Proposed new rules and discussion about day's topics.

[Mia]

but a rematch would be like a replay of a penalty in football.

CHAMPION'S DUEL !!

隐藏

 

[Lord Willy]

I think this thread can be locked now .

 

[sadnhappy]

Waiting for lust's response.. Also, lust, read Plazek's post(s) in this thread, they are of vital importance.

If I understand correctly some people still really assume that handing over default wins and forfeits for trivial reasons is more competitive than actual matches.. I simply don't get it. It can never be that way. The league should be contested on the battlefield, not in paperwork and politics.

 

[Arch3r]

Or: The rounds where the player (that was not on the roster) played may be replayed if BOTH teams agree with it. If the non-offender team does not agree only the rounds where this player was in the team line up count as losses for the offending team.

Of course this would only be for this current tournament and the rules I just suggested are not very different from the current rules of this tournament.

 

[Swordmaster]

Waiting for lust's response.. Also, lust, read Plazek's post(s) in this thread, they are of vital importance.

If I understand correctly some people still really assume that handing over default wins and forfeits for trivial reasons is more competitive than actual matches.. I simply don't get it. It can never be that way.

I explained it clearly, it simply gives the other teams a chance because of that team's fault.

The league should be contested on the battlefield, not in paperwork and politics.

In that case I've a proposition.

1.
If a rematch is going to be done, then the other team who didnt do any mistakes should choose one player or two from the other team not to play in the rematch (however, they cannot choose the tactitian). That also gives the promising or newly joined players a chance to play in a competetive match.
2.
Or the offender team starts the rematch with a score of 0-5, giving an advantage for the non-offender team. So only 15 rounds to be played.

Edit: And also, if the offender-team makes a second mistake like they did previously, then they'll get a default defeat.

 

[Arch3r]

1.
If a rematch is going to be done, then the other team who didnt do any mistakes should choose one player or two from the other team not to play in the rematch (however, they cannot choose the tactitian). That also gives the promising or newly joined players a chance to play in a competetive match.

Would make more sense if the offending team would play with one less players instead of the non-offending team choosing the best player not to play.

2.
Or the offender team starts the rematch with a score of 0-5, giving an advantage for the non-offender team. So only 15 rounds to be played.

Edit: And also, if the offender-team makes a mistake like they did previously, then they'll get a default defeat.

Ye but than it all comes down to: Are the 5 rounds not played the rounds on Village defending or attacking?

 

[sadnhappy]

HOWEVER, i think it would be best if a point was added to the rule that said something along the lines of '*exceptions can be made', to keep things fair. for example, say that if a team hasn't got their roster updated, and in a match they use a player that isn't on the roster, and one of the players is obviously a member of the team, then they should keep the win.

so i think the real question here is is the player in question a member of the team, and not just a stand-in? if so, i think a decision should be reconsidered.

thanks

Nico has been with 22nd since 03/04/10 so well over a year. Also he didn't switch from another clan NOR did he make a single difference in the match as he had 1/6 score in the 10 rounds he played. Also he did went to the ENL_Registration server and thus administration had his ID. The only thing that is allegedly missing is a reply to the substitution thread, a rule that was made after Nico had went to the server. I'd also like to point out that the rule is completely new, hasn't been tested and the penalty for 'breaking' it is way too harsh and out of proportion in regards to the functionality of the tournament and good sportsmanship.

Or: The rounds where the player (that was not on the roster) played may be replayed if BOTH teams agree with it. If the non-offender team does not agree only the rounds where this player was in the team line up count as losses for the offending team.

Ye but the thing is RN won't accept it since they know they'd lose the ten rounds in question. They'll do everything to win and also they've been aching to get revenge from the loss and I've kept saying that it would be the third chance for them to beat us. I've also stated the the only rematch we'll ever play against them would be rematch of the ENL official Week 1 that happened on Wednesday. No need to play it completely, the Snowy Village map and the 10 rounds is understandable. Also we were at 4-6 loss after Village so that too favours them over us.

This new rule is making winners from losers and I don't think that's wise concerning the prestige and validity of the tournament. A team that loses on the battlefield should not be crowned as a winner unless a serious crime would have happened, such as using actual cheats or glitching or using some kind of clear indicator that the cheat in question really favoured the rulebreaking clan. This was not the case. Nothing happened even if Nico was playing, they had his ID, he's a longtime member in this clan.

Nothing as serious happened that anyone reasonable would count as a reason to give a losing team 20-0 win over the winning team.

Swordmaster, Arch3r, I personally suggested those two things in the post after OP in this very thread: The rulebreaking team would play 9 vs. 10 and with 2-3 members barred from the match,  which was my C option.

Also the rounds were:

22nd vs. RN
Village first five rounds: 4-1, latter five rounds 0-5 = 4-6 situation

Snowy Village first five rounds: 2-2, latter five rounds 4-1 = 6-3

= 10 - 9 win for 22nd

 

[Swordmaster]

1.
If a rematch is going to be done, then the other team who didnt do any mistakes should choose one player or two from the other team not to play in the rematch (however, they cannot choose the tactitian). That also gives the promising or newly joined players a chance to play in a competetive match.

Would make more sense if the offending team would play with one less players instead of the non-offending team choosing the best player not to play.

2.
Or the offender team starts the rematch with a score of 0-5, giving an advantage for the non-offender team. So only 15 rounds to be played.

Edit: And also, if the offender-team makes a mistake like they did previously, then they'll get a default defeat.

Ye but than it all comes down to: Are the 5 rounds not played the rounds on Village defending or attacking?

Non-offender team can choose that 5 rounds not to be played with whichever spawn and map they want.

 

[Arch3r]

Than they could simply choose not to attack village, win defending village 5-0 and than they're already at 10-0. Don't think that would be fair as it depends on the random map selection. Village and Ruined Fort would probably be the most unbalanced maps, while Nord Town and Field by the River would offer much less advantage for a spawn.

 

[Swordmaster]

I think that's fair for a rematch, better than losing 20-0 than actually losing like 12-8 or getting a draw 10-10. You cannot get away with a mistake without starting handicapped in the rematch. I still agree about spawns being unbalanced in some maps, but I dont think there's much that can be done about it.

 

[Zan]

I think this thread can be locked now .

 

[ModusTollens]

Nico has been with 22nd since 03/04/10 so well over a year.

Don't see the relevance here.

Also he didn't switch from another clan NOR did he make a single difference in the match as he had 1/6 score in the 10 rounds he played.

The score may be an indicator for his contribution to the victory/loss but isn't the only or (in my opinion) necessarily most significant one.

a rule that was made after Nico had went to the server.

I don't know why you keep repeating that as it is - as Lust already pointed out - false. You either are deliberately ignoring that fact or just got your facts wrong.

I'd also like to point out that the rule is completely new, hasn't been tested and the penalty for 'breaking' it is way too harsh and out of proportion in regards to the functionality of the tournament and good sportsmanship.

How would you test such a rule other than in a tournament/league? It seems to be working since people now care more for their rosters - shows much more effect than the thread Lust made specifically pointing out the way roster-violations will be punished.

As it is you still have won the match (RN may have reasons to think why they lost - be it their ping or whatever). Nevertheless you violated the rules and were punished according to those (known) rules - as it was done before. Above that: Who the **** cares anyway.

I think this thread can be locked now .

 

[Urist]

Schadenfreude, the most honest form of joy.

 

[Sarosu]

so to bring justice and fairness, you guys suggest a match played 9 vs. 10. Ah I see it now, that makes perfectly sense... oh wait...

The punishment should be default loss of the rounds where rules were broken, and not the whole match. I can agree to that. Default loss with 20-0 does not make sense no. They won some rounds fairly, following the rules. Those rounds should not be taken away from 22nd, seeing this was clearly a unintended break of rules, and even it were intended, they still won the other rounds fairly.


Only punish the rounds where rules were actually broken.


fu im not a troll im man of wisdom

 

[Swordmaster]

By your suggestion they'd still get a default loss, since you cant expect them to check the roster after every round.

隐藏

even this post smells like troll spirit.

 

[Arch3r]

Only punish the rounds where rules were actually broken.

I said that multiple times. Make it a 4-16 default loss (4-6 on Village was played without Nico, 0-10 on Snowy Village because of Nico playing 10 rounds). These 4 points might make some difference later, but it's still a loss.

 

[Gurnisson]

NOR did he make a single difference in the match as he had 1/6 score in the 10 rounds he played.

I see you really value your teammate right thar. But, seriously, the score doesn't always tell the true story. He could be cavalry on a hunter bumping enemies for infantry scoring vital assists, as well as keeping enemy archers focused on him.He could also be a pikeman always on the lookout for cav, limiting RN's cav, as well as poking in mass melee, making him valuable. He could be an archer supporting etc.

Doesn't mean he did contribute that much to the battle, but backing up with his scores won't do anything.

 

[Maynd]

Gurnisson +1
It does make a difference, he is a player on the battlefield, RN made their strategies to play against 10, so it really doesn't matter if he gets a 10-0 or 0-10 score.
Is presence is enough to make a difference in the turnout.

 

[arsenic_vengeur]

I agree with Gurn too. I dont know about Nico, but for sure if he has been lined up by the 22nd's captain, it is because he has his own value.
Also, I cant believe ye guys are still arguing about that re-match, since I doubt Lust would allow it because it would give 22nd preferential treatment. Only two decent solutions, change the rule (for everybody) or keep the 20-0 administrative RN win. Imo we have got to soften the rule.
Godnoken has submitted the proposition above of giving each clan one warning if they mess up with the roster, and then punish them if they do the error again.
Also the idea stated by many that the team should only be punished for the rounds where the not-in-roster dude actually plays seems obvious.

The problem that has not been solved is that people who actually read in this thread are all in IG, 22nd, CoR, Shieldings, all the big clans, active on TW, when we dont hear about those C1/C2 small clans
Look :
Order of the Lion 20-0 3 Ok Akincilari
Royaume de Bourgogne 0-20 Team Rush Rush
Vaeringjar 20-0 Deutschritter
WarHammer 20-0 Order of the Red God
Did those clans try to cheat? Did they do administrative oopsies like 22nd? Didnt they have enough players?

 

[killer-blead]

Actually the WarHammer clan did not get a default win they just beat oRG with 0 - 20.