Md Olympics?

[Jubaris]

I thought about idea of organizing some kind of MD olympics, so sport events.
First sport that falls to one's mind of course is the fight tournament. Now let's forget about the actual rules of the fighting tournament, it's easy to come up with something fair so you don't have same winners all the time, but let's discuss the possibility of this being held.

The idea is that every one of mainlands have one represantation (Loreroot, Marind Bell, Necrovion, Golemus Golemicarum), concretely for that fighting tournament, made out of let's say 3 people (and they would fight in groups... or 1vs1, but like I said, the rules themselves can be discussed later), so one team per land (and only those mainlands).
Representations would be assigned by the King only (or their substitutes)

It would be held once a month let's say, in time where the opposed teams can all meet.

The possible rewards would be rewards of 1 wp to the most valueable person in the competition or such. The very materialised rewards aren't needed tho in the first place, the very honor of beating in tournament is great. (it would bring some joy to the realm I think, at least it would to me, to have the option of competing)
All winners would be listed in official posts of the MD olympics, and if all lands would come up with the standards (flags) of their own (simple ones tho, it doesn't have to be the crest of the land, but something simple related to it, like in football every nation has a crest for it's national football team) that would be a nice addition as well.



edit: of course it would have "cooler" name, Olympics is just so you can get the point one more idea came to my mind about this, is that eventually, perhaps one person would be the most useful player in the competition for period of time, and if a decent artist is found, he/she could picture the "heroes" of the competition

I'm asking for your opinion, and suggestions for more competing events, other than fighting (but please, don't come up with something like drawing contest or poem contest something possible to achieve with game mechanics IF possible)

Edited September 12, 2010 by Rhaegar Targaryen

[Shadowseeker]

Once per month is too much.

Make it once every year, or twice, not 12 times? Hell no.

Could be, but I might want to add a bracket for the non-mainland as you put it...which is a tricky thing in itself.

And the competition..well you say its easy to make it fair, but in reality that's a harder thing to do than you think.

We'll see, those were my first thoughts reading this.

[Jubaris]

I have certain rules in mind I will suggest later on, but let's leave it for later on if we get to that point

then I would rather do it once every 2 months (when the Head contest isn't on for example), and reduce the rewards (meaning erase the WP or use the WP reward for special ocassions...)


I thought about that, but no, other lands (at least while they don't have leaders) shouldn't be "allowed" to participate, and how would you make a representation for the "unaffilitated one" if they don't have a person to choose who will fight?
having other lands participating makes them gain identity and conciseness about themselves, and effectively makes them like a mainland at point, and everything in game is mostly evolving around mainlands, how much that is good it is up to you, the people, to talk about

[Chewett]

A) not once every month, it will become boreing quickly with the same people
B) perhaps one competetent per alliance or something, non land people might want to compete
C) fair? What a load of BS, it will never be fair, it will have enevitable results
D) prizes? when something is likely to be pretty predetermined? Doublely pointless.
E) how can you rate a MVP?

[Jubaris]

just a note: I sense this aura of hostility

A) yes, I agree that is better to keep it once per 2 months
B) I think it's better that the leader of the land, or the one assigned to the position decides of those submitted to participate who is the best one for the representation, like a manager for football in RL. PERHAPS make a limitation on how much one person can join tournaments in a row
C) fair in sense that it cannot be predicted on who will win, like in football you have strong teams, but everyone can lose against everyone
D) I'm not sure how should prizes work... probably something that is recycling like coins, something that players posses and are free to transfer so no rules are broken in any sense.
E) objective council of voters, who rate one based on statistic gained from fights. (every fight log will be screenshoted - should be screenshoted )

[Chewett]

A) still too much, 2 or 3 times per year or people will lose intrest
B) you will need that limitation to keep it from being boreing and pointless
C) well... it can because you know who are the best fighters, they join a land they have won
E) Show me a "objective council of voters" and i shall show you their bias
F) pointless for non main land people

[Jubaris]

A) well better too much of something fun (and people that are participating changing so others can enjoy too) is better than nothing. besides, people like to watch football too, not just play it
B) I don't like your pesmistic approach. everything is boring and pointless to you, do you have any fun at all?
C) like I said... limitations of a kind. There can be limited spectre of used creatures (and people would train non-token one PERHAPS just for the competition, out of fun of course) or which I originally intended is to have one minute pre-battle of spells, with number of spells being unallowed (such as attacklock, ghost spell, and mirror too perhaps since you basically win the fight with it when you attack) so you can handicap the opponent with freeze spell or weaken spell or no multi spell (it's discussable in that option which spells would be non-overpowering to use. the list must be made in that case), then one more minute perhaps to set a ritual after the spells are casted so once can prepare accordingly (or just don't, having an element of surprise). Talking about rules will cause confusion, let's leave it for later please if the answer is positive so we can start work on it.
What I am sticking for sure is that the score will be made out of that minute time of fighting, studying the logs, and the one who has the percent of VE lost the most, losses. Percentage of VE decides scoring points, not the fix numbers.
E) how about kings vote according to the statistics, but they are unable to vote "for their own" players?
F) I can't please the whole world. If they can't participate, I shouldn't make it at all? It doesn't have to be world-wide event. You have European Champions cup, what will Asian clubs do?

[Chewett]

A) Heads contest, too much of something fun? its not fun anymore, and definately too much of it, however you have to get people to organise this. This is the difference from heads and it makes it even more annoying for those who have to do things each month.
B) If your best argument is to attack someone who gives an opinion/problem then you have really gotten low.
C) Did you participate in <insert name here> tournament? it involved no tokens, nor skills and dst still did VERY well, i dont see how you can limit something to make it fair for everyone when knowledge rules and those are already known.
E) Vote fixing, Ever Watched Eurovision? The strange little countries win because their "borders" vote for them, UK never wins because no one likes us. Its not a contest
F) ok then, but i thought you wanted something fun for all,
G) If you are limiting people entereding then some lands will quickly run out of people,

H) You cant say that questions about the format should be asked later, because you cant organise something going "it will be a festival, we should decide if you like it but i cant tell you the details until you agree whether you will like it because it will confuse things"

I like the "idea" of having something like this. But i dont like how you are intending on implementing it, but when i have brought up my opinions you have decided that "Talking about rules will cause confusion, let's leave it for later".

So because of the general flaws i feel that this will have, that you havent yet addressed, and since you feel talking about the rules will cause "confusion" i am very negative about what you are planning. And totally disagree with what you are saying.,

[Darigan]

You called it Olympics and whether or not your going to retain that name if you want fairness *cough* in the least likely of sense then you should allow neutral lands to be able to pick their own reprentatives if they choose to do so.

The alliances of the neutral lands have leaders that are fully capable of choosing participants from their lands, and thats if they decide to participate.

Also in normal Olympics there is more then one event, so you might actually consider a fighting contest and other sorts events or perhaps different variations on the fighting concept such as no tokened battles and/or scene crit only battles like i did in my last tournament along with full all out battles where everything is allowed.

Last I would consider holding it every half a year at the least June, December, or somewhere around there otherwise it will get boring fast and you won't have enough time to come up with new ideas and events to keep things fresh.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Darigan

[Jubaris]

[quote name='Chewett' timestamp='1284324098' post='68293']
A) Heads contest, too much of something fun? its not fun anymore, and definately too much of it, however you have to get people to organise this. This is the difference from heads and it makes it even more annoying for those who have to do things each month.
B) If your best argument is to attack someone who gives an opinion/problem then you have really gotten low.
C) Did you participate in <insert name here> tournament? it involved no tokens, nor skills and dst still did VERY well, i dont see how you can limit something to make it fair for everyone when knowledge rules and those are already known.
E) Vote fixing, Ever Watched Eurovision? The strange little countries win because their "borders" vote for them, UK never wins because no one likes us. Its not a contest
F) ok then, but i thought you wanted something fun for all,
G) If you are limiting people entereding then some lands will quickly run out of people,

H) You cant say that questions about the format should be asked later, because you cant organise something going "it will be a festival, we should decide if you like it but i cant tell you the details until you agree whether you will like it because it will confuse things"

I like the "idea" of having something like this. But i dont like how you are intending on implementing it, but when i have brought up my opinions you have decided that "Talking about rules will cause confusion, let's leave it for later".

So because of the general flaws i feel that this will have, that you havent yet addressed, and since you feel talking about the rules will cause "confusion" i am very negative about what you are planning. And totally disagree with what you are saying.,
[/quote]

A) it's discussable really, it can be even rarer. 3 months, 4 months, whatever, depending on the situation
B) I wasn't attacking you, but you're being very cynical (sounding at least)
C) the idea is to balance the potential of players, as an example in chess - that we all have the same figures (or at least nearly the same figures), and that it is up to the skills of the player how to use them. Are you saying contest can never be too fair since certain players play better?
E) yes, they are based on people voting. These are the kings, that already have that abusive power of giving WPs, so I doubt they will make such conspiracies to reward certain players... Just to answer that Eurovision, it's not always about good neighbours, but about citizens that live in country other than their homeland (lots of Turks in Germany for example).
G) forget the nature of participants, limited number of participations was just a thought, not an idea I'm trying to present. We'll discuss rules seperatly (read below)


[quote name='Darigan' timestamp='1284324877' post='68295']
You called it Olympics and whether or not your going to retain that name if you want fairness *cough* in the least likely of sense then you should allow neutral lands to be able to pick their own reprentatives if they choose to do so.

The alliances of the neutral lands have leaders that are fully capable of choosing participants from their lands, and thats if they decide to participate.

Also in normal Olympics there is more then one event, so you might actually consider a fighting contest and other sorts events or perhaps different variations on the fighting concept such as no tokened battles and/or scene crit only battles like i did in my last tournament along with full all out battles where everything is allowed.

Last I would consider holding it every half a year at the least June, December, or somewhere around there otherwise it will get boring fast and you won't have enough time to come up with new ideas and events to keep things fresh.
[/quote]

Neutrals don't exist as a state, so I can't give them an invitation. Point me out to their system and I'll reconsider then.

Alliance leaders... how do I decide who's more important? for example, Phantasm or Ailith/granos/pip/whoever is leading Seal of Six/ ?

Yes, I want to do more events. The problem is I couldn't think of anything based on game mechanics yet to add. Maybe something again related to rituals but not fighting, but achieveing certain scores... As much negative XP as possible? I asked for suggestions. Just don't suggest poem contests please or such purely subjective things




about rules being discussed later, my point is that I first want to gather people to say: I would like something like this. And when that's settled, I would like us to start going step by step (us the community, not me alone, otherwise I wouldn't post and ask for suggestions, this is not "quest of mine" but a competition I want to make that would be a certain motivation for number of us to play) and post the rules that we think are fitting (perhaps we'll need to pass the competition a time or two to see possible mistakes.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Rhaegar Targaryen

[Chewett]

B) if you can present good answers to my cynical viewpoint, then your "idea" is likely to be a half decent one, responses like your previous one merely shows you are not actually trying to answer my points i am making, and therefore will mean you are not thinking about the issues that may occur.
C) yeah, some people are too good, the issue is that most of the time its a pre-determined ranking, you already know who is some of the best players, and it doesnt take too much work to look at it and work out who is likely to win. Im not saying this is wrong, but some contests there is no point in entereing becaue you know the winners already.
E) Who is saying they arnt already doing this? (not pointing the finger at anyone) but there have already been incidents where kings have been auccsed at giving out wishpoints freely to their people. So why not again?
I) "Neutrals don't exist as a state," - im sure that you can work out that Ailith and Phantasm and relatively smart people and between them can organise some people from Tribunals. Unless you feel they are incapable of talking and making a descision? Even if you feel that, you merely have to tell them that they need to agree on something or they dont get a "team", Its not rocket science.

H) i still disagree with your idea that you should gather people before telling them the definition of what will happen, i agree about the idea of the olypmics, but totally disgree with the current "fight" thing that you have put ahead.

And i apolgise for thinking this would be ran by you, your initial post is very cloudy.

If the current format is anythign akin to the Torch contest (same strong people abusing the system so the outcome is already known before the contest) then it will fail quite simply. It needs to be much rarer and much more intresting. When i go to check the forum and see the results, i should be intrested and not feel like TC "Oh what a surprise, X got some points from alt farming and abusing the system"

[Pipstickz]

King/alliance leader picks 3 people who will do the events, without knowing the events that will be used, and can't change those people. Example, Marind Bell chooses Chewett, Handy Pockets and nadrolski to represent them, and can't choose those people for the next two competitions. If a land doesn't have enough players, people with no homeland or from another (not main) land can be subbed in. If, say, Rendril competes for a main land, MDA can only give players to that land, and cannot have their own team.

Not a perfect system, but I think it'd work.

[Kyphis the Bard]

(haven't read the whole topic, since most of it is just repetition)

I think this is more of a long term setup thing than something that will happen in the next few weeks, or even months, just because of how difficult it would be to make fair and interesting.
I like the idea, and have a suggestion of format.

Have a list of events, at least 24 different ones. They can be similar, such as one is no token combat and the another battle royal (CBT Events); while another is public debate (with judges decided each time the "olympics" comes up) and another a riddle contest (LGC Events); and others such as build a boat, or a hunting contest (RP Events).

The kings have each a team of 3 champions, that cannot be changed for each "olympics". Once chosen and announced, that is the decided team until the next olympics.
Each champion can only participate in up to three events.

The kings then take it in turns to choose one event at a time from the list, and a champion from their 3 for that even. The king choosing the event chooses his king first. This allows the event chooser to have a strategy, but also allows the other kings a better chance to be able to counter it, for fairness.
For example: King [X] chooses event [4] and his champion, King [W] then chooses his champion, then King [Z], then King [Y]. After this event is held, the next event is selected by the next king, and champions are selected again.

The order of event selection would need to be decided before each "olympics", and be different for each one.
Every king would get two turns to select an event, for a total of 8 events each "olympics".
Events that where used in the previous two "olympics" can-not be chosen that "olympics". This means that after the first two, there will always be a changing list of 12 events to choose from.
Additionally, if an event is changed for another, then it takes the status of the old event. ie, if the event it is replacing was played last "olympic" then it will not be available for this or the next "olympics".

Time wise, I would suggest that the "olympics" start 6 months apart.

This format would allow for a lot of strategy, not just brute strength. You need to choose champions who are good at all likely events, choose events that your champions should have an edge in (for example, in a ship building contest, Cryxus would have an edge over Jonn, but Udgard as a crafter of Wood would have an advantage over Cryxus), and consider the games you will be leaving available for the next set of "olympics", and decide how you will allocate your champions since two will fight 3 events, and the third will fight 2.

As far as who can participate, while I would like the non-main lands to be able to participate, I think that until they have a single person that they are willing to unify under, even if just for this event, that they should not be allowed to. While there are advantages to joining a mainland (WP codes for quests, alliance support, etc) at current they are more conveniences that major advantages or events. I think that the "olympics" should be a Kings privileged event, and as such would need to be organized and run by the kings.

[b]EDIT[/b]: Pip made a post while I was typing, and reminded me of a few things I forgot to include but did think of (thankyou Pip)

Champions selected for an "olympics", much like the events, can't be selected for the next two "olympics".
Reward for the winning team of the "olympics" is a wishpoint for each of the champions. (champion [1] gets WP from king [X], [2] from [Y], [3] from [Z], for example, so it is one wishpoint from each loosing king)

Edited September 12, 2010 by Kyphis the Bard

[Chewett]

[quote name='Kyphis the Bard' timestamp='1284333682' post='68305']
(haven't read the whole topic, since most of it is just repetition)
[/quote]

Funniest comment this month "I havent bothered to read the whole topic, but i know its all repetion". Oh the irony how, by not bothering to read the topic, can yourself end up repeating things.

Just a few things you might have missed Kyphis

Rheagar only wants mechanic based things, obviously so that there can be a clear and defined winner.

But then i wonder if he wants a clear winnner, whats the point of his MVP idea, which is subjective?

Since rheagar only wanted opinions if its a good idea im going to refrain from posting again, and wait for the kings to decide since none have made any opinion on it (lifeline probably will never if you expect him to read the forum, because he doesnt)

[Kyphis the Bard]

[quote name='Chewett' timestamp='1284357357' post='68318']
Funniest comment this month "I havent bothered to read the whole topic, but i know its all repetion". Oh the irony how, by not bothering to read the topic, can yourself end up repeating things.

Just a few things you might have missed Kyphis

Rheagar only wants mechanic based things, obviously so that there can be a clear and defined winner.

But then i wonder if he wants a clear winnner, whats the point of his MVP idea, which is subjective?

Since rheagar only wanted opinions if its a good idea im going to refrain from posting again, and wait for the kings to decide since none have made any opinion on it (lifeline probably will never if you expect him to read the forum, because he doesnt)
[/quote]
To clarify, the parts I didn't bother reading before making my post where YOUR posts.
Since making mine, I have read yours, and CONFIRMED they are just repetitious and irrelevant to what I posted, so I didn't see any reason to bother changing my initial post.
And apparently you don't bother reading the topics yourself, since I didn't repeat anything other than my reference to Pip's post that wasn't presented in either a different or more defined format.

Glad you got a laugh out of that line though, hope reading all that "amused" you.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Kyphis the Bard

[Jubaris]

Pip cleverly said few things I wanted to add as possibilities

before replying, one thought to add:
the very tournament that was mentioned here, I had in mind as made of those reprentations of few people. 2-3 people fighting for the land, but for the event, more should come, let's say 5-6, as reserves (in case of needed substitutions, that one doesn't show up and such. King should make a list for priority of players who need to play, and who replaces them if they don't show up)




[quote name='Chewett' timestamp='1284327517' post='68298']
B) if you can present good answers to my cynical viewpoint, then your "idea" is likely to be a half decent one, responses like your previous one merely shows you are not actually trying to answer my points i am making, and therefore will mean you are not thinking about the issues that may occur.
C) yeah, some people are too good, the issue is that most of the time its a pre-determined ranking, you already know who is some of the best players, and it doesnt take too much work to look at it and work out who is likely to win. Im not saying this is wrong, but some contests there is no point in entereing becaue you know the winners already.
E) Who is saying they arnt already doing this? (not pointing the finger at anyone) but there have already been incidents where kings have been auccsed at giving out wishpoints freely to their people. So why not again?
I) "Neutrals don't exist as a state," - im sure that you can work out that Ailith and Phantasm and relatively smart people and between them can organise some people from Tribunals. Unless you feel they are incapable of talking and making a descision? Even if you feel that, you merely have to tell them that they need to agree on something or they dont get a "team", Its not rocket science.

H) i still disagree with your idea that you should gather people before telling them the definition of what will happen, i agree about the idea of the olypmics, but totally disgree with the current "fight" thing that you have put ahead.

And i apolgise for thinking this would be ran by you, your initial post is very cloudy.

If the current format is anythign akin to the Torch contest (same strong people abusing the system so the outcome is already known before the contest) then it will fail quite simply. It needs to be much rarer and much more intresting. When i go to check the forum and see the results, i should be intrested and not feel like TC "Oh what a surprise, X got some points from alt farming and abusing the system"
[/quote]

B) I like that you're giving me "extreme" cases, so we can all discuss how to solve them and get the idea better, what I don't like is that you seem like you just want to destroy anything before it happens (hater attitude. maybe I'm wrong )
C) well ok, they're too good, then they deserve to win. Thierry Henry was too good to play some football, so he should go away?
E) of course there are abuses that we won't point fingers at the point is, every king like I mentioned if you noticed, cannot vote for his own player, only for "foreigners". We can make a better system if you have fears that there will be political voters, example: King X fears King Y and want's to kiss-ass (pardon ) so he votes for player from Kingdom Y. I sincerely hope there aren't that kind of 'weak' kings, but if you think that's how it is, let's try something else.
I) I thought of it originally as a competition, meaning that getting better than your opponent is a great motivational factor like in most of the sports (Greeks hate Turks, but it's better to let it out in sports than make a war. Random example anyway), and I would like it to stay competition in that sense, but I know many who aren't in mainlands would probably like to participate anyway. In the case of me being stubborn which won't happen, a new contest can be made for that "general fun" idea, but sure, if you are all enthusiastic about it, let's involve the "neutral lands" somehow. Pip mentioned that what I wanted to say about making a low populated land (like Undergrounds) being allowed to voluenter to help another mainland (hell you can make transfers of that. We can make a contract system! ), so that's one option. Second, is that we make some kind of unified lands thing (only on the paper) with someone taking care of submissions. Suggest some more

H) look, this idea fell to my mind. I haven't exactly started thinking nights about it, that's why it's cloudy as you said, and as such, I just don't want it to slip away, get forgotten, and if community likes it which I think it does, I then want to brainstorm on all difficulties, work with those who give me help the most in ideas.
I have this general opinion on the ambient it should provide, and I would like to use your (community) suggestions that will help me form that cloud in the way I like it, or the way I semi-like it and you like it better if I like it less... whatever

I could ran it, but there's a chance I would like to participate at point. So people will maybe tell me I have conflict of interests?
What I would like to be achieved, in fighting, is that the fight log of every player gets screenshoted after the fights end, and send to their respective kings, then it would all be announced in a forum topic for the "jury" or whatever to decide and calculate the heavy math on who was the winner

Torch is open to abuse (farming), and doesn't have any clear rewards yet, and no one keeps public record of the wins (that ideally should be fair and justified), so no motivation to work. It cannot be as Torch

[quote name='Pipstickz' timestamp='1284332250' post='68303']
King/alliance leader picks 3 people who will do the events, without knowing the events that will be used, and can't change those people. Example, Marind Bell chooses Chewett, Handy Pockets and nadrolski to represent them, and can't choose those people for the next two competitions. If a land doesn't have enough players, people with no homeland or from another (not main) land can be subbed in. If, say, Rendril competes for a main land, MDA can only give players to that land, and cannot have their own team.

Not a perfect system, but I think it'd work.
[/quote]

thumbs up. One of the possibilities



@Kyphis:

I already said in this post what I think about neutral lands being part of this. Ok we can do it (although I am unease due to my thought-aura of neutral lands being neutral and having their own functions to concentrate on, but I guess that's just me, nvm), we will think about possibilities along the way.
and yes, this is intended for something longterm

Yes my point was something related to game mechanics to have a "defined" winner... (that MVP doesn't change the nature of the very tournament that is based on mechanics, but is for statistic, honors, etc.)
Debates... ok I would like to see a debate, but on which subject, and how can you assign which side defends which side, what if they don't believe in that side, etc. ?

Edited September 13, 2010 by Rhaegar Targaryen