Agreed, position has a big impact on the outcome. The last position player can play around impacts much better, end the game to prevent wars and has better access to Endowment of the Arts.

scipio238 I'm working on it with CGE, it should be implemented for the next season.

pajada, thanks for organizing this tournament, it was great! It was my first time I played (I didn't know at all that there are tournaments under CGE, was an accident I came across Tournament button in the game..). But anyway, great job. And +1 for making the starting position more even across individual games .

I don’t think balancing position should be priority. Realistically, there are far more uncontrolled randomness with far greater impact.

khyung I totally agree with your opinion. Moreover the first player has less control over the event cards/wars etc. at the end of the game in exchange for more initiative from the start and a long time to definitively settle the struggle in his favor even before the end-phase of the game will come. I think it is not so obvious and can be a matter of dispute, which starting position is really better.

I definitely think balancing the starting positions is the right way to go. For me, playing 1st position in TTA is somewhat like playing white in chess. But even if positional advantage winrate-wise is disputed, there seems to be a clear agreement about a noticeable difference between positions (early initiative or some form of late game control). Why should those not be averaged across a division, with everyone being given the same opportunities?

Good news everyone. Balancing starting positions was done for upcoming season of International Championship, I will use it also for the next season of Intermezzo.

khyung Hello khyung, can you mention the most significant of those "uncontrolled randomness with far greater impact"?
This game is in my opinion very well balanced including the starting position, which is more significant only in 2 player games.
This doesn't mean that there cannot be done some minor tweaks but I dont think that there is anything significant to improve.
Skill plays a great role in the game and can overcome the randomness. As a player playing consistently in Grandmaster, I can tell you that a GM player will beat a player who consistently plays in Bronze at least in 95% games.
Luck plays greater role only if all players are of similar skill.

pajada Great news, thank you very much!

Palino It's look like a little misunderstanding. I think that nobody here decline that skills are more important than luck. We just compare here a influence of random Starting Positions versus influence of other random factors. Personally, I didn't mind the lack of balanced starting positions, but it cannot be denied that their implementation to championship is a good step forward.

Shincham Hi, International and Intermezzo are separate championships. Promotions and relegations in them work independently. Your victory in Bronze in International will promote you to Silver in the next season of International starting on May 30.

Hello Pajada,

Thanks for organizing this tournament. If a player runs out of time do we need to inform you? From what I understand of the rules if a player times out at any point of the game they get 0 points and the other two players will get 5 points and 2 points respective of their position in a 'two horse' race.

3soteric you don't need to inform me and the point distribution is exactly how you described it.

pajada Hey Pajada, thanks for gettting back to me. My opponent managed to make his/her move with a couple hours of timebank to spare. Maybe they are having similar problems as myself? I don't seem to receive push notifications for when it's my turn to move when I'm connected to my home WiFi? I'm playing TTA through an Android phone.

Thanks a lot for arranging this tournament! I have a question about sportsmanship. I know you are not allowed to help other players (obviously), but what about intentionally reducing a league rival's score in an individual game? If I know who my rival is for promotion in the league and I am in a losing position in an individual game it is often possible to play kingmaker and deny my rival 1st place, which could be better (in league standings) than claiming 2nd place. This can be done in many ways, some more subtle than others. I could tailor my card picks to deny him important cards (even though it hurts my own game), I could declare war against him even though a war against the third player would make more sense in the individual game, and finally I could do really dirty things like purposefully losing a war against the third player to hand him first place (ranging from outright disbanding my military to just not optimizing my defense). All of these things I would do to win the league myself, no collusion at all. Personally I do not like these strategies at all as they often ruin a lot of the fun of the game. But just to be clear I would like to know if tournament rules allow them or to what degree they are allowed.

Thanks for organizing!

SpartacusImperator This has been discussed before in the International Champ thread with tournament organisers.

There's no hard or fast rules, just a policy to consider whether something is generally 'fair play' within the context of a competitive tournament. You of course are allowed to do things to deny a rival a chance at promotion - but do not go beyond the limit of fair competition - into unfair conduct that destroys the integrity of the game.

Some actions that are generally considered 'fair' play:

• 'hate' drafting cards to deny another person (even at the expense of your own game)
• seeding impacts that might be bad for you, in order to hurt another player more, or benefit a third player
• choosing not to take a beneficial action that results in player A claiming that benefit, to the detriment of player B (ie choosing not to build a stage of red cross, which in turn allows another player to build it and take the benefit - or choosing not to bid for a colony that you would otherwise win)

Prohibited actions that are considered unfair and ruin the integrity of the game:

• Declaring a war you can't win for the purpose of boosting another player's score (and/or disbanding your units in response to a war), or generally doing anything to intentionally weaken yourself to the benefit of another player
• Choosing to not defend an aggression (when you are able to) for the purpose of benefiting a third party.

Just think if what you are doing is 'tough but fair' and in the spirit of a very competitive competition - or just plain unfair.

WanderingWolf Thanks a lot for answering my question! I like this approach.

kuzmich majority of players can complete 3-player game in 2-3 weeks, but some players are taking longer.
If you will not have time to finish your games then resigning is the best thing to do. We don't want to play with AI, so please do not abandon the game or lose on time.