[quote author=Rules]
11. Team's will not be allowed to call for a "Reset" if all their players have spawned for that round. Additionally, a player cannot switch to Spectator in an attempt to force the reset.
I don't see a reason for this. Let them have as many resets as they want, just don't stop the timer until it's actually live. If time goes beyond the allowed amount because of resets, take away the rounds from the resetting team. All I see happening with this rule is one player on the team goes naked great hammer because he assumes there will be a reset (because there's always a reset), and then he's forced to play live and the round is not an accurate reflection of who was playing better, but of which team had the least amount of 'trolly' players.
Matches already start insanely late. It's either waiting for people to show up to a match that's already been scheduled, taking too long in the duel phase or, as you said - trolly players going naked when the first round should be starting. The 9 and 9:30 start time is actually prime family time for people on the west coast. Having to delay my evening and the match so heehaw and ****around gang can get all out of their system is what is truly pointless.
On time, on task on target.
And besides, is anyone really going to say,..."wait wait wait. We win now because you guys wasted three rounds tk'ing each other at the start."? No, they won't. So matches will continue to start late. The point of this is fun and organized competition. It's no fun having somebody waste my time, and being organized means having your players ready.
[/quote]
They already have a rule in place where they penalize teams for every 3 minutes they go over the allotted time.
Rules]
11. Team's will not be allowed to call for a "Reset" if all their players have spawned for that round. Additionally said:
Mr.X said:
Rules]
4. Teams can add or remove players until the final day of the Round Robin stage. When doing so said:
Mr.X said:
[quote author=Rules]
3. Violations and Cheats:
-The exploitation of maps will result in the forfeiture of all rounds within the current set by the offending party (4-0). Said exploitation will include the abuse of mechanics to see through walls. Any rounds that were won within the set prior to this violation will be discarded.
-Any unfair altering of game files, joining of another team's voice communication to gather information, or any other severe forms of cheating will result in the expulsion of the offending player from the current and future seasons.
As I've said before, if you edit the maps to remove wallhacks, this wouldn't be a problem. I still find it very difficult to believe that one person watching the match will be able to identify all of the times when people are wallhacking, especially when you consider how often people tend to simply hug walls on closed maps because it's safer.
And what counts as unfair altering of game files? I don't use the Native targeting reticle, is that cheating? Is altering the coloration of players heads to make them easier to shoot cheating? Is using a bannerpack with distinct banners cheating?
And who is expelled if a team captain orders a player to cheat. The player or the captain or both?
1) It is impractical to do so as it increases the load that people will have on the maps.
2) It messes up the streams.
Just like the player's who look through the walls, streamers too go through buildings to get a better vantage point. Adding wooden walls thoughout a map like sandi will end up hampering the streams. It is much more practical to have a rule that can be enforced when observed by the admins.
Will every instance of cheating be caught? Probably not.
However, by having the rule there, players will be more hesitant to cheat, and admins will have the means to punish such cheating should it occur.
Rules]
11. Team's will not be allowed to call for a "Reset" if all their players have spawned for that round. Additionally said:
Why would you make an admin carefully watch every match to potentially catch some instances of looking though walls when preventing all instances of looking through walls would take less time? And I don't think it's too hard for a steamer to just keep the cam out of walls. It looks bad anyways.
Gonna try not to address the things uni did, since he pretty much said everything I would and I'm sure people will listen to him more because he's him and not me.
Aura (Zaffa) said:
Mr.X said:
ARTICLE IV: SINGLE ELIMINATION RULES
Rules]
4. In the event of a tied match said:
[quote author=Mr.X]
[quote author=Rules]
3. Violations and Cheats:
-The exploitation of maps will result in the forfeiture of all rounds within the current set by the offending party (4-0). Said exploitation will include the abuse of mechanics to see through walls. Any rounds that were won within the set prior to this violation will be discarded.
-Any unfair altering of game files, joining of another team's voice communication to gather information, or any other severe forms of cheating will result in the expulsion of the offending player from the current and future seasons.
As I've said before, if you edit the maps to remove wallhacks, this wouldn't be a problem. I still find it very difficult to believe that one person watching the match will be able to identify all of the times when people are wallhacking, especially when you consider how often people tend to simply hug walls on closed maps because it's safer.
And what counts as unfair altering of game files? I don't use the Native targeting reticle, is that cheating? Is altering the coloration of players heads to make them easier to shoot cheating? Is using a bannerpack with distinct banners cheating?
And who is expelled if a team captain orders a player to cheat. The player or the captain or both?
1) It is impractical to do so as it increases the load that people will have on the maps.
2) It messes up the streams.
Just like the player's who look through the walls, streamers too go through buildings to get a better vantage point. Adding wooden walls thoughout a map like sandi will end up hampering the streams. It is much more practical to have a rule that can be enforced when observed by the admins.
Will every instance of cheating be caught? Probably not.
However, by having the rule there, players will be more hesitant to cheat, and admins will have the means to punish such cheating should it occur.
As to your question regarding edited files, changing the reticle and clan banners are fine. Editing the games in ways designed to provide an artificial advantage outside of this however will not be permitted. Despite the difficulty in enforcing such a policy, the rule is being stated now should the issue (and proper evidence) become available down the line.
As for who would be expelled, it would be the player who edited his files.
Uni also addressed this, but I thought I'd add that streamers do not sit inside buildings because when the camera is inside a building the names above the players disappear. And I don't understand why you would prioritize possible ease of camera work (and lets be honest, that's a pretty weak argument anyway, it's very easy to go around buildings) over cheating.
And the "load time" and possible increased lag is completely negligible. I do not understand at all why this has been fought so hard, I'm suggesting you make it impossible to cheat.
I remember having a discussion about the draw problem back in NASTe. There are problems whether you allow them or not. If you allow draws, then you must at least have some method of resolving ties in the finals. This comes down to arguable metrics (win/loss ratio, round win/loss ratio, etc.) or a tiebreaker match. One will inevitably lead to somebody feeling shafted, while the other just draws out the event and could potentially slow down the entire bracket.
Not allowing draws means each match must have a victor. How you decide this is up to you, but usually it ends with a tie-breaker map. The question, then, is what to do if there is a tie on the tiebreaker map. A total replay is easier said than done, and as I said above can bog down the entire bracket. People don't seem to like repeating tiebreaker maps until somebody wins, and they usually say "but what if you keep getting ties?" How likely is that to happen? I can't think of one instance where a match went beyond 4 maps, and I want to say there hasn't been a case where a match went past 3 (though I can't be 100% sure on this, I know some matches came very close in NASTe). If it comes down to it, you could add a stipulation to the rules that teams are allowed to drop one player after matches enter a tiebreaker phase and are required to match players. This would allow people with time constraints to leave if necessary, as that's the usual excuse for not wanting to extend matches to another map.
Of course, the details are up to you guys. I'm just sayin', there are problems with either approach. You should just pick the one that has the least potential to screw people. I'm of the opinion that forcing rematches in case of a tie isn't the right choice.
I would like to start off by saying that the majority of the stuff that was pointed out was the exact same, or very close to, the rules from S1 and S2, which had no complaints.
Mr.X said:
ARTICLE II: MATCH RULES
Rules]
11. Team's will not be allowed to call for a "Reset" if all their players have spawned for that round. Additionally said:
Rules]
13. Tied rounds must be replayed.
[/quote]
Must they? How do you reset the money and equipment so it's the same as the previous round? Or are you saying that tied rounds don't count toward the score? Well of course they don't said:
ARTICLE III: ROUND ROBIN RULES
Rules]
2. Teams will face an opponent each week and will have exactly one week from the posting of the weekly thread to complete it. Delays will be granted on a case by case basis. If a team is defeated in this stage said:
Rules]
5. In the event of a tie on the third map said:
rules]
6. Teams may not have player additions or substitutions in this stage.
[/quote]
I would just say "may not have player additions [b]to their roster[/b]" and leave it at that. This makes it sound like you can't substitute players from your roster during a match.
[/quote]
Ah said:
ARTICLE V: PROMOTIONS
Rules]
2. If a team is eliminated during the Round Robin said:
Rules]
4. In the event of a tied match said:
ARTICLE VI: TEAM RULES
Rules]
1. Each team must represent at least one official NA clan said:
Rules]
4. Teams can add or remove players until the final day of the Round Robin stage. When doing so said:
ARTICLE VII: RULE VIOLATIONS AND DISRUPTIONS
Rules]
3. Violations and Cheats:
-The exploitation of maps will result in the forfeiture of all rounds within the current set by the offending party (4-0). Said exploitation will include the abuse of mechanics to see through walls. Any rounds that were won within the set prior to this violation will be discarded.
-Any unfair altering of game files said:
Rules]
1. Each team must represent at least one official NA clan said:
Aura (Zaffa) said:
Mr.X said:
Rules]
11. Team's will not be allowed to call for a "Reset" if all their players have spawned for that round. Additionally said:
Aura (Zaffa) said:
Mr.X said:
Rules]
4. Teams can add or remove players until the final day of the Round Robin stage. When doing so said:
Aura (Zaffa) said:
Mr.X said:
Rules]
3. Violations and Cheats:
-The exploitation of maps will result in the forfeiture of all rounds within the current set by the offending party (4-0). Said exploitation will include the abuse of mechanics to see through walls. Any rounds that were won within the set prior to this violation will be discarded.
-Any unfair altering of game files said:
Gonna try not to address the things uni did, since he pretty much said everything I would and I'm sure people will listen to him more because he's him and not me.
Aura (Zaffa) said:
Mr.X said:
ARTICLE IV: SINGLE ELIMINATION RULES
Rules]
4. In the event of a tied match said:
Aura (Zaffa) said:
Mr.X]
[quote author=Rules]
3. Violations and Cheats:
-The exploitation of maps will result in the forfeiture of all rounds within the current set by the offending party (4-0). Said exploitation will include the abuse of mechanics to see through walls. Any rounds that were won within the set prior to this violation will be discarded.
-Any unfair altering of game files said:
I remember having a discussion about the draw problem back in NASTe. There are problems whether you allow them or not. If you allow draws, then you must at least have some method of resolving ties in the finals. This comes down to arguable metrics (win/loss ratio, round win/loss ratio, etc.) or a tiebreaker match. One will inevitably lead to somebody feeling shafted, while the other just draws out the event and could potentially slow down the entire bracket.
Not allowing draws means each match must have a victor. How you decide this is up to you, but usually it ends with a tie-breaker map. The question, then, is what to do if there is a tie on the tiebreaker map. A total replay is easier said than done, and as I said above can bog down the entire bracket. People don't seem to like repeating tiebreaker maps until somebody wins, and they usually say "but what if you keep getting ties?" How likely is that to happen? I can't think of one instance where a match went beyond 4 maps, and I want to say there hasn't been a case where a match went past 3 (though I can't be 100% sure on this, I know some matches came very close in NASTe). If it comes down to it, you could add a stipulation to the rules that teams are allowed to drop one player after matches enter a tiebreaker phase and are required to match players. This would allow people with time constraints to leave if necessary, as that's the usual excuse for not wanting to extend matches to another map.
Of course, the details are up to you guys. I'm just sayin', there are problems with either approach. You should just pick the one that has the least potential to screw people. I'm of the opinion that forcing rematches in case of a tie isn't the right choice.
That said, thanks for the input and replies. I'll come up with some ideas and present them here to you guys. If its majorly like, I'll put it in a list of possible rule changes that can be discussed in the second meeting.
[quote author=Rules]
1. Each team must represent at least one official NA clan, International (including NA) clan, or a reasonable organization. An official clan is one that has a TaleWorlds thread located in the Clan Hall and one that has an active member base (essentially, if the clan is not dead). A reasonable organization is, but not limited to, a country, a team from a previous tournament, a Free Agent team, and a group of casual players. There may be multiple teams representing one clan but only one vote will be rewarded for captain's meetings.
Yeah, this rule does not make sense to me. Our second team wouldn't get any captain representation unless we kick them out of our clan or they make up another organization to represent? lol. I thought we were trying to encourage more teams or..?
I don't think clan ties are relevant at all to the tourney.
The rules doesn't say two teams can't represent the same organization... This rule was in S1 and S2, if I remember correctly, TMW had two teams in S1 with no problem.
[/quote]
I was referring to the sentence that says our second team isn't allowed to participate in captain's meetings. This was not in S1 or S2.
w/e, I guess we could make up something else for them to represent if it really matters.
[quote author=Rules]
1. Each team must represent at least one official NA clan, International (including NA) clan, or a reasonable organization. An official clan is one that has a TaleWorlds thread located in the Clan Hall and one that has an active member base (essentially, if the clan is not dead). A reasonable organization is, but not limited to, a country, a team from a previous tournament, a Free Agent team, and a group of casual players. There may be multiple teams representing one clan but only one vote will be rewarded for captain's meetings.
Yeah, this rule does not make sense to me. Our second team wouldn't get any captain representation unless we kick them out of our clan or they make up another organization to represent? lol. I thought we were trying to encourage more teams or..?
I don't think clan ties are relevant at all to the tourney.
The rules doesn't say two teams can't represent the same organization... This rule was in S1 and S2, if I remember correctly, TMW had two teams in S1 with no problem.
I was referring to the sentence that says our second team isn't allowed to participate in captain's meetings. This was not in S1 or S2.
w/e, I guess we could make up something else for them to represent if it really matters.
[/quote]
I think i've suggested this before, but i think the maps should be classified as Inf, Archer or Cav maps instead of Open (cav), mixed (less cav but mainly cav) and closed (archer or inf)
A few examples:
Inf maps: San'di'boush, Nord Town, Fort of Honour, Mountain Fortress
Archer maps: Vendetta, Village, Port Assault
Cav maps: Snowy village, Field by the River, Reveran village, Ruins
If dislike the fact that in both EU and NA communities, the maps are classified only by cavs.
in EU:
Closed: Village, San'di'boush, Vendetta, Mountain Fortress
Open: Field by the River, Ruins, Reveran Village, Snowy Village
in NA:
Open: Field by the River, Open Plains
Mixed: Ruins, Reveran Village
Closed: Village, Vendetta, San'di'boush
If you take a look at it, closed maps in both communities have both archer heavy and inf heavy maps, while open has cav heavier maps only.
The "mixed" category was made for Ruins and anything like Ruins. Of all the native maps, it's the only one where any kind of composition is viable. I think trying to classify maps by whichever class they're "best" suited to would lead to problems with maps like Ruins.
What about crossbow maps? Crossbow play is different from archer play. Crossbows can make the most out of any kind of cover, whereas archers generally rely more on smart positioning and dodging. Crossbows are good on any map with enough cover for them to hide behind to reload, and are terribly exposed when they don't have it. Archers aren't affected as much by lack of cover because they don't have to stand still to ready the next shot. Some might also argue that rate of fire is more important than damage per shot on infantry-heavy maps like Nord Town. I would say archers are most important for their pressure and interrupt capabilities on infantry-heavy maps than for their individual damage potential. As such, I think crossbows are outclassed on closed maps. On mixed maps, though, where cavalry is generally fielded in larger numbers and cover is still plentiful, crossbows really shine for their damage potential against (armored) horses and rate of fire isn't so clutch because infantry engagements are generally smaller (as more people went cav).
tl;dr, I think categorizing maps by "preferred class" is much too subjective to be practical. We could spend hours arguing over whether or not a map is more favorable for archers or infantry and come to no conclusion. We can, however, all agree that some maps won't work with all cav, some maps may work with all cav, and some maps usually work with all cav. Closed, mixed, and open.
In regards to ties, I think making it one map would be our best choice. It doesn't increase the time the match is played by too much, and there is no chance of a tie. However, there is a problem of maps. Nations Cup used symmetrical maps with identical factions, which I think may work. X (or anyone else), how did it work out for Nations Cup?
We used symmetrical (Winterburg and Proving Grounds) and it was first to 3 with no change and equal factions. If you are going to ahead and use that I suggest removing gold bonus during tiebreakers to keep things fair.
Updated the rules, specifically the Tiebreaker. I think what Folms said about the gold bonus is a good idea, but I would like some input from you guys about it.
So the tiebreaker follows its own little ruleset and will be nothing like the other 99% of the tournament?
I don't see what's so bad about playing full maps until the thing is decided. When you're scoring by set wins your likelihood of going past a third map is quite low. Low enough, I think, that it's practically a non-issue. I assume someone that has put some thought into this would realize this (which means I assume you realized this), so that makes me question why tiebreaker maps aren't played like they have been in the past. What's the motivation for this change? Fairness and time constraints are all I can think of right now.
The stuff in spoilers is theoretical questioning and reasoning. You can skip that if you just care about my suggestion. If you have a question about my suggestion, read the stuff in the spoilers. You might find your answer, or at least figure out what questions to ask. And yes, it's really, really long. Sorry.
So, what's unfair about the way tiebreakers have been handled in the past? It seems like the consensus now is that one team got to pick the map, which gave them 2 map picks out of a total of 3. I agree that this is questionable, and I think that fixtures for tiebreaker maps are fine. Limiting the available pool of maps isn't a new idea (it goes back to NASTe season 2, where the tiebreaker map had to be from a different category than those previously played), and ensuring that maps are symmetrical is certainly a way to nullify any kind of inherent map advantage one team may have. Faction swapping was an attempt at solving this problem, but it's naturally prone to more ties if both teams can equally exploit the inherent map advantage on their "turn" for that spawn, so I'm OK with symmetrical maps and no swaps as well, to an extent. I think swapping is an interesting mechanic in regards to faction variety, because it gets teams to play things outside of their comfort zone and try new approaches. It can keep the metagame going as teams develop new strategies and counters to accommodate for factions they're not used to playing. For this reason, I think swapping is still a good concept and should not be wholly abandoned in tiebreakers, and it's impossible when factions are forced to be mirrored. For this reason, I am also against forced mirroring of factions in the tiebreaker.
This also means that you must have a match long enough to accommodate at least one swap, so that both teams can play both factions. This implies that an entire map is played, 2 sets by your reckoning, and allowing mirrored factions means there is no advantage in getting first faction pick. Along with maps being predetermined, this wholly negates any unfairness inherent in the picking system.
As for time constraints, I understand this is a very real concern and that matches in Warband are already considerably longer than in similar games. However, a single set is a relatively short period of time to resolve a match that is already quite close, especially considering the potential and decisiveness of snowballing. Removing round bonus gold somewhat alleviates this, but combat gold is still a very real concern because it still gives an advantage to the winning team. However, this line of reasoning runs counter to the fact that changing either/both of these deviates from the way all other matches are played throughout the tournament, and this sort of deviation raises questions about the validity of the tiebreaker as a whole. If it doesn't follow the same rules as everything else, then how is it an accurate representation of how two teams perform in the match? It's akin to having tiebreakers be resolved by a duel. The rules of the competition change, so the outcome of the tiebreaker is arguably not an accurate representation of the capabilities of the teams involved. For this reason, I think it is best to stick as close as possible to the standard match rules, and not have anything drastically different from the first 2 maps.
Which, obviously, still leaves the problem of time unresolved. In order to stay true to the standard match rules, you would play an entire map with a swap in the middle, and what if you're still tied after that? Well, regarding the problem of time required to play another whole map, you could be more lenient in regards to how many players are required per team during tiebreakers. Allow some players to leave and force the opposing team to match players. Your standard matches require 7 players to start, and I think a minimum of 5 during tiebreakers is still enough to emphasize teamwork over individual skill. This would allow 2 players per team to leave if necessary, and the likelihood of more having to leave is low. Personally, I think this is a lax and easy-going solution to adopt, because I believe such problems can be largely avoided at the team level with proper scheduling, but I know that sometimes there just isn't enough time to go around and deadlines have to be met. So, such a rule would accommodate those situations if/when they arise.
In the event of a tie after a third full map, you could evaluate the teams by other metrics. One possibility is round wins during the map. If my understanding of your current scoring system is correct, you play sets in first-to-four and the team with the greatest number of set wins is the overall victor of the match. Because of this scoring system, there are only 4 possible score combinations that results in a tie of set wins and rounds out of 30 possible score combinations when dealing with only 2 sets (10 ways for a team to win, 10 to lose, 10 to tie). This gives you a chance to tie of ~13% based on statistical probability alone. If you weight the probability by team strength, then you get results similar to what we've had in previous tournaments, which is to say very, very few ties. So really, making special rules to guarantee a victor in a tiebreaker map is kind of pointless. The odds of reaching a tiebreaker map are quite small, while the odds of playing a second tiebreaker map are even smaller.
My advice, which is general advice when creating rules, is to write rules that acknowledge the possibility extraordinary circumstances, and provide the means with which they can be handled. For tiebreakers, in the unlikely event of their occurrence, have one map predetermined by fixture. I recommend simply shuffling the list (guaranteeing that the same one isn't on top twice in a row) and saying "if you tie, play through the tiebreaker map list in order until the tie is broken." You can say "but what if they keep getting tied? they'll play forever!" Well, yeah, that's the absolute worst case scenario, isn't it? Be realistic. When has anything even approached that? I can't recall a single tournament match that went past 3 maps. It's just so unlikely to happen that it isn't statistically significant. However, with such a rule in place (play through the map list) you have the means with which to handle it should it happen.
Of course, let's be realistic here. If you tie on your first tiebreaker map, that implies you've already been playing for 2 hours or more. I would say, allow teams that tie on a tiebreaker map to reschedule to a later date, and give them a clean slate to play from. Argue all you want about how the players that show up may be different and it may change the outcome, fine, but the tournament measures team success and not player success and all of those players are on the same team, and you can't reasonably expect a team to continue playing non-stop until a victor is decided.
Perhaps you could allow mirrored factions but not force teams to mirror. Not every clan has the same strengths and weaknesses, and forcing one team to play a faction they're weak on but their opponent isn't is arguably unfair. This would allow both teams to pick to their strengths, and I think what's most fair is two teams at their strongest rather than two teams with different talents using the same tools. I also like the concept of swapping for reasons of metagame advancement and forced variation in play. This implies a map long enough to accommodate a swap, so I think a full map should be played, and to resolve possible ties in tiebreaker maps, round wins could be a secondary metric.
Given the statistical probability of a set & round wins tie on a single map (~13.3%, unweighted by team skill), the chance of a full-blown tie is acceptably small. In the event of a full-blown tie, allow teams the option of rescheduling or continuing to play through tiebreaker maps until one team wins. You could also factor in overall match round wins as a third metric, if you want to reduce the likelihood of ties further, though you would still need some way to resolve total ties.
I'll also add that unless you remove all forms of earning gold (kills and round bonus), you won't negate snowballing. Gold from kills is significant (100+10% of gear cost, IIRC), and because of forced MOTF spawns at 2 minutes more rounds are resolved by kills than by flag captures because of forced confrontation.
And here's a novel idea, if you don't read the post, don't respond to the post. I know lots of people don't like walls of text, but this is a complicated issue. The important parts are outside of the spoiler, and the explanations for them are inside the spoiler, to save you the trouble of reading all of it. If you want an explanation for something, open the spoiler first. I don't mind writing this stuff, but I do mind repeating it.
I've been informed and have confirmed that I was wrong about how match wins are scored. It's by round wins, not set wins (per Match Rule #12). Ties are still very unlikely. The chance is the same for a single map, because the only time a round tie can occur is if both teams get equal but opposite scores on both sets. This is what I get for not actually playing in recent tournaments.
Also while checking the rules, I noticed that there's a word-for-word copy of a rule from NASTe with no credit being given.
[quote author="NASTe rules"]The defending team gets first selection for map and spawn. The attackers then choose their faction, and the defenders choose theirs. Factions may not be mirrored, nor may they be reused on the second map. The category of the map selected may not be picked from again by the defending team (see map categories below). Maps may not be repeated. The second map is chosen by the attackers, who also pick their spawn. Defenders choose faction first on the second map, and attackers choose faction second. Again, no repeated/mirrored factions are allowed.[/quote]
[quote author="UNAC S3 Match Rules, rule #4"]Winner gets to choose attacker or defender. The defending team gets first selection for map and spawn. The attackers then choose their faction, and the defenders choose theirs. Factions may not be mirrored, nor may they be reused on the second map. The category of the map selected may not be picked from again by the defending team (see map categories below). Maps may not be repeated. The second map is chosen by the attackers, who also pick their spawn. Defenders choose faction first on the second map, and attackers choose faction second. Again, no repeated/mirrored factions are allowed. The second map must be from a different map category.[/quote]
What gives?
So the tiebreaker follows its own little ruleset and will be nothing like the other 99% of the tournament?
I don't see what's so bad about playing full maps until the thing is decided. When you're scoring by set wins your likelihood of going past a third map is quite low. Low enough, I think, that it's practically a non-issue. I assume someone that has put some thought into this would realize this (which means I assume you realized this), so that makes me question why tiebreaker maps aren't played like they have been in the past. What's the motivation for this change? Fairness and time constraints are all I can think of right now.
The stuff in spoilers is theoretical questioning and reasoning. You can skip that if you just care about my suggestion. If you have a question about my suggestion, read the stuff in the spoilers. You might find your answer, or at least figure out what questions to ask. And yes, it's really, really long. Sorry.
So, what's unfair about the way tiebreakers have been handled in the past? It seems like the consensus now is that one team got to pick the map, which gave them 2 map picks out of a total of 3. I agree that this is questionable, and I think that fixtures for tiebreaker maps are fine. Limiting the available pool of maps isn't a new idea (it goes back to NASTe season 2, where the tiebreaker map had to be from a different category than those previously played), and ensuring that maps are symmetrical is certainly a way to nullify any kind of inherent map advantage one team may have. Faction swapping was an attempt at solving this problem, but it's naturally prone to more ties if both teams can equally exploit the inherent map advantage on their "turn" for that spawn, so I'm OK with symmetrical maps and no swaps as well, to an extent. I think swapping is an interesting mechanic in regards to faction variety, because it gets teams to play things outside of their comfort zone and try new approaches. It can keep the metagame going as teams develop new strategies and counters to accommodate for factions they're not used to playing. For this reason, I think swapping is still a good concept and should not be wholly abandoned in tiebreakers, and it's impossible when factions are forced to be mirrored. For this reason, I am also against forced mirroring of factions in the tiebreaker.
This also means that you must have a match long enough to accommodate at least one swap, so that both teams can play both factions. This implies that an entire map is played, 2 sets by your reckoning, and allowing mirrored factions means there is no advantage in getting first faction pick. Along with maps being predetermined, this wholly negates any unfairness inherent in the picking system.
As for time constraints, I understand this is a very real concern and that matches in Warband are already considerably longer than in similar games. However, a single set is a relatively short period of time to resolve a match that is already quite close, especially considering the potential and decisiveness of snowballing. Removing round bonus gold somewhat alleviates this, but combat gold is still a very real concern because it still gives an advantage to the winning team. However, this line of reasoning runs counter to the fact that changing either/both of these deviates from the way all other matches are played throughout the tournament, and this sort of deviation raises questions about the validity of the tiebreaker as a whole. If it doesn't follow the same rules as everything else, then how is it an accurate representation of how two teams perform in the match? It's akin to having tiebreakers be resolved by a duel. The rules of the competition change, so the outcome of the tiebreaker is arguably not an accurate representation of the capabilities of the teams involved. For this reason, I think it is best to stick as close as possible to the standard match rules, and not have anything drastically different from the first 2 maps.
Which, obviously, still leaves the problem of time unresolved. In order to stay true to the standard match rules, you would play an entire map with a swap in the middle, and what if you're still tied after that? Well, regarding the problem of time required to play another whole map, you could be more lenient in regards to how many players are required per team during tiebreakers. Allow some players to leave and force the opposing team to match players. Your standard matches require 7 players to start, and I think a minimum of 5 during tiebreakers is still enough to emphasize teamwork over individual skill. This would allow 2 players per team to leave if necessary, and the likelihood of more having to leave is low. Personally, I think this is a lax and easy-going solution to adopt, because I believe such problems can be largely avoided at the team level with proper scheduling, but I know that sometimes there just isn't enough time to go around and deadlines have to be met. So, such a rule would accommodate those situations if/when they arise.
In the event of a tie after a third full map, you could evaluate the teams by other metrics. One possibility is round wins during the map. If my understanding of your current scoring system is correct, you play sets in first-to-four and the team with the greatest number of set wins is the overall victor of the match. Because of this scoring system, there are only 4 possible score combinations that results in a tie of set wins and rounds out of 30 possible score combinations when dealing with only 2 sets (10 ways for a team to win, 10 to lose, 10 to tie). This gives you a chance to tie of ~13% based on statistical probability alone. If you weight the probability by team strength, then you get results similar to what we've had in previous tournaments, which is to say very, very few ties. So really, making special rules to guarantee a victor in a tiebreaker map is kind of pointless. The odds of reaching a tiebreaker map are quite small, while the odds of playing a second tiebreaker map are even smaller.
My advice, which is general advice when creating rules, is to write rules that acknowledge the possibility extraordinary circumstances, and provide the means with which they can be handled. For tiebreakers, in the unlikely event of their occurrence, have one map predetermined by fixture. I recommend simply shuffling the list (guaranteeing that the same one isn't on top twice in a row) and saying "if you tie, play through the tiebreaker map list in order until the tie is broken." You can say "but what if they keep getting tied? they'll play forever!" Well, yeah, that's the absolute worst case scenario, isn't it? Be realistic. When has anything even approached that? I can't recall a single tournament match that went past 3 maps. It's just so unlikely to happen that it isn't statistically significant. However, with such a rule in place (play through the map list) you have the means with which to handle it should it happen.
Of course, let's be realistic here. If you tie on your first tiebreaker map, that implies you've already been playing for 2 hours or more. I would say, allow teams that tie on a tiebreaker map to reschedule to a later date, and give them a clean slate to play from. Argue all you want about how the players that show up may be different and it may change the outcome, fine, but the tournament measures team success and not player success and all of those players are on the same team, and you can't reasonably expect a team to continue playing non-stop until a victor is decided.
Perhaps you could allow mirrored factions but not force teams to mirror. Not every clan has the same strengths and weaknesses, and forcing one team to play a faction they're weak on but their opponent isn't is arguably unfair. This would allow both teams to pick to their strengths, and I think what's most fair is two teams at their strongest rather than two teams with different talents using the same tools. I also like the concept of swapping for reasons of metagame advancement and forced variation in play. This implies a map long enough to accommodate a swap, so I think a full map should be played, and to resolve possible ties in tiebreaker maps, round wins could be a secondary metric.
Given the statistical probability of a set & round wins tie on a single map (~13.3%, unweighted by team skill), the chance of a full-blown tie is acceptably small. In the event of a full-blown tie, allow teams the option of rescheduling or continuing to play through tiebreaker maps until one team wins. You could also factor in overall match round wins as a third metric, if you want to reduce the likelihood of ties further, though you would still need some way to resolve total ties.
I'll also add that unless you remove all forms of earning gold (kills and round bonus), you won't negate snowballing. Gold from kills is significant (100+10% of gear cost, IIRC), and because of forced MOTF spawns at 2 minutes more rounds are resolved by kills than by flag captures because of forced confrontation.
And here's a novel idea, if you don't read the post, don't respond to the post. I know lots of people don't like walls of text, but this is a complicated issue. The important parts are outside of the spoiler, and the explanations for them are inside the spoiler, to save you the trouble of reading all of it. If you want an explanation for something, open the spoiler first. I don't mind writing this stuff, but I do mind repeating it.
Thank you, for actually responding. It would be nice to get more input like this from more people, because I'm trying to base the rules on what people would like to see, but only three or four reply.
I like and appreciate the work you put into your post. The rule before wasn't bad, the possibility of the tie and time constraints is what made me think of alternatives. I know the possibility of a tie on the third map is unlikely, but it is likely, none the less. Playing until the tie is broken is an option that I would like to discuss. If two teams plays ties for too long in one night, they can just reschedule for another night to play the tiebreaker maps (or were you saying to replay the match in general?). Its not a bad idea, in my opinion. The only problem with this that could occur, that I can see for now, is teams failing to reschedule appropriately, delaying the tournament.
Anyways, I'll ponder on your post more tonight. Thanks for posting it, again.
Orion said:
I've been informed and have confirmed that I was wrong about how match wins are scored. It's by round wins, not set wins (per Match Rule #12). Ties are still very unlikely. I'll figure out the chance in a bit. This is what I get for not actually playing in recent tournaments.
Also while checking the rules, I noticed that there's a word-for-word copy of a rule from NASTe with no credit being given.
[quote author="NASTe rules"]The defending team gets first selection for map and spawn. The attackers then choose their faction, and the defenders choose theirs. Factions may not be mirrored, nor may they be reused on the second map. The category of the map selected may not be picked from again by the defending team (see map categories below). Maps may not be repeated. The second map is chosen by the attackers, who also pick their spawn. Defenders choose faction first on the second map, and attackers choose faction second. Again, no repeated/mirrored factions are allowed.
[quote author="UNAC S3 Match Rules, rule #4"]Winner gets to choose attacker or defender. The defending team gets first selection for map and spawn. The attackers then choose their faction, and the defenders choose theirs. Factions may not be mirrored, nor may they be reused on the second map. The category of the map selected may not be picked from again by the defending team (see map categories below). Maps may not be repeated. The second map is chosen by the attackers, who also pick their spawn. Defenders choose faction first on the second map, and attackers choose faction second. Again, no repeated/mirrored factions are allowed. The second map must be from a different map category.[/quote]
What gives?
[/quote]
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
