Nice. GL all.
Why does a tournament like this have to span over 7 weeks?
It's $200 first prize, not $120 000, and still each participant has to play at least 3*6 = 18 games. For the final, at least another 3. So to win, you have to play 21 games. It's way too much and it doesn't add excitement.
16 -> 8 -> 4 -> 2. Boom. Single elimination, BO3. Two rounds first weekend (divide pairs by timezone). That's exciting. You have a bad day? You're out. You did a mistake? You're out. You deleted your TC? Sorry, you're out. You got a bad map? Cry, you're out. You play like a god and beat stronger players? Congratulations, you won.
And the whole thing is done in 3 weeks (ideally 2 weeks, if you can have semis and final same weekend) and no one has to play more than 12 games, most players less.
The tourney was made in a round robin format for good application of the civ ruling. imagine 6 rounds of single elimination. pros would use all the weaker civs in early games and at the end you would end up with having aztec mayan hun viking wars
I completely agree with Aurelius. The length of AoC-tournaments in general is really killing the hype.
This is what it makes interesting for me, everybody has a chance of winning and the strategical aspect will play a big role.I really like the idea of a tournament that has limited civs rule but the implementation is less than ideal. I could be wrong but I don't see how it will work out nicely. Everyone is going to save the stronger civs to play vs the stronger players which will be really annoying for the stronger players.