Two unrelated things, but the second one isn't really worthy of a thread of its own.


1) While playing in a (pretty bad) 10v10 tournament, an idea for a different way for a tournament to evolve occured to me. Something along the lines of if you are eliminated, booted or surrender in a tournament game that your team wins, you cannot take part in the following round(s). You, the individual player, would be out.

I realise that in most tournaments of smaller teams, say up to four people, that the winning team would usually have all four team members alive when the game ends. But with bigger teams, it could add something else to think about during the games, keeping every member of your team alive for the next round.

Even if Fizzer never implemented an optional setting for this, it could be done as a Gentleman's Agreement between players in a tournament based on the concept, with players surrendering in the next game before turn 1.

Has this been done before? Do you think it could be a good idea?


2) What happened to the Simpsons map? I saw it on the dashboard a while ago but it quickly disappeared. I thought it might come back but it hasn't. Did it fall foul of copyright issues? Did anyone play it? Or did I just imagine it?

I like your first idea, that could make things interesting.

I did notice on the Simpsons map page that somebody had commented how it was a terrible map because it infringed on copyright.. It seemed silly to me that this person would play a game on a map he hated from the offset just to make that comment..

I like your 1st idea, my only issue with it, is say its a 10v10, and 1 team wins, but loses 6 of its players, and the other team only loses 2, it turns into a 8v4 situation. How bout a modified version, where using the same scenario, you make it an even 8v8, with the team that lost 6 players gaining 4 of them back. To determine it, You would look at the previous game, and the first 2 members of that team who were eliminated are out, the last 4 are back in

Nighthawk, that defeats the whole purpose of it though. The idea is to reward teams for ensuring the survival of their teammates. The way you are advocating would make it so losing players to boot or surrender would have minimal impact on a team in direct contradiction to the intent of the original format.

That wasn't really what I had in mind Nighthawk but to be fair all I was doing was putting an idea out there for people to think about, comment on and to see where it goes, so all input is valid and welcomed.

As Sharpe says, it should reward and so encourage the survival of as many team members as possible.

I think it could lead to scenarios where a team that feels they can't win may target a weaker member of the other team, a parting shot to handicap them for the remainder of the tournament.

I also like the idea of big teams being gradually whittled down to just a few teammates by the time they reach the final and the camaraderie that that could produce.

One problem I do foresee however would be if one team made it through Round 1 unscathed while all the others lost a few men. The tournament could be a bit of a foregone conclusion, which is where Nighthawk's point may be useful. But then again, teams should have done better themselves in Round 1.

Just by way of example, that would be akin to complaining that you lost because your opposition made better picks than you; you should have made better picks yourself.

an additional idea if some people want they can be able to revive a player after a few games.

|> I think it could lead to scenarios where a team that feels they can't win may target a weaker member of the other team, a parting shot to handicap them for the remainder of the tournament.

Not just that, the risk of losing that (in the current round, weaker) member would allow for interesting tactical decisions. Does the strongest member airlift a big stack to the weakest member to save them (losing one of his own bonuses in the process), or does he press on, attempting to defeat all opponents before his team member is eliminated, or does the team decide to bite the bullet and continue to the next round one member short?

As a practical matter, I feel relying on a gentlemen's agreement (in a medium to big tournament) is asking for trouble... :(

Very interesting idea, thank you for sharing!

This would only be possible in larger teams (maybe 5 player being the minimum, maybe larger than that), and it seems open to abuse, unless teams are pre-made.

We all know the joys of having a player on your team who doesn't care or just quits. Most teams, especially for a 10v10 situation, will involve a good number of random players who joined on a whim. Without pre-made teams for all teams, this would just end up helping the pre-made teams even more than already happens. Also, random people who join are less likely to abide by the rules and surrender each game.

Assuming pre-made teams, it actually sounds awesome. There's still lots of potential for abuse, but each team would at least be prepared for it, and that would become part of the strategy. A 10 player team who makes it to the final with only 4 players would be at a disadvantage for sure, but they should have thought of that before allowing 6 players to be eliminated.

I think that gift cards and/or airlifts would be just about mandatory. The other option would be to allow manual selection and really make initial picks important, but that would cause a large number of headaches for large teams.