That's pretty concise and nicely written. I'm not sure about the "Each clan will play against every other clan twice." rule though, considering it's round robin, and it will take a while to get all the clans organised for schedules, I think we should limit it to "Each clan will play against every other clan ONCE".
Other than that I like what you put up, and I'm merging it into the official document.
Notice: I updated the doc, please tell me what you think. As always, it's still under construction.
I can also cast some games, though I will probably be playing as well. However, after New year, I won't be able to play or cast until July. I hope the game will be better and the community bigger than ever by then!
Looked over the updated document, is looking nice. Two things though
<!--coloro:#9ACD32--><span style="color:#9ACD32"><!--/coloro--><b>1) Delete the part that says "If the two clans had previously played a match against each other, then they will ignore the coin toss and instead play as the opposite race they played as in the previous match's first round."</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
That was only for when clans were going to play against each other twice. Since they will only be playing against each other once, it is unnecessary.
<b><!--coloro:#9ACD32--><span style="color:#9ACD32"><!--/coloro-->2) I'd like to tweak the Finals segment. As of now, it is the top two ranked clans only that will play in the tournament. I have two alternatives. See what you think<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i><b>-- Alternate One --</b></i>
More clans will advance to the tournament the more clans that play in the initial season. So:
4-7 clans: Top 2 advance 8-13 clans: Top 4 advance 14-17 clans: Top 6 advance
<i><b>-- Alternate Two --</b></i>
The top two ranked clans in each region (Australia, North America, and Europe) will face off in the <b>Regional Finals</b>. The winner of the match is the champion of their respective region.
Regional Champions will play against each other once (for a total of three games) in the <b>World Finals</b>. As in the original season, they will get one point for a win, and no points for a loss. There are only two outcomes from this:
1) Clan A will get 2 points (two wins), Clan B will get 1 point (one win and a loss), Clan C will get 0 points (all losses).
In this case, things are easy. Clan A is world champ, Clan B is 2nd place, Clan C is 3rd.
2) All the clans are tied, with a win and a loss.
I'm really not sure of how to deal with this, other than to have the regional champions play against one another again. But, they could all tie again, and the matches could be endless. Perhaps you could think of a better solution to this quandary?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
don't have time to update document right now. But I still think, for simplicities sake, the top two scoring teams should have one final game against each other, and that's it. Then we can start a new event quickly, without people getting bored. As I want these things to repeat.
QuovatisTeam InversionJoin Date: 2010-01-26Member: 70321Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
No tiebreakers. If a winner must be decided, it should be played out. If it takes 10 rounds to decide a victor, so be it. That's why I suggested the world cup format where ties in the early rounds would be ok. It's not cool to lose to an inferior team solely due to a coin flip.
<!--quoteo(post=1883946:date=Nov 6 2011, 07:23 AM:name=Ironsoul)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ironsoul @ Nov 6 2011, 07:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1883946"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->don't have time to update document right now. But I still think, for simplicities sake, the top two scoring teams should have one final game against each other, and that's it. Then we can start a new event quickly, without people getting bored. As I want these things to repeat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's fine. I just figured people might want there to be more than 2 people in the tournament.
As it is, though, there may be several teams tied for the top two spots. In which case we could have a semifinals in which they play against each other to determine the two that advance to the finals.
<!--quoteo(post=1883956:date=Nov 6 2011, 11:22 AM:name=Quovatis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Quovatis @ Nov 6 2011, 11:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1883956"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No tiebreakers. If a winner must be decided, it should be played out. If it takes 10 rounds to decide a victor, so be it. That's why I suggested the world cup format where ties in the early rounds would be ok. It's not cool to lose to an inferior team solely due to a coin flip.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, four rounds played each match still, but no tiebreaker. Clans get 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss. Is that correct?
I was thinking 0 points for tie, 0 points for loss, 1 point for win. I don't think we should worry about alien balance... considering this is not pub play. We should however, take our own match statistics.
But yeah, after the round robin event, if there are 3 or more teams that have the same score (as in, there are 3 people tied for the lead), we'll just do another round robin style event for those people, if there are 4, we'll have a semi finals.
<!--quoteo(post=1883993:date=Nov 6 2011, 04:47 PM:name=Ironsoul)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ironsoul @ Nov 6 2011, 04:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1883993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was thinking 0 points for tie, 0 points for loss, 1 point for win.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That works, sure, but the problem is I think you could end up with many clans tied for the top two places.
Having 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and 0 for a loss will give a <u><b>much</b></u> more diverse range of scores, and I think will more accurately show who the best clans are. After all, there is a pretty big difference between a tie and outright losing or winning a game.
SkymanderXGreen Marine - The Few, The Proud, The Green.Join Date: 2011-07-29Member: 113006Members
I like the idea of a leuge with 3 divisions: Australia, Europes and US. If it gets big enough that can be divided again east/west or countries for europe. Anyway i also like the idea of a regular season and then a divisional tournament were the top teams go to the international tournament. But this may be a little much organizing this like a full blown sport. But for tournament options i still stand strongly behind the world cup idea.
skymander, I've seriously thought about that... but it's ridiculous, in Australia alone, there are two teams... and one of them is half dead... the other isn't very skilled(meaning they don't get much time to practice).
I'm all for opinions, but I want to make it fairly clear that I'm strongly for the idea of the tournament being fully international from the get go, this isn't football, it's a computer game on the internet, there is no distance limiting factor, aside from a quarter of a second delay(for the most part, don't argue this point, it would go off topic). You score points for round wins(not game wins, a game is a set of 4 rounds).
So in conclusion, dividing this tournament up into regional divisions would be annoying... they would just be annoying.
Maybe we can reconsider this in the future, but I'm keeping a modest expectations of 5-8 teams taking part in this event.
p.s. don't go all rage face if there are more than 2 "active" teams in Australia.
ZeikkoJoin Date: 2007-12-16Member: 63179Members, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester
I would also say that there are only 2 active teams in Europe and North America too. There would be absolutely no point in having regional tournaments or leagues at all.
<!--quoteo(post=1883997:date=Nov 6 2011, 10:03 PM:name=Egad!)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Egad! @ Nov 6 2011, 10:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1883997"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That works, sure, but the problem is I think you could end up with many clans tied for the top two places.
Having 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and 0 for a loss will give a <u><b>much</b></u> more diverse range of scores, and I think will more accurately show who the best clans are. After all, there is a pretty big difference between a tie and outright losing or winning a game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry for double post, but I think it's necessary considering this is a completely different train of discussion.
The reason I'm arguing for 1 point for win, 0 points for tie, and 0 points for loss are as follows:
Win: If you win a single round, you get a point. Tie: It's actually impossible to get a tie using the round by round setup, because a round ends with one team winning. Loss: 0 points, because I really don't want to discourage teams from playing.
There is an alternative, where a win gets 2 points, and a loss gets 1 point. This will still get a diverse range of scores, but the losing teams won't get too discouraged.... just an idea.
but the main point of this post is: there are no ties(it's impossible, aside from a stalemate, which will result in a null game... invalid game, not counted, possibly even punish a stalemating team if they're being annoying about it, don't panic about what I just said there).
I'll update the document tomorrow after a bit more discussion.
The regional divisions was for the tournament only, not the main season. However, I did not realise there were so few clans. So you are right, that wouldn't work.
As for the points, they are only awarded for winning <i>matches</i>, NOT rounds. You get no points for winning a round, only for winning the match. Again, that is accomplished by winning two rounds in a row. If no team does so, they will tie (obviously, given there is only four rounds).
ok, I think it's time for a little compilation of thoughts... a little one, not a big one.
So far, I'm trying to push the idea that there won't really be a "tournament" just a season and a final match.
Each game will include 4 rounds, with points being issued after every round. That way, we don't need tie breakers, and if both teams tie, then they both get equal points.
This simplifies things for both the finals and the round robin, because we can use the same 4 round game setup in the round robin season and the final game. And we can also use the same scoring system. With the exception that in the finals, there will be a tie breaker if needed.
1 point for a win, 0 points for a loss. But points are awarded per round, not per game.
If you want to push your points per game system... go ahead, but please make your reasons why very clear so I can understand why it would be better than a per round point system.
The two methods of scoring are very similar. They in most cases, they come out the same.
Match system: winner gets 2, loser gets none.
Round system: winner wins 3 rounds, loser wins 1 round. So winner gets 3 points, loser gets 1 -- winner has 2 more points than the loser, just like the match system.
And a tie is the same:
Match system: each team gets 1 point
Round system: each team gets 2 points.
So, really, the difference is whether you want a 3-2-1 points system, or a 2-1-0 system. Personally I think the latter is just simpler.
But there is a problem with the round system.
The problem comes from the time involved. By awarding points per match, you can make the games go much faster. If a clan wins two rounds in a row, they win. But you cannot do this with a round-point-system. Because then the winners would only get two points, whereas a clan that won without wining two-in-a-row would have gotten 3 points (or possibly 4). So you would ALWAYS have to play 4 rounds. The match system is more time efficient.
it is more efficient, but remember. The teams are playing for points here. If you have just lost 3 rounds, but some of those games were pretty close, wouldn't you want to try to get that 1 point?
I'll draw up some test example tables seeing how both systems use with a 5 team sample season later today and post it up probably 12 hours later from now.
Okay, nice. It will be helpful to see those examples.
Again, however, it is an issue of time. Rounds lasting 20-45 minutes are not infrequent, so having to play an extra 2 rounds after one team has already won 2 rounds in a row could add an extra hour or more to the game. If scheduling time slots is very much of an issue, that extra time could prove troublesome.
But if clans do not have an issue with time, then I don't think it really matters whether we use rounds or matches for points. I'm fine with either.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
edited November 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1884092:date=Nov 7 2011, 11:17 AM:name=Egad!)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Egad! @ Nov 7 2011, 11:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884092"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The two methods of scoring are very similar. They in most cases, they come out the same.
Match system: winner gets 2, loser gets none.
Round system: winner wins 3 rounds, loser wins 1 round. So winner gets 3 points, loser gets 1 -- winner has 2 more points than the loser, just like the match system.
And a tie is the same:
Match system: each team gets 1 point
Round system: each team gets 2 points.
So, really, the difference is whether you want a 3-2-1 points system, or a 2-1-0 system. Personally I think the latter is just simpler.
But there is a problem with the round system.
The problem comes from the time involved. By awarding points per match, you can make the games go much faster. If a clan wins two rounds in a row, they win. But you cannot do this with a round-point-system. Because then the winners would only get two points, whereas a clan that won without wining two-in-a-row would have gotten 3 points (or possibly 4). So you would ALWAYS have to play 4 rounds. The match system is more time efficient.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I really like this setup as it would 1. Limit the amount of time a match is played (4 rounds) and 2. Make every match count
Its counteracts one of the biggest downfalls of the win-two format in which the match could extend into the 4+ round territory very easily. I never thought it feasible or desirable to require any team or caster to stay longer than 2 hours in any given match.
SkymanderXGreen Marine - The Few, The Proud, The Green.Join Date: 2011-07-29Member: 113006Members
Wow I really got railed for that idea didn't I lol. Clan wise there are more than two in the us.all the ones that come off the top of my head are: PUBlic disturbance, inversion, anagram, duplex, pub.eu, cyd, hbz, 156, and the aus ones. I don't know how many of the other teams will form into clans from the after math of the cancellation of the tournament though.
I've had a little bit of a think, and I think a play three rounds setup is traditional, simple, and allows for potentially long rounds (40 minute rounds).
if we had 3 40 minute rounds (and that's unlikely), then the most the time the game would go for would be 2 hours.
Also, as with the scoring on a per round basis, this system allows all teams a good oportunity to earn some points, but also ensures the better team is rewarded more.
The one problem with a 3 round system, is that there is an issue with the alien teams. With a 3 round system, I think it is important to a) keep track of who is playing on what team and b) plan ahead and issue the teams with a set race... this would also allow for improved strategic planning if the teams know what team they will be playing in what round.
Keep these discussions going until friday this week, I won't update the rule document until friday.
<!--quoteo(post=1883672:date=Nov 4 2011, 10:30 PM:name=scotty)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (scotty @ Nov 4 2011, 10:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1883672"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would this tournament clash with NS2HD's special event (That's why he cancelled the current tournament)?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The special even isn't really 'clashable' ... haha!
Let me know if I can help in any way Ironsoul, I think this is a great idea.
How about the Field-of-View? I've put work into that quite some time ago, and I'm pretty sure there are servers out there running with wider FoVs than what is default. Currently it is dictated by the server, I imagine the client will be able to specify it's FoV (within a margin) at some point in the future too, which leaves the decision of an upper FoV-boundary. Didn't see this mentioned at all in the NS2HD-tournament either.
swalkSay hello to my little friend.Join Date: 2011-01-20Member: 78384Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1884555:date=Nov 10 2011, 03:15 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Nov 10 2011, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1884555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How about the Field-of-View? I've put work into that quite some time ago, and I'm pretty sure there are servers out there running with wider FoVs than what is default. Currently it is dictated by the server, I imagine the client will be able to specify it's FoV (within a margin) at some point in the future too, which leaves the decision of an upper FoV-boundary. Didn't see this mentioned at all in the NS2HD-tournament either.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In my opinion we should stick to the default FOV, at least until we can customize it from the client. From what I know about FOV, it's a setting with the purpose of making the game look "right", depending on your monitor ratio aspect. I saw a video about this on these forums a while back, but I'm not sure where to find it, search always bugs me out :P
Comments
Other than that I like what you put up, and I'm merging it into the official document.
Notice: I updated the doc, please tell me what you think. As always, it's still under construction.
<!--coloro:#9ACD32--><span style="color:#9ACD32"><!--/coloro--><b>1) Delete the part that says "If the two clans had previously played a match against each other, then they will ignore the coin toss and instead play as the opposite race they played as in the previous match's first round."</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
That was only for when clans were going to play against each other twice. Since they will only be playing against each other once, it is unnecessary.
<b><!--coloro:#9ACD32--><span style="color:#9ACD32"><!--/coloro-->2) I'd like to tweak the Finals segment. As of now, it is the top two ranked clans only that will play in the tournament. I have two alternatives. See what you think<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i><b>-- Alternate One --</b></i>
More clans will advance to the tournament the more clans that play in the initial season. So:
4-7 clans: Top 2 advance
8-13 clans: Top 4 advance
14-17 clans: Top 6 advance
<i><b>-- Alternate Two --</b></i>
The top two ranked clans in each region (Australia, North America, and Europe) will face off in the <b>Regional Finals</b>. The winner of the match is the champion of their respective region.
Regional Champions will play against each other once (for a total of three games) in the <b>World Finals</b>. As in the original season, they will get one point for a win, and no points for a loss. There are only two outcomes from this:
1) Clan A will get 2 points (two wins), Clan B will get 1 point (one win and a loss), Clan C will get 0 points (all losses).
In this case, things are easy. Clan A is world champ, Clan B is 2nd place, Clan C is 3rd.
2) All the clans are tied, with a win and a loss.
I'm really not sure of how to deal with this, other than to have the regional champions play against one another again. But, they could all tie again, and the matches could be endless. Perhaps you could think of a better solution to this quandary?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's fine. I just figured people might want there to be more than 2 people in the tournament.
As it is, though, there may be several teams tied for the top two spots. In which case we could have a semifinals in which they play against each other to determine the two that advance to the finals.
<!--quoteo(post=1883956:date=Nov 6 2011, 11:22 AM:name=Quovatis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Quovatis @ Nov 6 2011, 11:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1883956"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No tiebreakers. If a winner must be decided, it should be played out. If it takes 10 rounds to decide a victor, so be it. That's why I suggested the world cup format where ties in the early rounds would be ok. It's not cool to lose to an inferior team solely due to a coin flip.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, four rounds played each match still, but no tiebreaker. Clans get 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss. Is that correct?
But yeah, after the round robin event, if there are 3 or more teams that have the same score (as in, there are 3 people tied for the lead), we'll just do another round robin style event for those people, if there are 4, we'll have a semi finals.
That works, sure, but the problem is I think you could end up with many clans tied for the top two places.
Having 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and 0 for a loss will give a <u><b>much</b></u> more diverse range of scores, and I think will more accurately show who the best clans are. After all, there is a pretty big difference between a tie and outright losing or winning a game.
I'm all for opinions, but I want to make it fairly clear that I'm strongly for the idea of the tournament being fully international from the get go, this isn't football, it's a computer game on the internet, there is no distance limiting factor, aside from a quarter of a second delay(for the most part, don't argue this point, it would go off topic). You score points for round wins(not game wins, a game is a set of 4 rounds).
So in conclusion, dividing this tournament up into regional divisions would be annoying... they would just be annoying.
Maybe we can reconsider this in the future, but I'm keeping a modest expectations of 5-8 teams taking part in this event.
p.s. don't go all rage face if there are more than 2 "active" teams in Australia.
Having 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and 0 for a loss will give a <u><b>much</b></u> more diverse range of scores, and I think will more accurately show who the best clans are. After all, there is a pretty big difference between a tie and outright losing or winning a game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry for double post, but I think it's necessary considering this is a completely different train of discussion.
The reason I'm arguing for 1 point for win, 0 points for tie, and 0 points for loss are as follows:
Win: If you win a single round, you get a point.
Tie: It's actually impossible to get a tie using the round by round setup, because a round ends with one team winning.
Loss: 0 points, because I really don't want to discourage teams from playing.
There is an alternative, where a win gets 2 points, and a loss gets 1 point. This will still get a diverse range of scores, but the losing teams won't get too discouraged.... just an idea.
but the main point of this post is: there are no ties(it's impossible, aside from a stalemate, which will result in a null game... invalid game, not counted, possibly even punish a stalemating team if they're being annoying about it, don't panic about what I just said there).
I'll update the document tomorrow after a bit more discussion.
As for the points, they are only awarded for winning <i>matches</i>, NOT rounds. You get no points for winning a round, only for winning the match. Again, that is accomplished by winning two rounds in a row. If no team does so, they will tie (obviously, given there is only four rounds).
So far, I'm trying to push the idea that there won't really be a "tournament" just a season and a final match.
Each game will include 4 rounds, with points being issued after every round. That way, we don't need tie breakers, and if both teams tie, then they both get equal points.
This simplifies things for both the finals and the round robin, because we can use the same 4 round game setup in the round robin season and the final game. And we can also use the same scoring system. With the exception that in the finals, there will be a tie breaker if needed.
1 point for a win, 0 points for a loss. But points are awarded per round, not per game.
If you want to push your points per game system... go ahead, but please make your reasons why very clear so I can understand why it would be better than a per round point system.
Match system: winner gets 2, loser gets none.
Round system: winner wins 3 rounds, loser wins 1 round. So winner gets 3 points, loser gets 1 -- winner has 2 more points than the loser, just like the match system.
And a tie is the same:
Match system: each team gets 1 point
Round system: each team gets 2 points.
So, really, the difference is whether you want a 3-2-1 points system, or a 2-1-0 system. Personally I think the latter is just simpler.
But there is a problem with the round system.
The problem comes from the time involved. By awarding points per match, you can make the games go much faster. If a clan wins two rounds in a row, they win. But you cannot do this with a round-point-system. Because then the winners would only get two points, whereas a clan that won without wining two-in-a-row would have gotten 3 points (or possibly 4). So you would ALWAYS have to play 4 rounds. The match system is more time efficient.
I'll draw up some test example tables seeing how both systems use with a 5 team sample season later today and post it up probably 12 hours later from now.
Again, however, it is an issue of time. Rounds lasting 20-45 minutes are not infrequent, so having to play an extra 2 rounds after one team has already won 2 rounds in a row could add an extra hour or more to the game. If scheduling time slots is very much of an issue, that extra time could prove troublesome.
But if clans do not have an issue with time, then I don't think it really matters whether we use rounds or matches for points. I'm fine with either.
Match system: winner gets 2, loser gets none.
Round system: winner wins 3 rounds, loser wins 1 round. So winner gets 3 points, loser gets 1 -- winner has 2 more points than the loser, just like the match system.
And a tie is the same:
Match system: each team gets 1 point
Round system: each team gets 2 points.
So, really, the difference is whether you want a 3-2-1 points system, or a 2-1-0 system. Personally I think the latter is just simpler.
But there is a problem with the round system.
The problem comes from the time involved. By awarding points per match, you can make the games go much faster. If a clan wins two rounds in a row, they win. But you cannot do this with a round-point-system. Because then the winners would only get two points, whereas a clan that won without wining two-in-a-row would have gotten 3 points (or possibly 4). So you would ALWAYS have to play 4 rounds. The match system is more time efficient.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really like this setup as it would
1. Limit the amount of time a match is played (4 rounds) and
2. Make every match count
Its counteracts one of the biggest downfalls of the win-two format in which the match could extend into the 4+ round territory very easily. I never thought it feasible or desirable to require any team or caster to stay longer than 2 hours in any given match.
if we had 3 40 minute rounds (and that's unlikely), then the most the time the game would go for would be 2 hours.
Also, as with the scoring on a per round basis, this system allows all teams a good oportunity to earn some points, but also ensures the better team is rewarded more.
The one problem with a 3 round system, is that there is an issue with the alien teams. With a 3 round system, I think it is important to a) keep track of who is playing on what team and b) plan ahead and issue the teams with a set race... this would also allow for improved strategic planning if the teams know what team they will be playing in what round.
Keep these discussions going until friday this week, I won't update the rule document until friday.
The special even isn't really 'clashable' ... haha!
Let me know if I can help in any way Ironsoul, I think this is a great idea.
In my opinion we should stick to the default FOV, at least until we can customize it from the client.
From what I know about FOV, it's a setting with the purpose of making the game look "right", depending on your monitor ratio aspect.
I saw a video about this on these forums a while back, but I'm not sure where to find it, search always bugs me out :P