[UNAC] Suggestions, Improvements and Announcements

[Cradoc]

But you can choose from the same category. We noticed that disallowing the choosing of the same category isn't effective with only two categories. Thus, the only thing you can't do is choose the same map twice.

... so this week could of consisted of Sandi'boush AND Vandetta for a match? ...Interesting. Why are we doing fixtures again? lol It seems that more or less defeats the whole purpose now.

Yeah, I'm not exactly understanding the point of pooling maps into categories anymore if you can just pick whatever the hell you want. I thought the whole purpose of doing this was forcing variety -- although I use that term loosely given what we have to pick from -- into a match.

The map pool limits teams that only want to play Nord Town for every match. Now that we have the 3 categories back I don't see why we can't put it so it locks out that category.

 

[Madnes5]

- 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.

Reading is hard.

From the tournament rules thread.

indeed reading is hard xD if they were attackers which they were they can repick same class you were defenders

 

[m1tchell23]

tried to explain that in the match, he wouldn't listen XD

 

[Calamity]

tried to explain that in the match, he wouldn't listen XD

There was some confusion about this. Apologies.

You can not pick from the same classification as the first team on the second map.

 

[Green Knight]

This should be a PSA or something, because as Kush has pointed out, the rules clearly state that the attacking team is not restricted in their map choice.

This came up more than once in CJTT and was always resolved to the letter of the rules. Saying that the attacking team now has to pick from the other category is effectively changing the rules. I'm not trying to be difficult, but you (tourney administrators) are opening yourselves up to a host of confusion and teams steaming you for clarification if you don't clear this up explicitly.

The category of the map selected may not be picked from again by the defending team (see map categories below).

 

[Calamity]

This should be a PSA or something, because as Kush has pointed out, the rules clearly state that the attacking team is not restricted in their map choice.

This came up more than once in CJTT and was always resolved to the letter of the rules. Saying that the attacking team now has to pick from the other category is effectively changing the rules. I'm not trying to be difficult, but you (tourney administrators) are opening yourselves up to a host of confusion and teams steaming you for clarification if you don't clear this up explicitly.

The category of the map selected may not be picked from again by the defending team (see map categories below).

It's posted in rules, has a separate thread and now it's posted here.

 

[Madnes5]

This should be a PSA or something, because as Kush has pointed out, the rules clearly state that the attacking team is not restricted in their map choice.

This came up more than once in CJTT and was always resolved to the letter of the rules. Saying that the attacking team now has to pick from the other category is effectively changing the rules. I'm not trying to be difficult, but you (tourney administrators) are opening yourselves up to a host of confusion and teams steaming you for clarification if you don't clear this up explicitly.

The category of the map selected may not be picked from again by the defending team (see map categories below).

It's posted in rules, has a separate thread and now it's posted here.

Indeed its been clarified clearly, I think what Green and I were saying(forgive me if im wrong green)  is that its not cool to change rules just like that afte rthe start of a tourney , to me the rules were crystal clear on the subject matter. I personally am upset that these rules got changed, SF isnt exactly strong on openb but nwere not weak, if we had a chance to keep 2 inside maps I would have taken it, like GA did.  what if something else was a "mistake" are you just going to change the rules again as you see fit?  is this a trend? thats what goes through my head when I read rules and then they get changed because of a single match and a single team not understanding rules WITHOUT anyone elses opinion on it, at least not mine and greenknights so thats 2 clans that werent spokento about these rule changes, im sure you talked to mad dawg or some one else and you guys were like oh yea sure sure that was a mistake, but to me I didnt see any mistake, even william told ga that was the rules. (again green klnight if im wrong my apologies)

 

[Courtney]

Wait...did this apply to Week 1? Or only from Week 2 onward? As I recall, we played 2 open maps in Rebels vs wK: Reveran Village and Frosty Battle, both of which were classified as "open". I also remember asking if we have to pick a closed map now after Reveran, but you guys said to just pick from the remaining 3 in the pool.

There was some confusion about this. Apologies.

You can not pick from the same classification as the first team on the second map.

 

[Calamity]

Wait...did this apply to Week 1? Or only from Week 2 onward? As I recall, we played 2 open maps in Rebels vs wK: Reveran Village and Frosty Battle, both of which were classified as "open". I also remember asking if we have to pick a closed map now after Reveran, but you guys said to just pick from the remaining 3 in the pool.

There was some confusion about this. Apologies.

You can not pick from the same classification as the first team on the second map.

As I said, there was some confusion. From Week 2 onward this is the rule.

 

[African]

For the benefit of streams teams should probably get on the server 10-20 minutes before the set time to get everything ready. That way it can start right away rather than having everyone who wants to watch waiting around while they decide on servers and everything.

 

[Kherven]

Suggestion:

Before I go into this I just want to clarify that while I am an admin of this tournament, I am suggesting this as a member of a team, not from any position of authority.

I really think having a 4 team only finals is just way too little. When the first UNAC meeting happened, I remembered Rhade and a few others saying how 4 teams would be a good idea. And I agreed at the time, why? because we were looking at having maybe 9 or 10 teams when we were having the first meeting. No one anticipated UNAC growing as much as it did, and I feel like this one component of this tournament did not scale well as the team amount got larger. I agree that BIT was a bit ridiculous in the sense that 8/9 teams made it to finals. No one really wants to see everyone getting a free pass. However, for me the magic number sits just under half the teams getting in. 4 made sense when we had 9 as about 45% of teams made it. And now that UNAC has gotten over 5 teams bigger than anyone expected, the best solution to keep that 45% would be 6 teams.

Now I know that many people think this tournament is already long enough, and adding yet another week to it is excessive, but this is going to be a 13 week round robin like it or not, and I think its just silly to have such a long round robin and the finals only last literally 3 games. (Semi-finals x2 + finals) I feel like its just way too short of a conclusion. On top of that I think we have a lot of good teams in this tournament, and with how little 4 teams is, probably 2 good teams are going to get cut off.

So why does that matter? Don't teams 5 and 6 just not deserve to get in cause they don't cut it? Well, heres the problem. Out of 14 team tournament, the 4 teams are all very good to the point where I gurantee to you that all of the 4 teams have an extremly good chance of beating each other. While that sounds interesting, it kinda of takes away from the seeding system. In a tradition seeding system first place is rewarded by fighting the last seed, but the way its going is there will be no such thing as an upset. There will be no surprise comebacks, that last seed team will have just as good as a chance as the 1st seed chance, and when the tournament works like that it makes the seeding almost useless.

Now even with 6 teams, teams 5 and 6 probably won't be as good as 1-4, but by having 6 teams who aren't all the same skill as 1-4 I think it offers more opportunities for those interesting comebacks, upsets, and just generally unexpected results.

I've gotten quite a few opinions out there, and most seem to agree that a 3 game conclusion to this long haul is just way too short, so now I really want to get it out there. What is everyone's opinion?

 

[Ehombre]

Suggestion:

Before I go into this I just want to clarify that while I am an admin of this tournament, I am suggesting this as a member of a team, not from any position of authority.

I really think having a 4 team only finals is just way too little. When the first UNAC meeting happened, I remembered Rhade and a few others saying how 4 teams would be a good idea. And I agreed at the time, why? because we were looking at having maybe 9 or 10 teams when we were having the first meeting. No one anticipated UNAC growing as much as it did, and I feel like this one component of this tournament did not scale well as the team amount got larger. I agree that BIT was a bit ridiculous in the sense that 8/9 teams made it to finals. No one really wants to see everyone getting a free pass. However, for me the magic number sits just under half the teams getting in. 4 made sense when we had 9 as about 45% of teams made it. And now that UNAC has gotten over 5 teams bigger than anyone expected, the best solution to keep that 45% would be 6 teams.

Now I know that many people think this tournament is already long enough, and adding yet another week to it is excessive, but this is going to be a 13 week round robin like it or not, and I think its just silly to have such a long round robin and the finals only last literally 3 games. (Semi-finals x2 + finals) I feel like its just way too short of a conclusion. On top of that I think we have a lot of good teams in this tournament, and with how little 4 teams is, probably 2 good teams are going to get cut off.

So why does that matter? Don't teams 5 and 6 just not deserve to get in cause they don't cut it? Well, heres the problem. Out of 14 team tournament, the 4 teams are all very good to the point where I gurantee to you that all of the 4 teams have an extremly good chance of beating each other. While that sounds interesting, it kinda of takes away from the seeding system. In a tradition seeding system first place is rewarded by fighting the last seed, but the way its going is there will be no such thing as an upset. There will be no surprise comebacks, that last seed team will have just as good as a chance as the 1st seed chance, and when the tournament works like that it makes the seeding almost useless.

Now even with 6 teams, teams 5 and 6 probably won't be as good as 1-4, but by having 6 teams who aren't all the same skill as 1-4 I think it offers more opportunities for those interesting comebacks, upsets, and just generally unexpected results.

I've gotten quite a few opinions out there, and most seem to agree that a 3 game conclusion to this long haul is just way too short, so now I really want to get it out there. What is everyone's opinion?

You make a sensible point. The playoffs should be an event unto itself, not just three matches. I believe more teams should be admitted at the end. It would also give incentive for mid-tier teams to persevere till the end of the tournament.

 

[RoBo_CoP]

Keep servers and the tournament running the older patch for atleast 2 more weeks for the bugs and other issues to be sorted out.

(may have missed any information beyond wanting to force the newer patch now)

 

[Madnes5]

Keep servers and the tournament running the older patch for atleast 2 more weeks for the bugs and other issues to be sorted out.

(may have missed any information beyond wanting to force the newer patch now)

spear fix is amazing, I would like to see this implemented asap

 

[Fehnor]

Requesting a patch decision soon. I was gonna set up event tonight, but I might as well wait until decisions are made.

 

[Green Knight]

Requesting a patch decision soon. I was gonna set up event tonight, but I might as well wait until decisions are made.

Yes, I foresee a relatively complicated rollover to the new patch here. First off, the old patch is not compatible with the new one. AFAIK, if we keep all our servers on the old one for now, that means everyone who has auto-downloaded the new patch can't join our servers unless they double up their native folder with an older version and switch back and forth depending on server they want to join (read: srs hassle for most people).

 

[POM_Zero]

I have got both Custom maps and fixed MoTF working on the latest patch on the War Room. Those are the two main things in my opinion needed for a UNAC match. Dont see a reason to not move on with the tournament on the latest patch. Also agree with greenkinght on all the hassle and such. 

 

[Green Knight]

Nice one, Zero. I don't suppose you could upload a copy of your server-side native folder somewhere for us to DL could you? We could just mirror it on ours..

 

[POM_Zero]

Nice one, Zero. I don't suppose you could upload a copy of your server-side native folder somewhere for us to DL could you? We could just mirror it on ours..

I gladly can do so.

 

[Cradoc]

When you do, make sure to have the most up to date maps, though I don't know about Verloren since that addon on the side (that doesn't need it imo) could change how the center is played.
I do know that we're using older versions of Verloren, Vendetta, and Haranaer.