I like the idea of a separate ranking for tournaments

To start a tournament:
-a premium membership should allow a limited number of tournament start up credits (eg. 6 credits for a 3 month membership). the credits do not expire.
-the map designer can start tournaments on their own maps.
-the winner of a tournament is awarded a start up credit (sliding scale for the number of credits awarded vs total number of players in the tournament.

something like that....

Could there be an option to change to board for each round of the tournament? Also could it be possible to randomize the scenario each round of the tournament?

I agree that tournament rankings should be seperated out of normal rankings.

I'd like to have teams tournaments.

I figure there should be two types of tournament modes:

1-Round robin where everyone plays everyone resulting a matrix table of results. (like a football season). This could optionally have a finals series for the top 4?

2-Knock out, where half the players/teams get knocked out each round. (like a tennis tournament)

In either case, a results page should be available to view how everything is going.

Trophies sounds like a nice idea. Not sure that you need to keep a running total of tournament scores.

The most important change for me is odd person tournaments where top 1 moves on from 3 games to make 1, 3 player board. On top of that I like having an option for tournament style, round robin etc. I also think that you should have the option of individual, picked teams, random teams, random teams per round, etc. It would also be nice to be able to have 1v4 tournaments if the scenario were defined as such.

You could have an invitational tournament where the hosts of this site invite the top rank players to compete in a tournament. Probably something round robin in style or once you lose twice you are out.

How exactly would an Axis-n-Allies 2 v 3 tournament work?

It's not easy.

Seems there's a few things we've agreed on:

Single elimination only (at least to start with)
Knock out or round robin (league) formats with option for round-robin to end with the top 2/4 players playing a knock out finals
Team support - to include future support for team games with different numbers of players per team (i.e. A&A).
Option to set number of players advancing per round
AutoSkip / Boot used to enforce tournament progress
Tournament admin with ability to update tournament settings or restart tourneys if the initial settings are screwed
Ranked game optional (only for tourney's with single player advancing though)
Medal image for tournament
Limit total players to something sane (around 100)
If >1 person advances per round then enforce a reshuffle after each round to ensure collusion between rounds doesn't happen
Quitting a tournament allowed
Tournaments can be started by Premium members only who have finished > 10 games
Tournament creator must have finished at least one game on board before starting a tournament
Include a ranking system

Does anyone disagrees strongly with any of the above?

You plan on any Premium can start a tournament on any Map?

Because trying to wrap my head around that long mish-mash of a list was giving me a headache, I propose organizing the discussion about tournaments through the following thematic scheme:

1. Who may host a tournament
   1. Premium members only
      1. Minimum games played requirement (10?)
   2. Creator must have finished set number of games on board prior to hosting
2. Setting up the bracket
   1. Bracket styles that could be supported
      1. Single elimination
      2. Double elimination (?)
      3. Round robin
      4. Team games
      5. Odd numbers of players
      6. Team games with non-equal teams
   2. Manual means of creating a bracket (per Risky's suggestion)
   3. Bracket maximum size
      1. 100?
      2. A power of 2, such as 128?
   4. Collusion control
      
      1. If >1 person advances per round then enforce a reshuffle after each round
3. Inviting players
   1. Private vs. public (open) tournaments
      1. Should there be a queue for tournaments?
      2. Who can issue invites?
   2. Allow host to cancel tournament if it's not filling fast enough
   3. Auto-terminate tournament if it hasn't filled in a set time (30 days?)
4. Incentives for players to do well in tournaments
   1. Rankings
   2. Medals (possibly customized?)
   3. Each round counts toward global ranking score for that board
5. Mechanisms for keeping tournaments rolling in a timely fashion
   1. AutoSkip / AutoBoot used to enforce tournament progress
   2. Tournament admin with ability to update tournament settings or restart tourneys if the initial settings are screwed
   3. Right to quit tournament at any time
   4. Allow host to terminate tournament (with restrictions?)
   5. Allow multiple rounds to play simultaneously
      

For example, I think that under 4.1 (Rankings), the system give people points for finishing in the top 3 or top 5 in a tournament. There should also be team rankings, and maybe some way of rewarding winning games in a tournament where more than 1 person advances each round.

Kjeld wrote:

1. 1. Collusion control
      
      1. If >1 person advances per round then enforce a reshuffle after each round

While I agree with this one, does it mean that all of Round 1 will have to complete prior to Round 2 starting?

Yertle wrote:

Kjeld wrote:

1. 1. Collusion control
      
      1. If >1 person advances per round then enforce a reshuffle after each round

While I agree with this one, does it mean that all of Round 1 will have to complete prior to Round 2 starting?

It does, though I don't really see anything wrong with that. It might add some time for the tournament as a whole to wrap up, but with autoskips, single elim, and reasonable caps to the number of players, it shouldn't be all that bad.

Tournaments tab or new box on the Home tab?

A My Tournaments tab next to My Games?

Kjeld wrote:

1. Inviting players
   1. Private vs. public (open) tournaments
      1. Should there be a queue for tournaments?
      2. Who can issue invites?

I think Private tournaments should NOT be Ranked or should somehow be Ranked separate from Public tournaments Ranking.

Cramchakle wrote:

Yertle wrote:

While I agree with this one, does it mean that all of Round 1 will have to complete prior to Round 2 starting?

It does, though I don't really see anything wrong with that. It might add some time for the tournament as a whole to wrap up, but with autoskips, single elim, and reasonable caps to the number of players, it shouldn't be all that bad.

Not necessarily - presumably the tournament bracket could be pre-defined so winner of round 1 game one goes into round 2 game 1, runner up goes into round 2 game 2. Although if the player is booted then it might break this.

Cramchakle wrote:

Tournaments tab or new box on the Home tab?

I'd say a Tournaments tab, any games within a tournament would be shown in your My Games list. Probably with the addition of a 'T' in the options column to denote a tourney game.

ps thanks Kjeld for tidying up my list!

Yertle wrote: You plan on any Premium can start a tournament on any Map?

Yes I'd say so - at least until adding payments system for boards comes along, subject to the restriction they must have completed at least x games total and played at least 1 game on the board in question.

Well, I had this idea for people being able to decline future games in a tournament, but realized that it would be way too complicated to implement. I'll just say I agree with the things said thus far.

tom wrote:

subject to the restriction they must have completed at least x games total

Do not like.

This sounds like all of the hairbrained 'played at least' thresholds Warfish uses to grant access to ... well, everything. I'd suggest that you make a distinction between paying premiums and first-month-free premiums (trial membership or something). Then allow anyone with a paying premium to start the tournament. Presumably, no one would part with money before they have some idea of what's going on here (and it should be extremely limited cases in which they dont). The end result is about the same, but it seems far less arbitrary.