I guess I'll just opine on the good old days and keep score. I don't know why anyone feels the need to play a series of games to find an eventual winner when every game should be played that way in the first place. That's the point here. You don't need to have a tournament to find the reality show fix you're craving. Diplomacy offers that inherently already.

These 'whittle down' events only move to encourage more of the group hug draws and everyone gets a trophy sentiments that destroy the intrinsic fabric of the game.

the defeated players will either comprise of the full 14 or the final 7 depending on preference of the participants. @Ruffhaus im srry that you do not want to join a game, which you a

*which you agree is the essence of what diplomacy is

Updated list
1.ccg4
2.Spartan
3.Mapu (maybe?)
4.Grand Admiral Thawn (maybe)
5.B-Rich 94
6.Sandgoose
7.DoubleCapitals (maybe)
8.Champ11228
9.rexgarum
10.bozo

the tribe names will be fuerza (spanish for strength) and sagesse (french for wisdom)

Hold up, didn't say I'd play.

I was just trying to get an idea, and see if it's something I'm interested in. Not really interested right now.

ok sandgoose

I believe in what Ruffhaus says that games are meant to be won, not group hug theory. However, diplomacy has manifested into many new maps and rules from the origianl 18 player map. For instance the WWIV map can have many different winning conditions for SC count, which dictates soloes and draws and on a 35 player map if you are consistantly in the top 5 whether you solo or not, you are a decent player and to me should be rewarded something for that, given that a draw does come in when no more advancement can be made without jeopardizing another player to solo.
Given we are a little of topic, I will try this game if you need me. Cmon on Randy come and kick me off an island..............if you can.

oh I should say my participation is based on what map we are playing, some I just flat out hate.

its great to have you join defiant, ive already put up the maps we are going to be using earlier in the thread! :)

missed them, they look good.

thanks! :)

Excuse me but isnt thic concept a bad one? This idea will lead to bloodshed and nose bleeding. What will happen guys is that at the beginning you will opt to take the weaker out but from the mid game onwards you will opt to take the bigger guy out. I will not like to be gangbanged by my teammates just because a vote was cast. And frankly by the mid game the lines will be so stalemated I wonder how you will be able to break a whole front line i.e. turn armies back to remove a teammate. The concept may sound nice but it is not feasible.

how is that different than what happens to you now. :)

At least I get to solo every now and then :P

yea i would too, if I snuck in on the rookie games. ;)

So isn't this essentially a series of team games? Because I hate team games.

im sorry, dont like, dont read!

hey, jack is just to showing some interest in a variety here, don't join but don't suppress the interest he is showing here.

^thanks defiant! My sentiments exactly

So how close are we to getting underway? :D

Yikes I love survivor so much but I think I might have to back out seeing that finals are under a month away and I'm taking multiple vacations this summer.

My question is actually quite serious. Would this in essence be a series of team games or am I missing something?

it would be a mixture of team and individual games stephie.

So I'm not exactly sure how this tourney will play out (it will depend on the details of organization and players' approach to it), but here's my two cents on how I see this as "different". If our organizer is anticipating something different, please do correct me.

I'm approaching it as more Survivor than Diplomacy. For myself, I am *not* approaching this as a standard tourney where my initial goal is to solo every board (note that my goals and the actual outcomes are often very different :) ) or a team game where what's best for my team is always best for me.

Instead my goal is to get to the final game and then have enough people respect the manner in which I did that (or at least respect my play more than the others in the final) that they vote for me in the end. With this attitude the game becomes very different - I don't necessarily care how big my own country is in the initial games so long as I proceed to the next round. Initially, I want my team to do well so that my tribe & alliance members avoid elimination but after that I have to adjust my play and consider not putting a target on my back and consider who I want to face on the final board (assuming of course that I can get there) and who will vote for me on the jury. I have to consider what my own alliance structure is for a particular game as well as the next as well as the tactical situation in each. I'm not saying that this is a superior version of the game, just that the incentives and considerations are very different than simply playing diplomacy in a standard "cutthroat" manner. I find it interesting, and it's probably the closest I'd ever come to actually playing Survivor (since I'd make boring TV :)).

Like I said, my two cents. Jack please correct me where you disagree.

Rexgarum, that is how I approached the idea of this tournament when I voiced my interest. It will certainly depend on the nature of each map and the particular goals, but I was planning on approaching it with the goal of survivor rather than diplomacy. Granted when it comes to individual challenges, those two coincide nicely :)

i agree with what both rexgarum and spartan are saying! this is more or less my intention of the survivor games

we only have 7 confirmed participants out of 14 :( can you guys please ask around for anyone interested?

1.ccg4
2.Spartan
3.B-Rich 94
4.Sendric
5.Champ11228
6.rexgarum
7.bozo