srslyNOTnewguy
2011-09-22 06:29:19
This latest topic will be about what a new NA 1v1 league SHOULD start out as, and then perhaps grow (lol) to.
So far, I am not totally convinced that Dallas is actually trying. I mean, he allowed dm_tight_yo to have a place in a map vote ...among others.
The Fuck.
I really hate making this comparison - because it is indeed VERY unfair to Dallas - but this map vote nonsense is *very* reminiscent of when Fearsome "tried something new" and allowed a killbox league in CAL. The idea of a killbox league was painfully and obviously a bad one IMO, but Fear never really gave it any kind of shot with his half-ass administration. Rudy was monstrously unwilling to reach out and start a dialogue with the numerous killbox players in order to settle shit like the gravity, friction, and whatnot. All of that was due to Fear's notorious pussgyna mentality of never wanting to share any real admin power and shit. In sum, the Killbox shit died in a fire with mutated AIDS spores, and Fear acted as if it was the community to blame. Then it was followed by 'how they should not question' his judgement & bull, but Dallas is far from some nerdy power hog. I really can't tell if this is a genuine blunder as a result of plain ignorance or if Dallas just doesn't give a fuck about this "new-style" league/tournament structure and is taking a .ewR| approach to a league (not wanting it to succeed at all whilst pissing-off as many peeps of as possible). The latter only being plausible if the hypothetical failure of this new-style shit brought about a classic, swooping, I-told-you-so from Dallas, thus prompting a revert to old-school admin-map-picks and simpler structure.
But in all seriousness, that cannot be the case. Dallas is spending his money and time on hosting and coding this eFPS website.
Which means, this is probably due to innocent, benign, ignorance, and it’s not his fault; this behavior is indicative of his people.
Dallas Cowboys fans.
I have been getting a lot of complaints about the 1v1 rules and procedures, and many of them are valid.
Hopefully, once this shit is out there, people will bring it to Dallas' attention and he will act accordingly.
Time-limit: I think it should be 10 minutes (which it currently is) for eFPS 1v1, but this could use a vote @ eFPS among registered players.
10 min all but omits the heroic comeback, but also makes it very risky for the player in control to be sneaky and camp it out; if the camping fails, there is barely any time left to win.
Most comebacks I have experienced were only necessary because I tried to play camp&hide on LA only to lose the lead.
I would recommend just eliminating the BS idle time. If a match is truly even/back-and-forth, then it will be for 10 or 15 minutes.
The extra five minutes - in both my opinion and experience - just allows for pacifist camping and/or spawn kills for a wider margin. A win is a win.
Even with my support and Dallas making it a rule, an official vote in a league-isolated environment should still be carried out in an attempt to validate it.
Some players have voiced concerns/caution of ANY general change from leagues past.
These opinions are warranted and should be addressed adequately.
Maps and Shit: For the love of God. Just because a particular method was used in a Euro league does not mean we should just slap it on a NA 1v1 tournament and try to sell it ASAP. And the current map pool is fouled and diluted by people who are just being interneters and not even playing in the 1v1 tournament. The map nomination should be redone and re-voted in an controlled/isolated and undiluted environment such as the eFPS website. Yes, I am stating to repeat myself and get a bit redundant, but fuck you.
This map dropping business is a rather new and rather radical idea for a NA setting. I really do strenuously suggest that we use only 9 solid 1v1 maps for an inaugural 1v1 tournament which would either be voted or just forced like the maps of the 2v2 were, and then allow just one map to be dropped per match to see if the idea has real traction with our NA player base.
Some would now be shaking their head and saying how that concept I postulated is silly due to how the maps and tiebreakers are determined, but there is another way children...
My Proposal: Instead of this Draft-Dropping of maps until three remain, players could each select (after possibly dropping one map each from the pool of purposed 9) two maps with one being the primary choice and the other being “their” tie-breaker map. Then it’s very simple, frags tiebreak rounds. If the rounds are split, such as if Player_A wins round 1 (17-13) and Player_B wins round 2 (24-10), then Player_B’s (A: 27 ; B: 37) tie-breaking map is used to determine winner. If Player_A’s primary-map Round results in a tie of frags then whoever wins Player_B’s primary-map Round wins the match. If both primary rounds are tied (Round 1: {13-13} ; Round 2: {18-18}) then both tie-breaking maps are played with the order of which being decided by the “home” team/player. I would then suggest that in the event of a 4-round match, the total frags after the 2 tie-breaking rounds are played determines the winner; as in, whoever has a higher total score. If all 4 rounds are ties, then the entire match, using same primary map picks, is re-played to determine a winner. A primary map and tie-breaking map must be 2 different environments from the pool of maps, and both must be disclosed by both players in match comm some time before the match’s default date.
Critics of such a structure immediately cry foul on the “type” of map that is used and how some “are slower” than others. I say fuck off and ask them to realize that the entire pool is open to the entire player base. How a map plays and whether-or-not it is slow/fast is the map’s respective propriety, or it should be considered the respective mapper’s “fault;” therefore, this fact should be taken into account by the player under the banner of *strategy.* Plain. Open. Fair.
With each frag having meaning and carry-over, this will crack down on passive camp-puss play-styles that are really lame to watch. I, myself, play like that a lot and it is a real douche-move.
Like NY Giants kind of douchey.
A map re-vote is utterly necessary. No question.
A Pool of 9 is better than 13 because new maps have yet to be finished and learned by the player-base.
EVENTUALLY the pool can and should grow after maps are tweaked and tested by said player-base.
I would then suggest community votes for the time-limt and map-drop properties in order to validate them.
I would also strongly suggest that the map select style be decided by a 1v1 community vote.
This vote being between the NewGuy Structure, Draft-Map-Drops, an amalgamation of both, or another idea presented in this thread.
If my structure AND a map-drop idea passes a vote, it should be limited to one map “dropped” in order to try/feel the idea out.
98% will only read these last 8 lines. Fags. Fuck you Valiums.
So far, I am not totally convinced that Dallas is actually trying. I mean, he allowed dm_tight_yo to have a place in a map vote ...among others.
The Fuck.
I really hate making this comparison - because it is indeed VERY unfair to Dallas - but this map vote nonsense is *very* reminiscent of when Fearsome "tried something new" and allowed a killbox league in CAL. The idea of a killbox league was painfully and obviously a bad one IMO, but Fear never really gave it any kind of shot with his half-ass administration. Rudy was monstrously unwilling to reach out and start a dialogue with the numerous killbox players in order to settle shit like the gravity, friction, and whatnot. All of that was due to Fear's notorious pussgyna mentality of never wanting to share any real admin power and shit. In sum, the Killbox shit died in a fire with mutated AIDS spores, and Fear acted as if it was the community to blame. Then it was followed by 'how they should not question' his judgement & bull, but Dallas is far from some nerdy power hog. I really can't tell if this is a genuine blunder as a result of plain ignorance or if Dallas just doesn't give a fuck about this "new-style" league/tournament structure and is taking a .ewR| approach to a league (not wanting it to succeed at all whilst pissing-off as many peeps of as possible). The latter only being plausible if the hypothetical failure of this new-style shit brought about a classic, swooping, I-told-you-so from Dallas, thus prompting a revert to old-school admin-map-picks and simpler structure.
But in all seriousness, that cannot be the case. Dallas is spending his money and time on hosting and coding this eFPS website.
Which means, this is probably due to innocent, benign, ignorance, and it’s not his fault; this behavior is indicative of his people.
Dallas Cowboys fans.
I have been getting a lot of complaints about the 1v1 rules and procedures, and many of them are valid.
Hopefully, once this shit is out there, people will bring it to Dallas' attention and he will act accordingly.
Time-limit: I think it should be 10 minutes (which it currently is) for eFPS 1v1, but this could use a vote @ eFPS among registered players.
10 min all but omits the heroic comeback, but also makes it very risky for the player in control to be sneaky and camp it out; if the camping fails, there is barely any time left to win.
Most comebacks I have experienced were only necessary because I tried to play camp&hide on LA only to lose the lead.
I would recommend just eliminating the BS idle time. If a match is truly even/back-and-forth, then it will be for 10 or 15 minutes.
The extra five minutes - in both my opinion and experience - just allows for pacifist camping and/or spawn kills for a wider margin. A win is a win.
Even with my support and Dallas making it a rule, an official vote in a league-isolated environment should still be carried out in an attempt to validate it.
Some players have voiced concerns/caution of ANY general change from leagues past.
These opinions are warranted and should be addressed adequately.
Maps and Shit: For the love of God. Just because a particular method was used in a Euro league does not mean we should just slap it on a NA 1v1 tournament and try to sell it ASAP. And the current map pool is fouled and diluted by people who are just being interneters and not even playing in the 1v1 tournament. The map nomination should be redone and re-voted in an controlled/isolated and undiluted environment such as the eFPS website. Yes, I am stating to repeat myself and get a bit redundant, but fuck you.
This map dropping business is a rather new and rather radical idea for a NA setting. I really do strenuously suggest that we use only 9 solid 1v1 maps for an inaugural 1v1 tournament which would either be voted or just forced like the maps of the 2v2 were, and then allow just one map to be dropped per match to see if the idea has real traction with our NA player base.
Some would now be shaking their head and saying how that concept I postulated is silly due to how the maps and tiebreakers are determined, but there is another way children...
My Proposal: Instead of this Draft-Dropping of maps until three remain, players could each select (after possibly dropping one map each from the pool of purposed 9) two maps with one being the primary choice and the other being “their” tie-breaker map. Then it’s very simple, frags tiebreak rounds. If the rounds are split, such as if Player_A wins round 1 (17-13) and Player_B wins round 2 (24-10), then Player_B’s (A: 27 ; B: 37) tie-breaking map is used to determine winner. If Player_A’s primary-map Round results in a tie of frags then whoever wins Player_B’s primary-map Round wins the match. If both primary rounds are tied (Round 1: {13-13} ; Round 2: {18-18}) then both tie-breaking maps are played with the order of which being decided by the “home” team/player. I would then suggest that in the event of a 4-round match, the total frags after the 2 tie-breaking rounds are played determines the winner; as in, whoever has a higher total score. If all 4 rounds are ties, then the entire match, using same primary map picks, is re-played to determine a winner. A primary map and tie-breaking map must be 2 different environments from the pool of maps, and both must be disclosed by both players in match comm some time before the match’s default date.
Critics of such a structure immediately cry foul on the “type” of map that is used and how some “are slower” than others. I say fuck off and ask them to realize that the entire pool is open to the entire player base. How a map plays and whether-or-not it is slow/fast is the map’s respective propriety, or it should be considered the respective mapper’s “fault;” therefore, this fact should be taken into account by the player under the banner of *strategy.* Plain. Open. Fair.
With each frag having meaning and carry-over, this will crack down on passive camp-puss play-styles that are really lame to watch. I, myself, play like that a lot and it is a real douche-move.
Like NY Giants kind of douchey.
A map re-vote is utterly necessary. No question.
A Pool of 9 is better than 13 because new maps have yet to be finished and learned by the player-base.
EVENTUALLY the pool can and should grow after maps are tweaked and tested by said player-base.
I would then suggest community votes for the time-limt and map-drop properties in order to validate them.
I would also strongly suggest that the map select style be decided by a 1v1 community vote.
This vote being between the NewGuy Structure, Draft-Map-Drops, an amalgamation of both, or another idea presented in this thread.
If my structure AND a map-drop idea passes a vote, it should be limited to one map “dropped” in order to try/feel the idea out.
98% will only read these last 8 lines. Fags. Fuck you Valiums.
