Native Completed [NASTe] North American Small Teams Seasonal Ladder [Season 2]

[Catholic]

Agreed. We were all pissed and angry and I'm more than willing to say moreso on our side than yours. I got irritated at being called out on flaming when I didn't do anything of the sort.

Regardless, that's my last comment on the match. Willing to discuss the rules, as I still believe they should be changed, but that's about it. Tomorrow I'll try to contact blak about a reschedule. Really looking forward to playing you guys, pax.

 

[captain lust]

I guess it just seems unfair to say that I was the only one "flaming" when from my point of view all I was doing was trying to stop you guys from beating up on Juvenile about something that was obviously not his fault. Also, I'm not just directing this at you Catholic, but also at Lust.

I didn't mean to be rude but it took us a good 20 minutes of faffing around between the time we stopped playing and the time we swapped to the War Room. It was then (and only then) that he finally decided to tell us about the thunderstorm. I suppose I'll have to take him at his word that he didn't know... but I find that pretty hard to believe. More likely, I imagine, he failed to make the link between that and his ping problems straight away. Which is forgivable I suppose. Just wanted to get the match going and it felt like your guys were falling at every hurdle.

The reason it's such a problem is that this isn't KBOOB. This isn't a league based tournament where you can essentially play the matches whenever and it doesn't cause any problems. This is a ladder and we're getting left behind. There ought to be a certain amount of responsibility to participation, where this situation isn't allowed to arise.

What makes it more frustrating is that all your problems only started in the 3rd round, after we'd just won the first two with only a single loss. Now I don't believe you pulled this as some kind of get-out stunt but anyone with a more suspicious nature could be forgiven doing so. Adding fuel to the fire was the fact that when we were attempting to restart the match, you tried to do so on the War Room. Which made absolutely no sense at all.

Anyway, we have the guarantee now that next time will be the last time, so I'll let Cath get on with the rescheduling and see you then.

 

[Orion]

I just thought I would mention, 5v5's are against the current rules. It has to be a 6v6.

Mind quoting that rule for me? I can't see it.

Check your PMs. Wait, I'll do it for you.

1) Matches are 6v6, always. This is for consistency and fairness across the board. This is also why the minimum team size is 6. I feel that anything less than 6v6 isn't entertaining enough for an entire match, and while higher numbers are fun it becomes a pain on my end to keep track of little agreements made between each team on the spot.

2) No. 6v6, no more, no less. There are provisions in place in case a team cannot field the minimum number of players for a match, with one rescheduled attempt required. After that, a team could be penalized if they're negligent in scheduling/rescheduling, unsportsmanlike when dealing with the other team, etc., or the challenge could simply be cancelled.

This PM was sent to the following people:

captain lust, John7, Rhade, Tigerclaw, Mad Dawg, LordHasek, MadocComadrin, Mr.X, BigBoss, Z3ro, Kitten-mew!, CommissarK, WilySly, AarontheBaron

Here's two screenshots, one from MadDawg (which establishes the context for the second PM) and another PM which I partially quoted above.

隐藏

I didn't mean to be rude but

... but you always are. Yup.

Going by the pings posted, three players were experiencing issues. These three:

Juve:
Beast Coast - 221 
Balion War Room - 201-220

Paxman
Beast Coast - 90 - 100 ( He even said his ping is a steady 80 on Beast Coast )
Balion War Room - 60

Monkey
Beast Coast - 60 ( spiking to 150 )
Balion War Room - 40 (spiking to 120 )

That's a solid reason to switch servers. I don't see the problem with a server switch, given the information I have.

Now on to rescheduling. It's a real pisser when someone writes rules that say you've got to have a playable environment for your matches, isn't it? I guess next time I'll write rules that say "you pick a server, you pick a time, and you play it, no exceptions." Then if you don't show up with enough people, DQ'ed. If your entire team pings 150 on the server and you lose, it's your fault. If you found a better server, too bad.

I guess that would be better, wouldn't it?

Shame on me for writing these "retarded" rules that say every player needs to be capable of playing, or the match can be relocated or rescheduled to something better. Shame on me for trying to level the playing field as much as possible, and trying to ensure that you guys can all play and have a good time. Shame on me for the thunderstorm that screwed with a player's ping.

Right?

I know it sucks when you have other commitments and you took time out of your schedule to play and it didn't happen. It's frustrating and disappointing. You know what else is frustrating? Taking time out of your schedule to play and it does happen, but abnormal circumstances prevent you from playing at the level you're capable of. I don't expect anybody on my team to be forced to play with ping spikes, I don't expect my opponents to put up with ping spikes, and I wrote the rules to reflect this.

If your players are spiking, you can substitute other players in. You can have a roster of 9, that gives you 3 additional players to work with. If your team can't show up to a time you scheduled, by scheduling that time with knowledge of your limited players you've accepted the risk that you might not have substitutions available. When connections are an issue and you don't have players to substitute, you can switch servers. If connections are still an issue, you can reschedule.

Is this a problem with the rules? No. The rules allow for this to happen because if I didn't allow substitutions, relocation, or rescheduling, you would ***** at me about that.

So, here's the ultimatum. You get to pick!

No substitutions. No server switching. No rescheduling. Pick a time, play it, if you can't bring 6 you forfeit, if you lose a player you forfeit, if **** happens you forfeit.

Or

The rules as they are.

Take your pick. Which would you rather ***** about more? I'm sorry for trying to make sure you guys always play under good conditions. I guess I'm just a retard.

If you want to follow the rules, then you have another choice. Reschedule or cancel. Play, or don't.

 

[captain lust]

Having it in the planning PMs is no good. Obviously I know matches are 6v6 but it's something that you know should be in the rules and some clarity last night could've helped us. You're just being stubborn for no reason.

There's also no need for the excessive sarcasm.

It's clear that these rules aren't working in practice at the moment and by pointing out flaws I'm trying to help improve the situation. By acting dumb and making that grand statement with the two extreme options, you're achieving nothing. You know full well that a balance can be struck between the two and if you like, I'll happily discuss how that can be done with you.

As for the "ping thing" which, in my opinion, is causing the most problems right now... I would gladly see you get harsh with that. Do you know how often I have ping problems? Never. I get that **** happens and some things aren't avoidable... but most things are. When one team has 7 players with stable connections (on two different servers) and the other team has no subs and 3 players spiking on both servers - that's not a coincidence. That's just sloppy.

If your players are spiking, you can substitute other players in. You can have a roster of 9, that gives you 3 additional players to work with. If your team can't show up to a time you scheduled, by scheduling that time with knowledge of your limited players you've accepted the risk that you might not have substitutions available. When connections are an issue and you don't have players to substitute, you can switch servers. If connections are still an issue, you can reschedule.

Well you've just contradicted yourself there because you've shown that there is no risk. Teams can show up to matches, get whitewashed in two rounds then start having ping problems and they're off scott free.

 

[Orion]

There is risk. I've said it many times in this thread in many different ways, but the idea is the same. Consequences scale. If you can't play a match the way it's supposed to be played on your agreed server, you switch. If it doesn't work, you reschedule. If you reschedule and it doesn't work, your match gets cancelled. You can't infinitely reschedule, which means if you intentionally **** something up now to get a reschedule you're stuck with any adverse circumstances that might appear for your last attempt.

As for my sarcastic attitude, I've had a couple problems the last couple days. Coming back to the ladder and seeing posts & logs about how retarded I am don't do anything to improve my mood. No matter what I do, somebody is going to ***** about it. I've written the rules in such a way that I thought would minimize *****ing and allow for matches to be played and enjoyed.

Think about the situation the teams are in, and how the rules apply. Would you expect a team to play with 2 or 3 players out of 6 spiking aggressively? I wouldn't. It's unfair for them to be forced to play under those conditions. That's what rescheduling is for. It sucks to block out time for something that falls through, but it's not the end of the world. If you can't bring 6 players together again for another match, you don't have a team. If you don't have a team, you shouldn't be on the ladder.

 

[captain lust]

Alright well this is our third and (as Zero stated) last attempt. Hopefully it all goes swimmingly this time.

 

[MacKain]

It's still utter Bull, that one mans ping can cancel a match.

I must have jinxed myself, because the last time I commented on this issue i mentioned putting others things on hold and putting a bit of effort into making a match and then this goes and happens to me. Granted I never had a date with Rhades sister but there were other more important things pushed aside.

I dont have a qualm with GOOD, But... The rules. In general, I dont have a problem with them. But...

There is a fundamental flaw in the current system regarding ping, and the fact 1 persons instability can call a match off.

Regardless of what just happened, and wether there was more than 1 man in the most recent situation, the fact is your rule allows 1 mans instability to end a match, During the match.

Who's to say, 1 man wont get in a rage and suddenly start downloading porn and go "o **** theres a freak lightning storm over my city and is causing my ping issues, we best reschedule." 

Actualy its not the cheating that bothers me, Its more the fact that a match has at least 11 other people... 12 includeing the ref, and these other people have lives, and other commitments. It's just plain rude that 1 person can ruin it for everyone else.

I think ping issues really shouldn't have "rules" persay, more I think guidelines that the admins can work with and for them to use their discretion to get the match played without the drama.

And being allowed to drop to a 5v5 would be benificial. This would mean the 1 person may be able to rejoin later on if their ping settles.

But, this is probably just added more fuel to the fire that was kinda running its course. so i will end it here, ive already made a complaint.

I just wanna get the match over with!

(P.S - Mad Cat - Im Scottish, not Irish )

 

 

[Orion]

Rule changes regarding team size during matches, substitutions during matches, ping & connection issues, server selection, etc. are being discussed and clarified. Ladder admins are also discussing an addition to the admin team, all of which will be posted here when finalized.

The rules are going to be changed, and soon.

 

[Catholic]

The problem is that said three (I'm arguing two, but whatever, let's roll with your three) had ping problems on both servers, not just the beast coast. And I don't understand the condescending attitude as the post is not insulting you but attempting to change the rules that we find flawed.

And neither me nor blak received that PM. In fact, the only person on either side that received that PM was lust. I don't fault zero for cancelling it anymore, my apologies to zero.

The server was not a problem. Paxman, going by zero's post, where it says "paxman even said his ping was a steady 80" and from my observations, had 20-30 more ping. Flaming monkey and juv were spiking on BOTH servers. I'd also like to input I watched flaming monkey's ping for a minute and didn't see it spike, but I'm going to trust what other people said. The issue, as Kain pointed out, is that 1-2 players had problems with the ping and the entire match was rescheduled, wasting every single person's time. This is why we have a roster of 9 people. In fact, I'd like to request increasing max roster size to 11 so that this does not happen. We even scheduled an hour later so that the match would be better for them and they could bring everyone. I would not mind switching servers if the server was a problem, but in this case, it clearly was not.

edit: ninja'd. Thanks, Orion.

 

[Orion]

We'll see about increasing max roster size. I'm personally a little iffy on that, but I wouldn't be against 10 or 11 players if scheduling is going to be a bit of an issue.

 

[Rhonen]

I feel right now with the current roster size, most teams barely get the 6 required to a match. If the roster sizes were increased it would be easier to sub out the problematic pings instead of forcing a reschedule every time. Obviously it is a problem since we have already had 3 cases of this when there have been only a handful of matches.

 

[ryizzel]

There is risk. I've said it many times in this thread in many different ways, but the idea is the same. Consequences scale. If you can't play a match the way it's supposed to be played on your agreed server, you switch. If it doesn't work, you reschedule. If you reschedule and it doesn't work, your match gets cancelled. You can't infinitely reschedule, which means if you intentionally **** something up now to get a reschedule you're stuck with any adverse circumstances that might appear for your last attempt.

As for my sarcastic attitude, I've had a couple problems the last couple days. Coming back to the ladder and seeing posts & logs about how retarded I am don't do anything to improve my mood. No matter what I do, somebody is going to ***** about it. I've written the rules in such a way that I thought would minimize *****ing and allow for matches to be played and enjoyed.

Think about the situation the teams are in, and how the rules apply. Would you expect a team to play with 2 or 3 players out of 6 spiking aggressively? I wouldn't. It's unfair for them to be forced to play under those conditions. That's what rescheduling is for. It sucks to block out time for something that falls through, but it's not the end of the world. If you can't bring 6 players together again for another match, you don't have a team. If you don't have a team, you shouldn't be on the ladder.

You and kitten should start the pissed off tournament organizer club.

Also if we have learned anything from the k-boob increasing the roster size won't do **** to help with this problem. If you have flaky people on your team, maybe you should just reconsider having a team.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

From past competitive play experience all the tournaments that had a 6v6 or 5v5 situation (which was all the tournaments I believe) had roster sizes of 12-15 for 6v6 or 10-13 for 5v5. This was implemented for the exact problems we have here, ping issues. This was the rosters are too big to say that one player has problems so the match needs to be rescheduled. It becomes the teams responsibility to have enough players so that if 1 or 2 have ping issues they have substitutes. I'm pretty sure this would have helped out every match problem we have had so far. If your roster size is 12 and you can't bring 8 to a game in case of ping issues it is your fault, discussion closed. If one team doesn't have enough willing to play, insta forfeit. I believe this rule would eliminate all problems with the ping issue, the admins are not responsible on any level for having to make judgement on pings.

Another idea I thought may be helpful or more interesting, not specifically for this ladder tourney but for future ones, is to have scheduled maps to play for each week. Now this only works on tourneys that have scheduled weekly matchups for teams so not this one, I just want people to think about it. This way different maps are played, teams are forced to come up with more strategies rather than 1 for their best map and 1 for their opponents. I really think this increases the competitive aspect for a tournament. The maps to be played for each week would be listed at the beginning of each season, so teams could figure out when to practice what for future games.

I realize warband doesn't have an abundance of maps but I have seen some really good custom maps that could be used for competition. The captains of each team could vote on if a map was worthy for competition, and either a majority or 2/3s vote would make a map eligible for scheduling for the tournament (this includes both custom and native maps, as most would agree some native maps aren't meant for competition). I think it would really expand the horizons of teams that are used to playing a few maps all the time for competition. I have seen this used successfully in 8 tournaments without any problems, so if it doesn't work out it would probably be due to fault by the community or organizer. Like said earlier, not for this tourney situation, but for future thought.

 

[Orion]

What about factions? If factions are picked with the map, the teams might not be happy with their predetermined setups. Some factions are at a disadvantage on some maps, etc. If factions are picked by the teams for each match, then the faction choices will almost always be between the two strongest factions for that map.

 

[MrNomNom]

Good games LES, Marnid got the screenies.

 

[BigBoss]

gg

 

[Orion]

Results for LES against Lusciously Astounding Gusto! :

First map, Nord Town. LAG Rhodoks 1, LES Nords 5.

隐藏: First map scoreboard

Second map, Village. LES Swadians 5, LAG Vaegirs 1.

隐藏: Second map scoreboard

GG, fun times.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

What about factions? If factions are picked with the map, the teams might not be happy with their predetermined setups. Some factions are at a disadvantage on some maps, etc. If factions are picked by the teams for each match, then the faction choices will almost always be between the two strongest factions for that map.

Factions would not be predetermined, only the map. Teams are free to pick faction, and what the maps are will probably affect what factions they choose to pick.

 

[POM_Zero]

LES_Central is Officially up! To reserve it for a match PM Marnid, Zero, Commissar, or Hasek

 

[Rhonen]

Really odd start, good games.

Edit: Props to Mad, most people wouldn't have dropped players in a situation like that.