Which most have involved some amount of luck given it was my only IvG solo in the tournament. lol

"And as you said, my draw + win percentage is very impressive. Id wager its tops on the site. 50+ win percentage can be massively skewed by 1v1s, but a 92% win +win draw percentage shows that either i win, or i make sure no one else does. Im very proud of my 0 survives."
I agree, and the fact that I keep coming back and allying with your after brutal stabs (you have stabbed me in 3 of the 4 games we have played together) kinda shows your talent at diplomacy.

I wasn't saying that you were less of a diplomat because I was a victim in your solos, but that I thought it was kinda funny how for the longest time, every single game you joined more or less ended in a draw unless I was your ally, in which it ended in a solo for you.

Ah well that is kinda funny. I admit my end game maneuvering needs work, but id rather have to work on that than work on diplomacy just to survive!

@fasces. No luck, you played well, I'm sure.
iirc, you locked Eastern SL rather early in the game. Then crunched Spa or Por taking the 2SCs and locking Western SL. So, when you made inoffensive the green fleet privateering around North Sea, you earned your deserved 18th.

@drano. Your 92% is really impressive. Even stratospheric considering you've played only 3 games with less than 6 players. But....
Are you here for the stats or to have fun? C'mon. Take a photo of your stats and join the Tourney! :P

We remember a very different game, lol. all I rember is that I left munich open first turn, you didn't take it expecting the bounce and as a result I had 3 builds first yeah compared to your 2. After that I was extremely cautious, made sure I would alway have 3 builds to keep a unit on you.

@drano - just join the tourney and win every game. That's what I plan on doing. These suckers just don't realize it yet, hehe

Goldfinger - how can i win every game if YOU are going to win every game? :o

its technically possible to go the entire tournament without playing someone. Your only going to play 7 people...

That being said, based on the formula the longest 2 players can go unbeaten before having to face eachother is 4 rounds. So if you two plan on winning every game, you'll be playing eachother in the 5th round if not earlier.

@promoters (btw who hosts the tournament? fasces ?)
I'll add two posts of thoughts about the choice of the variants to play. Tell me if they're in time, late, wanted, unwanted, feasable, unfeasable, sane, insane... whatever you think.
I won't treat the Duo variant, since I have no experience with it, but I'm fine to have a symmetrical map in the tournament despite I don't like fantasy maps at all.

PART #1
Reasons of the choice of GvI and FvA:
1. Most popular variants
I'd argue that E*vT is actually the most popular, since it has born way later than the previous ones.
Minor issue anyway.
2. Reasonably balanced
Ok, that's a reasonable answer :P
The # of games played is high enough, we can have an idea of imbalance of the variant through the solos ratio, number >1
RvG -> 5.1 , Russia
GVI -> 2.0 , Germany
FGvRT -> 1.5 , FG
AvF -> 1.3 , Austria
civil war -> 1.3 , Confederates
E*vT -> 1.1 , England
Since the "real life maps" are played 2 times swapping side, the unbalance is not a problem until it's extreme, namely RvG.

That's what we know...
...Why do we have to restrict our sight only here?

"but honestly the idea of playing 10+10 times the same 1vs1 variant doesn't smile to me. My opinion"It'll be actually 7+7, ok, but that doesn't change much the sense of my statement.

I'd propose to make the choice of variants "dynamic", in order not-to-have to-play 14 times the same one.
The variants where to chose from are those you'll estimate to be "reasonably balanced" among what ClassicVS offers: Classic1vs1 variants are 21, but most of them don't fit for the tournament.
Moreover, should American Civil War and E*vT be included in the list?
Discuss.

PART #2
There's something more interesting than Classic1vs1 where to pick up variats, without giving up the classic map field:
Classic 1+1vs1+1, namely FGvsRT - like games. Currently FGvsRT is the single one available to play, but potentially we could have... 105 variants:
If maths doesn't cheat to me there are 35 different groups of 4 countries among 7 countries.
Each one of the 35 different groups can lead to 3 possible teams.
For example the F G R T group:
- FG v RT , the only one known and played
- FR v GT
- FT v GR
This leads the number of Classic 1+1vs1+1 "variants" to 35*3=105.
Every player will play different couples of variants every time. Not boring anymore. Again, it's my opinion.
I think we can have some nice&new variants with ?little? effort.

Classic 1+1vs1+1 variants can cope with the fact that Russia starts with 4 SCs, England is an island, Turkey is bottled...and so on. All major issues that make most of the 21 Classic1vs1 variants unsuitable.

last, but not least, Classic1+1vs1+1 variants are much faster than Classic1vs1 for obvious reasons. This said if the global tournament time is still an issue.

Drawbacks:
1) this kind of variants does not exist... yet.
2) we don't know the "balance ratio" of those variants beforehand, that would make the tournament less "professional" than what it looks like now.

Summarizing, just an example:
my tournament will let me play my first 5 games with, say, Ender
round 1:
FvT as France
FvT as Turkey
EA v GT as England+Austria
EA v GT as Germany+Turkey
Duo
round2 (another opponent):
IF v ER as Italy+France
IF v ER as England+Russia
civil war as Confederacy
civil war as Union
Duo

and so on. 7 rounds, each time something new, except the Duo map.
Obviously, since the Danish system requires that results are comparable, all the player couples will have to play the same variants list per round.

Me and Gauroz are hosting the tournament. Mostly me because Guaroz is spending a lot of time hosting bourse.

Re maps:
You made the point as the why I object to 2 country variants. They don't exist yet and so we don't know balance issues.

Devonian can tell you why were not using the EvT map. Its more of a race then a war because they are to far apart at the begining.

As for the civil war variant, I personally don't like that map, and if you look at past games, either someone is conceding early on, or it is typically lasting longer then 10 years. Its a long map and with a 34 sc victory condition, its not something I typically want to play in a tournament which time is going to be the biggest issue.

@DL. All matches must be identical. Otherwise how could you compare results?
Please remember all results are put in the same standings.

Lets see if an example explains what I mean.
It would be like playing a basketball tournament playing matches on several fields of play, all different to each other for: dimensions of the field, diameter of baskets, weigh of the ball, fields' slope... how could you compare the results of games played on different fields with different balls?

So. We could decide that the current ball is too light and change it with a more weighty one. But then the same weighty ball shoud be used for all the Tournaments' games.

Same way we could decide we don't like 2 FvA and change it with 2 FGvRT. But then there must be the same change in ALL matches.

Regarding EvT, I also think the stats are deceptive regarding balance. Since it is basically a race, the stats will almost certainly be similar. Each unit can only move 1 space until they are bounced by an opponent, and that does not happen until near the end. I think if the victory conditions were 21 or 25 or we would see that this variant is imbalanced as well. (Although, I don't know to what extent or to whose advantage)

I have played a couple of EvT games, with victory conditions to 21 and 25, and find it much more enjoyable than standard victory conditions. I would be open to this, but think the imbalance should be tested first.

DL - more than happy to take you on in the first round...as long as you take it easy on me :P

Remind me when this will officially start?

early october.

So, Decima, are you in or out?

I think Decima's point regarding E*vT is valid, we can easily make the victory condition of that map equal to 21 or 25 SCs. Making it much more of a battle than in the standard version of the map.

@fasces
in or out, I'm still uncertain: I don't want to look like a precious one, but if something does not convince me, I'm going to discuss it before I join... if the matter is questionable.
Guaroz said it isn't. You made openings to discussion instead.

I like the idea of a 1vs1 tournament, but my concern is playing 14 times both GvI and FvA.
I simply find the idea boring. For this reason I tried to imagine something more thrilling, without throwing away the work you've done detecting a good formulation (Danish system) for the structure.

Yes, Classic 1+1vs1+1 variants do not exist.
Wouldn't they deserve to exist? Looking at how popular is FGvsRT and, in general, classic map 1vs1 I'd say yes, they do deserve it. Would it be difficult to create them in a semi-automatic manner similar to the ClassicVS creation?
We'd have a huge reservoir of (rather fast) 1vs1 variants where to pick up from.

"We don't know balance issues"
...mmm.... Are we all beginners? Do we need a 100 games record to start? Can't you tell beforehand what's acceptable or not for a tournament regarding any initial arrangement of the classic map?
I suppose you can. In this case I prefer you to tell me "No, I just don't want to"

Regarding Civil War: I agree with you. That map would be ok for the tournament only with time and/or SCs victory restrictions.

@Guaroz
"All matches must be identical" ... is it really necessary?
I proposed match 1 to be identical among the couples, match 2 to be identical among the couples...
... match 7 to be identical among the couples, not necessarily match X to be identical to match Y.
Why would you compare your results of matches 1 and 2 when you've changed opponent? Yes, once you've won 7-3 and 6-4 you may argue that your opponent 1 is weaker than your opponent2, but what for? The global standings are there for that purpose. And since they're global (a sum of 7 matches results, 0 to 70 ) they're supposedly more reliable than your 2-matches-comparison.

I am aware and I don't care if all results from different kind of matches are put in the same standings. I don't see it like an issue.
Fun is a major issue. Aren't you here for fun?

The way the vDip cup is proposed now is basically a "40% GvI skills, 40% FvA skills, 20% Duo skills tournament".
That's the weighted proportion of those 3 single variants you're intended to use.
Always the same 3-4 openings, always the same counter-measures, always the same crucial zones to keep/conquer.

The way I proposed is a "80% calssic map random situations skills, 20% Duo skills tournament".

The ability of a general, or, if you prefer, a tactician/strategist, is to overcome from unexpected situations.
When you play diplomacy do you face always the same "dimensions of the field, diameter of baskets, weigh of the ball, fields' slope" ? I think not.

@Devonian
500+ games are enough. E*vT, the way is set by default, is indeed balanced.
Try to play EvT without the initial british fleet displacement, you'll find the balance is no more.

It's a race, yes, a balanced one. Who goes beyond the major stalemate line of the classic map first wins.
If you run in a bad manner you're gonna lose. It's kind a different sport compared to GvI, yes, but it's a competition anyway.
Nevertheless, I am inclined to agree with you that E*vT is not the best variant for a 1vs1 skills tournament, since moving VCs to 20+ would produce an unwanted delay of time.

Are we concerned about the time span that the tournament takes place within. or are we concerned about the 'skill' of the players?

We could, for instance, require a win for each game being the total amount of the SCs in the game available. 34 for the standard map, 59 in the civil war variant, 28 in Duo etc...

I am assuming that the loosing player will simply hit the concede button when they know that any chances that they will either draw or win will become null and void.

@Kaner: Time span is our biggest concern.

@Decima: The problem is most of the classic games are really unbalanced. EvT is a race not a battle, and so it more or less just leaves IvG and FvA.

If you feel that any of the other classic VS maps are balanced. Feel free to post them here, and lets examine them.

@fasces
the reckoning is fast:
ClassicVS offers 21 different duels.
Get rid of the variants with Russia because of the 4 SCs start -> 15 variants
Get rid of the variants with England (standard initial displacements) because it's an island and starts too slow respect to anyone else -> 10 variants.
the list:
IvF France wins easily
IvA Austria wins easily
IvG already known
IvT Italy wins denying Turkey the access to SCs.
FvA already known
FvG France reasonably wins
FvT France probably wins because of better access to SCs
AvG questionable
AvT Austria wins easily denying Turkey the access to SCs.
GvT questionable?

Basically 2 playable variants among 19, AvG and maybe GvT. That's the reason why I wrote my PART #2 after PART #1 trying to go beyond what ClassicVS offers.

FvG is rigged for germany, me and prez tested it. I was arragont as germany and as soon as the game started I said, I've already won. Needless to say at one point I had 7sc to his 4. Then I miss ordered giving him munich and preventing me from building that year, or the year following that. So he won.

Germany has the advantage because he is already on the frances side of the stalemate line.

GvT is germany guarentteed. Think about it its like, EvT but where england is closer to the center and nit on an island.

Iirc AvG looked incredidbly balanced so me and pres played 6 games. Austria won 5 of them, despite pres being by far the better player. We drew/cancelled all 6 cause we agreed it was unbalanced and unfair.

@DL we had your concerns at hand in the whole discussion we made. This discussion started on the first Cup's thread while the Tournament was still ongoing and it lasted several months.

The first Tournament's matches were basically (fasces pls correct me if i'm wrong):
"The 2 facing players can choose any 1v1 map they like, provided that they play it 2 times switching sides. If they don't come to an agreement, GvI will be the default map"
It looked very cool having players free to decide what map was the funniest for them.
And playing it 2 times switched sides LOOKED providing fairness.

After a few turns we realized that that match-type was bringing several issues:

1) It wasn't funny. I believe that 80% of that Cup's games were "default GvI". Players were unable to find an agreement mostly because everyone has his own opinions about what map is funny, what map is fair and what maps are not. Tons of unpleasant discussions about this.

So the first thing we had to decide for the next Tournament was what maps were to be played in order to remove discussions during tournament.
Yes, someone who don't like the choosen maps may not join the tournament, but this is a little price to pay to provide to all the others FUN, not discussions.

2) It wasn't fair. At some point someone noticed this (I can't recall who was, let's call him "A"):
"Hey guys, isn't this weird?
Round 1: A v B 4-0
Round 2: B v C 4-0
Round 3: A v C 2-2
If I'm stronger than B and B is stronger than C, then I should have destroyed C. Instead..."

A was actually stronger than C. The issue was obviousely that the 3rd match was played on a different map imbalanced enough to disvantage A and advantage C (...over B. The 3rd match itself was fair since it was played switched sides. What made things unfair was that the 3rd game was not comparable with the other 2.).
So the second thing we had to decide was what maps - the same for each match - were to be played in order to remove fairness discussions during tournament.

3) Time out of control. Players taking months to end a Lepanto or a Civil War made us think that not all the maps are good for a Tournament. Nothing more boring than an endless game or tournament, and I'm sure that this had a part in the tons of defections we had in first Cup.


So how to make a "Fair Match"?
The first thing we discarded was to make a single map (=2 games) Match.
It was impossible to find a perfect map. It was impossible to find a map everyone agreed with. And even if it was possible it would have been absolutely BORING playing all the Tourney long the same Map (see? we were already thinking of you! LOL).
So we started thinking to a Multi-Map Match. No more Turnaments where a single Map is the 80% of games.
A MMM solves also a different issue. If maps are too imbalanced, too many games could end in a draw, with the same side winning both games. If they're too balanced instead (like Duo), even a very small small difference in players' skill produces a 4-0 and you can't tell if the winner was just a little better than the other or destroyed it. So we though to play a serie of sets on different maps, with different imbalances. For a while we thought to put in all the most popular maps whose imbalance was been tested:
2 FGvRT, 2 GVI, 2 FvA, 1 Duo (sorted by decrescent imbalance). This looked good because:

1) if there's a huge skill difference between players:
FGvRT 4-0
GVI 4-0
FvA 4-0
Duo 2-0
- Total 14-0
2) if there's a good skill difference:
FGvRT 2-2
GVI 4-0
FvA 4-0
Duo 2-0
- Total 12-2
3) if there's a medium skill difference:
FGvRT 2-2
GVI 2-2
FvA 4-0
Duo 2-0
- Total 10-4
4) if there's a small skill difference:
FGvRT 2-2
GVI 2-2
FvA 2-2
Duo 2-0
- Total 8-6
Plus, some intermediate levels in case of a draw (9-5, 11-3 etc..)
This proposal didn't last too long for several reasons. The most sensed critics I recall are: 7 games in a row with the same person may be boring; 7 games is a LONG match and it reduces the number of rounds, whatever system will be used (we were coming out from a 36-games-Tour and it looked endless. So a 7 games match meant max 5 rounds (=5 matches x 7 games = 35) per person. Five rounds are not enough to have an accurate tournament result); and mostly someone said that FGvRT was too unbalanced to be a test proving anything. So the solution was simple: we cut out FGvRT.
Yes. Pity to play one map less. But the Tour should be playable and agile to be funny. If you look only at results' accuracy, the ideal Tournament would be:
- Each player challenges everyone else in a giant Round Robin;
- The 2 facing players will play, switched sides, every 1v1 map avaliable in the site.
It would take a couple of centuries, but it would be perfectly fair.
So we must play something else a bit less perfect. But since everything else is OPINION, there will always be someone not agreeing. Sorry for them.

Now you know why we choosed this Match (and you can figure out why the danish).

- - -

"All matches must be identical" ... is it really necessary? I proposed match 1 to be identical among the couples, match 2 to be identical among the couples...
... match 7 to be identical among the couples, not necessarily match X to be identical to match Y. Why would you compare your results of matches 1 and 2 when you've changed opponent?"

It is really necessary.
If in Round-1 you beat fasces 10-0 , then in subsequent Rounds any other player should have the same chance you had to beat fasces 10-0.
If you change maps you change imbalance of games and than next players would have a different chance to have the same result you had with fasces. It would be really unfair.

You know, my motto is "If it's not fair, it's not funny." :)
Also, unfairness brings discussions during the Turney. They're really not funny, fasces, me & someone else here made this ugly experience.

- - -

" I'm going to discuss it before I join... if the matter is questionable.
Guaroz said it isn't. You made openings to discussion instead. "

Guaroz said it isn't because the title of this thread is
- vDip cup Round 2 sign up thread
and NOT
- Next vDip Cup: Discuss.

So any clarifications request is welcome and it will be replied.
Actually, first post is not very exhaustive and I understand explanations are needed. On the other hand, a first post going too deep into intricacies of explanations, whould have made the Tournament look more complex than it is. This could discourage people to join. Perhaps we'll find a good midway nex time around.

But I must confess that proposals, expecially if they come from people who didn't take part in the previous Tournament or didn't take part in the subsequent threads, upset me a bit. This is a signup thread. It should be "take it or leave it" but apparently it's not.
If everytime a newcomer shows up thinking he has a smart idea that we (idiots?) haven't had already, I have to re-tell all the history since Adam & Eve, then we will be buried under discussions and will never play Cup-2.

However, fasces looks not upset by this (and perhaps he got more time than me ATM), and after all, we need to kill time untill October (right fasces? although... noone looks to be willing to sign up anymore...we could start sooner, maybe.).
I'll intervene only if someone calls me or if "the boss" ;) forgets some important argument.

The best thing, IMHO, would be to play this as it is and, right after it, to discuss if some change is needed for Cup-3 with those who partecipated this turnament.

Knowing the thing under discussion makes things very easy & quick to discuss. We already had or heard most of your ideas, they're NOT stupid. But experience suggested us to discard them for the reasons fasces and I (and Devo a bit) said.
You would have never done your proposals if you played a Tour already, I believe.

Let's make everybody more experience and then discuss again, if someone feels the need. Just my opinion.

I agree with Guaroz and in a pm he made the good point that if we keep arguing we may scare people away lol.

Fair enough, this is the price to pay.
I am not a saboteur, nor it is my intention to armwrestle with either of you.
I agree with your last statement, Guaroz and Fasces.
I wish you good luck and fun playing the vDip cup Round 2.

last update:
1 Devonian
2 Guaroz
3 ezpickins
4 Jimbozig
5 Fasces349
6 Bozo
7 Kaner406
8 Spartan22
9 Goldfinger0303
10 Ender
11 Captainmeme
12 Alcuin
13 Imagonnalose
14 Fortress
15 Mapu
16 y2kjbk

the sign up can go ahead, I shall no longer interfere.
Yours sincerely, Decima Legio.