User panel stuff on forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
News Writer
169 posts
Registered:
Dec 2007
One of the things I hate about duel tournaments is the big list of rules, often unclear and made to satisfy many special cases that only happen once every hundred games.
So in my quest to simplify the standard tournament rules for quake, the first target is the map picking.
As I see it, things would be so much simpler if tournaments used best of five for all games instead of the currently used bo3 for group/season and bo5 for finals and then just had the rules say something silly like "Player who's nick come first alphabetically picks first." But this is not really a good idea if people dislike playing best of five and would rather play best of three.
So what do you think, does it matter how many maps a group/season game consists of or is this all just bullshit and we should get to playing instead?
Administrator
1864 posts
Registered:
Feb 2006
Bo3 for season/group, Bo5 for finals... eod
Administrator
887 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
So what do you think, does it matter how many maps a game consists of or is this all just bullshit and we should get to playing instead? Many group games are not as even matched, and therefor the lower seeded player prolly don't wanna play bo5 when he knows he will lose. And for the better player knowing he'll win, it could feel like waste of time. Imo BO3 for groupstage and BO5 for semi/grandfinal is the way to go, just my 5 cents. Join us on discord.quake.world
Administrator
1864 posts
Registered:
Feb 2006
bps, you should only have 2 cents... who gave you 5? 
News Writer
169 posts
Registered:
Dec 2007
So what do you think, does it matter how many maps a game consists of or is this all just bullshit and we should get to playing instead? Many group games are not as even matched, and therefor the lower seeded player prolly don't wanna play bo5 when he knows he will lose. And for the better player knowing he'll win, it could feel like waste of time. Imo BO3 for groupstage and BO5 for semi/grandfinal is the way to go, just my 5 cents. If we want to make sure the lesser skilled players (like me) have a good time, then BO3 vs BO5 is the last question to ask. IMHO in that discussion its not even relevant, there are much better things to do then, like abandoning dubble elimination. With 75% of the players out of the tourney by the third round in winners bracket the system just sucks and should be replaced by something like the Swiss system or by reviving QWDL. TL DR: I don't really buy your argument.
Administrator
2059 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
I think forcing one or the other will only lead to problems. Five maps throughout the whole tournament will feel like too much for the players who don't appreciate duel that much. Three maps all over would feel like too little in the final stages of a tournament.
For 4on4 i guess its not even worth asking the question as BO5 all over would take way too much time for too many players.
Also, why change something that isn't broken? www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
Member
1435 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
Perhaps what "complicates" stuff is the rule of the kind like "higher seeded player picks who picks map first" or "players have to agree who picks first" or stuff like that. Why not just random toss here? Cmd rnd is pretty straightforward. Then the rest is easy (player1 picks, player2 picks, player2 tosses, player1 tosses, done).
Another "relief" would be to pick all the maps at the beginning of the match (enforced by the rules). So that you know what you are going to play and for next 30 minutes you only concentrate on your game, not on what map should you toss (completely different brain activity, heh).
News Writer
169 posts
Registered:
Dec 2007
For 4on4 i guess its not even worth asking the question as BO5 all over would take way too much time for too many players.
Also, why change something that isn't broken? Yea it would definitely take too long for 4on4, it is not even worth considering in that setting. Cause we can? Cause it is fun, or just to find out what happens if we do? Its not like the world will end if it is tested in one tournament.  Perhaps what "complicates" stuff is the rule of the kind like "higher seeded player picks who picks map first" or "players have to agree who picks first" or stuff like that. Why not just random toss here? Cmd rnd is pretty straightforward. Then the rest is easy (player1 picks, player2 picks, player2 tosses, player1 tosses, done).
Another "relief" would be to pick all the maps at the beginning of the match (enforced by the rules). So that you know what you are going to play and for next 30 minutes you only concentrate on your game, not on what map should you toss (completely different brain activity, heh). I agree with this.
Administrator
384 posts
Registered:
Dec 2006
Simplifying rules is a bad thing IMO.
Simple rules often fall into two categories:
1) Suboptimal, or somehow 'unfair'.
2) Ambiguous
Take your suggested rule "Player who's nick come first alphabetically picks first."
This is potentially ambiguous, because not all players have nicks which start with an alpha. Some players may have numbers or special characters at the start of, or the whole of their nick.
It also means that in cases where a player thinks there may be an advantage from picking first (perhaps trying to increase the chances of a 3-0 victory), they could deliberately choose a nickname at the start of the alphabet.
I'm not against the rationalisation of rulesets, in fact it is something I've campaigned for in the past. But making things simple doesn't eliminate problems.
The best rules are those that are unambiguous and are thoroughly vetted by the community (basically, publishing them in advance and inviting constructive critisism). The challenge of course is that you will get some people in the community suggesting 'bad' changes, so you need to vet any changes to the ruleset appropriately.
News Writer
169 posts
Registered:
Dec 2007
Simplifying rules is a bad thing IMO.
Simple rules often fall into two categories:
1) Suboptimal, or somehow 'unfair'.
2) Ambiguous
Take your suggested rule "Player who's nick come first alphabetically picks first."
This is potentially ambiguous, because not all players have nicks which start with an alpha. Some players may have numbers or special characters at the start of, or the whole of their nick.
It also means that in cases where a player thinks there may be an advantage from picking first (perhaps trying to increase the chances of a 3-0 victory), they could deliberately choose a nickname at the start of the alphabet.
I'm not against the rationalisation of rulesets, in fact it is something I've campaigned for in the past. But making things simple doesn't eliminate problems.
The best rules are those that are unambiguous and are thoroughly vetted by the community (basically, publishing them in advance and inviting constructive critisism). The challenge of course is that you will get some people in the community suggesting 'bad' changes, so you need to vet any changes to the ruleset appropriately. I did call it silly... but compared to Best-of-Three-Matches
A regular game in the running season is a best-of-three match.
The higher seeded player decides if he wants to pick the first map and toss away as the latter or if he wants to pick the second map and toss away as the former.
Two examples for the rules follow. The player which is higher seeded is P1, the other player is P2.
Example 1)
- P1 decides to pick the first map.
- The next map is chosen by P2.
- If a third map is necessary four of the five maps in the map pool have to be tossed. The order in which the players toss is P2-P1-P2-P1. The remaining map is played.
Example 2)
- P1 decides that P2 has to pick the first map.
- The next map is chosen by P1.
- If a third map is necessary four of the five maps in the map pool have to be tossed. The order in which the players toss is P1-P2-P1-P2. The remaining map is played.
Best-of-Five-Matches
In the finale of the winner's bracket, loser's bracket, the 13. round of the loser bracket and the grand finale game will be a best-of-five-match.
Each map can be played only one time in a best-of-five match.The higher seeded player decides if he wants to pick the first and third map or if he wants to pick the second and the fourth map.
Two examples for the rules follow. The player which is higher seeded is P1, the other player is P2.
Example 1)
- P1 decides to pick the first map.
- The next map is chosen by P2.
- The next map is chosen by P1.
- The next map is chosen by P2.
- If a fifth map is necessary the remaining map is played.
Example 2)
- P1 decides that P2 has to pick the first map.
- The next map is chosen by P1.
- The next map is chosen by P2.
- The next map is chosen by P1.
-- If a fifth map is necessary the remaining map is played.
The higher seeded player is marked in the "Next match" section of the User-Panel. it is an improvement imho. Really rules for simply picking maps during a game should not be that long, hell it should not require examples to begin with. What I figured was that if people don't really care if the games are best of 3 or best of five, you could remove 50% of the text just by making all games best of five. Then you can replace the higher seed with something silly like I suggested or more serious such as what JohnNy_cz suggested. My point is really simple, it should be possible to cut that rule down to two sentences and at the same time make the rules clearer and better. Btw: the current Ownage rules consist of 1534 words, which takes up 4 pages for me using openoffice.
|
 |
 |
|
|
News