And where would maptesting be without dragon at the moment? Who would take on his responsibilities and actually carry them out as efficiently? He is arguably the most important map tester followed by wasabione and rantology for leading the tests and collating all the data, respectively.
<i></i>I have to say that while the banning of teams and players for talking in stream is harsh....
The rules were <b><u>CLEARLY</u></b> set out that no talking was to be done in stream besides team captains... If people cant follow a relatively simple rule that is cleary stated in the rule `book` then UWE (Tournament organizers) have every right to excercise any reprimands they see fit.
I think the major point here can examplified in multiple ways.
When you build a house, you tell some contractors to build it for you. If the contractor say "We'll handle everything with materials etc. so you don't have to look at prices and so on", then any sane person should go "no way". It's a conflict of interest. So the wholesaler/distributor != contractor.
It's the same thing with why not only 1 person should be able to fire of a bunch of nukes.
The fact that they can change the rules on will, is a bad choice, because it is not governed in any way.
That being said, if it's true All-In is banned et all from all future UWE Tourneys, then that's pretty harsh. It's not like they have cheated conducted some really serious misbehaving. Especially when you look at the comments made on the official stream. Ultimately Hugh and Co. can do whatever they please with their tournaments. But in all fairness, I think it's worth taking a look at how other communities do it. ESL, GSL, CPL etc etc. Or bring in someone who has done this before, and actually know something about it.
I think this may be the culmination of a bad path that was started already a while ago, and the approach to these issues has maybe not been as constructive as they could have been. At least I think this could have been prevented.
<!--quoteo(post=1999945:date=Oct 29 2012, 11:58 AM:name=Flipper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flipper @ Oct 29 2012, 11:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1999945"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i></i>I have to say that while the banning of teams and players for talking in stream is harsh....
The rules were <b><u>CLEARLY</u></b> set out that no talking was to be done in stream besides team captains... If people cant follow a relatively simple rule that is cleary stated in the rule `book` then UWE (Tournament organizers) have every right to excercise any reprimands they see fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, and we have "every right" to decry their disproportionate enforcement. Talking in a stream is grounds for a warning, not an instant ban. If you keep banning people left and right for things like that, you'll wind up losing half of your league to petty overreactions.
<!--quoteo(post=1999945:date=Oct 29 2012, 06:58 PM:name=Flipper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flipper @ Oct 29 2012, 06:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1999945"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i></i>I have to say that while the banning of teams and players for talking in stream is harsh....
The rules were <b><u>CLEARLY</u></b> set out that no talking was to be done in stream besides team captains... If people cant follow a relatively simple rule that is cleary stated in the rule `book` then UWE (Tournament organizers) have every right to excercise any reprimands they see fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do those comments really warrant a ban for an entire team from future tournaments?
Well if the punishment they see fit is what actually occured.
No one will play in UWE endorsed events because it makes UWE look absolutely terrible. An absolutely appalling bit of PR and abuse of people supporting your game.
Of course talking once is not grounds for an instant ban, but technically the players have no traction in an arguement as the rule is right there to read. If players didnt read the rules or cant restrain from talking then the problem is on their end.
<b> In no way do I support the bans</b>, I merely am pointing out that it is in their power to do so, and arguing about it wont make a difference. As of right now no other leagues or people are really interested in getting NS2 a tournament system with prizes etc so we have to make do with what we have.
Instead of saying ``x``should be unbanned we should be saying: how can we change the rules to make them clearer and more agreeable for upcoming events. Obviously no one wants to see random chat in games with people going`oh xxxx you`` and yadda yadda so the line has to be drawn somewhere.
In the end its really not hard to read rules and refrain from talking in chat for however long a game lasts... its really not hard to do....
GISPBattle GorgeDenmarkJoin Date: 2004-03-20Member: 27460Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Onos, WC 2013 - Gold, Subnautica Playtester, Forum staff
<!--quoteo(post=1999759:date=Oct 29 2012, 02:48 PM:name=ColtColt)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ColtColt @ Oct 29 2012, 02:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1999759"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are examples (Such as GISP's example) where a Tournament Officiating Admin declared a remake, cancelled the remake, then a few minutes later, declared it a remake again. (I absolutely mean you no hostility GISP, it's totally understandable, but these kinds of things make the rules and the systems being utilised to facilitate a prize-winning tournament as grey-zones and the rules as not rules at all).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here is my thoght process as it happined. Several players where experiencing problems(high ping), and i initialy thoght it was a local thing, since it didnt effect everyone. And immidiatly called for em to continue, in hopes of it wouldnt effect the gameplay to much. Just like when a player crash, and the team have to go on whit 5 players, untill he reconnects. About 45-60sec after my initial call, for the continuation i called for a rematch since the problem seemed to persist. Not 2secs after i called for the rematch, the pings went back to normal. Reverted the desition again, untill i was made aware of the players experiencing gamebreaking bugs, on both sides, as a result of the "server hickups". And made the Final decition to do a remake, based on this new info. I weighted my desitions on what would be least disruptive, for the players, the viewers and the flow of the game. Its was not a senario i experienced before, 4 players on 1 team and 1 on the other, experiencing the same high ping, while everyone else was uneffected. I think i acted correct given the info i had and what i experienced. All that said, im open for surgestions and cretic. On how i should handle such unforseen incidents in the future.
I feel that switching back and forth about match recalls was both confusing to the public at large and the best course of action from the information available at the time. Sometimes tournaments just get awkward; issues crop up, and we need to deal with them as fairly and conveniently as we can.
<!--quoteo(post=1999966:date=Oct 29 2012, 01:19 PM:name=GISP)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GISP @ Oct 29 2012, 01:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1999966"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All that said, im open for surgestions and cretic. On how i should handle such unforseen incidents in the future.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i think it was 2 people on the other team not 1, but i might be mistaken. i just saw it only when Blind pressed tab. i think one of the main concerns with this is resources being gathered during the lag which could possibly put one team way ahead of the other depending on a bunch of factors. i think one minute of lag maaaybe deserves a restart, it's an iffy call even at that point. that's ~8 free ticks of res for both teams. you'd have to weigh what state the game's in early/mid/late and how much that free res will affect the outcome. i think both teams had double or even triple the amount of res after the game became playable again and the lag subsided.
it would be really nice if the devs could implement a pause feature like you see in many competitive RTS games enabled only in competitive mode.
<!--quoteo(post=1999971:date=Oct 29 2012, 12:24 PM:name=Techercizer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Techercizer @ Oct 29 2012, 12:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1999971"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I feel that switching back and forth about match recalls was both confusing to the public at large and the best course of action from the information available at the time. Sometimes tournaments just get awkward; issues crop up, and we need to deal with them as fairly and conveniently as we can.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the example above your post, what would you have done differently?
1) Banning from all future tournaments for speaking in chat is insane. This will just drive teams away from UWE events completely. I think most team took beta tournaments very lightly, since it is a beta and the rules still aren't clear. 2) I agree Dragon is a very smart and useful tester. His attitude may be something I personally don't like, but he has proven he wants this game to improve in all ways. I hear the same about eh, but I only have my impressions of him from in game, forums and twitch chats, which just makes him look very much the opposite. Whether this should affect their position as a PT is completely up to the testing group, and really has no place here on the forums. 3) nxzl has never intentionally exploited or cheated in an any tournament. Teams that know us, know that we play with integrity. Even when we scrim our mumble is silent from spectators and we have even removed people for saying things that may not have even helped in the game. We have been found guilty until proven innocent by many, and there's really nothing we can do about it - it's a very frustrating position to be in. 4) GISP made the correct call with the rematch. It's a -very- difficult thing to call a match and so he questioned himself, but he knew to follow through with the original call.
5) I hope we move past this pretty quick. We have a launch coming and I am very much looking forward to it. I'd really like the beta competitive players to come together at this point for the sake of the new community we'd all like to see.
<!--quoteo(post=2000009:date=Oct 29 2012, 01:15 PM:name=carlgm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (carlgm @ Oct 29 2012, 01:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2000009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the example above your post, what would you have done differently?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nothing. I specifically stated that the action taken was the best that could have been taken with the information available at the time.
<!--quoteo(post=2000012:date=Oct 29 2012, 02:17 PM:name=Techercizer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Techercizer @ Oct 29 2012, 02:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2000012"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nothing. I specifically stated that the action taken was the best that could have been taken with the information available at the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, I meant to say what else could have been done that may have made it less confusing.
<!--quoteo(post=2000015:date=Oct 29 2012, 01:22 PM:name=carlgm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (carlgm @ Oct 29 2012, 01:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2000015"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry, I meant to say what else could have been done that may have made it less confusing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not much. I specifically stated that sometimes tournaments just get awkward. Issues crop up, and we need to deal with them as fairly and conveniently as we can.
<!--quoteo(post=2000015:date=Oct 29 2012, 01:22 PM:name=carlgm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (carlgm @ Oct 29 2012, 01:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2000015"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry, I meant to say what else could have been done that may have made it less confusing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think a pause feature might help this kind of situations. It would allow the admin to talk without causing to much confusion to the players.
<!--quoteo(post=2000046:date=Oct 29 2012, 01:58 PM:name=Grissi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Oct 29 2012, 01:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2000046"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think a pause feature might help this kind of situations. It would allow the admin to talk without causing to much confusion to the players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It would be useful for future matches, that's for sure. It would be kind of annoying to hang in the air (or something) waiting for the organizers to figure out what to do, but that's better than not being sure if you're supposed to keep fighting or not.
<!--quoteo(post=2000058:date=Oct 29 2012, 02:11 PM:name=eh?)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eh? @ Oct 29 2012, 02:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2000058"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even if all it did was temporarily suspend resource generation (tres and pres). People would be happy to have it.
That sounds like a mod ns2stats should incorporate in tournament mode.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I suppose, but what's really needed is a way to stop people from taking advantage of the pause to scout out their enemies. Or, you know, murder high-res lifeforms/techholders. An extra two ticks of res during a pause is bad; discovering a ninja hive or killing an Exo is worse.
What we need is an admin command "tournament_freeze" or equivalent: stops the motion of all players, locks their camera and controls, and pauses resource income until equivalent un-freeze command is issued.
This is a link to the old CAL CS:S rule set. I suspect that its a bit outdated in some respects, but my point in the Captain's meeting was that if we want the competitive community (and these tournaments) to be taken seriously, we need a much more rigorous and thorough examination of the rules we use during these events.
In the above example, there are not only rules that explicitely state how Violations will be handled, there are also rules that create a very clear means by which players can dispute those rulings.
"Catch-alls," as Hugh has called them, are for the most part completely absent.
Hugh's statement was that there would never be an offical UWE event that did not include the power for UWE to a) modify rules at any point without warning or b) ban players/teams without exception.
What he failed to realize is that all tournament organizers have both of these powers without them ever being stated in the rules. Openly stating these things in your rules document is wildly unprofessional. Resorting to their use is nothing short of a complete failure on the part of both admins and organizers.
As to the banter between Ryan and others. Can we not, for just a minute, put aside personal grudges to address this larger issue? I'm as guilty as anyone else to slinging mud. But lets just agree to deal with it later. I would rather we come to some resolution on this than let rivalries weaken our position and prevent us from demanding a change in how these event's are managed and officiated.
As to how UWE (Hugh) will handle this reaction? As far as I know, Hugh told us during that Captain's meeting that if we don't like these rules, we don't have to play in UWE sponsored events.
I for one would like UWE to improve and to put on legitimate and entertaining events. But guess what folks? He's right. We don't have to play at their events. And I'd be willing to bet that if they can't shape up after this, we won't be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It may not be as concise and explicit as the Launch Tournament rules, but CAL definately has catch-all provisions including 2.10 Sportsmanship, 6.40 Suspension Lengths, 7.00 Agreement, and 7.30 Changes. I don't think there is any doubt that CAL can and likely has changed the rules mid-season due to unforeseen circumstances. For a game in beta, admin discretion 'catch-alls' are all but a necessity since there is a strong likelihood of events not defined in the rules will occur. In particular, three such events happened during this weekends tournament including - The use of the free shift egg bug - Server lag/ping issues mid game affecting gameplay - ARC pathing bug on tram
In all cases, the admins and organizers had to make a judgement call on what to do about the situations and the catch-all was a necessary rule to ensure that those judgements are known to be binding. Personally, having been an admin in the past few tournaments, I prefer to have as much spelled out in the rules as possible such that I need to use my judgement as little as possible.
However, the CAL rules do have some nice sections that NS2 Tournament rules could benefit from such as more detailed sections on the use and response to bugs/exploits, team names, server specifications, and detailed violations and dispute resolution procedures.
Thats true but u need credibility of admins to this systems to work, its like law in ancient Rome. And the credibility is shaking when they are bans for no reasons. Imo noones argue about the server lag decision or the Arc pathway decision. The main "dislike" is about the banning for saying true..
I am going to make a couple points here and that is all, I will not be posting anymore in this thread and will not respond to questions raised after my post.
1. NO TEAM was DQ'd at any time from the event or from future events, All-In and Nxzl were both docked a single point for use of what was considered an exploit by the admin group during the tourney. Please note that both those teams used it multiple times which is why the rule was enforced.
2. two individual players were banned by Hugh for their in game chat regarding hitreq which also was only enforced because it happend multiple times, from what I have been told.
3. When the NA RR was over I informed Nxzl of the point docking, and let All-in know they had made the final. Within 25 I emailed the captain of the All-In team to inform them that evidence had been submitted that showed them abusing the eggs as well. As a result we made the decision to also dock all-in a point thus forcing a tie-breaker round. I also informed one of the all-in players as their captain was not online, he confirmed he understood. This all took place at 8:35PM roughly a half hour after the matches concluded.
4. I have heard and listened to the concerns of the players in this thread, dont at anytime think that people are ignoring you or dont care how you feel about the rules and decisions that were made. However; I am not in charge nor am I am employee of UWE, their representative is in charge of all the logistics and as I have said before I am happy to help anyone who needs it in any capacity with their events. I do not agree with decisions that were made in some of these cases but others I do. I am always open to having a conversation with people who chose to be civil and constructive, I care about this community and about the players. Much <3 here people, you give me so much joy to watch and talk about and you continue to amaze me with your passion for this game.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited October 2012
<!--quoteo(post=2000163:date=Oct 29 2012, 09:57 PM:name=WasabiOne)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WasabiOne @ Oct 29 2012, 09:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2000163"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. NO TEAM was DQ'd at any time from the event or from future events, All-In and Nxzl were both docked a single point for use of what was considered an exploit by the admin group during the tourney. Please note that both those teams used it multiple times which is why the rule was enforced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, that's good to hear. There seems to be some confusion about this, though. Colt stated in his original post that both him and his entire team (All-In) had been "banned".
<!--quoteo(post=2000163:date=Oct 29 2012, 09:57 PM:name=WasabiOne)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WasabiOne @ Oct 29 2012, 09:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2000163"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2. two individual players were banned by Hugh for their in game chat regarding hitreq which also was only enforced because it happend multiple times, from what I have been told.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't speak for Colt, but I will repeat for the sake of clarity that eh/ryan only made one comment, once, which was "rofl hitreg".
There are also questions surrounding the threat to ban gorgeous, which was, if the account presented in this thread is accurate, handled quite badly -- particularly whether or not it is enough for a team to threaten to boycott the tournament to get a ban overturned.
Furthermore there are numerous questions surrounding why some players were punished, while others were not, even though they made similar comments; be it related to game balance or hitreg.
As I have said before, Wasabi, I'm very happy that you and UWE are organizing these events, and I generally think you guys are doing a great job. The issues raised in this thread are serious ones that will not simply go away without a proper explanation or cleanup. If this is left to fester, it could cause lasting animosity and create even bigger problems in the future.
<!--quoteo(post=2000163:date=Oct 29 2012, 12:57 PM:name=WasabiOne)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WasabiOne @ Oct 29 2012, 12:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2000163"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am going to make a couple points here and that is all, I will not be posting anymore in this thread and will not respond to questions raised after my post.
1. NO TEAM was DQ'd at any time from the event or from future events, All-In and Nxzl were both docked a single point for use of what was considered an exploit by the admin group during the tourney. Please note that both those teams used it multiple times which is why the rule was enforced.
2. two individual players were banned by Hugh for their in game chat regarding hitreq which also was only enforced because it happend multiple times, from what I have been told.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for your clarification, Wasabi. You have been utterly reasonable every time I see you communicate. I appreciate that.
I would appreciate if you would specify and clarify on the two points quote above;
Locklear and most of his team were directly told they were disqualified. I appreciate knowing that this wasn't the case, and never was. Also that All-In is not banned/was not banned from anything.
I would like some clarification as to who was actually banned, then? And for what purposes, reasons, and in what capacity? I never said anything about hit registration, merely some after-match statement about how the aliens won all 5 rounds due to onos being over-resilient. I'm missing the part where I 'multiple times' said anything about hitreg, although I can explicitly quote and find (if required) where many other players said "Rofl Hitreg" and "lol Hitreg" during the final matches as well as throughout the tournament matches on Saturday.
Honestly, Wasabi you don't need to defend yourself here. You were the most level headed administrator in the entire tournament really. Always sticking up for the teams as usual.
It seems that once again it has been communication issues and misunderstandings leading to all this. It is probably that particular problem that needs to be adressed.
Comments
The rules were <b><u>CLEARLY</u></b> set out that no talking was to be done in stream besides team captains... If people cant follow a relatively simple rule that is cleary stated in the rule `book` then UWE (Tournament organizers) have every right to excercise any reprimands they see fit.
When you build a house, you tell some contractors to build it for you. If the contractor say "We'll handle everything with materials etc. so you don't have to look at prices and so on", then any sane person should go "no way". It's a conflict of interest. So the wholesaler/distributor != contractor.
It's the same thing with why not only 1 person should be able to fire of a bunch of nukes.
The fact that they can change the rules on will, is a bad choice, because it is not governed in any way.
That being said, if it's true All-In is banned et all from all future UWE Tourneys, then that's pretty harsh. It's not like they have cheated conducted some really serious misbehaving. Especially when you look at the comments made on the official stream. Ultimately Hugh and Co. can do whatever they please with their tournaments. But in all fairness, I think it's worth taking a look at how other communities do it. ESL, GSL, CPL etc etc. Or bring in someone who has done this before, and actually know something about it.
I think this may be the culmination of a bad path that was started already a while ago, and the approach to these issues has maybe not been as constructive as they could have been. At least I think this could have been prevented.
The rules were <b><u>CLEARLY</u></b> set out that no talking was to be done in stream besides team captains... If people cant follow a relatively simple rule that is cleary stated in the rule `book` then UWE (Tournament organizers) have every right to excercise any reprimands they see fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, and we have "every right" to decry their disproportionate enforcement. Talking in a stream is grounds for a warning, not an instant ban. If you keep banning people left and right for things like that, you'll wind up losing half of your league to petty overreactions.
The rules were <b><u>CLEARLY</u></b> set out that no talking was to be done in stream besides team captains... If people cant follow a relatively simple rule that is cleary stated in the rule `book` then UWE (Tournament organizers) have every right to excercise any reprimands they see fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do those comments really warrant a ban for an entire team from future tournaments?
No one will play in UWE endorsed events because it makes UWE look absolutely terrible. An absolutely appalling bit of PR and abuse of people supporting your game.
<b> In no way do I support the bans</b>, I merely am pointing out that it is in their power to do so, and arguing about it wont make a difference. As of right now no other leagues or people are really interested in getting NS2 a tournament system with prizes etc so we have to make do with what we have.
Instead of saying ``x``should be unbanned we should be saying: how can we change the rules to make them clearer and more agreeable for upcoming events. Obviously no one wants to see random chat in games with people going`oh xxxx you`` and yadda yadda so the line has to be drawn somewhere.
In the end its really not hard to read rules and refrain from talking in chat for however long a game lasts... its really not hard to do....
Here is my thoght process as it happined.
Several players where experiencing problems(high ping), and i initialy thoght it was a local thing, since it didnt effect everyone.
And immidiatly called for em to continue, in hopes of it wouldnt effect the gameplay to much. Just like when a player crash, and the team have to go on whit 5 players, untill he reconnects.
About 45-60sec after my initial call, for the continuation i called for a rematch since the problem seemed to persist.
Not 2secs after i called for the rematch, the pings went back to normal. Reverted the desition again, untill i was made aware of the players experiencing gamebreaking bugs, on both sides, as a result of the "server hickups". And made the Final decition to do a remake, based on this new info.
I weighted my desitions on what would be least disruptive, for the players, the viewers and the flow of the game.
Its was not a senario i experienced before, 4 players on 1 team and 1 on the other, experiencing the same high ping, while everyone else was uneffected.
I think i acted correct given the info i had and what i experienced.
All that said, im open for surgestions and cretic. On how i should handle such unforseen incidents in the future.
i think it was 2 people on the other team not 1, but i might be mistaken. i just saw it only when Blind pressed tab. i think one of the main concerns with this is resources being gathered during the lag which could possibly put one team way ahead of the other depending on a bunch of factors. i think one minute of lag maaaybe deserves a restart, it's an iffy call even at that point. that's ~8 free ticks of res for both teams. you'd have to weigh what state the game's in early/mid/late and how much that free res will affect the outcome. i think both teams had double or even triple the amount of res after the game became playable again and the lag subsided.
it would be really nice if the devs could implement a pause feature like you see in many competitive RTS games enabled only in competitive mode.
In the example above your post, what would you have done differently?
1) Banning from all future tournaments for speaking in chat is insane. This will just drive teams away from UWE events completely. I think most team took beta tournaments very lightly, since it is a beta and the rules still aren't clear.
2) I agree Dragon is a very smart and useful tester. His attitude may be something I personally don't like, but he has proven he wants this game to improve in all ways. I hear the same about eh, but I only have my impressions of him from in game, forums and twitch chats, which just makes him look very much the opposite. Whether this should affect their position as a PT is completely up to the testing group, and really has no place here on the forums.
3) nxzl has never intentionally exploited or cheated in an any tournament. Teams that know us, know that we play with integrity. Even when we scrim our mumble is silent from spectators and we have even removed people for saying things that may not have even helped in the game. We have been found guilty until proven innocent by many, and there's really nothing we can do about it - it's a very frustrating position to be in.
4) GISP made the correct call with the rematch. It's a -very- difficult thing to call a match and so he questioned himself, but he knew to follow through with the original call.
5) I hope we move past this pretty quick. We have a launch coming and I am very much looking forward to it. I'd really like the beta competitive players to come together at this point for the sake of the new community we'd all like to see.
Nothing. I specifically stated that the action taken was the best that could have been taken with the information available at the time.
Sorry, I meant to say what else could have been done that may have made it less confusing.
Not much. I specifically stated that sometimes tournaments just get awkward. Issues crop up, and we need to deal with them as fairly and conveniently as we can.
I think a pause feature might help this kind of situations. It would allow the admin to talk without causing to much confusion to the players.
It would be useful for future matches, that's for sure. It would be kind of annoying to hang in the air (or something) waiting for the organizers to figure out what to do, but that's better than not being sure if you're supposed to keep fighting or not.
That sounds like a mod ns2stats should incorporate in tournament mode.
That sounds like a mod ns2stats should incorporate in tournament mode.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose, but what's really needed is a way to stop people from taking advantage of the pause to scout out their enemies. Or, you know, murder high-res lifeforms/techholders. An extra two ticks of res during a pause is bad; discovering a ninja hive or killing an Exo is worse.
What we need is an admin command "tournament_freeze" or equivalent: stops the motion of all players, locks their camera and controls, and pauses resource income until equivalent un-freeze command is issued.
Imo noone is doubting your admin skills :) u are one of the best admins Gisp. The remake was good call
This is a link to the old CAL CS:S rule set. I suspect that its a bit outdated in some respects, but my point in the Captain's meeting was that if we want the competitive community (and these tournaments) to be taken seriously, we need a much more rigorous and thorough examination of the rules we use during these events.
In the above example, there are not only rules that explicitely state how Violations will be handled, there are also rules that create a very clear means by which players can dispute those rulings.
"Catch-alls," as Hugh has called them, are for the most part completely absent.
Hugh's statement was that there would never be an offical UWE event that did not include the power for UWE to a) modify rules at any point without warning or b) ban players/teams without exception.
What he failed to realize is that all tournament organizers have both of these powers without them ever being stated in the rules. Openly stating these things in your rules document is wildly unprofessional. Resorting to their use is nothing short of a complete failure on the part of both admins and organizers.
As to the banter between Ryan and others. Can we not, for just a minute, put aside personal grudges to address this larger issue? I'm as guilty as anyone else to slinging mud. But lets just agree to deal with it later. I would rather we come to some resolution on this than let rivalries weaken our position and prevent us from demanding a change in how these event's are managed and officiated.
As to how UWE (Hugh) will handle this reaction? As far as I know, Hugh told us during that Captain's meeting that if we don't like these rules, we don't have to play in UWE sponsored events.
I for one would like UWE to improve and to put on legitimate and entertaining events. But guess what folks? He's right. We don't have to play at their events. And I'd be willing to bet that if they can't shape up after this, we won't be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It may not be as concise and explicit as the Launch Tournament rules, but CAL definately has catch-all provisions including 2.10 Sportsmanship, 6.40 Suspension Lengths, 7.00 Agreement, and 7.30 Changes. I don't think there is any doubt that CAL can and likely has changed the rules mid-season due to unforeseen circumstances. For a game in beta, admin discretion 'catch-alls' are all but a necessity since there is a strong likelihood of events not defined in the rules will occur. In particular, three such events happened during this weekends tournament including
- The use of the free shift egg bug
- Server lag/ping issues mid game affecting gameplay
- ARC pathing bug on tram
In all cases, the admins and organizers had to make a judgement call on what to do about the situations and the catch-all was a necessary rule to ensure that those judgements are known to be binding. Personally, having been an admin in the past few tournaments, I prefer to have as much spelled out in the rules as possible such that I need to use my judgement as little as possible.
However, the CAL rules do have some nice sections that NS2 Tournament rules could benefit from such as more detailed sections on the use and response to bugs/exploits, team names, server specifications, and detailed violations and dispute resolution procedures.
Thats true but u need credibility of admins to this systems to work, its like law in ancient Rome. And the credibility is shaking when they are bans for no reasons. Imo noones argue about the server lag decision or the Arc pathway decision. The main "dislike" is about the banning for saying true..
1. NO TEAM was DQ'd at any time from the event or from future events, All-In and Nxzl were both docked a single point for use of what was considered an exploit by the admin group during the tourney. Please note that both those teams used it multiple times which is why the rule was enforced.
2. two individual players were banned by Hugh for their in game chat regarding hitreq which also was only enforced because it happend multiple times, from what I have been told.
3. When the NA RR was over I informed Nxzl of the point docking, and let All-in know they had made the final. Within 25 I emailed the captain of the All-In team to inform them that evidence had been submitted that showed them abusing the eggs as well. As a result we made the decision to also dock all-in a point thus forcing a tie-breaker round. I also informed one of the all-in players as their captain was not online, he confirmed he understood. This all took place at 8:35PM roughly a half hour after the matches concluded.
4. I have heard and listened to the concerns of the players in this thread, dont at anytime think that people are ignoring you or dont care how you feel about the rules and decisions that were made. However; I am not in charge nor am I am employee of UWE, their representative is in charge of all the logistics and as I have said before I am happy to help anyone who needs it in any capacity with their events. I do not agree with decisions that were made in some of these cases but others I do. I am always open to having a conversation with people who chose to be civil and constructive, I care about this community and about the players. Much <3 here people, you give me so much joy to watch and talk about and you continue to amaze me with your passion for this game.
Well, that's good to hear. There seems to be some confusion about this, though. Colt stated in his original post that both him and his entire team (All-In) had been "banned".
<!--quoteo(post=2000163:date=Oct 29 2012, 09:57 PM:name=WasabiOne)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WasabiOne @ Oct 29 2012, 09:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2000163"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2. two individual players were banned by Hugh for their in game chat regarding hitreq which also was only enforced because it happend multiple times, from what I have been told.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't speak for Colt, but I will repeat for the sake of clarity that eh/ryan only made one comment, once, which was "rofl hitreg".
There are also questions surrounding the threat to ban gorgeous, which was, if the account presented in this thread is accurate, handled quite badly -- particularly whether or not it is enough for a team to threaten to boycott the tournament to get a ban overturned.
Furthermore there are numerous questions surrounding why some players were punished, while others were not, even though they made similar comments; be it related to game balance or hitreg.
As I have said before, Wasabi, I'm very happy that you and UWE are organizing these events, and I generally think you guys are doing a great job. The issues raised in this thread are serious ones that will not simply go away without a proper explanation or cleanup. If this is left to fester, it could cause lasting animosity and create even bigger problems in the future.
1. NO TEAM was DQ'd at any time from the event or from future events, All-In and Nxzl were both docked a single point for use of what was considered an exploit by the admin group during the tourney. Please note that both those teams used it multiple times which is why the rule was enforced.
2. two individual players were banned by Hugh for their in game chat regarding hitreq which also was only enforced because it happend multiple times, from what I have been told.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for your clarification, Wasabi. You have been utterly reasonable every time I see you communicate. I appreciate that.
I would appreciate if you would specify and clarify on the two points quote above;
Locklear and most of his team were directly told they were disqualified. I appreciate knowing that this wasn't the case, and never was. Also that All-In is not banned/was not banned from anything.
I would like some clarification as to who was actually banned, then? And for what purposes, reasons, and in what capacity? I never said anything about hit registration, merely some after-match statement about how the aliens won all 5 rounds due to onos being over-resilient. I'm missing the part where I 'multiple times' said anything about hitreg, although I can explicitly quote and find (if required) where many other players said "Rofl Hitreg" and "lol Hitreg" during the final matches as well as throughout the tournament matches on Saturday.