[BCM] Questions & Suggestions

Puffthedragon

Squire
Best answers
0
To add to this a little more my team and hawkband are trying to sort out a time that is good for both of us but the problem is he's told me he can only play weekends and I have a WSC official Sunday so that only leaves Saturday that I'm fine with the thing is he's telling me his team can only play at 17:00 bst or 18:00 but I work every other Saturday for my job and I finish at 18:00 so it's impossible for me to make it I offered 19:00 but he doesn't seem to agree with that so I have no clue what to do at this point.
 

Jurgen

Knight
WBNWM&BWF&S
Best answers
0
PuffTheDragon said:
To add to this a little more my team and hawkband are trying to sort out a time that is good for both of us but the problem is he's told me he can only play weekends and I have a WSC official Sunday so that only leaves Saturday that I'm fine with the thing is he's telling me his team can only play at 17:00 bst or 18:00 but I work every other Saturday for my job and I finish at 18:00 so it's impossible for me to make it I offered 19:00 but he doesn't seem to agree with that so I have no clue what to do at this point.
I did not speak only on Saturday. I said on any day, when you can play an hour earlier. Then when you have a day off.
 

imemine

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
The BCM is a European tournament, therefore, the scheduling is orientated towards European time. The standard time to schedule matches is 19:00-20:00 BST.
However, we encourage all teams to show good sportsmanship and agree to the most convenient solution for both teams.
 

Jurgen

Knight
WBNWM&BWF&S
Best answers
0
imemine said:
The BCM is a European tournament, therefore, the scheduling is orientated towards European time. The standard time to schedule matches is 19:00-20:00 BST.
However, we encourage all teams to show good sportsmanship and agree to the most convenient solution for both teams.
I understood. Thank you. I will consider this decision with the team leader
 

Tardet

Count
NW
Best answers
0
In case you have missed the beginning of the discussion, just reposting the first messages which raised the issue.

OurGloriousLeader said:
Orion said:
If one team has 7, then the other team should have 7....
It's possible for a player to drop unexpectedly after a match has started, reducing a team to 7 players. If that player cannot rejoin before the start of the next round and the team doesn't have another player ready to take their place, then their opponent must sit a player to make the next round after the drop start 7vs7.
This is a stupid rule and should be changed, it has not been the rule used in competitive EU since I've played at least, it was in NA for a period but stopped there also. It's also wildly open to abuse - say I have a team of 6 good players and 2 who are filling, and I'm up against a team of 8 good players. It is in my interest to therefore try to force a 7v7.

I know we've all signed up to the rules but I feel fairly confident most did not read this rule as you have interpreted it, even though looking back it's clear.
Aeronwen said:
Orion said:
Kiano said:
Maybe I should rephrase. In Thorin's case, the other team is the team that had 8. If one team has 8 players, they shouldn't be obligated to match another which has 7 right?

If teams must mach at the beginning of each round, does that mean if a team drops a player, the other team isn't obligated to drop a player that round, but must drop a player the next round to ensure team numbers match at the beginning of the next round?
The rule of thumb is that teams must always start rounds, sets, and matches with the same number of players. If one team has 8, the other team should have 8. If one team has 7, then the other team should have 7.

Specifically, matches must start 8vs8. It's possible for a player to drop unexpectedly after a match has started, reducing a team to 7 players. If that player cannot rejoin before the start of the next round and the team doesn't have another player ready to take their place, then their opponent must sit a player to make the next round after the drop start 7vs7. A team with 6 or fewer players at the start of a round will forfeit the rest of the set, and gets a minimum of 5 minutes to find a 7th player to continue playing. If they can't get back to minimum 7 players, then the rest of the match can be claimed by their opponent as default.

The administration will consult with the referee who was present and review match logs to decide what will be done in the case of Gardas vs. TCB.
I cannot think of any way this is anything but a bad rule.

I assume the thinking behind it is that if a player drops it is usually for reasons beyond their control and their team should not suffer because of it. However forcing the other team to suddenly choose a player to drop is componding, not resolving, the problem.

Also not all drops are accidental, this allows another way of gaming the system.

You have my full support for this but in the grand scheme of the tournament administration, I have no actual relevance nor decisional power so I encourage anyone to give their opinion while we wait for a proper tournament admin to give you an answer.
 

Calamity

Il Padrino
Best answers
0
I do believe this was talked about previously but I'll revisit the conversation with all admins. Expect a response in a day or so.
 

watly

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Best answers
0
OurGloriousLeader said:
Suggestion: scrap the rule that teams must match 7 players in the event of a dropped player as it is open to abuse.
Agreed, I feel sad that I did not manage to pick it up beforehand. It is open to abuse in a wide variety of ways and generally strange that inaction after your opponent loses a player can result in you breaching a rule.
 

Orion

Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
Fietta said:
Love bringing NA to EU
Shoo. Three out of five administrators are European.

OurGloriousLeader said:
Suggestion: scrap the rule that teams must match 7 players in the event of a dropped player as it is open to abuse.
As the author of that rule, I feel obligated to explain the reasoning for it since it has become a point of contention. This post is not a resolution of the matter, just an explanation of the reasoning behind the rule as it currently stands.

Ideally, both teams are responsible and respect their opponents. As such, it is in the spirit of fairness that both teams match their numbers each round so that the outcome of the match is a fair representation of the relative skill level of both teams. One cannot argue the advantage that is gained by having more players.

Realistically, yes, it is theoretically open to abuse as one team can purposefully drop a player after the first round has begun and thereby force their opponent to play almost the entire match 7vs7 rather than 8vs8. This begs the question, though, about what advantage this actually confers to the team which forced the drop. You gave an example in the other thread, OGL, and I'll quote it here:
OurGloriousLeader said:
It's also wildly open to abuse - say I have a team of 6 good players and 2 who are filling, and I'm up against a team of 8 good players. It is in my interest to therefore try to force a 7v7.
To this, I must ask: why do you have filler players if you signed up with the intention of winning? Surely a team that is willing to exploit the rules for an advantage is willing to put winning ahead of other concerns, so why did they not cut weak players and take on strong ones? That said, I find it odd that several teams were threatening to not sign up at all because they didn't want to cut any of their good players for the roster cap, and now you're telling me that I legitimately have to worry about teams abusing this rule to compensate for weak fillers on their roster. Which is it? I realize this is beside the point, so let me get back on track. Assuming a team has 6 good players and 2 fillers, and that they are facing a team of 8 good players, yes, dropping a filler to force their opponent to drop a good player does tip the scales a little. It doesn't tip the scales in the first team's favor as they're still playing 6+1 vs 7, though I agree it is scummy and makes a bad situation a little bit better. I'm not convinced this is a realistic situation in this tournament, though, considering the size of the roster cap compared to the player requirement for matches. We also haven't seen it done yet, though that could be because people did not read and/or understand that rule.

Regardless, I am personally open to the idea of a revision. I would like to see suggestions for alternatives, rather than just tossing out the whole rule and its intended effect. Perhaps a caveat that teams only have to match for the first set in which the drop happens (i.e. only the remainder of one set per match), after which it can safely be assumed their opponent had enough time to source a replacement and their failure to do so is their burden to bear. This would still be prone to the same kind of abuse, technically, but its scope would be limited to part of a single set and therefore its effect on the overall match should be minimal. I feel this would allow teams which lose a player for honest reasons to have a fair chance in what should be a one-time incident, and make the impact of abuse so minimal that it wouldn't be worthwhile. Maybe another condition that a team doesn't have to match in the final set, so potential abusers don't "save" their one-time forced matching for a clutch moment?
 

OurGloriousLeader

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
It's not really for me to judge why a team might have filler players - necessity, their star players couldn't make the match, whatever. The point is that the rule as stands can be abused and it cannot be reliably protected against since drops do happen and suspicious timing cannot be an argument.

I can think of some other examples of abuse, for example:

You have a whitewash against you and fear a snowball from enemy gold. Dropping one causes a loss of gold on enemy team, tipping things a little back to you.
You don't have enough cav players for a very open map 8v8 but forcing 7v7 makes it more manageable for your 3 cav build.
Generally you fear the tactics of the enemy team who are very much favourites so you force a 7v7 just to "throw them off".

etc

Yes I expect we mostly will have a fair tournament and especially for the smaller teams this is a helpful rule, but at the end of the day we cannot rely on the spirit of fairplay if we want a "serious" competitive tournament with prizes. As for suggestions, we've simply taken the dropped player as the team's responsibility, drops happen but that's why we have subs. If you're really concerned about it, you can have refs watch and pause matches in drops and restart the round, but that's a lot of work.
 

Orion

Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
After discussion among the administration, it has been decided that--because no matches have thus far been meaningful affected by the original rule--we will be dropping the requirement to match player numbers for the remainder of the qualifiers, and for the main event. See the announcement for the exact wording.



Or, just look at Watly's post previous to this one. Same thing.
 

TalliE

Baron
WBNW
Best answers
0
I don't know who we're supposed to play in the quarter finals, but for the team we're facing: I won't be able to schedule to match today, please reach out to Ceasar on his steam: here.
 

Orion

Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
The quarterfinal fixtures & bracket will be posted ~midnight BST on Wednesday. Teams have all of Thursday and Friday to schedule & play their matches (we predict most will be done on Friday, but go ahead and surprise us).