??????
You are not logged in.
Well, the current server code doesn't support more than one running at a time, so that's a problem.
Also, the auto-tournaments currently all have to be the same duration and spacing.
But the manual tournament can interrupt them.... so it could work to have the small weeklies and then periodically schedule a long manual one.
Offline
Would it be possible to stagger them by 23 or 25 hours so they move around a bit over the week, before moving back to the same time at the start of the week?
Offline
Hmm... well, the current server code spaces them out based on a start date for the whole run of tournaments going all the way back to the beginning.
I could run two each day, spaced out by 12 hours. Maybe that would be better and hit everyone?
Offline
I could run two each day, spaced out by 12 hours. Maybe that would be better and hit everyone?
If there are enough players from the CET time zone if think that a tournament that starts just 7 o 8 hours earlier would be better: that would correspond to evening and during working days it would be the best time to play.
Last edited by Professor Chin (2015-06-17 16:36:32)
Offline
Hey guys, currently 5 players in the current $1 tournament, and there's still 70 minutes left to go. This is the first real tournament we've had in weeks.
http://cordialminuet.com/gameServer/ser … e=autoB_24
Maybe we need to agree ahead of time, here on the forum or on Chatzy, to meet up and play in tournaments.
I agree that 12 hours apart would be bad, several hours apart but still in the active part of the day would be better. But by now I get the impression it might make no difference (though I'm one of the ones that has trouble joining the current ones).
Last edited by .. (2015-07-03 03:50:42)
Offline
Well, that's a wrap up.
Not to be mean-spirited, but I'm pleased to see Expression Bosom didn't win, because he played for only 40 min and then walked away. That's still a huge problem with the tournaments. If there were many active players you would have to stick around, but as it is it anyone who's ahead is incentivised to stop playing. But I couldn't blame Jason for not wanting to spend time implementing a different format now.
Offline
Yes, I'm glad we had something resembling a tournament this time around.
Now, in poor ol' Expression Bosom's defense... I've been the first person to join a tournament quite a few times in the past. A couple times nobody joined me. More often the case, however, was that one other person would join, beat me (sometimes for the minimum amount to qualify for profit), and then stop playing-- which is, of course, a completely legitimate thing to do. Sadly, nobody else would then join, and being an honest person (and realizing that $1 is not worth it... though $200 would be), I did not create an alt to lose a couple games to me (since doing so would mitigate my loss and turn my opponent's decisive win into a slight loss...).
This time around, I played three games: one against Substitute Avenue which went for about 15 rounds, with him/her leaving with almost two thirds of my coins; one against Gentleman Errand, who timed out on the first pick (and then never joined another game); and one against Sky Performer, which resulted in me winning all coins minus slight tribute.
As the tournament time is three hours and people might have other things to do, it's possible that I might have said "Yay, that'll do," and left to do something else (which is legitimate). This time, however, I decided to watch and see how the tournament played out while doing other things. Generally, things stayed quiet, with very few other games being played. In the last 15 minutes, however, Substitute Avenue and Sky Performer played a few quickie games, which eventually resulted in Substitute Avenue reaching the top spot.
Again, this is completely legitimate play, but not something I could really guard against. Yes, I could have played another game earlier and increased my lead, but how much of a lead does one need to have before "fairly" calling it quits? Twice the tournament amount? Three times? Two (or more) desperate players could still topple that amount at the last minute through rapid all-in play.
In any case, .. is completely right: this is simply a symptom of lack of players. Five players is the most we've had in weeks, but it's still nowhere near critical mass for tournaments. Ten would be better, but even then that's a bit low. All of these issues are currently tied up in what's on all of our minds (at least those people still reading the forums): what exactly will be the future of Cordial Minuet.
Offline
I'd also like to point out that there are also sometimes players who join tournaments and play zero tournament games. This time, there was Proxy Evidence and Gentleman Errand (who as I said above, timed out on the game's first pick and then never joined another). In this 8-person tournament, there was Gratitude Bird. Perhaps they didn't understand the tournament rules and simply played non-tournament games, thinking winning those games would count towards winning the tournament, or else maybe thinking they could win something with zero profit.
Offline
Aw man, I totally would've joined this if I'd seen this thread at the time!
Offline