I was thinking about how (a) the meta for civs is currently rather up in the air right now and (b) in spite of this, some civs are still considered so weak as to be not used competively (e.g. the Teutons and Turks).
At least, I'm taliking about 1v1 RM meta on DE right now.
Then I had idea that is either going to be very good, very bad or somewhere in between.
The idea is this:
A 1v1 tournament where the qualifiers and the quaterfinals are only a best of 1 and the semifinals and finals are only a best of 3 BUT, and here's the catch, it requires 2 consecutive wins in order to get 1 point (so to win a best of 1 it would require a minimum of 2 wins and to win a best of 3 would require a minimum of 4 wins).
How so? Well, here is the main idea: both players pick random civ for the first game and then they swap civs for the second game. If a player wins both matchups then they score 1 point/ 'win'. However, if each player wins 1 match each then 0 points are scored and each player gets their civs randomized once again and then they swap civs for the second game, yet again. Once again, if they win one each then civs are randomized yet again and they start over, but if one player wins both then 1 point is scored.
So there is the basic idea. If anybody likes the idea enough to 'steal' it and fund it, I don't mind whatsoever and I don't even want any credit. I am sure that the likelihood of that happening is below 1% but if there's any chance at all that a tournament could be funded and made out of this idea then I would be so happy!
P. S. I think that if it does happen then it should be arabia only, so we at least get the arabia meta down more, and made clearer. If it was somehow successful then sequels to the tournament could include other maps too.
P. P. S. Another key aspect to the idea is that, due to the randomized civs, it may sometimes cause underused civs to be played more often and/or overused civs to be played less often.
At least, I'm taliking about 1v1 RM meta on DE right now.
Then I had idea that is either going to be very good, very bad or somewhere in between.
The idea is this:
A 1v1 tournament where the qualifiers and the quaterfinals are only a best of 1 and the semifinals and finals are only a best of 3 BUT, and here's the catch, it requires 2 consecutive wins in order to get 1 point (so to win a best of 1 it would require a minimum of 2 wins and to win a best of 3 would require a minimum of 4 wins).
How so? Well, here is the main idea: both players pick random civ for the first game and then they swap civs for the second game. If a player wins both matchups then they score 1 point/ 'win'. However, if each player wins 1 match each then 0 points are scored and each player gets their civs randomized once again and then they swap civs for the second game, yet again. Once again, if they win one each then civs are randomized yet again and they start over, but if one player wins both then 1 point is scored.
So there is the basic idea. If anybody likes the idea enough to 'steal' it and fund it, I don't mind whatsoever and I don't even want any credit. I am sure that the likelihood of that happening is below 1% but if there's any chance at all that a tournament could be funded and made out of this idea then I would be so happy!
P. S. I think that if it does happen then it should be arabia only, so we at least get the arabia meta down more, and made clearer. If it was somehow successful then sequels to the tournament could include other maps too.
P. P. S. Another key aspect to the idea is that, due to the randomized civs, it may sometimes cause underused civs to be played more often and/or overused civs to be played less often.
Last edited: