|
|
||
| TacOps Tourney 2003 | ||
| Gameplan in Detail v1.0 | ||
|
|
||
| The Tourney will be held in three distinct stages, and will be observed by an impartial jury or a referee. These three stages work as follows: 1. The ELIMINATION ROUND, to determine the eight best players from the roster that starts the tourney 2. QUARTERFINALS and SEMINFINALS, to determine the 2 best players of the 8 coming out of the elimination round 3. FINAL game for champion Winner of the TacOps Touney 2003 is the winner of the final game, he will find his name engraved in the trophy. THE QUALIFICATION ROUND: The qualification round is composed of three scenarios that each player has to play twice against the same opponent (once as BLUE, then again as RED), i.e. each player will have to play 6 games, no matterwhether he wins or loses. Each scenario in this round challenges the player to display very different tactical skills which range from retreat over defense and attack to calculation of maneuver times, best arty use in different terrain against different unit types, and what is more. a) POINT System: In order to ensure an evaluation as impartial as possible, player performance in all those scenarios is evaluated by a point system, i.e. different parameters of player performance (like speed, casualities, etc) are evaluated separately and form a point result together (to see how the scenarios are evaluated, klick on the "Details" link at the side of each scenario on the scenario list page). b) GROUP Approach: To measure all player skills under the same circumstances as good as possible the players will play in groups: The roster is distributed into groups of four players (32 players, e.g., will form 8 groups A - H). Distribution of players into groups is done by way of a lottery through the referee(s). Each player within a group plays each other player within the group in ONE scenario (two-leg games, i.e. two games each, one as BLUE, one as RED), so plays a total of six games. The three scenarios that the players have to complete are identical in every group (he three qualification scenariosare deliberately unbalanced (#1 and #3 in favour of BLUE, #2 in favour of RED). This allows for decisive score evaluation and is not a problem, since every player plays both sides once. Group composition can be viewed at the Standings page c) Evaluation: The player (in a group) with the highest score after six games is considered the group winner. *All* group winners qualify for quarter finals. (The following is valid only in case we dont get 32 players for tourney start = 8 groups: The player (in a group) with the second best score after six games is considered the group second. Of all group seconds the number of highest scores needed to obtain 8 quarterfinalists qualify for quarter finals). In case of equal scores within a group after six games (highly unlikely, but possible) a decision game will take place between the players in question to determine the players rank within the group. Winner of this decision game gets the higher rank. (The following is valid only in case we dont get 32 players = 8 groups: In case of equal scores within all the groups second best players after six games (again, highly unlikely, but possible) a decision game will take place between the players in question to determine the players rank within the seconds. Winner of this decision game is considered the better group second) Group scores and rankings can be viewed at the Standings page d) Pairings: Within a group, who plays whom in which scenario is determined for all groups before the tourney starts and works as follows: The players in a group have the numbers 1 to 4 (which player gets which number is drawn by referee at group distribution). So: Scenario 1: Player 1 : Player 2 (Player 1 plays BLUE first) Player 3 : Player 4 (Player 3 plays BLUE first) Scenario 2: Player 1 : Player 3 (Player 1 plays BLUE first) Player 2 : Player 4 (Player 2 plays BLUE first) Scenario 3: Player 1 : Player 4 (Player 1 plays RED first) Player 2 : Player 3 (Player 2 plays RED first) e) Playmode: The games of the Elimination Round are played in 2-Players-Netgame Mode, i.e. in the TCP mode of the game engine. This not only allows to reduce the time needed to complete a game in comparison to PBM games but also allows to include observers. QUARTER- AND SEMIFINALS In the quarter- and semifinals balanced scenarios are used to determine the finalists while testing new skills of the players, namely force coordination, initiative and dynamic threat analysis. Quarters and Semifinals are played in normal PBEM manner, i.e. by email exchange of turns (though, if both players of a pair agree to it they may use IRC to exchange turns). This, of cause, will lead to a much longer game cycle (a PBM of 60 minutes should take around max 2 month) and will introduce a much more analytical approach to the players: In PBM games much more sophisticated plans can be executed with a firm view also on detail and can be meticoulously synchronized. In such an "analytical" game environmnent both players usually show their "optimum" as far as planning and execution skills are concerned (where the netgame showed the broad thinking), so, to really find out who is the better player the selection of scenarios becomes of major importance: - The scenarios must be very well balanced and have a proven record of being so (the better they were playtested the higher is the probability that they are well balanced) - Also they should have a RL aspect firmly embedded to ensure that the analytical capabilities of the players are rewarded correctly in this respect - They should not be longer than 60 minutes Four scenarios off the TacOps Scenario HQ fulfill the requirements, all designed by Rikki Tikki mainly during the TacOps Classic days end of the ´90s: "TF Riki", "The Mad General", "The Motherland" and "Semper Fi". Of those I excluded "TF Rikii" because of its similarity to Elimination Round Scenario 2 and because of the three scenarios it has the smallest spectrum of new skills to test. "The Motherland" was the final game scenario 1999 (see Nicks and Rikkis AARs) and, as well as "The Mad General", is fairly difficult to convert to a netgame, so I decided to have the FINAL played off the "Semper Fi" scenario in 2003. This latter one also has the advantage that it has not been published yet but has been thoroughly playtested by many players and, as far as I recall, was extremely well fine-tuned in the balance department (also it is very easy to convert into a netgaqme). With regard to the two leftover scenarios, The Motherland and Mad General, "The Motherland" is the big "initiative tester" with huge variations in game outcome (it tends to be either decisively won or lost while being superbly balanced), so I wanted to give more players the opportunity to undergo its challenge and decided to use this scenario for the Quarterfinal games. The scenario technical aspects will be hugely simplified by the use of the v4 engineering facilities and I am currently working on the new, adapted, description. This leaves the "The Mad General" for the semi-finals, a fun scenario whith an overall challenge to player skills and remodelled for the v4 database (currently writing up the adapted description). QUARTERFINALS The eight quarterfinalists are paired into 4 pairs, each pair playing "The Motherland" scenario via PBM. The quarterfinals are played KO system, i.e. winners go on, losers are out. The pairs in quarters will be as follows (this is just valid for the 8 groups approach, i.e. 32 players at STARTEX, will have to be adapted if player number is different): Quarterfinals Pairings (side decided by coin by referee): QF1 >> Winner Group A vs. Winner Group E QF2 >> Winner Group B vs. Winner Group F QF3 >> Winner Group C vs. Winner Group G QF4 >> Winner Group D vs. Winner Group H SEMIFINALS The four remaining semifinalists will be paired into two pairs, each pair playing the "The Mad General" scenario via PBM. It is played out using the KO system again, i.e. winners go on to play the Final, losers are out. The pairing in the semifinals will look as follows : Semifinals Pairings (side decided by coin by referee): SF1 >> Winner QF1 vs. Winner QF3 SF2 >> Winner QF2 vs. Winner QF4 FINAL CHAMPIONSHP GAME The final is played using a custom scenario, "Semper Fi", adapted for v4 netgame. It will be played in multiplayer netgame mode hosted by an umpire. The umpire will do necessary updatesand limit the orders time to 2:1, i.e. 2 minutes orders time for 1 minute combat phase. This is for three reasons: - For one, thinking and reacting under time pressure challenges another overall skill for players (we can assume to have the two best paired here at this stage which means both are skilled in most tactical operations, now the tourney tests the subtle differences), usually a player who knows to prioritize and is well organized fares better under those circumstances (of cause, expirience and profound knowledge of the game engine help here, too). - A time limit almost always has the consequence that not all orders can be given to all of your units (the situation gets worse the more you split down, micro-management is punished), so players got to plan ahead and give longer range orders, something that introduces a definite RL aspect to the scenario. - Third, with an order time limit the length of the game becomes a lot more calculable (a 60 turn game should not take much longer than 4hrs RL) and so allows better scheduling and might attract more observers. Final: Winner SF1 vs. Winner SF2 Winner of the final is the winner of the tourney. He will have completed nine games at least, provided there were no decision games needed in the qualification round. Name of the winner will be engraved into the TacOps Tourney Trophy like in the earlier tourneys. I hope the TacOps tourney will ensure that the player with the most proficient overall skills will be the winner, looking forward already to the outcome... Enjoy! Rattler (aka Matt Ohlmer) |
||
| Page last updated AUG 6, 2006, 1914 GMT, any comments contact tourney2003 (at) eventfoto.com | ||