Be Excellent To Each Other

I'm not going to organise anything now, but I'm thinking of some kind of "Best all-round gamer" challenge, with some MAME stuff, some beat-em-up stuff, maybe a FIFA tournament, etc.

Because not everyone has the same games, I figure it would be possible to assign points to the winners of different challenges.

Do you think that could ever happen?

Yes I do! Would you like a hand organising it? I'm happy to volunteer!

Ideas of "how" would be a good start

Ok.. Here's an idea. Why don't we set up teams? Each team could have 4 members say, and when the teams are being picked we could make sure that each team has a Fifa specialist, a Street Fighter specialist, a retro game specialist etc....

Each team would put their specialist forward for their particular challenge and then you could put their wins/losses in a league type table.

Any good?

I like that. You could also have three-on-three challenges, etc.

I suppose you could? If we have three teams for instance and we have Pac-Man (for example) it would clearly be the highest score that wins. If 3 people are playing then the winner could get 3 points, 2nd place 2 points and 3rd place 1 point.

I was thinking more 3v3 Halo or L4D2.

I was thinking of Pac-Man... As usual.

But yeah, that would work pretty easily.

No reason why you couldnt do one on PacmanCE or PacmanCEDX

But of course.. We could spread the competition over a couple of months or have it as an ongoing sub forum maybe?

Problem: When we do the MAME or retro stuff, we can make the games available so everyone has a chance to play.

Fifa? Is that 99? 2013? Playstation, Xbox. People are going to need to have the console + the pricey game for this.

IMO the best gaming challenge is shooting each others faces off in Halo or racing in Forza.

And Dimrill would win anyway.

As long as we agree on the games each time and someone in the team can represent the team, I think we'll be alright.

There's nothing to say that Halo won't make an appearance in there.

Also, we need to be sure that it isn't a competition of familiarity, rather than a competition of skill.
I.e. i've hardly played pac-man so don't know the routes, would someone who has played it a lot be classed as a better gamer than me?

Not sure how to do that though, unless Grim... writes a brand new game for every category.

Won't that even out, though? Not only through the different games, but the different team members?

I guess this would mean that you wouldn't be picked to represent your team for Pac-Man.. Unless no one else is any good at it of course?

How about some complicated league scoring system where the number of points you get isn't based on where you place in the challenge but the number of people you beat in the challenge.
For example, 2 points for everyone you beat that is above you in the league and 1 point below. So if you don't play a round you can catch up by winning big in another round.
That is just off the top of my head, there is very likely a very good reason that won't work.

You could use the chess ranking formula.

I think you've answered your own question there.

Yes, but this does mean that each team needs a game that each person is a specialist in. I'm guessing there won't be a Point Blank round

Bagsy Modern Warfare round!

Here is my idea for individual championships as I don't play well with others and we can rag on whoever comes last.

Racing: cumulative time over three different circuits in a stock car.
FPS: Deathmatches in halo and cod
Sports sim: head to head fifa games doesn't matter which year and NHL game
platform: speed run
puzzle: portal speed run or soemthing
retro: defender
rts: multiplayer rumble championships

Sort points out depending on number of challengers

I would personally love a Point Blank round but my TV wouldn't.. As for having specialists, with a good mix of games throughout the competition then I reckon that it could even itself out.

You missed off the fighting games round.

There would obviously be a fighting games round as well using several different fightings to ensure something or other. Like soul calibre and tekken and ik+

What? No Street Fighter?

But yeah, I like what you've done there.

If it pleases you to have street fighter you can have streetfighter.

Basically, have a couple/few examples of each genre to hopefully nullify any bias for the multiplayer games and people can practice all they want to on the single player versions.

And thank you.

Or have a game that no one would have played for any length of time to get good. For example, Shaq Fu or Tattoo Assassins.

Well yes, exactly But if the goal is to find the best player then something that ranks people on who they beat must be better than receiving points based on where you placed in the round. Else the winner will be the person who plays a lot of games to a average standard.

I'm trying to avoid people having to buy a game specifically for this, but I dunno. Maybe points on a timed demo of an indie game or something?

We, also, need a clever way so people who don't have all the games still have a chance of winning. However, I can't think how that would work. For instance, I could score one point on 15 games and never win one and someone could score two over seven games. I would still win, despite that person being better but I won so it sucks to be them the big loser. I suspect we will need to draw up a matrix.

I think this could get complicated but as long as we're playing in teams, then it should even everything out shouldn't it? Possibly? I think?!?!

You've just described everyone on the forum.

NO TEAMS WE NEED ONE WINNER AND A BUNCH OF LOSERS THIS IS WHY KIDS TODAY ALWAYS CRY.

THE WINNING TEAM COMPETES AGAINST THEIR TEAM-MATES, DOUBLE DRAGON STYLE

Brilliant!

AT THE FIRST SOCIAL EVENT AFTER THE CHALLENGE. IN THEIR UNDERPANTS. NO, IN MY UNDERPANTS. YES. TO THE MAX. A MAX DEATHMATCH.

Actually, this is a pretty good solution. But would we then need a second list of games?

Pfft, like we'll ever get a "winning team"

I think, to make this more rigorous, the highest achieving player in the losing team should also make it into the final DEATHMATCH round.

Also, we should clearly just have two teams. Each team enters more than one person for each event (say, three, or more or fewer depending on the game), with the proviso that they can only enter X amount (3/4 of available games?) and every team member must compete in Z amount (1/4?) upon penalty of a points deduction.

After each challenge, will three members of the losing side be dragged into a sub-forum to bitch about each other before one is fired?

No, There can only be one decider

I'm quite tempted to say that I'll make the winner a moderator

It took me a few seconds to understand this.. but yes. I agree.

Heh. Brings back memories.

I've still got the video somewhere

[edit]Aha! http://www.fullonrobotchubby.co.uk/random/savcon.wmv

[edit][edit]Oh man, look at the view

[edit][edit][edit]The mod-off starts at 2:10

[edit][edit][edit][edit]I can't believe Jarak said "I'm going down bad" and no-one said "Like your mum".

Damn, that was a long time ago.

2007, I believe.

ems quite scary to think I first met you guys in 2006. 6 years? Really doesn't seem that long.