Fair Civs Cup

Fair Civs Cup is a 32 player 1v1 tournament that will last 3 weeks.
The specialty of the tournament is that one player decides both civilizazions that are going to be played and the other player choses which civ he wants to play. This will result in unconventional but fair match-ups.

The 32 signed-up players with the highest DE 1v1 ranking will get a spot in the tournament. Seeding will be done manually after that.
Bracket​

Schedule
Ro32, ro16 are Bo5
ro8, Semis and Finals are Bo7

Ro32: 27th of January - 2nd of February
ro16: 3rd of Februray - 8th of February
ro8: 9th of February - 14th of Februray
Semi: 15th of Februray 15GMT & 19GMT
Finals: 16th of February 17GMT

Mappool

Spoiler: Mappool

• Arabia
• Arena
• Golden Pit
• Hideout
• Islands
• Medi
• Serengeti
• Valley
• FCC_Cross
• FCC_Fortress (played as Regicide)
• FCC_Graveyards
• FCC_Land_Madness

Download
If the Mappack is creating Serengeti or Fortress, load it manually.

Civ and Map Settings

Spoiler: Settings

Settings Bo5/Bo7
Game 1: Mirror Civ, Mappack
Game 2: Losing player picks a Map and two Civs, winning player decides what Civ he/she want's to play
Game 3: Loser of the previous map picks a Map and two Civs, winner of the previous map decides what Civ he/she want's to play
Game 4: Loser of the previous map picks a Map and two Civs, winner of the previous map decides what Civ he/she want's to play
Game 5: Loser of the previous map picks a Map and two Civs, winner of the previous map decides what Civ he/she want's to play
Game 6: Loser of the previous map picks a Map and two Civs, winner of the previous map decides what Civ he/she want's to play
Game 7: Loser of the previous map picks a Map and two Civs, winner of the previous map decides what Civ he/she want's to play

Civs and Maps can not be repeated.

Game Settings

Spoiler: Game Settings

All games will be played on Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition

Game: Random Map
Size: Tiny (2 player)
Difficulty: Standard
Population: 200
Ressources: Standard
Game Speed: Normal
Reveal Map: Standard
Starting Age: Standard
Victory Condition: Conquest
Team Together: [X] Yes
All Techs: [ ] No
Allow Cheats: [ ] No
Lock Teams: [X] Yes
Lock Speed: [X] Yes
Record Game: [X] Yes


Player Restarts
There are no restarts for this tournament.

Bugged Map & Admin Restarts
A player can request bugged map restarts during the first 6 minutes (game time).
A bugged map is defined as the following for standard resource starts:
Gold: Less than 5 tiles of a main gold cluster are at least accessible on one side, extra gold are excluded.
Stone: Less than 4 tiles of a stone cluster are at least accessible on one side, extra stones are excluded.
Berries: Less than 4 tiles of a berry cluster are at least accessible on one side.
Animals: Spawned with less than the standard resources or the animals being trapped.

Graphical Mods
Any graphic changes that only affects the player's Age of Empires II are allowed.

Cheating
Cheating is not allowed under any circumstances. Players using any kind of cheat will be disqualified from any future Nili-Events.

Respect & Fairplay
Every player must respect their opponent. Bad behavior will result in a warning and may lead to an immediate disqualification of the player. This tournament values not only great skills, but also sportsmanship and fairness. Any insult, non-PC behavior or flaming will not be tolerated. Laming and mind games in game are allowed.
Players are requested to limit the time between games as much as possible to make the experience as smooth for everyone as possible.

Stragglers & Laming
Players are not allowed to delete the straggler trees which spawn within 10 tiles of an opposing player’s Town Center. This rule does not apply if the straggler tree which is being deleted forms part of a wall for the defending player.
Players are not allowed to steal a boar with a scout.
Every other form of laming is allowed.

Player colors & names
Players have to use the same colors for a series and play with their most known name.

Scheduling & being on time
Players have to be on time. Being late will result in a 10% reduction of their prize money (stacking up).
Being 15 minutes late, will result in an Admin Loss.

Streaming Policy

Spoiler: Streaming Policy

• Every caster/player is allowed to stream
• 25% of all donations & bits of a streamer are going into the prize pool
• The relevant time is considered starting with the pre-game show and ends with the after show
• Every caster should clearly state to his audience that streamers are working together to generate a prize pool (and that 25% of all donations/bits are going into it)
• The maximum a caster has to pay is $250
• POV streams have a rate of 25% with a $250 max
• Please contact me within 48h of your last streamed game.

Pay-Outs
Prize Pool before the Event: $910 ($500 by blitzkragz & $250 by Nili_AoE, $110 by Anonymous, $50 by cluttzasaurus )
If you want to contribute to the tournament prizepool, please message me.

1st: 35% of the Prize Pool
2nd: 20% of the Prize Pool
3rd/4th: 12.5% of the Prize Pool
5th-8th: 5% of the Prize Pool

 

Of course, people react more seriously after there is a punition. Still you can give a warning and try to keep it chill, it's not your fault anymore if you have warned. Of course, you may say that they were warned had they read the rules.

This is a game and we need to be realistic. There are a lot of tournaments with similar but small different rules and not everyone reads them. Even in the sports where the rules don't change for years, before the match the referee gathers the players (or team captains) and tells (warns) them about what he will put special attention to.

And I don't mean to critisise anyone: the rule existed, some players didn't respect it and Nili applied the penalty for it, all that is OK, but you can be 100% strict or some chill and get the same results (we say combine left and right hand)

Also, I find the rule stupid and the punishment too severe, but that is my opinion

 

I was sure I had read it somewhere... It could had been in HC3 rules but I thought that choosing the color is a part of the guessing game, so it should definitively be free pick there and there are no more tournaments nearby...

I didn't know about the DE bug that makes impossible to use Alt+G, the rule makes more sense now. The sanction still looks disproportionate (apparently they weren't even sure how choosing colors work 11). Not because a 3% is a lot of money, but because how the players (Rubenstock) feel after getting notified. I mean, it is not like laming when it's not allowed, it's the colors... maybe a warning first, considering this? I don't really care.

What I care is a no-blue mod 11

Poor Rubenstock. For the Original Rules of P1 picking blue and P2 picking red, it makes even more sense that he assumes as P2 he's just going to be assigned red... because why would the host purposefully deviate. 11. 24.

 

I was watching this tournament yesterday and was really shocked when the loosing player chose his home map (Arabia) and offered two civs: Tatars and Lithuanians.

As far as I know, Tatars are considered a bad civ and Lithuanians a good civ. In addition, I think that Lithuanians perform extra good vs Tatars and they are known to be one of the civs that the other player likes the most.

Unless there was 0 preparation, i see this as a "trap", he wanted to have tatars vs Lithuanians for whatever reason, but I cannot imagine what the original plan was. Was he hoping for a very good map with hills surrounding his opponent's base? Is there anything Tatars can do vs Lithuanians?

I wouldn't discard the no preparation, because the other map was also weird, offering Turks and Teutons in Cross.

 

I was watching this tournament yesterday and was really shocked when the loosing player chose his home map (Arabia) and offered two civs: Tatars and Lithuanians.

As far as I know, Tatars are considered a bad civ and Lithuanians a good civ. In addition, I think that Lithuanians perform extra good vs Tatars and they are known to be one of the civs that the other player likes the most.

Unless there was 0 preparation, i see this as a "trap", he wanted to have tatars vs Lithuanians for whatever reason, but I cannot imagine what the original plan was. Was he hoping for a very good map with hills surrounding his opponent's base? Is there anything Tatars can do vs Lithuanians?

I wouldn't discard the no preparation, because the other map was also weird, offering Turks and Teutons in Cross.

I was under prepared for the tourney, and i believe the tourney is fair if you actually prepped for it and gave it some thoughts. For example, bugum vs viper had some great games bc he prepared well

 

Tbh I think that the loser of g1 gets extra punished by letting the opponent pick the civ in the next game (and in g3 as well if the second game has been lost). Picking a map doesnt really give you any advantage.
This makes 3-0s more likely to happen and upsets a rare thing.

It's nice to see a tournament with different settings though.

 

Tbh I think that the loser of g1 gets extra punished by letting the opponent pick the civ in the next game (and in g3 as well if the second game has been lost). Picking a map doesnt really give you any advantage.
This makes 3-0s more likely to happen and upsets a rare thing.

It's nice to see a tournament with different settings though.

Could allow the the loser the choice of whether he wants to pick the map and civs or choose between the two. If it’s not a hassle then the option would be available after each loss. However if it’s too much trouble then the players would just pick their default choice if they lose before the match. Since it’s theoretically fair either way, this allows for players who have strategies to pick map/civs but also allow players who feel it’s easier to pick between the 2 civs.

What do you think of this?

 

I was under prepared for the tourney, and i believe the tourney is fair if you actually prepped for it and gave it some thoughts. For example, bugum vs viper had some great games bc he prepared well

Wow, I'm sorry. I really spent some time thinking what was the hidden strategy with tatars. Anyway you played really good the aztec mirror game and I think you could have won it.

Belgium vs viper games were also amazing and he could have won 100% the khmer vs persian arabia match.

Tbh I think that the loser of g1 gets extra punished by letting the opponent pick the civ in the next game (and in g3 as well if the second game has been lost). Picking a map doesnt really give you any advantage.
This makes 3-0s more likely to happen and upsets a rare thing.

It's nice to see a tournament with different settings though.

I think we need to wait a bit to see if this is real. There has been many 3-0 but it's Ro32 and there are many one-sided matches. In fact, I think that the number of 3-2 is much bigger that what could be expected (ACCM-Nili, Sitaux-Vinchester!, dogao-Terror!, Viper-bugum)

Choosing Homemap can be huge for some players that aren't that good on islands/arena/rf and with good prepa you can do something with the civs.

I have seen many players trying to surprise their opponent by picking two underused, low-tier civs, but these civs are normally much more different to each other that choosing two B-civs or two good civs (just not the best) for a map

 

The only way to have a fair match in this game is mirror civs and mirror maps.

 

In quarterfinals are the seven best seeded and 9th seeded Daut, so we can say that seeding system is working.

Now when the top players face each other, we can determine are the civ choosing way how good. Anyways this has been and will be interesting tournament.

 

In quarterfinals are the seven best seeded and 9th seeded Daut, so we can say that seeding system is working.

No, that's not a valid conclusion as the players nearby in the seeding mostly don't play each other, e.g. all of 13-16 could be better than 9-12 and nobody would ever notice.

 

Tbh I think that the loser of g1 gets extra punished by letting the opponent pick the civ in the next game (and in g3 as well if the second game has been lost). Picking a map doesnt really give you any advantage.
This makes 3-0s more likely to happen and upsets a rare thing.

Still, these matchups are supposed to be the fairest possible that even exist in this game. Doesnt it tell quite a depressing story about the balance of the game, if even now most games are considered civ wins of some degree? Maybe it would indeed be slightly more interesting if both players had their turn with the better civ, but nonetheless: if this system doesnt work as it is, doesnt it mean that there is no way of really ever having a non-mirror tournament with balanced games?

 

Loser of g1 only has a disadvantage in g2 if he does not prepare according to nili. And I kind of agree. For the underdog it is a great opportunity to prepare unusual civs and be then better prepared.

 

Still, these matchups are supposed to be the fairest possible that even exist in this game. Doesnt it tell quite a depressing story about the balance of the game, if even now most games are considered civ wins of some degree? Maybe it would indeed be slightly more interesting if both players had their turn with the better civ, but nonetheless: if this system doesnt work as it is, doesnt it mean that there is no way of really ever having a non-mirror tournament with balanced games?

Strongly disagree. The civ balance in this game is as some of the best it's ever been, and even if this particular tournament might not be the greatest at showcasing it(given that it's for reals more about preparation) there's one other that can, and that is the LidaKor's 2 pools and its various incarnations. The main reason why nearly every single set in the last tournament and showmatch would start with a delay is simply that for top players it's extremely difficult to pick "bad" civs.
Sure, two pools are a tg tournament and tgs are different, but I think it's wrong to expect balance in 1v1 matchups. For a civ to have some "strengths" there always must be a civ that had some "weaknesses". That's how this game has always work and how it should work IMO

This doesn't, obviously, mean that the current balance is bad, but I really don't think if there's much reason to worry or complain here

 

Still, these matchups are supposed to be the fairest possible that even exist in this game. Doesnt it tell quite a depressing story about the balance of the game, if even now most games are considered civ wins of some degree? Maybe it would indeed be slightly more interesting if both players had their turn with the better civ, but nonetheless: if this system doesnt work as it is, doesnt it mean that there is no way of really ever having a non-mirror tournament with balanced games?

I'll disagree with this and the reason is...TheViper.

No matter the maps, the civs, the settings, Viper wins almost everytime.
Which tells me that despite all the imbalances, big or small, individual skill still seems to be the main factor determining who wins a series in AoE2.

If civ balance was that bad you would see Viper lose whole series a lot more often, which as we all know doesn't happen very often.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that is what I necessarily myself believe. I'm just saying that it's kind of the logical conclusion of what Nicov and some others have been suggesting in this thread. If the order of who gets to decide the civ really matters that much even in these fairest possible matchups (according to guys like Nicov who clearly have a lot of competence to know these things), then the differences in civ strengths are always going to be a very big issue between players of equal skill.

 

In quarterfinals are the seven best seeded and 9th seeded Daut, so we can say that seeding system is working.

but this doesn't prove anything.

Note that I don't think that the seeding was specially wrong, specially about the top 8, but you just said a fallacy in many ways:

First of all, people discussed mainly about seeds 15-32th so for this the quarterfinals are not really relevant (a complete bracket should be played).
Second, imagine TatoH had been seeded 32nd and faced viper in the first round and lost while top 8 seeds reach quarterfinals, your argument will still be valid. You cannot measure how proper seeding was in a single elimination bracket by the number of upsets

 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that is what I necessarily myself believe. I'm just saying that it's kind of the logical conclusion of what Nicov and some others have been suggesting in this thread. If the order of who gets to decide the civ really matters that much even in these fairest possible matchups (according to guys like Nicov who clearly have a lot of competence to know these things), then the differences in civ strengths are always going to be a very big issue between players of equal skill.

About this.... I'm not sure all the experts necessarily agree with Nicov and I wouldn't say that in this tournament there are many "civ wins". I think individual skill, preparation and decision-making are the keys.

I also don't think that tere are more 3-0 than in any other tournament, there might be even less...

 

About this.... I'm not sure all the experts necessarily agree with Nicov and I wouldn't say that in this tournament there are many "civ wins". I think individual skill, preparation and decision-making are the keys.

I also don't think that tere are more 3-0 than in any other tournament, there might be even less...

KoTD, same bracket size, by the end of ro16 there were 10 3-0s, in FCC that was 16.
(out of 24 matches in total), so 41 vs 66%.
Obviously, whether that number actually says something is up to debate

also 9 3-0s for kotd1

 

Regarding Kotd 2 - the rules incetivised the supposedly stronger players to pick weaker civs in the early rounds decreasing the cances of 3-0's.
In general I think that it is very tricky to draw conclusions from comparing one or two tornaments especially with different settings - player field, seeding system etc. will have a strong impact.
e.g. if you have a bad seeding you probably also will get less 3-0's in the first round, if there are huge civ advantages on certain maps.. and then there is also variance.

 

The worst player of Kotd1 was gkt_cloud, the worst player of kotd2 was _Bl4ck_, the worst player of FCC was gwfe. I think this explains the anomaly.
It would be reasonable to expect HC3 qualifier to have closer matchups again.

 

Yes, I think the level of the field is the most determinant factor here.

Just look to other older tournaments in the first rounds.... https://challonge.com/es/moa3

And for the record, cloud and black weren't known either by the times of kotd1 and kotd2...

 

Don't mind me, just switching to a different colour to make room temperature IQ viewers confused.

Who are you? I've never seen you here before

+1

 

Who are you? I've never seen you here before

His name was Laskerf before, he had it changed a few weeks ago

 

+1

I didn't mean to make you angry by saying that you're the worst... I just looked at who was seed 32 at kotd2 (so the worst player of the 32 very strong players who played kotd2) and your name popped up. Also I'm implying that you're stronger than the guys at the bottom of FCC which is true, and again why did I get your attention? It's weird that I didn't make gwfe answer me too at this point.

 

I feel like my aoezone experience will improve if i ignore the above user, gna give it a try!