Suggestion for next mini tournament / tie breakers
Omega_K2
Join Date: 2011-12-25 Member: 139013Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2011-12-25 Member: 139013Members, Reinforced - Shadow
While watching today's mini tournament someone had a pretty intresting idea, so I figured I should post it here before it gets lost:
Instead of having a match as tie-breaker, the win could attributed to the team who defeated the other team faster then the other team.
So basically the goal is not only to defeat the team, but also defeat the other team faster then your team did. The advantage is that we don't have game imbalances into account; eg if we have a match in a build where one side may be overpowered, this does not matter as much, as both teams get to play it. In a tie breaker just one team has that advantage.
A similar system can be found in TF2. If you for example have a CP map, and team 1 gets all points in 5 min 20, the other team has to do it in 5 min 19 to win. We already have the ingame time in the scoreboard, so it would just be a matter of letting the other team know.
Instead of having a match as tie-breaker, the win could attributed to the team who defeated the other team faster then the other team.
So basically the goal is not only to defeat the team, but also defeat the other team faster then your team did. The advantage is that we don't have game imbalances into account; eg if we have a match in a build where one side may be overpowered, this does not matter as much, as both teams get to play it. In a tie breaker just one team has that advantage.
A similar system can be found in TF2. If you for example have a CP map, and team 1 gets all points in 5 min 20, the other team has to do it in 5 min 19 to win. We already have the ingame time in the scoreboard, so it would just be a matter of letting the other team know.
Comments
When there is any semblance of balance, play to 2-0 for all the matches that matter where a draw is unacceptable. Don't look forward to this one too much, but it's the fairest obviously.
edit: And yea, I realize these are essentially identical due to b202 at the moment.
In formats with more time (and not live), eh?'S suggestion would be superior.
After casting that mini-tourmant, I can't wait for the next one. But faster matches would be better, tie breakers did feel a bit artificial.
It restricts all kind of tactics and encourages bunkering.
<u><b>ESPORTS</b></u>
Using time counter can't fix unbalanced gameplay because the disadvantaged team would only start to bunker up without even trying to win. In the mini tournament every marine team would have just built their base full of turrets and tried to survive as long as possible while aliens try to rush the aliens down as fast as possible. This would ruin everything that is great in NS2 and turn it into a turret defense game.
Using time counter can't fix unbalanced gameplay because the disadvantaged team would only start to bunker up without even trying to win. In the mini tournament every marine team would have just built their base full of turrets and tried to survive as long as possible while aliens try to rush the aliens down as fast as possible. This would ruin everything that is great in NS2 and turn it into a turret defense game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This and if the game ends very quickly (say skulkrush) opposing team needs to end game quickly leading into predictable rush tactic that can be easily countered.
Pretty sure this has been discussed over and over again 2 straight wins seems the best even if it means commentator passing out or rescheduling.
<!--quoteo(post=1920609:date=Apr 1 2012, 07:17 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Apr 1 2012, 07:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1920609"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, thanks to whoever organized this, and to NS2HD for casting.
While (basically) losing to a coin flip was annoying, it isn't really a problem with the tournament format. It's more of a problem with the current game balance. In tournaments spread over several days you can play tie breaker maps instead, but for one day tournaments there just isn't enough time for that. Coin flip for third round side choice is the least-invasive option to ensure matches don't go on forever, as all the other options, like instituting a "fastest win" rule, come with much worse side-effects.
Echoing what some other people have mentioned; it would be nice if future tournaments catered to the European side as well. The community is so small right now that it doesn't make much sense to organize US or EU only tournaments. Starting it a bit earlier in the evening, as well as including a European server would be much appreciated.
For matches between EU and US teams, I suggest the following: Do the tie breaker coin flip before any rounds have been played. The team who wins the coin flip gets to decide either (a) which side to play first, which will also be their tie breaker side, or (b) which server to play on. The team who loses the coin flip gets to decide on the option that the coin flip winner didn't pick.
For example: Team Europe wins the coin flip. They pick option (a) and elect to play aliens first. Team USA then decides that the match will be played on a server located in the US. If it goes to a tie breaker, Team Europe will play aliens, but the match will still be played on a server located in the US.
What this basically does, is balance the matchup as much as it is possible to balance it, by pitting the ping advantage against the side advantage. As game balance (hopefully) improves, choosing the option to pick server location might even be the "best" choice as it influences the match both in the first two rounds and the tie breaker.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm suggesting a way to improve future tournaments. If you disagree with my suggestions, I suggest you argue against that instead of interpreting this as some sort of criticism, which it isn't.
QED
QED<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's better than nothing. Writing things like "QED" doesn't actually strengthen your argument, it just makes you look like a tool.
<!--quoteo(post=1921040:date=Apr 2 2012, 09:33 PM:name=JuCCi-PuCCi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JuCCi-PuCCi @ Apr 2 2012, 09:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1921040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I got no reasons to be insecure. What is a flaw of the way it is was done? Both teams win. A team calls heads or tails... 50/50 chance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be a ridiculous argument even if the sides were equal, but even more so when they're biased to the point where 7 out of 8 rounds in the tournament were won by the alien side. What you're arguing for isn't competition, it's gambling.
Team A and B are now in the position where they can choose to play on their server as marines or play on the opponents' server as aliens.
What sane human being picks anything but the 99% win rate side? How is 99% more fair than 50% at the moment. It's either they're cocky as ###### / nice guys or they've been agonizing over which way the toilet paper should hang from.
It's also somewhat ironic because now you're in a position where both teams want to play on the others' server so how do you decide who hosts at this point fairly? Coinflip.
QED
What you're arguing for isn't competition it's lobotomies.
No, this is a lie. Playing marines with the ping advantage is preferable to playing marines without the ping advantage.
If you're arguing for your "play until a side wins two consecutive rounds", that just isn't feasible under this tournament format, nor is it an argument against my suggestion. I'm suggesting a way to improve the "coin flip" method. If the coin flip method isn't used, obviously my suggestion has no relevance.
Edit: I just re-read your post, and I didn't even see this because, I guess, it was just too dumb to consider:
<!--quoteo(post=1921054:date=Apr 2 2012, 10:05 PM:name=eh?)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eh? @ Apr 2 2012, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1921054"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What sane human being picks anything but the 99% win rate side? How is 99% more fair than 50% at the moment. It's either they're cocky as ###### / nice guys or they've been agonizing over which way the toilet paper should hang from.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I sincerely hope you realize, and that this was just a typo, that my suggestion still includes the 50/50 coin flip.
His avatar strangely backs up your senseless ramblings.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem</a>
I have "aka. Fana" in my signature because I can't change my forum username. I have a link to my NS1 team's website because we intend to reform for NS2 when it has improved sufficiently and because I've posted articles related to NS2 there previously.
Again, I have to ask why you, and apparently one of your team mates as well, are so eager to attack me. If you're embarassed about winning a tournament because a coin flipped in your favour, maybe I'm not the person you should be taking it out on.
<!--quoteo(post=1921067:date=Apr 2 2012, 10:53 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Apr 2 2012, 10:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1921067"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->His avatar strangely backs up your senseless ramblings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What, you don't like my moves?
I have another idea to bring to the table. I haven't really thought this through yet, but I know that in some cases in SC2 where the game ends premature, referees can step in and decide who will get the win. Im not a big fan of boxing, but im pretty sure they have some 3 referee system which decide the winner if noone got KOed, decided by some form of point system.
Perhaps these two could be combined in a form where we have 3 referees which in case of ties awards one side the win. I know its not the best, but I feel its just better than any coin flipping in the world.
For example: Team Europe wins the coin flip. They pick option (a) and elect to play aliens first. Team USA then decides that the match will be played on a server located in the US. If it goes to a tie breaker, Team Europe will play aliens, but the match will still be played on a server located in the US.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like this, but I don't see why you wouldn't choose the ping advantage everytime if you won the coin toss. Now, I could see a trade-off if you did this for each game rather than the match. For example, for game 1, Team USA wins the toss and picks aliens and Team Europe picks a EU server. For game 2, another coin toss occurs, Team USA wins and can choose aliens again, which gives Team Europe the choice to pick a EU server again. If Team Europe had won the coin toss for game 2, they instead could have chosen aliens, and let Team USA pick a US server.
In effect, this makes the options more balanced such that the most likely choices will be
1. Choose aliens and play at a ping disadvantage
2. Choose the ping advantage and play as marines
Of course, this requires each team to have a server ready and would be a bit more disruptive due to changing servers between games. However, I think that's no worse than the other options out for promoting fair intercontinental NS2 scrimming.