH) 0-0 Slovenia (milivella)
Group D
Germany (Mark V) 1-0 Australia (Abubakr)
Serbia (Jesus Petry) 0-1 Ghana (Lleo)
Group E
Netherlands (Lleo) 1-0 Denmark (Mark V)
Japan (Futbolmetrix) 1-0 Cameroon (Joachim Parsch)
Group F
Italy (Lleo) 0-1 Paraguay (milivella)
New Zealand (Futbolmetrix) 0-1 Slovakia (Abubakr)
Group G
Côte d'Ivoire (MH) 0-1 Portugal (Joachim Parsch)
Brazil (Jesus Petry) 1-0 Korea DPR (Mark V)
Group H
Honduras (milivella) 0-1 Chile (MH)
Spain (Abubakr) 1-0 Switzerland (Jesus Petry)
Points:
- eliminated at round of 16 = 2 points
- eliminated at quarters = 3 points
- semi-finalist = 5 points
- runner-up = 7 points
- winner = 10 points
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
Pro-tip: if a team reached the round of 16 in the real WC, it starts
with 1 goal; otherwise it starts with 0 goals. ;)
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> MH:
>> Don't want to be a pain, but can you please repost the automatic goals
>> each team gets at the beginning of each round. I can't read the old
>> mails on this server any more.
>
> Please let me begin my slow path to forgiveness. Here is - if I'm not
> wrong - what you asked for:
Thanks! Only after the matchday post, I realized the 0-0 scores were not
appropriate, given the base-goals. For the next games, I will post the
initial scores with these goals already added up.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Clément
>
> Hey, I've my third cent and it's already an idea for a future variant!
>
> - Cent #3: I don't know if it's necessary to spice up things, but a
> nice way would be implementing a rule such as: when a South American
> team plays against a European team, the South Americans start with 1
> goal extra; and similar rules for the other possible couplings, so
> that there is an overall balance (no confederation is favoured). It's
> a way (this one involving confederations is just an example, one could
> think of different ones) to make the game less opponent-agnostic, e.g.
> if my team is set to be 2nd in group A, I would be willing to do what
> I can to avoid that group B is topped by a South American team.
This sounds really interesting.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Clément
In order to spare your mailbox of multiple "Your entry was correctly
received. Thanks for playing" messages, I thought it could be better if we
just assumed that sent entries are always received and correct by default.
I'll mail you just in case I haven't received your entry for a given round,
or if there's an error in it.
Is that OK?
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Futbolmetrix
news:ia2rhc$4jg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
So, how do we do back room deals? Are they really and truly "back room"
(i.e., we exchange private emails), or are we going to do them publicly
(more fun, but sorts of defeats the purpose)?
If we go truly back room, could the game master send each of the
participants a list of valid emails at which players can be reached?
Thanks,
D
milivella
> So, how do we do back room deals? Are they really and truly "back room"
> (i.e., we exchange private emails)
I vote this! :)
> If we go truly back room, could the game master send each of the
> participants a list of valid emails at which players can be reached?
We're already burdening him, eh? But I guess it's the only way to do
it... I'm sending him my address for Moggi-like affairs.
Always thanks to the ueber-gamemaster!
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> Futbolmetrix:
>
>> So, how do we do back room deals? Are they really and truly "back room"
>> (i.e., we exchange private emails)
>
> I vote this! :)
Well, "back room" deals must be "back room". But there's nothing to stop
anyone from making some of these shenanigans public on RSS. I just don't
know I'd trust anything sent to RSS about these dealings, if I were playing.
;)
>> If we go truly back room, could the game master send each of the
>> participants a list of valid emails at which players can be reached?
>
> We're already burdening him, eh? But I guess it's the only way to do
> it... I'm sending him my address for Moggi-like affairs.
Oh, this is no burden at all. A suggestion: after all of you submit your
matchday 1 entries, I'll collect the e-mail addresses and send the list to
all players.
This has the downside of making deals more difficult during the 1st round
(but how many deals are already in order, anyway?).
Alternatively, each of you could just send me a message with the e-mail
address you would like to use for the game (before you submit your first
entry). As soon as I have all valid e-mails, I'll send the list to everyone.
> Always thanks to the ueber-gamemaster!
After all the great games you have ran for us, it's the least I can do.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Futbolmetrix
>
>
> Oh, this is no burden at all. A suggestion: after all of you submit your
> matchday 1 entries, I'll collect the e-mail addresses and send the list to
> all players.
>
> This has the downside of making deals more difficult during the 1st round
> (but how many deals are already in order, anyway?).
Are you serious? I have already lined up a whole plan of bilateral
alliances, triumvirates, and quadripartite deals!
OK, I am soon going to send a private email to each of the other players. It
may or may not contain a proposal that will be mutually advantageous.
If you have anything to say to me, you can send emails to
futbol...@yahoo.com. I will be checking emails.
D
milivella
A way to do it more easily (don't know if you like it, though: please
let me know) would be the following (I'll go with an example instead
of awkwardly trying to describe the abstract procedure):
1=33 Random team from Group A
2=34 Random team from Group B
3=35 Random team from Group C
4=36 Random team from Group D
5=37 Random team from Group E
6=38 Random team from Group F
7=39 Random team from Group G
8=40 Random team from Group H
9=41 Random team from Group A
10=42 Random team from Group B
...
17=49 Random team from group A
...
25=57 Random team from group A
...
32=64 Random team from group H
Rule for default goal: a team n starts
1-0 against teams from n+1 to n+15
0-1 against team n+17 to n+31 (is a consequence of the previous line)
0-0 against team n+16
So each team is better than one team in its group, equal to another
one, worse than the remaining one. And in the whole competition it's
better than fifteen teams (two in each of the other groups) and worse
than fifteen (again, two in each of the other groups).
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> Cl�ment:
>> "milivella" escreveu:
>>> Hey, I've my third cent and it's already an idea for a future variant!
>>>
>>> - Cent #3: I don't know if it's necessary to spice up things, but a
>>> nice way would be implementing a rule such as: when a South American
>>> team plays against a European team, the South Americans start with 1
>>> goal extra; and similar rules for the other possible couplings, so
>>> that there is an overall balance (no confederation is favoured). It's
>>> a way (this one involving confederations is just an example, one could
>>> think of different ones) to make the game less opponent-agnostic, e.g.
>>> if my team is set to be 2nd in group A, I would be willing to do what
>>> I can to avoid that group B is topped by a South American team.
>>
>> This sounds really interesting.
>
> A way to do it more easily (don't know if you like it, though: please
> let me know) would be the following (I'll go with an example instead
> of awkwardly trying to describe the abstract procedure):
>
> So each team is better than one team in its group, equal to another
> one, worse than the remaining one. And in the whole competition it's
> better than fifteen teams (two in each of the other groups) and worse
> than fifteen (again, two in each of the other groups).
This way doesn't have the flavor of "Brazil always lose to France" or "CAF
teams match terribly against AFC ones" kind of rules, but it's way simpler
to implement and, more importantly, makes sure you end up with a balanced
system in the end.
Since balance is arguably the most important concern here, this proposal
sounds good.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> Rule for default goal: a team n starts
> 1-0 against teams from n+1 to n+15
> 0-1 against team n+17 to n+31 (is a consequence of the previous line)
> 0-0 against team n+16
The effect (eventually making it 2-0 instead of 1-0, or setting a
lower number of extra-goals per tournament) should be that each player
will have a *strong* incentive not only to make his teams to qualify,
but also to make some opponent teams (the ones against which he will
start ahead in KO rounds) to qualify instead of some other opponent
teams (the ones that will start ahead of him in KO rounds). And of
course the preferred opponent teams to qualify is different for each
player. It adds a new level of strategy/diplomacy, I guess.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> "milivella" escreveu:
>
> > Clément:
> >> "milivella" escreveu:
> >>> Hey, I've my third cent and it's already an idea for a future variant!
>
> >>> - Cent #3: I don't know if it's necessary to spice up things, but a
> >>> nice way would be implementing a rule such as: when a South American
> >>> team plays against a European team, the South Americans start with 1
> >>> goal extra; and similar rules for the other possible couplings, so
> >>> that there is an overall balance (no confederation is favoured). It's
> >>> a way (this one involving confederations is just an example, one could
> >>> think of different ones) to make the game less opponent-agnostic, e.g.
> >>> if my team is set to be 2nd in group A, I would be willing to do what
> >>> I can to avoid that group B is topped by a South American team.
>
> >> This sounds really interesting.
>
> > A way to do it more easily (don't know if you like it, though: please
> > let me know) would be the following (I'll go with an example instead
> > of awkwardly trying to describe the abstract procedure):
>
> [snip clear example]
>
> > So each team is better than one team in its group, equal to another
> > one, worse than the remaining one. And in the whole competition it's
> > better than fifteen teams (two in each of the other groups) and worse
> > than fifteen (again, two in each of the other groups).
>
> This way doesn't have the flavor of "Brazil always lose to France"
Actually you could implement this (not going random)...
> or "CAF
> teams match terribly against AFC ones" kind of rules
...but you're right, you lose this. And it's something I'd prefer not
to lose if possible, since it adds colour.
A way to recover it could be something like: groups of 5 teams, each
one from a different confederations. Each confederation start 1-0
against two opponent confederations and 0-1 against the other two;
teams from the same confederations start 0-0. :\
Indeed my original idea was to have not just one kind of criterion...
E.g. one based on confederations and one on... shirt colour. I.e.if
have Italy I want to avoid both South American teams (-1 goal) and
teams with white on their shirts (-1 goal), so I'm particularly afraid
of Argentina (I would start 0-2). The possible way to cross different
criteria seemed interesting to me. The shirt coulour example is silly,
but I hope you get the general idea. But it wouldn't be easy to
implement.
(You could somehwat reproduce such variety in the "n+1 to n+15" rules:
e.g. you start 2-0 against teams n+1 to n+8, 1-0 against teams n+9 to n
+15... But it wouldn't be the same thing.)
> Since balance is arguably the most important concern here, this proposal
> sounds good.
Are we already accepting ideas for Clash of the Nations - World Cup
2006 edition? :)
--
Cheers
milivella
MH
>> Brazil (Jesus Petry) 1-0 Korea DPR (Mark V)
>>
>> Group H
>> Honduras (milivella) 0-1 Chile (MH)
>> Spain (Abubakr) 1-0 Switzerland (Jesus Petry)
>
> Pro-tip: if a team reached the round of 16 in the real WC, it starts
> with 1 goal; otherwise it starts with 0 goals. ;)
Thanks - I had completely missed the change from 3-2-1-0 to 1-1-0-0
somehow. Sorry
>
> --
> Cheers
> milivella
milivella
> We plan to run two matchdays a week. After each matchday's deadline, I'll
> calculate and post the results, followed by the next matchday post.
There is no such thing like a coincidence.
Yesterday (October 25) Luiz launched the Clash of the Nations, the
sneakiest game around.
Yesterday (October 25) Lifehacker launched their una tantum Evil Week
http://lifehacker.com/5669924/welcome-to-evil-week
and published a post that teaches "how to manipulate people"
http://lifehacker.com/5672291/how-to-manipulate-people
There is no such thing like a coincidence.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> On Oct 25, 4:59 am, Clément <lcmello.lis...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > We plan to run two matchdays a week. After each matchday's deadline, I'll
> > calculate and post the results, followed by the next matchday post.
>
> There is no such thing like a coincidence.
>
> Yesterday (October 25) Luiz launched the Clash of the Nations, the
> sneakiest game around.
>
> Yesterday (October 25) Lifehacker launched their una tantum Evil Weekhttp://lifehacker.com/5669924/welcome-to-evil-week
> and published a post that teaches "how to manipulate people"http://lifehacker.com/5672291/how-to-manipulate-people
>
> There is no such thing like a coincidence.
And now Paul the WC predictor died... It's getting scary.
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
Just a reminder that the matchday 1 deadline expires today (Wednesday), at 9
PM GMT.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
"Cl�ment" escreveu:
Futbolmetrix
> Dear players--
>
> Just a reminder that the matchday 1 deadline expires today (Wednesday), at
> 9 PM GMT.
We are well aware of that. But negotiations to disrupt the evil scheme being
planned against me are under way and will continue incessantly until the
deadline.
D
PS: by the way, make sure to remember that GMT right now is *not* UK time.
Abubakr
futbol...@yahoo.com says...
>
> "Clï¿œment" <lcmello...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> > Dear players--
> >
> > Just a reminder that the matchday 1 deadline expires today (Wednesday), at
> > 9 PM GMT.
>
> We are well aware of that. But negotiations to disrupt the evil scheme being
> planned against me are under way and will continue incessantly until the
> deadline.
We wouldn't expect anything else from a Juventino!
milivella
> "Clément" <lcmello.lis...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>
> news:ia8tpb$ic4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > Dear players--
>
> > Just a reminder that the matchday 1 deadline expires today (Wednesday), at
> > 9 PM GMT.
>
> We are well aware of that. But negotiations to disrupt the evil scheme being
> planned against me are under way and will continue incessantly until the
> deadline.
The funny part is that this time it's true!
Even more funny: he can't do anything to disrupt the Scheme.
Also, a request to everyone: please don't write about this game
anymore. I'm trying to not think about it, otherwise I could not
survive the wait for the results.
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
news:fbb84347-dc58-4e79...@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> The funny part is that this time it's true!
> Even more funny: he can't do anything to disrupt the Scheme.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I could always dangle a Thomas Mueller in
front of some people's eyes...
D
Abubakr
@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, mili...@gmail.com says...
>
> Futbolmetrix:
>
> > "Clï¿œment" <lcmello.lis...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
Here, Here! I'm pretty sure that I'm screwed all the same.
Abubakr
futbol...@yahoo.com says...
Will 15 goals twist your arm?
milivella
> "milivella" <milive...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Oh. If I had Mueller... [drooling] I would have the POWER!
UNLIMITED... POWER!
(Yes, the dark side is pretty strong in me. But you are _doubly_ evil,
since one you are tempting me and two... I told you that I don't want
to think about this game until the results will be posted!!!)
--
Cheers
milivella
Jesus Petry
It would help keeping your conscience [almost] clear if you hadn't
made [too m]any back door agreements for the first round like I did
[or not].
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
Clément
> "Cl�ment" wrote:
>> Dear players--
>>
>> Just a reminder that the matchday 1 deadline expires today (Wednesday),
>> at 9 PM GMT.
>
> We are well aware of that. But negotiations to disrupt the evil scheme
> being planned against me are under way and will continue incessantly until
> the deadline.
>
> D
>
> PS: by the way, make sure to remember that GMT right now is *not* UK
> time.
Noted! My local time is currently GMT-2, so I'll just use this as a
reference.
[Hilarious posts, you three. I had some laughs here at the office. Luckily,
it's lunch time].
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
It's pretty clear that you don't know what evilness is... Evilness is
doing agreements that you could post publicly without hurting them.
More evilness is keeping those same agreements secret just for the
sake of it. I am at this level right now, will keep you informed if
I'll discover any higher level. Welcome to the dark side.
(BTW, how did you manage to win Diplomacy games keeping a conscience?!
You must be a genius at military strategy!)
--
Cheers
imallevil
Jesus Petry
Three of the four were gunboats (no verbal communication), so it's
not like I had to actually tell a lie. In the other one I had help
from a player that was OK with a strong second place, because it would
give him more points than a draw. In fact, the times I tried to be
smarty, it backfired painfully.
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
Futbolmetrix
> It's pretty clear that you don't know what evilness is... Evilness is
> doing agreements that you could post publicly without hurting them.
> More evilness is keeping those same agreements secret just for the
> sake of it. I am at this level right now, will keep you informed if
> I'll discover any higher level. Welcome to the dark side.
I like this. You are giving away more and more hints about the Scheme. By
the time the deadline comes along, I will be prepared (and your conscience
will be reduced to a sorry heap of ashes...)
D
milivella
> On Oct 27, 12:50 pm, milivella <milive...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > (BTW, how did you manage to win Diplomacy games keeping a conscience?!
> > You must be a genius at military strategy!)
>
> Three of the four were gunboats (no verbal communication), so it's
> not like I had to actually tell a lie. In the other one I had help
> from a player that was OK with a strong second place, because it would
> give him more points than a draw.
Well, this answers to my question!
> In fact, the times I tried to be
> smarty, it backfired painfully.
But "trying to be smarty" doesn't mean that you backstabbed anyone,
does it? Please assure me about your candidness, it's one of the only
two certitudes that I have in my life!
(the other one is the fact that I will never ever let Xavi take a
photo of me again; I hate these avantgardishy guys who make you waste
four hours just to take a photo and after all that it's so blurred
that it seems that while making a spectacular save you were juggling
with just four oranges instead of five)
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> "milivella" <milive...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Pros of a diplomatic Scheme that involves agreements that can be
revealed to anyone else
[snip]
42. When Futbolmetrix will try to make you have a nervous breakdown
(he will), you won't have any worry about letting slip any secret, and
your mental sanity will be safe.
43. Will then Futbolmetrix have a nervous breakdown? [to be verified]
44. To develop the Scheme, _you_ will reduce your conscience to a
sorry heap of ashes, so nobody else will have the chance to do it.
(also known as the Hannibal/Cleopatra/seemingly-any-enemy-of-the-
Romans advantage: if I kill myself, you won't be able to kill me!)
(I know, #44 looks not so great as an advantage, but look at it from
the right perspective: you are affirming your will instead of being
the passive object of other people's moods...)
--
Cheers
milivella
Jesus Petry
> Jesus Petry:
>
> > On Oct 27, 12:50 pm, milivella <milive...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > (BTW, how did you manage to win Diplomacy games keeping a conscience?!
> > > You must be a genius at military strategy!)
>
> > Three of the four were gunboats (no verbal communication), so it's
> > not like I had to actually tell a lie. In the other one I had help
> > from a player that was OK with a strong second place, because it would
> > give him more points than a draw.
>
> Well, this answers to my question!
>
> > In fact, the times I tried to be
> > smarty, it backfired painfully.
>
> But "trying to be smarty" doesn't mean that you backstabbed anyone,
> does it? Please assure me about your candidness, it's one of the only
> two certitudes that I have in my life!
Let me tell you this: I was doing pretty well as Austria in one high
pot game when Italy didn't answer to my communication (while entering
orders, so it didn't look he was away). Paranoia set up and I thought
he was going to stab me, so I've acted accordingly. He wasn't (he
couldn't get a decent connection to chat), and I ended up gaining a
supply center from my moves. I was so upset about my accidental stab
that I gave the SC back on the other year (which France didn't like)
and Italy immediately stabbed me, which led to an avalanche of lies
(to Italy, Germany and Turkey) that amounted to nothing but further
loss. Meanwhile Russia and I kept faithful to each other until Russia
realized he couldn't help me anymore and settled for a 3-way draw with
France and Italy.
> (the other one is the fact that I will never ever let Xavi take a
> photo of me again; I hate these avantgardishy guys who make you waste
> four hours just to take a photo and after all that it's so blurred
> that it seems that while making a spectacular save you were juggling
> with just four oranges instead of five)
I counted only three.
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
Clément
>On Oct 27, 1:09 pm, milivella wrote:
>> Jesus Petry:
>>
>>>
>>>>> (BTW, how did you manage to win Diplomacy games keeping a conscience?!
>>>>> You must be a genius at military strategy!)
>>>
>>> Three of the four were gunboats (no verbal communication), so it's
>>> not like I had to actually tell a lie. In the other one I had help
>>> from a player that was OK with a strong second place, because it would
>>> give him more points than a draw.
>>
>> Well, this answers to my question!
>>
>>> In fact, the times I tried to be
>>> smarty, it backfired painfully.
>>
>> But "trying to be smarty" doesn't mean that you backstabbed anyone,
>> does it? Please assure me about your candidness, it's one of the only
>> two certitudes that I have in my life!
>
> Let me tell you this: I was doing pretty well as Austria in one high
> pot game when Italy didn't answer to my communication (while entering
> orders, so it didn't look he was away). Paranoia set up and I thought
> he was going to stab me, so I've acted accordingly. He wasn't (he
> couldn't get a decent connection to chat),
Are you guys talking about online Diplomacy?
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Jesus Petry
Yes.
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
milivella
> Let me tell you this: I was doing pretty well as Austria in one high
> pot game when Italy didn't answer to my communication (while entering
> orders, so it didn't look he was away). Paranoia set up and I thought
> he was going to stab me, so I've acted accordingly. He wasn't (he
> couldn't get a decent connection to chat), and I ended up gaining a
> supply center from my moves. I was so upset about my accidental stab
> that I gave the SC back on the other year (which France didn't like)
> and Italy immediately stabbed me, which led to an avalanche of lies
> (to Italy, Germany and Turkey) that amounted to nothing but further
> loss. Meanwhile Russia and I kept faithful to each other until Russia
> realized he couldn't help me anymore and settled for a 3-way draw with
> France and Italy.
...and this, guys, is the proof that your smart Inception script is
nothing when compared to an average Diplomacy game. Game, set, match.
(great story, Jesus, btw|)
> > (the other one is the fact that I will never ever let Xavi take a
> > photo of me again; I hate these avantgardishy guys who make you waste
> > four hours just to take a photo and after all that it's so blurred
> > that it seems that while making a spectacular save you were juggling
> > with just four oranges instead of five)
>
> I counted only three.
I rectify: "I hate those avantagardishy guys who make you waste four
hours" [snip true story] "and sell your photo to naive Brazilian guys
who were led to think that they were the first photo ever taken of a
Internacional de Porto Alegre team" [1].
[1] Of course I have it and I give it to you for free:
http://www.runofplay.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/wasps.jpg
You don't need to thank me. Also, I'm sorry for Xavi's deception.
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
>
> [1] Of course I have it and I give it to you for free:
> http://www.runofplay.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/wasps.jpg
> You don't need to thank me. Also, I'm sorry for Xavi's deception.
The dog was the MVP in that first season.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
Even if nobody would have betted on him before the start of the
season.
...and that's why they call them "underdogs". Next question?
---
Don't want to put pressure on anyone, but the deadline is in 40
minutes, and if any of you bastards dares to deliver his orders even
one minute after it I'll extract his eyes and shoot them to the goal
so you'll be able to have a perspective that not even Sky cameras can
give you.
Gamemaster, you can post the results when you prefer. I am totally
willing to wait.
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
- Thanks for all the entries!
- Please let me know if I got anything wrong - I have all your entries saved
in case we need to double check.
- Assuming everything is correct, we had no ties this round!
Matches
South Africa (Joachim Parsch) (2) 2-3 (2) Mexico (milivella)
Uruguay (MH) (2) 3-0 (0) France (Futbolmetrix)
Argentina (Futbolmetrix) (3) 4-2 (2) Nigeria (Abubakr)
Korea Republic (Jesus Petry) (1) 2-1 (1) Greece (Lleo)
England (Mark V) (1) 2-3 (2) USA (Joachim Parsch)
Algeria (MH) (3) 3-2 (2) Slovenia (milivella)
Germany (Mark V) (1) 2-1 (1) Australia (Abubakr)
Serbia (Jesus Petry) (2) 2-3 (2) Ghana (Lleo)
Netherlands (Lleo) (2) 3-0 (0) Denmark (Mark V)
Japan (Futbolmetrix) (0) 1-0 (0) Cameroon (Joachim Parsch)
Italy (Lleo) (1) 1-3 (2) Paraguay (milivella)
New Zealand (Futbolmetrix) (3) 3-1 (0) Slovakia (Abubakr)
C�te d'Ivoire (MH) (2) 2-3 (2) Portugal (Joachim Parsch)
Brazil (Jesus Petry) (2) 3-0 (0) Korea DPR (Mark V)
Honduras (milivella) (0) 0-3 (2) Chile (MH)
Spain (Abubakr) (1) 2-0 (0) Switzerland (Jesus Petry)
Standings
Group A M W D L GF GA P GD
Uruguay 1 1 0 0 3 0 3 3
Mexico 1 1 0 0 3 2 3 1
South Africa 1 0 0 1 2 3 0 -1
France 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 -3
Group B M W D L GF GA P GD
Argentina 1 1 0 0 4 2 3 2
Korea Republic 1 1 0 0 2 1 3 1
Greece 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 -1
Nigeria 1 0 0 1 2 4 0 -2
Group C M W D L GF GA P GD
USA 1 1 0 0 3 2 3 1
Algeria 1 1 0 0 3 2 3 1
Slovenia 1 0 0 1 2 3 0 -1
England 1 0 0 1 2 3 0 -1
Group D M W D L GF GA P GD
Ghana 1 1 0 0 3 2 3 1
Germany 1 1 0 0 2 1 3 1
Serbia 1 0 0 1 2 3 0 -1
Australia 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 -1
Group E M W D L GF GA P GD
Netherlands 1 1 0 0 3 0 3 3
Japan 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 1
Cameroon 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 -1
Denmark 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 -3
Group F M W D L GF GA P GD
Paraguay 1 1 0 0 3 1 3 2
New Zealand 1 1 0 0 3 1 3 2
Slovakia 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 -2
Italy 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 -2
Group G M W D L GF GA P GD
Brazil 1 1 0 0 3 0 3 3
Portugal 1 1 0 0 3 2 3 1
C�te d'Ivoire 1 0 0 1 2 3 0 -1
Korea DPR 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 -3
Group H M W D L GF GA P GD
Chile 1 1 0 0 3 0 3 3
Spain 1 1 0 0 2 0 3 2
Switzerland 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 -2
Honduras 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 -3
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> - Thanks for all the entries!
Thank you for the ultra-quick results and for everything!
> - Assuming everything is correct, we had no ties this round!
Wow. On a second thought: well, no surprise actually. The Prince of
Evil himself set it all up.
Just my first shocked reaction:
> South Africa (Joachim Parsch) (2) 2-3 (2) Mexico (milivella)
One goal: the subtle difference between "an optimal deployment of
resources" and "aaaargh!"
> Algeria (MH) (3) 3-2 (2) Slovenia (milivella)
Now Algeria has the cards to qualify. Well played, Mr. Hynes, well
played.
> Japan (Futbolmetrix) (0) 1-0 (0) Cameroon (Joachim Parsch)
If this is not a fix...
> Italy (Lleo) (1) 1-3 (2) Paraguay (milivella)
OK.
> New Zealand (Futbolmetrix) (3) 3-1 (0) Slovakia (Abubakr)
Upset of the round. Also: fix of the century.
> Honduras (milivella) (0) 0-3 (2) Chile (MH)
I should have offered 0-goal Honduras to MH in exchange to a win over
Algeria.
There are also a couple of results to comment in private!
--
Cheers
milivella
Abubakr
30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, mili...@gmail.com says...
>
> Clï¿œment:
>
> > - Thanks for all the entries!
>
> Thank you for the ultra-quick results and for everything!
>
> > - Assuming everything is correct, we had no ties this round!
>
> Wow. On a second thought: well, no surprise actually. The Prince of
> Evil himself set it all up.
>
> Just my first shocked reaction:
>
> > South Africa (Joachim Parsch) (2) 2-3 (2) Mexico (milivella)
>
> One goal: the subtle difference between "an optimal deployment of
> resources" and "aaaargh!"
>
>
> Now Algeria has the cards to qualify. Well played, Mr. Hynes, well
> played.
>
>
> If this is not a fix...
>
>
> OK.
>
> > New Zealand (Futbolmetrix) ￜ ￜ(3) 3-1 (0) Slovakia (Abubakr)
>
> Upset of the round. Also: fix of the century.
Or the work of a Machiavellian mind...a plague on both your houses!
> > Honduras (milivella) ￜ ￜ ￜ ￜ ￜ(0) 0-3 (2) Chile (MH)
Futbolmetrix
>
> Matches
Let me join milivella (always a nice thing to do) in thanking you for
the speedy report.
Let me also set something straight:
> Argentina (Futbolmetrix) (3) 4-2 (2) Nigeria (Abubakr)
> New Zealand (Futbolmetrix) (3) 3-1 (0) Slovakia (Abubakr)
I had offered Abubakr a straight swap of 1-0s in these two matches. A
very natural agreement, where we both get an easy win for one of our 1-
pointers at the cost of sacrificing one of our zero-pointers. Abubakr
very kindly let me know that he could not agree to the deal because he
had already promised another player that Nigeria would fight hard
against ARG. [Why this other player would want to get involved in this
is a mystery. Or maybe not so much]. Given that there was no deal on
ARG-NIG, I was also under no obligation to leave SVK an easy win
against NZL.
Bottom line: my conscience is 100% clear. My reputation as a loyal and
trustworthy ally would also be immaculate, if not for the venomous
insinuations of some players...
D
Abubakr
@q18g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, futbol...@yahoo.com says...
>
> On Oct 27, 6:28ï¿œpm, Clï¿œment <lcmello.lis...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> > Matches
>
> Let me join milivella (always a nice thing to do) in thanking you for
> the speedy report.
>
> Let me also set something straight:
>
> > New Zealand (Futbolmetrix) ￜ ￜ(3) 3-1 (0) Slovakia (Abubakr)
>
> I had offered Abubakr a straight swap of 1-0s in these two matches. A
> very natural agreement, where we both get an easy win for one of our 1-
> pointers at the cost of sacrificing one of our zero-pointers. Abubakr
> very kindly let me know that he could not agree to the deal because he
> had already promised another player that Nigeria would fight hard
> against ARG. [Why this other player would want to get involved in this
> is a mystery. Or maybe not so much]. Given that there was no deal on
> ARG-NIG, I was also under no obligation to leave SVK an easy win
> against NZL.
>
> Bottom line: my conscience is 100% clear. My reputation as a loyal and
> trustworthy ally would also be immaculate, if not for the venomous
> insinuations of some players...
>
> D
Your idea is to advance three of your teams as cheaply as possible. A
good strategy whose implications for me once I had rejected the deal on
Arg-Nig I didn't foresee: you stayed up till the last hours of the
deadline and finally made an agreement with Joachim with the same kind
of deal and went to town on poor Slovakia with NZ when, in the natural
run of things, the latter should surely be content with just being a
part of the tournament!
--
"This is no time to make new enemies."
-- Voltaire, when asked on his deathbed to forswear Satan.
milivella
> Let me also set something straight:
>
> > Argentina (Futbolmetrix) (3) 4-2 (2) Nigeria (Abubakr)
> > New Zealand (Futbolmetrix) (3) 3-1 (0) Slovakia (Abubakr)
>
> I had offered Abubakr a straight swap of 1-0s in these two matches. A
> very natural agreement, where we both get an easy win for one of our 1-
> pointers at the cost of sacrificing one of our zero-pointers. Abubakr
> very kindly let me know that he could not agree to the deal because he
> had already promised another player that Nigeria would fight hard
> against ARG.
Whoever he was, the plan failed miserably!
> Bottom line: my conscience is 100% clear.
And you have won 3 matches spending just 6 goals. And you'll have a
round of 16 match between two teams of yours.
Oh, I forgot to tell you: Julius Caesar called, wants to know if you
accept new students for your lectures.
> My reputation as a loyal and
> trustworthy ally would also be immaculate, if not for the venomous
> insinuations of some players...
Well, you still haven't explained why Abubakr spent 0 goals on one of
his two main teams (and not at least 1 as he did with Spain)...
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> In article <df899b97-99dd-4b2a-b460-771d989c7cb5
> @q18g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, futbolmet...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 6:28 pm, Clément <lcmello.lis...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > Matches
>
> > Let me join milivella (always a nice thing to do) in thanking you for
> > the speedy report.
>
> > Let me also set something straight:
>
> > > Argentina (Futbolmetrix) (3) 4-2 (2) Nigeria (Abubakr)
> > > New Zealand (Futbolmetrix) (3) 3-1 (0) Slovakia (Abubakr)
>
> > I had offered Abubakr a straight swap of 1-0s in these two matches. A
> > very natural agreement, where we both get an easy win for one of our 1-
> > pointers at the cost of sacrificing one of our zero-pointers. Abubakr
> > very kindly let me know that he could not agree to the deal because he
> > had already promised another player that Nigeria would fight hard
> > against ARG. [Why this other player would want to get involved in this
> > is a mystery. Or maybe not so much]. Given that there was no deal on
> > ARG-NIG, I was also under no obligation to leave SVK an easy win
> > against NZL.
>
> > Bottom line: my conscience is 100% clear. My reputation as a loyal and
> > trustworthy ally would also be immaculate, if not for the venomous
> > insinuations of some players...
>
> > D
>
> Your idea is to advance three of your teams as cheaply as possible. A
> good strategy whose implications for me once I had rejected the deal on
> Arg-Nig I didn't foresee: you stayed up till the last hours of the
> deadline and finally made an agreement with Joachim with the same kind
> of deal
But we haven't seen the other part of the agreement: what will Daniele
give to Joachim? The most obvious answer doesn't persuade me... The
plot is thickening!
> "This is no time to make new enemies."
>
> -- Voltaire, when asked on his deathbed to forswear Satan.
One of my favorite quotes, and it perfectly fits this game.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Clément:
>
>
>
> > or "CAF
> > teams match terribly against AFC ones" kind of rules
>
> ...but you're right, you lose this. And it's something I'd prefer not
> to lose if possible, since it adds colour.
>
> A way to recover it could be something like: groups of 5 teams, each
> one from a different confederations. Each confederation start 1-0
> against two opponent confederations and 0-1 against the other two;
> teams from the same confederations start 0-0. :\
Practically a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors-Spock-Lizard where, having
your weapon fixed, you can dope it.
Also: after the second matchday, I won't doubt anymore of the
diplomatic potentialities of Clash of the Nations. Looking at the
results abstracting from the agreements is like thinking that Dragon
Ball martial art tournaments are disputed among simple humans, or like
reading Gulliver's Travel just for its plot.
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> Clément:
>> "milivella" escreveu:
>>>
>>> So each team is better than one team in its group, equal to another
>>> one, worse than the remaining one. And in the whole competition it's
>>> better than fifteen teams (two in each of the other groups) and worse
>>> than fifteen (again, two in each of the other groups).
>>
>> This way doesn't have the flavor of "Brazil always lose to France"
>
> Actually you could implement this (not going random)...
>>
>> or "CAF
>> teams match terribly against AFC ones" kind of rules
>
> ...but you're right, you lose this. And it's something I'd prefer not
> to lose if possible, since it adds colour.
Me neither. But then again, there's only so much realism you can expect to
factor in a game without breaking, or simply ruining it.
(...)
> Indeed my original idea was to have not just one kind of criterion...
> E.g. one based on confederations and one on... shirt colour. I.e.if
> have Italy I want to avoid both South American teams (-1 goal) and
> teams with white on their shirts (-1 goal), so I'm particularly afraid
> of Argentina (I would start 0-2). The possible way to cross different
> criteria seemed interesting to me. The shirt coulour example is silly,
> but I hope you get the general idea. But it wouldn't be easy to
> implement.
Indeed it wouldn't. But it sounds interesting as a starting point at least.
(...)
>> Since balance is arguably the most important concern here, this proposal
>> sounds good.
>
> Are we already accepting ideas for Clash of the Nations - World Cup
> 2006 edition? :)
Why not? =)
Let me throw a couple of ideas, then. Nothing very solid, just things that
crossed my mind and I thought I could share:
- Implement a way of regaining extra goals: resource management games
usually (if not always) have ways of recovering resources you have spent or
lost. How about a limited way of getting extra goals during the tournament?
It cannot be too obvious and, while it must reward good play, it must not
excessively widen the gap between those who spent more and those who spent
little. Also, it must not generate late-tournament silliness and/or loss of
the suspense.
Hey, I didn't say it would be easy.
- Create some sort of spending floor: besides being limited by their extra
goals budget, players could be required to spend a minimum number of goals
each round or stage.
(This second idea, assuming it's a good one and feasible, combines well with
idea #1, by the way).
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Clément
>
> Also: after the second matchday, I won't doubt anymore of the
> diplomatic potentialities of Clash of the Nations. Looking at the
> results abstracting from the agreements is like thinking that Dragon
> Ball martial art tournaments are disputed among simple humans, or like
> reading Gulliver's Travel just for its plot.
I agree, but I have some questions to make you all about how this is working
out. This is a subject best left for after the game ends, though.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> > Are we already accepting ideas for Clash of the Nations - World Cup
> > 2006 edition? :)
>
> Why not? =)
So I'm willing to be either the gamemaster or a player!
> Let me throw a couple of ideas, then. Nothing very solid, just things that
> crossed my mind and I thought I could share:
Thank you for sharing, and they are very interesting!
> - Implement a way of regaining extra goals: resource management games
> usually (if not always) have ways of recovering resources you have spent or
> lost. How about a limited way of getting extra goals during the tournament?
> It cannot be too obvious and, while it must reward good play, it must not
> excessively widen the gap between those who spent more and those who spent
> little. Also, it must not generate late-tournament silliness and/or loss of
> the suspense.
If reaching a given round gives you extra-goals, we could even ditch
the whole point system and just awarding the WC winner (since reching
a late stage with two teams would give more extra-goals, so more
chances to win the cup).
> - Create some sort of spending floor: besides being limited by their extra
> goals budget, players could be required to spend a minimum number of goals
> each round or stage.
I'd say something like: min 4 goals per round. Even if forced, it
would make sure that no matchday is meaningless.
I like these proposals. I know that we're still in the brainstorming
phase, but if I had to vote right now I would go for them and "rock-
paper-scissor" (each team is stonger than 15 and weaker than 15
opponents).
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> Cl�ment:
>>> Are we already accepting ideas for Clash of the Nations - World Cup
>>> 2006 edition? :)
>>
>> Why not? =)
>
> So I'm willing to be either the gamemaster or a player!
Me too, and I think it would be very wrong to deprive the game of
milivella's negotiationsand and backstabbing.
>> - Implement a way of regaining extra goals: resource management games
>> usually (if not always) have ways of recovering resources you have spent
>> or
>> lost. How about a limited way of getting extra goals during the
>> tournament?
>> It cannot be too obvious and, while it must reward good play, it must not
>> excessively widen the gap between those who spent more and those who
>> spent
>> little. Also, it must not generate late-tournament silliness and/or loss
>> of
>> the suspense.
>
> If reaching a given round gives you extra-goals, we could even ditch
> the whole point system and just awarding the WC winner (since reching
> a late stage with two teams would give more extra-goals, so more
> chances to win the cup).
Could be. It's not clear for me what the system for awarding further points
could be, or whether points should be awarded for teams or players.
>> - Create some sort of spending floor: besides being limited by their
>> extra
>> goals budget, players could be required to spend a minimum number of
>> goals
>> each round or stage.
>
> I'd say something like: min 4 goals per round. Even if forced, it
> would make sure that no matchday is meaningless.
Yes. I don't want to comment too much on this, because 1) I honestly don't
follow all the logic behind the players' strategies, and 2) because I don't
want to reveal any inside information I might have. But my feeling is that
players could quickly master what it takes to optimize their 1st stage
outcome, which could make the entire stage meaningless in future
tournaments.
Creating a spending ceiling would be a way of offsetting this risk, assuming
there's such a risk.
> I like these proposals. I know that we're still in the brainstorming
> phase, but if I had to vote right now I would go for them and "rock-
> paper-scissor" (each team is stonger than 15 and weaker than 15
> opponents).
Me too. I think all these proposals add strategic depth to the game.
However, the proposal to award extra-goals still needs a fair amount of
work, IMO. It must be balanced and should not boring/too predictable.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> "milivella" escreveu:
>
> > Cl ment:
> >>> Are we already accepting ideas for Clash of the Nations - World Cup
> >>> 2006 edition? :)
>
> >> Why not? =)
>
> > So I'm willing to be either the gamemaster or a player!
>
> Me too, and I think it would be very wrong to deprive the game of
> milivella's negotiationsand and backstabbing.
I am not backstabbing anyone! :)
> >> - Implement a way of regaining extra goals: resource management games
> >> usually (if not always) have ways of recovering resources you have spent
> >> or
> >> lost. How about a limited way of getting extra goals during the
> >> tournament?
> >> It cannot be too obvious and, while it must reward good play, it must not
> >> excessively widen the gap between those who spent more and those who
> >> spent
> >> little. Also, it must not generate late-tournament silliness and/or loss
> >> of
> >> the suspense.
>
> > If reaching a given round gives you extra-goals, we could even ditch
> > the whole point system and just awarding the WC winner (since reching
> > a late stage with two teams would give more extra-goals, so more
> > chances to win the cup).
>
> Could be. It's not clear for me what the system for awarding further points
> could be
Let's think about it.
> or whether points should be awarded for teams or players.
I'd say players, but it depends on the point system.
> >> - Create some sort of spending floor: besides being limited by their
> >> extra
> >> goals budget, players could be required to spend a minimum number of
> >> goals
> >> each round or stage.
>
> > I'd say something like: min 4 goals per round. Even if forced, it
> > would make sure that no matchday is meaningless.
>
> Yes. I don't want to comment too much on this, because 1) I honestly don't
> follow all the logic behind the players' strategies
:)
> and 2) because I don't
> want to reveal any inside information I might have. But my feeling is that
> players could quickly master what it takes to optimize their 1st stage
> outcome, which could make the entire stage meaningless in future
> tournaments.
I look forward for your post-WC comments! But consider that with a
rock-paper-scissor mechanics things aren't so easy.
--
Cheers
milivella
Abubakr
30g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, mili...@gmail.com says...
>
> Clément:
>
> > "milivella" escreveu:
> >
> > > Cl ment:
> > >>> Are we already accepting ideas for Clash of the Nations - World Cup
> > >>> 2006 edition? :)
> >
> > >> Why not? =)
> >
> > > So I'm willing to be either the gamemaster or a player!
> >
> > Me too, and I think it would be very wrong to deprive the game of
> > milivella's negotiationsand and backstabbing.
>
> I am not backstabbing anyone! :)
Does anyone get uneasy feelings about collusion in sports, playing this
game?
--
"When a diplomat says yes, he means ?perhaps?;
When he says perhaps, he means ?no?;
When he says no, he is not a diplomat."
-- Voltaire.
milivella
> Does anyone get uneasy feelings about collusion in sports, playing this
> game?
Yes! And I mean...
> "When a diplomat says yes, he means ?perhaps?;
...perhaps. ;)
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> Does anyone get uneasy feelings about collusion in sports, playing this
> game?
Well, this game is different, since players manage pools of teams - meaning
that it's often convenient to sacrifice a result if it means that bigger
interests will succeed. That's not true in sports...
... right?
> "When a diplomat says yes, he means ?perhaps?;
Yes.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
Clément
> Cl�ment:
>> "milivella" escreveu:
>>
>>> So I'm willing to be either the gamemaster or a player!
>>
>> Me too, and I think it would be very wrong to deprive the game of
>> milivella's negotiationsand and backstabbing.
>
> I am not backstabbing anyone! :)
I'm sorry! I should not make false accusations like that. =)
Let me say instead that I don't want to deprive the game of the
*possibility* of complex deals and masterful backstabbing involving
milivella!
(...)
>> and 2) because I don't
>> want to reveal any inside information I might have. But my feeling is
>> that
>> players could quickly master what it takes to optimize their 1st stage
>> outcome, which could make the entire stage meaningless in future
>> tournaments.
>
> I look forward for your post-WC comments! But consider that with a
> rock-paper-scissor mechanics things aren't so easy.
Absolutely! The rock-paper-scissor mechanics (and the spending floor to a
lesser extent) makes it more difficult to have an entirely or very
predictable first stage. Which is why it's a good idea to have it next time,
IMO.
BTW, we already have something in place that helps a great deal in this
sense: the possibility of backstabbing.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
piece of the regaining-extra-goals puzzle: reward with extra-goals
feats like outscoring your opponents by 3 goals.
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> We are in brainstorming time, aren't we? So here is another possible
> piece of the regaining-extra-goals puzzle: reward with extra-goals
> feats like outscoring your opponents by 3 goals.
Interesting! This is the kind of ideas I'm wishing we come up with if we are
to adopt this new rule.
Another one: award extra goals for finishing 1st place in a 1st stage group.
This idea is more obvious and boring, but has the nice effect of motivating
players to invest matchday 3 goals on teams that are already guaranteed in
the next round.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> Another one: award extra goals for finishing 1st place in a 1st stage group.
> This idea is more obvious and boring, but has the nice effect of motivating
> players to invest matchday 3 goals on teams that are already guaranteed in
> the next round.
Nice one! In general, we could/should find secondary objectives, such
that players can consider the option to go for them, risking some
goals and eventually obtaining more goals in return.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
(thanks!). To make every match meaningful (even if group matches where
the teams are either qualified or out), we could use a more granular
point allocation table. Computing the complete ranking from 1st to
32th like FIFA does, the allocation position->points could be:
1 92
2 74
3 63
4 55
5 49
6 45
7 40
8 37
9 34
10 31
11 28
12 26
13 24
14 22
15 20
16 18
17 17
18 15
19 14
20 13
21 11
22 10
23 9
24 8
25 7
26 6
27 5
28 4
29 3
30 2
31 1
32 0
If a win in group stage for a team that doesn't qualify to next round
anyway means +8 points, it's more than the difference between 4th and
5th.
---
Appendixes
1. How I came to those numbers
I put the current values (10, 7, 5, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, etc.) in a
spreadsheet, then I let Excel compute the tendency:
- 2.6638 * natural_logarithm(position) + 8.5079
Then I just used this formula, adding 0.72413 so that 32th = exactly
0. I finally multiplied by 10.
2. Average points for last round reached
1st Winner 92
2nd Final (losing) 74
3rd-4th Semifinal 59
5th-8th Quarters 43
9th-16th Round of 16 26
17th-32th Group 8
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Another idea in the cauldron, developing a suggestion by Mark V.
> (thanks!).
Another very good idea by Mark V. (thanks again!) is to change default-
goal allocation for KO rounds: teams that were 1st in their groups
will have 1 default-goals, while teams that were 2nd gets no default-
goal (so in our case from round of 16 it would be NZL 1, PAR 0).
I think that it overlaps nicely with Luiz' idea to reward players with
more goals if they reach given results. E.g. one could give +1 default-
goals to teams that were first in the group.
Of course we should consider the practical implication of each
proposal: e.g. does it make round of 16 more boring?
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
news:b30c0579-207a-40db...@u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> Another idea in the cauldron, developing a suggestion by Mark V.
> (thanks!).
I have to say that playing under the current rules I'm having an absolute
blast, and I'm not sure I would want to change anything.
In fact, many of the rules proposed are moving in the direction of adding
incentives to make each match meaningful. In the limit, this will have the
effect of eliminating (or at least reducing substantially) all the intrigue
and back room manoeuvres which make the game so much fun. In the end it
becomes a game where a very powerful computer can potentially figure out the
optimal strategy, eliminating the human element.
D
Mark V.
> "milivella" <milive...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b30c0579-207a-40db...@u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Another idea in the cauldron, developing a suggestion by Mark V.
> > (thanks!).
>
> I have to say that playing under the current rules I'm having an absolute
> blast, and I'm not sure I would want to change anything.
I agree that the current game is fun, and after the big ache going
through my head from reading the prospective points allocation table
goes away I will rescind the proposal.
I would like to suggest one change. I propose that the eight first
place teams after group play be the teams that carry an extra goal
into their round of 16 matches.
Clément
> "milivella" wrote:
>> Another idea in the cauldron, developing a suggestion by Mark V.
>> (thanks!).
>
> I have to say that playing under the current rules I'm having an absolute
> blast, and I'm not sure I would want to change anything.
>
> In fact, many of the rules proposed are moving in the direction of adding
> incentives to make each match meaningful. In the limit, this will have the
> effect of eliminating (or at least reducing substantially) all the
> intrigue and back room manoeuvres which make the game so much fun. In the
> end it becomes a game where a very powerful computer can potentially
> figure out the optimal strategy, eliminating the human element.
Interesting point. In fact, I would like to clarify something: the reason
I'm proposing some changes is to add strategic depth to the game, therefore
making the players' decisions more complex and varied.
This is intended to make the diplomacy angle more interesting, not less so.
So I'm agreeing with you. Whatever changes we make to try and make the game
less predictable, they should also not detract from the negotiation angle.
What I would like to avoid in future editions is to have the entire group
stage look/feel too much like groups G and H this time around (The Groups of
Fix =), in which the 1-pointer teams advanced too easily while spending a
little more than zero goals.
In theory, everyone could have both their 1-pointer teams advance while
spending zero goals (by the current rules). I'm not saying that's a likely
outcome (and the possibility of backstabbing goes a long way to prevent it),
but I still think it's more interesting to give players incentive to spend
goals in a less predictable way.
But yeah, there must be a balance somewhere. If every single match is a 100%
relevant, then it becomes a straight succession of duels, with no
negotiation possible or worthwhile. If the game is not too deep
strategically speaking, then I'm afraid the players could master it really
quickly, making it too predictable to be interesting.
I can't be sure whether my concerns are correct, though.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Clément
>
> I agree that the current game is fun, and after the big ache going
> through my head from reading the prospective points allocation table
> goes away I will rescind the proposal.
=)
The points allocation could be more granular, without being that much
granular, though. Make, for example, finishing third in the group better
than finish fourth.
> I would like to suggest one change. I propose that the eight first
> place teams after group play be the teams that carry an extra goal
> into their round of 16 matches.
Nice one!
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Clément
>
> Another very good idea by Mark V. (thanks again!) is to change default-
> goal allocation for KO rounds: teams that were 1st in their groups
> will have 1 default-goals, while teams that were 2nd gets no default-
> goal (so in our case from round of 16 it would be NZL 1, PAR 0).
>
> I think that it overlaps nicely with Luiz' idea to reward players with
> more goals if they reach given results. E.g. one could give +1 default-
> goals to teams that were first in the group.
Also, maybe it replaces my idea nicely.
The idea of awarding extra-goals as the tournament goes on should be linked
with secondary goals (I think you already posted something to this effect).
I.e. awarding new extra-goals because a team advanced to the next stage is
not interesting, because to try and advance is what players are trying to do
anyway. Conversely, finishing first in a group, or trying to win by a larger
goal differential, are practically irrelevant achievements by the current
rules, so maybe they could be rewarded.
> Of course we should consider the practical implication of each
> proposal: e.g. does it make round of 16 more boring?
For each proposal, we should considere the pros and cons regarding:
- Making the game less predictable/boring
- Enforcing the diplomacy angle
Anything else?
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> If every single match is a 100%
> relevant, then it becomes a straight succession of duels, with no
> negotiation possible or worthwhile.
I'm not sure whether this is necessarily true, but I consider this
point of view as expressed by Daniele and you *very interesting*.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> For each proposal, we should considere the pros and cons regarding:
>
> - Making the game less predictable/boring
> - Enforcing the diplomacy angle
>
> Anything else?
I find these two points surprisingly effective as a summary of our
priorities (nor have I thought anything else so far): great!
My proposal is: until the current Clash is rolling, let's keep having
brainstorming time. Then I see three things to do:
1. Re-reading the thread and extracting all the proposals.
2. Rating the proposal extracted in (1) in terms of predictability and
diplomacy.
3. On the basis of (2), adopting some of the proposals.
Now, each of these steps can be done by:
- a single gamemaster
- a bunch of interested people
- anyone: anyone proposing (1), rating (2) and voting (3)
I guess that we'll see what will happen (assuming that I'm right about
the three steps!). I am of course willing to be either the single
gamemaster, or part of the bunch of interested people, or anyone. :)
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
Well, I'm not sure myself about most of the possibilities I'm discussing. =)
But the logic in the above sentence is this: if every single match is
relevant towards my goal of winning the game, then I have incentive to try
and win every single match I can.
Maybe not every single match, while relevant, is absolutely necessary for me
to win - in that case, it's possible that negotiations could happen. But it
doesn't look like there would be much room for it in such a scenario.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Clément
>
> My proposal is: until the current Clash is rolling, let's keep having
> brainstorming time. Then I see three things to do:
> 1. Re-reading the thread and extracting all the proposals.
> 2. Rating the proposal extracted in (1) in terms of predictability and
> diplomacy.
> 3. On the basis of (2), adopting some of the proposals.
>
> Now, each of these steps can be done by:
> - a single gamemaster
> - a bunch of interested people
> - anyone: anyone proposing (1), rating (2) and voting (3)
> I guess that we'll see what will happen (assuming that I'm right about
> the three steps!). I am of course willing to be either the single
> gamemaster, or part of the bunch of interested people, or anyone. :)
As it turns out, I'm saving CotN-related posts and e-mails to a separate
folder while I'm running it, so I think it's easier for me to fish the
proposals and put them together in a single post.
Then everyone add/change proposals and participate of step (2).
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
milivella
Thanks! But really, if you'll find out that it's not that easy, leave
(the wisdom of the) masses do the hard work! :)
(I would like to reply to your interesting argument about match
relevance and diplomacy, but... my current excuse is that I'm burning
with rage against a certain CotN player!)
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
*on any team*. He is given a unique secret objective to fulfil to win:
e.g. "you win if two AFC teams reach the semis", or "you win if the
semi-finals involve exactly the same four NTs are in a previous
edition of the real WC", etc. The list of all the objectives is
public, but nobody knows what objectives have been picked and what
haven't, nor who has which objective (with the only exception of your
own, of course).
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
Name of the game: Clash of the Powers that Be.
Each secret objective/agenda can be given a name: e.g. Blatter = "you
win if the 0-default-goal home NT reaches the final"; Platini = "you
win if at least eight 0-goal teams reach the round of 16"; mafia =
"you win if either Italy, Russia or Japan wins the WC"; nike;
republicans ("two teams governed by the right wing reaches the
final"); daltonics ("a team whose shirt is either red or green wins
the cup"); etc. Bad examples, but you hopefully got the idea. Of
course these names doesn't add anything to the strategic/diplomatic
aspect, but they give a subtle narrative layer, no? Indeed if instead
of "extra-goals" we have "non-existent penalty kicks awarded by bribed
referee" the rules become far more intuitive to understand!
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
Pro: it works with any number of players, even 2 (no diplomacy) or 3
(diplomacy!).
--
Cheers
milivella
Lleo
> milivella:
>
> > OK, crazy proposal time. Each player has an amount of goals to spend
> > *on any team*. He is given a unique secret objective to fulfil to win:
> > e.g. "you win if two AFC teams reach the semis", or "you win if the
> > semi-finals involve exactly the same four NTs are in a previous
> > edition of the real WC", etc. The list of all the objectives is
> > public, but nobody knows what objectives have been picked and what
> > haven't, nor who has which objective (with the only exception of your
> > own, of course).
>
> Name of the game: Clash of the Powers that Be.
Interesting idea. The game becomes a kind of a mix between Diplomacy
and Risk (ok, less so this last one), with a football theme :-) We
could run it as a parallel game, since Clash of the Nations already
has an interesting, simple enough set of rules.
Ideas for which objectives will be picked? How many of them?
--
Lléo
Clément
Awesome. The objectives' names get a +1.
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> On 9 nov, 10:38, milivella <milive...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > milivella:
>
> > > OK, crazy proposal time. Each player has an amount of goals to spend
> > > *on any team*. He is given a unique secret objective to fulfil to win:
> > > e.g. "you win if two AFC teams reach the semis", or "you win if the
> > > semi-finals involve exactly the same four NTs are in a previous
> > > edition of the real WC", etc. The list of all the objectives is
> > > public, but nobody knows what objectives have been picked and what
> > > haven't, nor who has which objective (with the only exception of your
> > > own, of course).
>
> > Name of the game: Clash of the Powers that Be.
>
> Interesting idea. The game becomes a kind of a mix between Diplomacy
> and Risk (ok, less so this last one), with a football theme :-)
Exactly! Risk (obviously the version with secret objectives) has been
my source of inspiration for these rules. Also, Diplomacy was behind
the original concept of the Clash.
> We
> could run it as a parallel game, since Clash of the Nations already
> has an interesting, simple enough set of rules.
Agreed.
> Ideas for which objectives will be picked? How many of them?
How many: intuitively I would say twice as many as the players. I.e.
there could be even more objectives, but n*2 are selected before the
beginning of the game and showed to everybody, then the gamemaster
privately gives on of them to each of the n players.
Which: well, one could really be imaginative with them. The only
problem is to have balanced objectives: e.g. "make South Korea win
every match exactly 4-0" and "make Brazil rech round of 16" are not
balanced! I see two possible solutions:
- To find some ways to make an auction of the objectives: e.g. the
South Korea one above could be bought for 0 extra-goals, while the
Brazil one could cost 24 goals. In this way the market itself balance
the situation.
- To have more boring - but surely balanced! - objectives: e.g. let's
select the 32 WC teams such that they form 8 sets of 4 teams from the
same world region, 8 sets of 4 teams with the same shirt color, 8 sets
of 4 teams whose name starts with the same letter. You'll be secretly
given one of these 24 groups, and your score will be the sum of the
scores of your teams.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> Lleo:
>
>
>
> > Ideas for which objectives will be picked? How many of them?
> Which: well, one could really be imaginative with them. The only
> problem is to have balanced objectives: e.g. "make South Korea win
> every match exactly 4-0" and "make Brazil rech round of 16" are not
> balanced! I see two possible solutions:
> - To find some ways to make an auction of the objectives: e.g. the
> South Korea one above could be bought for 0 extra-goals, while the
> Brazil one could cost 24 goals. In this way the market itself balance
> the situation.
Not so practical.
> - To have more boring - but surely balanced! - objectives: e.g. let's
> select the 32 WC teams such that they form 8 sets of 4 teams from the
> same world region, 8 sets of 4 teams with the same shirt color, 8 sets
> of 4 teams whose name starts with the same letter. You'll be secretly
> given one of these 24 groups, and your score will be the sum of the
> scores of your teams.
Boring!
Let's do this instead: everyone writes down any crazy objective he can
think of, and then we compute the probability of any winning scenario.
I.e. we choose to have objectives that have circa 10% chances to
happen.
I've done something similar here just before the Clash of the Nations,
trying to determine the right score for each round reached. E.g. If
all the NTs start with 0 default-goals, the chance of any of them to
win the WC is 1/32 = 3.125%.
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> milivella:
>> - To have more boring - but surely balanced! - objectives: e.g. let's
>> select the 32 WC teams such that they form 8 sets of 4 teams from the
>> same world region, 8 sets of 4 teams with the same shirt color, 8 sets
>> of 4 teams whose name starts with the same letter. You'll be secretly
>> given one of these 24 groups, and your score will be the sum of the
>> scores of your teams.
>
> Boring!
>
> Let's do this instead: everyone writes down any crazy objective he can
> think of, and then we compute the probability of any winning scenario.
> I.e. we choose to have objectives that have circa 10% chances to
> happen.
Nice. I suggest we try to follow your previous idea: fun and thematic
objectives ("The Platini" was brilliant).
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
milivella
don't know who I'll play against in the semi. It should make things
less predictable, but would it take strategy away?
(we can seed round of 16, of course)
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> What about random draws? I.e. if I win against Abubakr today (!!!) I
> don't know who I'll play against in the semi. It should make things
> less predictable, but would it take strategy away?
Or, since groups have strategies while KO rounds haven't (or have
less), what if we replace round of 16 with a second group stage? Four
groups of 4, the first two advance.
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
As the gamemaster, I wouldn't mind running a couple of extra matchdays. But
would the players be OK with the tournament taking an extra week?
Abra�o,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> "milivella" escreveu:
>
> > Or, since groups have strategies while KO rounds haven't (or have
> > less), what if we replace round of 16 with a second group stage? Four
> > groups of 4, the first two advance.
>
> As the gamemaster, I wouldn't mind running a couple of extra matchdays. But
> would the players be OK with the tournament taking an extra week?
Fair question. I wouldn't mind, since it would be an extra week of
crazy negotiations! :)
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
> Clément:
>>
>> For each proposal, we should considere the pros and cons regarding:
>>
>> - Making the game less predictable/boring
>> - Enforcing the diplomacy angle
>>
>> Anything else?
>
> I find these two points surprisingly effective as a summary of our
> priorities (nor have I thought anything else so far): great!
>
> My proposal is: until the current Clash is rolling, let's keep having
> brainstorming time. Then I see three things to do:
> 1. Re-reading the thread and extracting all the proposals.
> 2. Rating the proposal extracted in (1) in terms of predictability and
> diplomacy.
Here are the proposals (I might have forgotten something, please add or let
me know):
1) Add a mechanic for gaining extra-goals, preferrably attached to a
secondary objective. Suggestions:
1.1) reward with extra-goals feats like outscoring your opponents by 3
goals;
1.2) award extra goals for finishing 1st place in a 1st stage group;
1.3) other ideas??
2) Change default-goal allocation for KO rounds: teams that were 1st in
their groups will have 1 default-goals, while teams that were 2nd gets no
default-goal;
3) During the group stage, make the 1-goal-teams meet in the second round
(ff they meet in the third round there is always the danger that everything
is decided already, while if the 0-goal-teams meet in the first round, one
team is sure to be out after day 1);
4) Use random draws for every knock out round, as opposed to fixed brackets;
5) Replace round of 16 with a second group stage? Four groups of 4, the
first two advance;
6) Other ideas??
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> Here are the proposals (I might have forgotten something, please add or let
> me know):
Out of the top of my head: the rock-paper-scissor system:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.soccer/msg/b79b5ffb091ffe6d
--
Cheers
milivella
Clément
Of course! How could I forget that one?
The proposals:
1) Add a mechanic for gaining extra-goals, preferrably attached to a
secondary objective. Suggestions:
1.1) reward with extra-goals feats like outscoring your opponents by 3
goals;
1.2) award extra goals for finishing 1st place in a 1st stage group;
1.3) other ideas??
2) Change default-goal allocation for KO rounds: teams that were 1st in
their groups will have 1 default-goals, while teams that were 2nd gets no
default-goal;
3) During the group stage, make the 1-goal-teams meet in the second round
(ff they meet in the third round there is always the danger that everything
is decided already, while if the 0-goal-teams meet in the first round, one
team is sure to be out after day 1);
4) Use random draws for every knock out round, as opposed to fixed brackets;
5) Replace round of 16 with a second group stage? Four groups of 4, the
first two advance;
6) Use a rock-paper-scissor system, in which some teams beat others by
default, but lose by default to the same number of opponents;
7) Other ideas?
All proposals should be rated in terms of how they add
unpredictability/strategic depth to the game, without taking away from the
diplomacy angle (in fact, if a proposal adds weight to the diplomacy angle,
it's even better).
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
milivella
> All proposals should be rated in terms of how they add
> unpredictability/strategic depth to the game, without taking away from the
> diplomacy angle (in fact, if a proposal adds weight to the diplomacy angle,
> it's even better).
Here is my attempt to a quick review of the proposals according to
these parameters (unpredictability, strategic depth and diplomacy).
This review is not important in itself, but maybe it can be useful for
some purposes:
- you can tell us whether it's what we are supposed to do
- everyone has an example to follow/improve
- I have a first draft to work on
> The proposals:
>
> 1) Add a mechanic for gaining extra-goals, preferrably attached to a
> secondary objective. Suggestions:
I guess that it improves everything: unpredictability, strategic depth
and diplomacy.
> 1.1) reward with extra-goals feats like outscoring your opponents by 3
> goals;
(We need a full list of the feats.)
> 1.2) award extra goals for finishing 1st place in a 1st stage group;
(It overlaps with (2). In general, after the debate about the single
proposals the issue of mixing them should be discussed.)
> 2) Change default-goal allocation for KO rounds: teams that were 1st in
> their groups will have 1 default-goals, while teams that were 2nd gets no
> default-goal;
Adds strategic depth. Little effect on unpredictability and diplomacy?
> 3) During the group stage, make the 1-goal-teams meet in the second round
> (ff they meet in the third round there is always the danger that everything
> is decided already, while if the 0-goal-teams meet in the first round, one
> team is sure to be out after day 1);
Improves unpredictability.
> 4) Use random draws for every knock out round, as opposed to fixed brackets;
More unpredictability, less strategic depth.
> 5) Replace round of 16 with a second group stage? Four groups of 4, the
> first two advance;
Improves everything: unpr., str.depth, dipl.
> 6) Use a rock-paper-scissor system, in which some teams beat others by
> default, but lose by default to the same number of opponents;
Way more unpredictability, hopefully more strategic depth.
My intuitive mixes would be either 2+3+5 or 5+6 (6 is incompatible
with 2 and 3; 1 needs a complete list; I don't like 4 since it takes
strategy away). We could plan two (or more) cups each one with
peculiar rules, but I don't know ho many people are so willing to join
so many competitions in advance (I am, either as gamemaster or
player).
--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
news:52c7ae89-d905-482b...@f16g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Clément:
> Here is my attempt to a quick review of the proposals according to
> these parameters (unpredictability, strategic depth and diplomacy).
Good analysis. I'll try to add some comments later.
D
milivella
> The proposals:
> 2) Change default-goal allocation for KO rounds: teams that were 1st in
> their groups will have 1 default-goals, while teams that were 2nd gets no
> default-goal;
This could be made even bolder: more difference as of default-goals
(e.g. some teams start from 3, some from 2), *but* if a team with less
default goals stamps out a team with more, the winning team inherits
the losing team's goals: i.e. if a 1-goal team wins round of 16
against a 2-goal team, the 1-goal team becomes 2-goal since quarters.
In groups, it should be: the 1st placed team gets (if higher than its)
the Default-Goal Allocation of the team with the higher D.-G. A.
between the two removed; the 2nd placed team gets the D.-G. A. of the
other one (if higher than its).
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> The proposals:
>
> 1) Add a mechanic for gaining extra-goals, preferrably attached to a
> secondary objective. Suggestions:
> 1.1) reward with extra-goals feats like outscoring your opponents by 3
> goals;
> 1.2) award extra goals for finishing 1st place in a 1st stage group;
> 1.3) other ideas??
>
> 2) Change default-goal allocation for KO rounds: teams that were 1st in
> their groups will have 1 default-goals, while teams that were 2nd gets no
> default-goal;
>
> 3) During the group stage, make the 1-goal-teams meet in the second round
> (ff they meet in the third round there is always the danger that everything
> is decided already, while if the 0-goal-teams meet in the first round, one
> team is sure to be out after day 1);
>
> 4) Use random draws for every knock out round, as opposed to fixed brackets;
>
> 5) Replace round of 16 with a second group stage? Four groups of 4, the
> first two advance;
>
> 6) Use a rock-paper-scissor system, in which some teams beat others by
> default, but lose by default to the same number of opponents;
>
> 7) Other ideas?
>
> All proposals should be rated in terms of how they add
> unpredictability/strategic depth to the game, without taking away from the
> diplomacy angle (in fact, if a proposal adds weight to the diplomacy angle,
> it's even better).
Time to decide?
--
Cheers
milivella